IR 05000155/1990020
| ML20058G899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades, Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1990 |
| From: | Belanger J, Creed J, Greger L, Kniceley J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058G895 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-155-90-20, 50-255-90-20, 50-255-90-27, NUDOCS 9011140098 | |
| Download: ML20058G899 (15) | |
Text
F
'
'
.
.
.
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
REGION 111 l
Report Nos. 50-155/90020(DR$5);50-255/90027(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-155; 50-255 Licensee:
Consumers Power Company 212 West Michioan Avenue Jackson, MI 49201 Facility Name:
Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Palisades Nuclear Power Plant Inspection At: Big Rock Point Site, Charlevoix, Michigan Palisades Site, Covert, Michigan Inspection Dates:
September 25-28, 1990 and October 15-19, 1990
.
Inspectors: hb b
U
J. L. Belanger
,Date Senior Physical Security Inspector 9.S b A
_ vhh*
!
J. R. Kniceley *
Date Physical Security Inspector Reviewed By:
b
[ 96 R. Creed, Chief Date feguards Section Approved By:
E. o err (Aus-
//-7-9 o
.
freg6r, Chief Date
,
.
Reactor Programs B'anch Intsfection Summary I_nspection on September 25-28 and October 15-19, 1990 (Report Nos. 50-155/90020 (DRSS); 50-255/90027(DR55))
Scope: This was a reactive inspection conducted concurrently with routine fitness-for-duty inspections at both facilities.
The results of those routine inspections will be forwarded in separate inspection reports (50-155/90018 for Big Rock Point and 50-255/90029 for Palisades).
This combined report covers our analysis of the licensee's early implemer tation of _10 CFR 26 at both plants.
The review is based primarily on our valuation of the self-identified findings outlined in the licensee's audit of program implementation that was dated March 30, 1990 (QA Audit Report No. QA-90-0?).
'n addition to evaluating:the status of program implementation, we also reviewed and confirmed the licensee's corrective actions for each of the audit findings.
9011140098 901107 PDR ADOCK 05000155 Q
'
'
,
,.
,
.
'
Results: Based on the NRC's review of the licensee's audit report, it
-
appears that portions of 10 CFR Part 26 were either not addressed or were addressed but not adequately implemented as required on January 3,1990.
Ten apparent violations of NRC requirements were identified for the time period between approximately January 3 and March 2,1990:
1, 10 CFR 50.9:
Failure to notify the NRC that the FFD Program Jid not meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26. (Report Details - Paragraph 3.c.(1))
2.
10 CFR 26.27:
Failure to conduct FFD suitable in contractor personnel granted unescorted access. (quiries on licensee and Report Details -
Paragraph 3.c(2))
3.
10CFR26.24(c)andSection2.1(a)ofAppendixA:
Failure to test for alcoholduringpre-accesstesting.(ReportDetails-Paragraph 3.c(3))-
10CFR26.24(f)andAppendixA,SubpartD.4.1:
Failure to utilize an HHS certified laboratory for pre-access drug tests. (Report Details - Paragraph 3.c.(4))
5.
10CFR26.24(a)(1): Failure to conduct some pre-access drug tests within 60 days prior to the initial Details - Paragraph 3.c.(5)) granting of unescorted access. (Report l
'
6, 10CFR26.23(a)and26.70(b): Some active contracts between the licensee and its contractors did not contain the required Fitness-For-Duty provisions.
(Report Details - Paragraph 3.c.(6))
7, 10 CFR 26, Appendix A.2.3: Personnel responsible for administering the FFD testing program were not subject to a behavior observation program.
(Report Details - Paragraph 3.c.(7))
8, 10 CFR 26.22(a) and 10 CFR 26.2(a):
A contractor supervisory training
. l program was not established. (Report Details - Paragraph 3.c.(8))
9.
Failure to include certain individuals required to physically report to the EOF in a FFD testing program. _(Report Details - Paragraph 3.C.(9))
10, 10CFR26.24(a)and10CFR26.2(a):
Failure to include some required j
individuals in the random selection process for FFD testing. (Report
Details - Paragraph 3.c(10)
Our evaluation of the licensee's audit indicated that the resources provided to support the initial implementation of the FFD program appeared minimal.
