ML20213G484

Insp of Fitness for Duty Program Rept 50-424/86-91 on 860915-19.Certain Areas of EEI Guide Not Satisfied,Including Training of Supervisors in Behavioral Observation & Policy Implementation

ML20213G484
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	10/29/1986
From:	Brownlee V, Mckee P, Rosano R, Tom Ryan, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:
Shared Package
ML20213G460	List: IR 05000424/1986091 ML20213G458 ML20213G484
References
FRN-54FR24468, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-26 50-424-86-91, AC81-2-088, AC81-2-88, NUDOCS 8611180150
Download: ML20213G484 (11)

See also: IR 05000424/1986091

Text

I

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

AND REGION II

Report No.: 50-424/86-91

Docket No.: 50-424 License No.: CPPR-108

Licensee: Georgia Power Company ,

P.O. Box 4545 t

Atlanta, Georgia 30302

/

Facility Name: Vogtle Project

Inspection at: Augusta and Atlanta, Georgia

Inspection conducted: September 15-19, 1986

Type of Inspection: Announced Special Inspection of Fitness for

Duty Program

m/ar!g

'

Inspectors: = - - -

Richard P. Rosano, Security. Specialist Dat6 '

DI, OIE

E l $ 29. R2(,.

Willism J. TQb in, Sdnior Security

~~

Date

Inspectoh, Region II

Virg

4)

.. oknlde, Chief

k

Date

%5)$ '

Reac o Projects; Bran

NRC er,gion II

1. '

nt n yc W 29 / $c.Ib

ThomasG.Ryan,Seniorggipering Date

Psychologist, RES

Approved by: ~

- *

. Philip F. McKee7 Chief

,r b /0 d7

Date /

8

Reactor Programs Branch,

8611180150 861114

PDR ADOCK 05o004 2.4

Q PDR

.. _

,t

.

Inspection Summary

.

Areas Inspected: Included review of policies, procedures, and practices of the

Fitness for Duty (FFD) Program and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

applicable to Vogtle employees and contractors and evaluation of program

elements that go beyond the EEI Guide.

The licensee was advised that key elements of its FFD program are in place but

certain areas still need improvement. The disciplinary provisions of the written

policy and their communication to the employees were particularly strong, as was

the support for the program from top management. The unions and contractor were

involved in the development of the program, and supported it, and the licensee

had an effective working arrangement with the local law enforcement authorities.

Certain of the major elements of the EEI Guide were not satisfied by the

licensee's FFD program. Significant observations included:

1. Training of supervisors in behavioral observation and policy

implementation was found deficient in several areas. For example:

(a) it is offered as one-time only training, (b) not all GPC super-

visors have been trained and may not be until June 1987, and

(c) approximately 50% of the contractor supervisors have not been

trained.

2. The following conditions were found in the chemical testing

program: (a) contractor employees and GPC employees hired before

the initiation of the program, including some who may be in

sensitive positions, are exempt from the preemployment screening;

and (b) no periodic or random testing is done. As a result, a

number of the employees have never been subject to a chemical

test for drugs and would not be subject to testing in the future.

3. The EAP is inadequately stressed, particularly as a non-punitive

approach to preventing drug problems onsite.

4. There is no clear policy concerning recidivism or an individual's

ret 1rn to duty following rehabilitation.

-1-

.

-

.

A. Key Persons Contacted

• • R. E. Conway, Senior Vice President and Vogtle Project

Director

• J. P. O'Reilly, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations

• • • D. O. Foster, Vice President, Project Support, Vogtle

• • J. T. Beckham, Vice President and General Manager,

Nuclear Operations

• • J. W. Averett, Vice President, Human Resources

• • • J. H. Lukehart, Manager, Nuclear Security

P. D. Rice, Vice President, Engineering

R. H. Pinson, Vice President, Construction

C. W. Hayes, QA Manager

G. Buckhold, Plant General Manager

• • • V. J. Agro, Superintendent of Plant Administration

• • • D. B. Ellis, Manager, Labor Relations

• • • T. J. McHenry, Manager, Nuclear Support

• • J. O. Dorough, Manager, Administrative Operations,

Construction

• • • G. E. Dickerson, Construction Safety Supervisor

• P. Bensinger, Consultant, DuPont, Bensinger, & Associates

• C. W. Whitney, Legal Counsel, Troutman, Sanders,

Lockerman, and Ashmore

R. Brown, Site Security Manager

D. Stevens, Site Security Investigator

B. Luke, Allegations Clerk

G. Corsey, Burke County Sheriff

". Longley, EAP Provider

L. Owens, FFD Coordinator for Construction

R. Hughes, FFD Coordinator for Operations

A number of other individuals were contacted, including five contractor

managers, three business managers from the local unions, and a total of

54 employees and first-line supervisors.