However, once the problems were identified in their audit, the licensee took prompt and adequate corrective action for each audit finding and observation.
With minor exceptions, corrective actions were taken within 30. days of problem identification.
.
_m
_
- -_-
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
DETAILS
.
1.
Key Persons Contacted In addition to the. persons listed below, the inspectors interviewed other licensee and contractor employees.
Theasterisk(*)denotesthosepresent at the Exit Interviews conducted on September 28,1990(BigRockPoint)
and October 19,1990(Palisades).
Big Rock Point
- W. Beckman, Plant Manager, Consumers Power Company (CPCo)-Big Rock Point
- B. Alexander, Technical Engineer, CPCo. Big Rock. Point
- J. Griggs, Human Resources Director, CPCo, Palisades
- E. Zienert, Human Resources Director, CPCo,. Big Rock Point:
- J. Dorr, Safety and Health Director, CPCo, General Office
- J. Smith, FFD Administrator, CPCo, General 0ffice
- L. Monshor, QA Superintendent, CPCo,' Big Rock Pointi
- M. VanAlst, Property Protection Supervisor, CPCo Big Rock Point L. Warner, M. A., Executive Director, Woodland Counseling Centers,- Inc.
R. O'Gawa, R.N., Marketing Associate, Burns Clinic Medical Center J. Keith, M.D., Director of Corporate Health Services, Burns Clinic, Medical Center
- A. Masciantonio, Project Manager, NRC/NRR E. Plettner, Senior Resident inspector, NRC RIII Palisades
- G. Slade Plant Manager, Consumer Power Company, Palisades
- J. Dorr, Safety and Health Director, CPCo, General Office
- J. Smith, FFD Administrator, CPCo, General Office
- J. Griggs, Human Resources Director, CPCo. Palisades
- S. Cote Property Protection Superintendent CPCo. Palisades
- E. Zienert, Human Resource Director, CPCo. Big Rock Point
- V. Jones, Human Resource Administrator, CPCo, Palisades
- D. Denoff, Plant Safety and Licensing, CPCo, Palisades
- T. Palmisano, Administration and Planning Manager. CPCo, Palisades
- S. King Human Resource Advisor, CPCo Palisades
- K. Haas, Radiation Services Manager, CPCo, Palisades
- N~. Fowler, Sr. Human Resource Specialist, CPCo. Palisades
...
- J. Petro Quality Engineering Section' Head, CPCo. Palisades
- K. Wallace, Nuclear Security Coordinator, CPCo. Palisades J. Kuemin, Plant Safety and Licensing, CPCo, Palisades.
R. McCaleb -QA Director, CPCo. Palisades-D. Nickel, Human Resource Supervisor, CPCo, Palisades E. Helbin T. Allen,g,MRO,HealthCareDirections,Inc.(Contractor)
Vice President, Health Care Directions, Inc. (Contractor)
- M. Allen, Director, Health Care Directions, Inc. (Contractor)
K. Allen, Collection Specialist, Health Care Directions, Inc.
(Contractor)
.
C. Hart, Director, Occupational Health Centers of America,-Inc.
(Contractor)
- J. Heller, Senior Resident Inspector NRC Region III
1 q
[
-
-
.
.
.
.
.
2.
Entrance and Exit Interviews (IP 30703)
At the beginning of the Big Rock Point portion of the inspection, a.
Mr. W. Beckman and other members of the licensee's staff were informed of the purpose of this visit and the. functional areas to be examined. At Palitades, Mr. G. Slade and members of his staff were advised that additional information concerning the licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) audir., report was needed for NRC's review.
In both cases, the licensee's represent'atives were informed that the report of this combined inspection would be forwarded separately from the routine inspections that were also discussed at these meetings, b.