B. Exit Interview

The inspectors met with the licensee representatives, as indicated

above, at the GPC corporate offices on September 19, 1986 to summarize

the inspection results. The licensee was advised that key elements of

its Fitness for Duty Program are in place. There were a number of

strengths identified, particularly in the areas of the formulation and

communication of the policy, support of top management, the union briefing,

contractor notification, and law enforcement liaison. There were several

observations noted relative to supervisor training, chemical testing of

body fluids, and the communication of the advantages of the Employee

Assistance Program to the employees. These are discussed in greater

detail in the following sections.

• Denotes those present at the entrance briefing at GPC Corporate offices.

• • Denotes those present at the exit briefing at GPC Corporate offices.

• • • Denotes those present at the entrance and exit briefings at Corporate

offices.

-2-

_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

'

C. Approach

The inspection team compared the Vogtle Fitness for Duty Program to each

of the Key Program Elements recommended by the "EEI Guide to Effective

Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development", revised August 1985

(hereinafter referred as the EEI Guide). The Vogtle program was also

compared to miscellaneous features contained in the EEI Guide. In addi-

tion, the team examined the Vogtle program for elements that would supple-

ment those recommended in the EEI Guide, particularly those that would be

included in proactive measures to detect the presence of drugs onsite.

The report is formatted to reflect this approach.

D. Implementation of the EEI Guide

Following are the inspectors' observations with respect to the implementa-

tion of each of the Key Program Elements recommended by the EEI Guide.

1. Written Policy

The inspectors reviewed the Corporate Policy Statement, liuclear

Operations Department Policy and Instruction (September 5, 1986),

Vogtle Project Drug Policy (April 25,1984), and Vogtle Anti-Alcohol

Policy (January 27,1984), and interviewed members of the corporate

staff and Vogtle project managers responsible for the development of

the policy.

It was concluded that the licensee has formulated a clear and defini-

tive corporate policy which implements the standards set by the EEI

Guide. It includes sanctions for onsite and offsite use of drugs and

>

includes alcohol abuse among the proscribed behaviors. Penalties for

violation of the policy and application of the sanctions are made

clear.

The licensee's policies concerning nonpunitive approaches to dealing

with drug / alcohol abuse and application of the EAP are discussed in

Section D.10.

It was concluded that the licensee has a corporate policy which

addresses the company's responsibilities, standards, and commitments,

and meets the intent of the EEI Guide.

2. Top Management Support

l The team interviewed 54 supervisors and employees selected at random

'

from day and swing shifts from GPC, Vogtle Project, and the contractor

organizations. Throughout these interviews, strong support for the

fitness for duty program was evident from the highest levels of the

corporate organization down to the first-line supervisors. The fact

i that GPC has policy statements bearing the signatures of senior

managers such as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

underscores the philisophy that safety is the issue upon which the

anti-drug / alcohol program was based, with the primary purpose being

the establishment of a safe working environment.

i

,

j -3-

-

.

.

-

The team learned that top corporate management had visited the site,

talked with employees, answered questions concerning the program, and

ensured fair and impartial enforcement of the policy. Employees ran-

domly interviewed by the team verified this conclusion, and showed that

'

they were encouraged by the results of a safer working environment.

. In conclusion, the licensee's management support of the drug / alcohol

'

policy satisfies the intent of the EEI Guide.

3. Effective Policy Communication

The team read copies of policy statements, reviewed posters and

signs, and noted the numerous methods used to communicate the policy

to the employees. Employees interviewed during the course of the

inspection were questioned concerning the policy to determine the

extent of their understanding.

The licensee's policy is reiterated in several documents, e.g., the

Corporate Policy Statement, Nuclear Operations Department Policy and

Instruction (September 5,1986), Vogtle Project Drug Policy (April 25,

1984), and Vogtle Anti-Alcohol Policy (January 27,1984). In

addition, several publications are used to communicate the policy

directly to employees, e.g., " Health and Safety Information on

Alcohol and Drug Abuse" (Blue Book), " Rules of Conduct ard Safety for *

4

Generating Plant Construction and Maintenance Projects" (Gray Book),

and " Project Agreement...between Georgia Power Company, its Con-

tractors...and International and Local Unions..." (Red Book). To en-

sure that all employees see these various iterations of the policy,

each new hire signs for and receives an employment package containing,

among other things, the Vogtle Project Drug Policy and Anti-Alcohol

Policy. Also available are booklets on the Employee Assistance

Program and a Supervisor's " Manual on Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program."

The utility newsletter (Blazer) which is distributed to all employees

has included some articles in which the policy was described and

explained, payroll flyers have transmitted the policy to employees,

and posters, signs, and bumper stickers have served to remind

employees and visitors to the site of the company policy concerning

drug and alcohol use.

Interviews indicated that greater than 90% of the employees had a

clear understanding of the punitive aspects of the Fitness for Duty

Program.

Problems associated with the communication of the licensee's

nonpunitive approaches to deal with drug / alcohol abuse and the EAP

are discussed in section D.10.

'

The team determined that the company has satisfied the intent of

the EEI Guide.

4. Behavioral Observation Training for Supervisors

The team reviewed schedules of training, examined curricula used,

j spoke to individuals responsible for organizing the training of

-4-

- _ __

_ - _ _ _ _ _

'

. .

,

supervisors, and interviewed a number of persons with supervisory

,

'

responsibilities.

The team was concerned about the training provided, primarily in

terms of the number of supervisors who had not yet received training.

Not all GPC supervisors have been trained, and some are not scheduled

,

to complete this training until June 1987. The training offered

thus far has been one-time only, and a number of supervisors received

their training as much as 2 years ago. No refresher training or re-

certification training has been scheduled.

As for contractor supervisors, the same situation exists, in part

due to the failure to implement a periodic training program. All

contractor supervisors were trained in mid-1984, but interviews

! with training coordinators indicate that due to turnover, a number

of current supervisors have not been trained.

j 5. Policy Implementation Training for Supervisors

(See Section 4, above)

]

6. Union Briefing

.

.

The team held discussions with the GPC Labor Relations Official,

l Business Agents of the Augusta Building Trades Council, and Inter-

! national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Plant and Shop Stewards,

i and reviewed the Plant Vogtle Project Agreement, subsequent Rules

of Conduct and Safety, correspondence and chronology of events

related to labor relations coordination.

,

From this, the team concluded that appropriate union leadership

briefings relative to the Fitness for Duty Program did occur prior

to program implementation and communication to employees and super-

visors, and the licensee satisfied all aspects of this element of

the EEI Guide.

! 7. Contractor Notification

i

The team spoke to the five major onsite contractor managers, reviewed

the general and specific conditions of standard inquiry purchase order

packages, and interviewed a number of contractor employees.

The licensee has made it clear to the onsite contractors that their

employees will be terminated if found in violation of the company

j rules on drug and alcohol use.

,

The contractors endorse the GPC Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty

1 Policy and Program and impose its requirements on their employees

at the time of employment processing via employment package documents

and briefings.

t

.

The team concluded that the licensee has satisfied all aspects of

i this element of the EEI Guide.

.

1

l

-5-

- - -_ - - - . . .- - - . - -. -. . . - . - . - - - - . - ~ - - - - _ _ _ . - --

.

.

.

8. Law Enforcement Liaison

The Sheriff of Burke County was interviewed concerning the licensee's

liaison and cooperation with the various police departments in the

community. The Sheriff noted that his department has worked closely

with the licensee's security department on investigations, searches,

and apprehensions. Furthermore, he and his deputies have toured the

facility.

The Sheriff considered the licensee to have an aggressive anti-drug /

alcohol program which has resulted in most abusers having been dis-

charged from employment. Of note was the Sheriff's statement that

drug availability has declined at Vogtle when compared to a few years

ago and that his informants tell him that the reason for this decline

is the licensee's implementation of an active chemical screening

program. The Sheriff expressed familiarity with several investiga-

tions, the " anonymous tip line" and several personalities involved

in the anti-drug / alcohol campaign at the site.

In summary, the team concluded that the licensee has a useful rela-

tionship with the LLEA and uses state and county law enforcement to

assist its efforts. The program satisfies all aspects of this element

of the EEI Guide.