The inspectors met with the licensee representativ% denoted in Section 1 at the conclusion of each onsite irgection on September 28, 1990 (Big Rock Point).and October 19. 10 0 (Palisades). A general description of the scope of the inspection was provided. The
-
licensee was informed that our findings would be discussed further-i at Region III.
Brief1/ listed below are findings discussed during the exit interviews and a statement provided by or describing
'
licensee management's response to ecch finding.
(1) At Big Rock Point the inspectors stated that they concurred
'
that the audit findings and observations were valid except for two apparent inaccuracies we discovered in the report.
,
Specifically, the finding that the licensee's testing laboratory for pre-access tests was using different cut-off. levels than.
those specified in the rule was found to be incorrect.
Cut-off levels were adequate. Additionally, the audit report stated-
'
that no tests for amphetamines were being conducted. This statement was also found to be incorrect. Amphetamines were one of the drugs tested.
The N pectors stated that their review of the licensee's audit
,
l showed that opparent violations representing major programmatic deficiencies existed at the time of-initial; program i
i implementation on January 3.1990 and for a. time thereafter.-
They were informed that the final evaluation would be made in
!
conjunction with Region III and NRC Headquarters management.
The inspectors ackncwledged that the licensee had adequately f
corrected the findings identified during the audit, g2) At Palisades the licensee was advised that additional
!
information concerning the licensee's corrective actions for.-
!
i audit findings was necessary as a result of NRC Region III's initial review subsequent to the Big Rock Point FFD inspection.
There were no additional findings as a' result oflthe inspection activity conducted at Palisades,
,
i subsequent to the onsite inspections, licensee management was:
advised that an enforcement conference would be held at the NRC Region III Office in Glen:Ellyn, Illinois on November 15, 1990.
',
t
A
,
O y
'
\\
'
- ..
.
!
3.
Fitness-For-Duty Proaram Elements: ' Audits (TI 2515/106-05.02.c.4)
!
'
.
a.
Background l
Thelicensee'sQualityAssurance(QA)staffconductedanaudit'.
l between February 12 and March 2,1990 of selected portions of the Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) program to-verify that the program elements '
-
,
had been develooed, documented and effectively = implemented in i
accordance wi 10 CFR Part 26.
(A second audit is scheduled for
'
October 1990 i evaluate:the testing laboratories and the medical
!
. review officers which are the portions of the program not reviewed).
r The audit was scheduled by QA early.in.the implementation of the r
program to assure com)11ance with the rule. The FFD program had..
!
been in place six wee (s prior to the start of the audit..10 CFR
26.80 requires that an audit of the program be done " nominally"
!
every 12 months.
'
The audit focused on staff FFD responsibilities at both the corporate
!
and site levels.
The audit involved'approximately 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> of both j
preparation and reviews by a four member team. An audit checklist i
was developed based on the FFD rule and appropriate licensee
procedures.
The audit resulted in 12 findings and 12 observations. The findings listed in the audit report involved the following:
(Note: The audit
.
report identified each finding as a violation of 10 CFR Part 26.)
}
s FFD suitable inquiries were not being conducted on Consumers l
-
Power Company employees.
'
!
FFD suitable inquiries were not being conducted on-contractors
-
( ~
prior to granting unescorted access.
,
_
Pre-access drug / alcohol tests were being conducted by a'
-
,
i non-Department of Health and Human Services certified L
'
laboratory. Alcohol tests were not conducted at all and drug test cut off levels were higher than allowed.
-i
!
FFD pre-access drug test records could not be found for two I
-
individuals and the time interval between tests and access to the plant exceeded requirements.
~
i
.
l
!
.
Individuals were granted initial unescorted access after the
-
!
time period expired on their pre-access drug-tests.
.
.
Contracts between Consumers Power Company and its contractors did
-
not-include language required by 10 CFR Part 26.
In some cases
.
contracts did not include required FFD provisions.
'
A contract had not'been finalized between Consumers Power
.
,
-
Company and the drug ' testing laboratory.
'
,
!
?
!
t
-
t
,,
,
. _ _.