9. Chemical Testing of Body Fluids

The licensee has purchased its own equipment for chemical testing of

body fluids and housed it in a trailer on the site. This provides

the unique opportunity to test suspected drug and alcohol abusers

locally with minimal time lost from work. It also increases employee

respect for the program because it communicates the level of support

of management. The current program is well financed and carried out

in a professional manner by its staff. The handling of samples,

controls, and the procedures for maintaining the integrity of the

samples are good. Initial sampling and testing are conducted onsite

at the licensee's lab, and all samples initially testing positive

for drugs are sent to the Medical Coilege of Georgia for confirmation

testing.

Nevertheless, the team made observations about some aspects of the

application of the chemical testing program. There is no periodic

or randcm testing at Vogtle and GPC employees are subject to

preemployment screening and testing "for cause" only. However,

many employees were " grandfathered" when the program was first

implemented and therefore have never been tested for drug use.

Similar contractor employees are subject only to testing for cause

and, therefore, without preemployment screening many of these have

also never been tested.

A broader application of the chemical testing program, especially to

cover those individuals who have not yet been subject to that type

of screening, would increase the ability of the licensee to identify

drug use onsite and serve the preventive aspects of the FFD program.

-6-

.

. ,

'

The team also questioned the use of the 75 nanogram per milliliter -

(ng/ml) cutoff set for the detection of marijuana use when using the

licensee's equipment (Syva Emit). The manufacturer recommends

50.ng/ml and the licensee agreed that 20 - 25 ng/ml is the generally

accepted industry standard.

Finally, the team was concerned that the 0.01 limit set for a positive

alcohol test was too conservative, especially in light of the fact

that the margin of error for that type of analyzer (Intoximeter 300)

is also 0.01. (NOTE: The Georgia State legal limit applied to

questions of DWI is 0.10.)

10. Employee Assistance Programs

Information and data were gathered through document review; inter-

views of contractor and Vogtle Project employees, Vogtle FFD coordin-

ators, and the EAP counselor under contract to GPC; reviews of employee

assistance cases since January 1986; and a detailed review of an audit

of the Vogtle Program conducted by Bensinger, Dupont & Associates

(April 1986). The team concluded that the EAP is well documented and

in general conformance with the EEI Guide, although some weaknesses

we e identified. -

Specific concerns related to the lack of a policy for an individual's

return to duty following rehabilitation for drug / alcohol abuse. There

is no guidance regarding the followup program and the coordination

between the employee's supervisor and treatment facility professionals.

A " plan and schedule" is lacking which would take proper account of

public health and safety, including controls placed on the employee

concerning job placement. These steps are considered crucial for

ensuring that the employee's supervisor knows, as a minimum, the

nature of the employee's problem, whether the problem has been solved,

what may be needed to verify continued rehabilitation, whether there

should be restrictions on safety-related duties, and whether past

safety-related work needs to be checked.

Similarly, there is no clear policy established concerning how to deal

with an individual who resumes substance abuse after his/her return to

duty although there is a high incidence of recidivism among drug and

alcohol abusers nationwide.

Interviews with medical personnel associated with the EAP and with the

plant employees, and a review of the DuPont, Bensinger, & Associates

audit indicated that the nonpunitive or preventive approaches to

alcohol / drug abuse are inadequately stressed it Vogtle. In interviews,

employees showed great familiarity with the punitive aspects of the

Fitness for Duty Program but often were poorly informed about the EAP

and other nonpunitive preventive options. As noted in Section D.3,

booklets explaining the EAP were provided to employees, but the

licensee did not followup to ensure that the information was

understood by the employees.

-7-

. __ __

. . .

-

. ,

'

.

'

During interviews, the GPC and site supervisors stressed their commit-

ment to the confidentiality of sources and the identities of those

seeking assistance. This commitment was verified by the number of

3

employees who mentioned it in their interviews.

The team concluded that clear policies had not been established con-

cerning recidivism and return to duty following rehabilitation as

described above, and employees and contractors were not well informed

of the opportunities offered for nonpunitive resolution of drug and

alcohol problems among plant employees.

E. Miscellaneous EEI Guide Features

'

Following are the inspectors' findings with respect to miscellaneous

features of the EEI Guide.

1. Substance Abuse Committee

$ The licensee has convened a substance abuse committee composed of key

managers from the corporate offices and the Vogtle Project. This

committee meets monthly and topics relating to the progress of the

FFD are discussed. Of note is the fact that the members of this

committee represent a broad spectrum of responsibility within the

'

licensee organizational structure and possess the authority to take

action on the decisions made by the committee.

4

2. Audits

The team noted that only one audit of the program had been conducted

to date, by DuPont, Bensinger & Associates. Without additional audits

being scheduled, and without some mechanism for signalling problems

.'

that may arise, the licensee has insufficient means of measuring the

continuing success of the Fitness for Duty Program.

I 3. Records and Reports

Team members met with Vogtle employees responsible for tracking

!

statistics related to the success of the program as suggested by the

! DuPont, Bensinger & Associates audit, and identified several concerns

with respect to the use of the data.

Although reports and data on the implementation of the FFD program

are presented to the Substance Abuse Committee for decisions

concerning the future of the program, there appears to be no

l

'

statistical approach for adequately documenting the program's

success.

F. Supplemental Program Elements Not In EEI Guide

following are the inspectors' findings with respect to program elements that

would supplement those recommended in the EEI Guide, particularly preventive

,

measures to detect the presence of drugs onsite,

4

I

-8-

-

... . . _ _ - . _- - . -

._- -

- -

, ,

,

1. Written Procedures

,

i Written procedures are intended to implement the policy, define actions

to be taken in certain situations, and assign responsibilities to

ensure proper accomplishment of the action. Procedures would also

reduce the likelihood that the actions would be mishandled.

I The team reviewed a number of procedures developed by GPC corporate

staff and the Vogtle Project staff. The procedures are primarily

~

i

designed for use by the supervisors, and address such topics as:

J - what to do when an individual is suspected of using drugs;

,

- how to deal with an individual who refuses to take a chemical test;

- har.dling detection and sale of drugs; and

,

- notifying LLEA.

As discussed in preceding sections, procedures relating to the

i implementation of the non-punitive aspects of the program were less

detailed, and in some cases omitted.

2. Proactive Measures to Prevent / Detect Drug Abuse

These measures are intended to provide evidence of onsite drug

i

problems before they would be manifested in observable aberrant

'

behavior. These measures could also provide a deterrant to onsite

. drug abuse.

i Proactive measures to prevent or detect drug abuse include continuing

education for employees; random and periodic drug testing; investi-

gations; confidential means to report concerns; and searches of the

,

workplace, vehicles, and employees entering the site.

Other than the various publications made available to the employees,

'

there is no formal attempt to educate them on the dangers of drug or

alcohol abuse or the impact of such behavior on the safe operation of

the plant. As noted in Section D.4 above, concerns were raised about

'

the training offered to supervisors.

,

! Investigations are primarily conducted by the Burke County Sheriff's

j office and were discussed in Section D.8. The absence of random and

periodic chemical testing was discussed in Section D.9. The licensee

~

4 has an " anonymous tip line" and averages about one call per day. The

information collected on this line is kept confidential, but the

substance of the report is shared with the appropriate level of

management within GPC or its contractors.

While the licensee's use of drug search dogs has not resulted in the

-

discovery of significant amounts, this technique is one of the many

4 proactive measures utilized. The Security Investigator spends about

.

!

_g-

}

.. - - . . , - . - , - - . - -.-...-._ -,- , - - . . - - . _ - - ,.- .- - . - ._ _ - ,-.. - , ..- .,. - -

-

. .

.

.

half his time now working leads on drug use. Drugs confiscated at

the site are surrendered to the Crime Laboratory, Georgia Bureau of

Investigation.

3. Professional Counseling Services

Professional counseling services would manage and carry out the

program, and provide initial diagnosis of the problem and referral

to the proper professional care. This would be particularly important

in the diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse and emotional

instability. Professional counseling services are available through

the offsite EAP contractor.

4. Employment Screening Practices

Employment screening practices are intended to assure that employees

are reliable and trustworthy and to eliminate from consideration those

known to be unreliable, i.e., a drug abuser without evidence of rehabili-

tation. The practices could include background investigations, psycho-

logical tests, interviews, and periodic rescreening.

Although the licensee's preemployment screening practices were judged

to be adequate, the varying programs utilized by contractors, especially

the smaller ones, did not allow the inspectors to conclude that they '

provided an equivalent level of confidence regarding the applicant's

reliability and trustworthiness.

5. Legal Reviews

Legal reviews would assure that company policies and procedures,

contracts, and union agreements meet legal requirements concerning

fitness for duty. The inspectors determined that legal reviews of

the above are sufficient and that bid responses are reviewed to

assure that commitments to a FFD program are made.

.

- 10 -

- _ - - _ _ _ - _