_
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
-
.,
'
Collection Site personnel were not screened, i.e. background
.
-
investigations had not been completed.
A behavioral observation program was not instituted for
-
individuals administering tho FFD program..
Contractor supervisors were not receiving FFD training for
-
supervisors.
Some individuals required to report to the Emergency Operations
-
Facility (E0F) were not being randomly tested.
The lack of posting the FFD Policy was identified.
-
Five of the twelve " observations" were considered by the licensee to-be adverse to quality, such that if, adequate corrective actions were not implemented violations might occur. These observations included incomplete guidelines for reportability of FFD events; tamper seals on samples not properly labeled, inadequate training documentation for collection site personnel. inadequate procedural guidance for the calibration and maintenance of alcohol testing devices, and blind-performance testing requirements not being met.
The remaining seven.
observations resulted only in auditor recommendations which would strengthen and more clearly define program areas, b.
_NRC Review of Audit Findings NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/106 entitled " Fitness-For-Duty:
Initial Inspection of Implemented Program," dated July. 11, 1990, required the NRC staff to conduct selective examinations for determining whether licensee FFD programs meet regulatory requirements. The initial FFD inspection for Big Rock Pcint was scheduled for September 25-28, 1990.
In preparation for this inspection, the inspector requested the written FFD policies and procedures required by 10 CFR Part 26 from the licensee.
The licensee was also requested to send a copy of any FFD audits conducted to date..An in-office NRC Region 111 review:of-the licensee's FFD audit indicated that portions of the rule were apparently either not addressed or were implemented contrary to NRC guidance. NRC Region Ill's management concluded after initial review of the audit report that a special inspection should be conducted simultaneously with the initial FFD inspection scheduled pursuant to Tl 2515/106.
The onsite reviews consisted of interviews with the licensee's corporate Fitness-For-Duty Administrator. the site Human Resources Directors, and the Supervisor-Quality Assurance.
The inspector reviewed copies of the audit checklist, the deviation reports written for each finding, and associated documentation supporting the licensee's corrective actions. The inspectors concluded that the; licensee had taken' prompt and adequate corrective actions to address each audit finding and observation. At~the exit meeting;at Big Rock Point, the licensee was advised'that the findings'of.the inspection would be reviewed by NRC Region'111 management because they appeared 6-
F
..
'
'
.
,
N to represent significant program inadequacies in January and February 1990..As a result of that review NRC concluded that the
licensee had identified significant deficiencies in the' implementation
'
of their FFD program, and that an enforcement conference was wa rranted. A apparent violation of 10 CFR 50.9 was also identified for failing to notify the NRC of significant deficiencies-in their program after they had certified (by letter dated December 19,1989).
that their program met 10 CFR'Part 26 requirements.
We also concluded that additional information regarding corrective actions was needed and would be nbtained during the FFD inspection at Palisades. conducted between October 15-19, 1990.
Our overall review of the licensee's audit findings and the information provided by their staff appears to indicate that the.
significant program deficiencies that existed in January 1990 at the time of program implementation we ae' the result of an inexperienced staff with little FFD training'and inadequate senior management oversight. Additionally, there appears.to have;been inadequate coordination / communication (mong staff members on key program elements which led to many of t1e misinterpretations of 10 CFR
'equirements identified in se\\eral of the apparent violati This inexperience and lack if training for these -
indivi was made more significance because there were
'
essen
.y only three individuals who were. responsible for ensuring that the program for the entire corporate and site organizations were implemented in detail, c.
Apparent Violations of NRC Regulatory Requirements Our evaluation of the licensee's audit " findings" resulted in the following apparent violations of NRC requirements.
Item 1 I
was identified by the NRC and itens'2 through 10 were. identified
!
by the licensee. Our evaluation of _ the audit " observations" resulted
in the conclusion that there were no additional violations of NRC requirements.
(1)
10 CFR 50.9 (a) requires that information p ovided to the Commission by a licensee required by the. Commission's regulations be complete and accurate in all material respects.
10 CFR 50.9(b) also requires the licensee to notify the Commission of information identified by the licensee as.having a significant implication for.the regulated activi_ty.
10 CFR 26.73(d) requires that by January 3,.1990, each licensee.
certify to the NRC that they have implemented a fitness-for-duty program that. meets.the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26.
Between February 12 and March 2,1990, the. licensee's Quality-
!
Assurance (QA) department audited portions of their fitness-for-duty program and identified numerous deficiencies
,
t of 10 CFR Part 26. Based upon results of that audit, the QA auditors suggested on page 4 of 23 of the report that their'
certification letter submitted in accordance with
.
,
l
,
,
,
10CFR26.73(d)anddatedDecember 19, 1989, which certified
.
that the licensee's fitness-for-duty program met 10 CFR 26 and
would be fully implemented by January 3 1990, be reviewed by Nuclear licensing to determine if an amendment was required.
The FFD Administrator indicated to the NRC inspector that based upon the response by an NRC panel member to a question at a public FFD meeting hosted by the Edison Electric Institute on Apr4 1990, in St. Louis, Missouri, the decision was made th additional letter was required. Consequently, an.
amendmen, to the certification letter was not made and the NRC was not notified of the apparent violations of 10 CFR Part 26 identified in the. licensee audit. 1his is an apparent-violation of 10 CFR 50.9.
(50-155/90020-01;50-255/90027-01).
(2) 10 CFR Part 26.27(a) requires that prior to the initial. granting of unescorted access to the protected area or the assignment to activities within the scope of Part 26,' the licensee shall obtain a written statement from the individual regarding denial
.
of activities within the scope of this Part. The licensee must also conduct suitable inquiries-(supported by a signed release) on a best effort basis to determine if a perscn had in the past, tested positive.for drugs or use of alcohol that resulted in on duty impairment; been subject to a plan for treating substance abuse; been removed from activities within
,
l the scope of Part 26, or been denied unescorted access at any other Nuclear Power Plant in accordance-with a-Fitness-for-Duty Policy, The QA auditors reviewed the personnel records for the five t
licensee employees at Palisades and the two licensee employees-at Big Rock Point who had been granted unescorted access after January 3,1990, and found in all cases that no suitable inquiry had been conducted, even though required written statements were obtained.
I The NRC interview with the FFD Administrator disclosed that the siteHumanResourcesDiretors(HRDs)equatedthewritten statement obtained from the individual (concerning any history of substance abuse and denial from activities within the scope.
of Part 26) as a suitable in verify the information were quiry.and no further actions to taken.
Regardin9 contractor employees, auditor interviews with the site HRDs disclosed that even though they understood Administrative Procedure, FFD-01, Revision 0 dated January-3.1990 entitled
" Fitness-for-Duty Requirements and Responsibilities" which required them to perform suitable inquiries, this was never -
intended. This responsibility was to be given to' contractors.
However, the auditors discovered that this had not been done.
The FFD Administrator stated to the inspector that contractors-were advised of new FFD requirements at the time the rule.
.
'
became effective, but that the licensee had failed to follow up and specify what was required for documentatior and verification; that the suitable inquiry had been performed.
!
,
'
-
.
.
,
.
,
Based on auditor discussion with the HRDs relating to contractor
.
programs, and the confusing direction provided to contractors on suitable inquiries, reviews by QA were conducted of employees of two contractors at Palisades who were granted access after January 3, 1990. The auditors determined through these
,
'
interviews that neither company was aware of. the requirement to '
!
conduct suitable inquiries of their-employees' backgrounds. A
!
review of two employee files by QA auditors showed that in one instance, the suitable inquiry was conducted.
The other file
!
,
included some but not all required suitable inquiry information-according to the QA report.. The auditors noted in their report t
that the reason that the information was included in these '
i files was that this contractor contracted out all background
!
investigation to a professional firm who apparently understood the rule.
The review of the file of.one person employed by the second contractor showed that no suitable inquiry aad been
)
conducted.
!
-On March 16, 1990, the' site HRDs and the FFD Administrator met
'
to discuss the suitable inquiry issue.
The licensee's immediate corrective action regarding licensee employees was to revoke site access. Approximately 35 contractor employees at Palisades were found not to have had suitable inquiries conducted.
The FFD Administrator stated that after March 16, 1990, contractors were given one week to submit the suitable inquiry-on their personnel.
She stated that site access was not i
immediately revoked because of the impact on the outage at Palisades.
There were no contractor employees 'affected at Big Rock Point.
Fitness-for-Duty instructions to contractors were developed by the licensee in " Article SC5" of CAS Form 0601', "Special t
Conditions for Work at Consumers Power Company Nuclear Plants,"
Revision 5 dated April 2, 1990.
CAS Form 0601 is a document detailing special contract provisions pertaining-to quality
!
assurance, health,. plant security, fitness-for-duty and contaminated equipment with which a. contractor must comply.
Form 1301 dated April 1990 incorporated a signed statement by the contractor supervisor that a " Personal Statement and
,
i Fitness-for-Duty Suitable Inquiry" are-completed on the-individual.
The licensee revised their contractor audit program'to include.
suitable inquiries.
i i
Revised Corporate Control No. 7. entitled:" Access Authorization
'
l for Non-Company Employees" Revision 10 dated August 1,=1990'
incorporated more detailed information on'FFD recuirements-
l regarding contractors.- Contractors were requirec to. sign and i
acknowledge receipt of this directive which was sent to L
approximately 100 contractors.
.
t
,
.. -,
.,..,
g
-
s
.
.
.
i
'.
A review of Deviation _ Report Nos. D-QG-90-06 and D-QG-90-07 showed that corrective actions were completed May 7, 1990.
,
(The deviation report form is utilized to document corrective
,
actions taken in response to audit findings and observations)..
In conclusion, the suitable inquiry requirement of the rule was not implemented because of confusion on the part of key-staff personnel who were inexperienced and untrained it FFD requirements. This is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 26.27(a).
(50-155/90020-02;50-255/90027-02)
The licensee's corrective actions addressed this significant deficiency in one of the. key elements of the FFD program.
(3)
10 CFR Part 26.24(b) requires that. testing for drugs and alcohol must, at a minimum conform to the " Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plant Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs" issued by the NRC and appearing in Appendix A to the Rule.-
10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A Subpart D, section 2.1.a requires that the licensee test for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, phencyclidine, and alcohol for pre-access. for cause, random and follow-up tests.
Alcohol was not included in the pre-access testing program because of a licensee misunderstanding of NUREG-1385, page 6, paragraph 5.5 which states that-10 CFR Part 26 does not cover
" pre-employment"' testing by a licensee.'
In fact, the NRC's authority does not extend to hiring decisions by its licensees; therefore, the rule does not include pre-employment testing. However,10 CFR 26.24(a)(1) requires a l
pre-access test within 60 days before the granting of unescorted l
access.
With very few exceptions. the-licensee.will administer only one test. That test, no matter what'it is called, would be
.
subject to the rule. The long established licensee program in effect prior to 10 CFR Part 26 included "preiemployment". drug screening, but did not include tests. for alcohol.
This: pre--
employment drug program began February 12, 1986. The licensee equated. pre-access testing with pre-employment testing and incorrectly concluded that alcohol testing was not required.
They did not modify their. program to address pre-access testing.
The licensee's imediate action to resolve the issue was to re-test by March 16, 1990 all-individuals (granted access since January 3,1990) for drugs and alcohol. This is an apparent-violation of 10 CFR 26.24(b).
(50-155/90020-03;50-255/90027-03)
Review of Deviation Report No. D-QG-90-08 showed.that corrective actions required <to. correct the-. deviation were completed by March 16, 1990.
.,
10-n
L
'
.,
.
.
'
(4)
10 CFR 26.24(f) and 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A. Subpart D'
'
section 4.1 indicates that only laboratories which are HHS-certified are authorized to perform urine drug testing for-NRC licensecs, vendors, and contractors.
The licensee had been using a non-HHS certified lab for pre-employment drug testing prior to implementation of the-rule, and failed to recognize the new requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 and transfer testing to an HHS certified-laboratory.
They also assumed that their pre-employment testing was not covered by the rule, and did not recognize the new pre-access testing requirements of 10 CFR Part 26.
From January 3, 1990 until about March 16, 1990, the licensee was using a, laboratory not certified by HHS for pre-access testing.- This-is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 26.24(f).
(50-155/9002004;=
50-255/90027-04)
The licensee's corrective action was to have everyone hired after January 3,1990 re-tetted for drugs and alcohol by South Bend Medical Foundation, South Bend, Indiana, (an HHS certified laboratory). The re-testing was accomplished by March 16, 1990.
(5)
10 CFR 26.24(a)(1) requires that drug and alcohol tests be conducted within 60 days prior to the granting of initial unescorted access.
The auditors conducted a sampling of the records of 19 individuals to determine if pre-access tests had been conducted within 60 days prior to access. They found that in four (4) cases tests were simply not-done.
No explaination was obtained other than they appeared to have slipped through-the system.
!
The audit also identified an issue involving the rebadging of four individuals who had onsite access, then terminated access, and later required access again.
The guidance by the FFD Administrator to the staff.in this matter was that individuals did not have to be tested'unless they left,the site for longer than 60 days.
However,- the guidance in NUREG 1385~,
Sections 7.1 and 7.4 states that a previously terminated person can only be rebadged without a pre-access test if another test had been conducted within the last 60 days.
This is an apparent violation of 10 CFR 26.24(a)(1).. (50-155/90020-05; 50-255/90027-05)
,
The licensee's immediate corrective action was to rescind thei guidance that the FFD Administrator had previously issued in.
a letter dated January 3,1990, and to reissue guidance based -
on NUREG 1385. Section 6.6 of the licensee's FFD procedure (FFD-01) was expanded to include reinstatement requirements.
g
.
.
..
.
-
. -...
.,. _.....
...:. i-.... -..-
-.
_,,.,.,.._.b
-
-
-
..
-
-
.
.
'
.
.
,
e
.
.
The site HRDn took action to determine which individuals were required to be retested between January 3,1990 and the date of
the QA audit, and had these individuals retested.
i Review of the licensee's Deviation Report Nos. D-QG 90-09 and I
D-QG-90-10 showed that corrective actions were completed
{
August 14, 1990 and May 7, 1990, respectively.
(6) 10 CFR 26.23(a) requires that written agreements between i
licensees and contractors must clearly show that:- (1)The contractor is responsible to the licensee for adhering to
,
the licensee's FFD Policy or having its own program; and (2) Contractor personnel denied access at another nuclear plant due to violations of-FFD'will not be assigned.to work without the knowledge and consent of the licensee.
j 10 CFR 26.70(b) requires that written agreements between f
licensees and contractors must also clearly show that:
(1) the licensee is responsible to the Commission for
'
maintaining an effective FFD Program;'and-(2) Duly authorized representatives of the Consnission may inspect, copy or take
.
away copies of any licensee or contractor's records and reports i
that are related to the implementation of FFD programs under the scope of the contracted activities.
The licensee QA audit disclosed that contract provisions requi'ed
'
by the rule were not clearly shown-in some of the contracts. A selective review of 20 contracts at Palisades disclosed tha#, only 12 had newly amended contracts which contained the required FFD provisions. The licensee stated that the cause of this
'
inadequacy was related to a lack of understanding of 10 CFR
'
Part 26 requirements by the contract purchasing department and an inadequate review of the specific contract language'by the licensee's legal staff.
10CFR26.23(a)and10CFR26.70(b).Thisisanapp(50-155/90020-06; arent violation of 50-255/90027-06)
'
Immediate corrective actions included meetings between FFD-
..
.
personnel and legal and aurchasing departments. Contract t
provisions were revised )y March 23,.1990.
CAS Form 0601 dated April 2,1990. Revision.5 incorporated the appropriate FFD language.
(CAS Form 0601Lcontains language describin special contract conditions for work at the licensee'g the:
s nuclear plants.)
Review of the corrective action sheet to Deviation Report No.
D-QG-90-11 showed that action was completed May 5, 1990.'
(7) 10 CFR 26.24(b) requires that testing for. drugs and alcohol r
'
must at a minimum conform to the " Guidelines for Nuclear PowerL j
Plant Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs": issued by the NRC.and appearing in Appendix A to the Rule.
'
i!
ir E
,.
t
..
..
'
.
,
,
,
10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A, Subpart B, section 2.3 requires that l
'
.
persons responsible for administering the drug testing program
'
be subjected to a behavior observation program designed to assure that they continue to meet the highest standards for honesty and integrity.
The licensee's QA audit of February 12 - March 2,1990
'
disclosed that the individuals responsible for collection site responsibilities were not subject to 'a formal behavior.
-
observation program.
The licensee's FFD Administrator noted -
.
-
on the Deviation Report pertaining to this issue that "due to, time constraints involved in implementing the FFD Program, the
,
Behavior Observation Program had not been in place". There are approximately eight contract individuals i' volved in the site
,
n collection programs at the two plants. -This is an apparent
,
violationof10CFR26.24(b);
(50-155/90020-07;50-255/90027-07)
To correct this deficiency, the licensee revised their FFD
p(Section5.1).rocedure, FFD-Ol' to include a behavior observation progra The revision notes that the FFD Administrator
.
will monitor the program.
The licensee will require the i
,
supervisor of the testing program to sign an annual
.
certification of observed behavior observation which will be-
-
sent to the FFD Administrator.
Review of Deviation Report No. D-QG-90-14 showed that corrective actions were-completed October 1 1990.
,
(8)
10 CFR Part 26.22(a) requires that managers and supervisors-
of activities within the scope of the rule must be provided training in a several specified subjects related to their roles in implementing the program, some of the subjects
-
include identifying behavioral or drug problems and the
,
actions to take when discovered.'
,
l The licensee's QA audit of February 12 - March'2,1990 disclosed that 14 of 27' contract supervisors'at Palisades interviewed by QA auditors were not trained in their. FFD
,
c responsibilities.
Further investigation by the auditors
,
' -
disclosed that 8 of the 14 were in fact performing supervisory
'!
responsibilities.. The licensee's program did not require.
contractor supervisors to be trained.
'
>
The'FFD Administrator stated to.the auditors that those-contractor supervisors who were trained were done so as a-
'
result of personnel error.
The licensee had made the determination that Consumers Power Company project engineers
-
would be considered the supervisor" of contractor employees, and therefore, eliminate the need to train contractor
-
,
supervisors.
The problem identified pertained only to-Palisades at the time of the audit as there were no contractor-
supervisors at Big Rock Point..This is an apparent violation of10CFR26.22(a).
(50-155/90020-08;50-255/90027-08)'
..t
>
-13
>
i
'
?
_
> _
.'
'
.
.
<
$
To correct the id W 'fied problem, the licensee developed a list of all contractor supervisors, and conducted two training classes in March 1990 and one in April 1990. The licensee revised Corporate Control No. 7 to identify 10 CFR Part 26 training requirements for contractor supervisors.
Review of Deviation Report No. D-QG-90-15-showed that corrective acticns were completed August 14, 1990.
(9)
10 CFR 26.2(a) requires that licensees develop a FFD program to include personnel required to physically report to the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).
The QA auditors found that the licensee's Emergency Preparedness Director bd determined that some individuals nct performing safety related functions would be exempt from FFD programs.
Thoseindividuals(i.e.clericalandcommunicationsstaff)were identified by name and position in the licensee's emergency response procedures as being required to report to~the E0F.
Exemptions were made in the Emergency Implementhe "cocedres.
NUREG 1385, Section 1.3 states that individuals who are required by name or position in the Emergency plans or procedures to report in person to a licensee EOF are required to be included in the program even though they'do not perform safety related duties. This is an apparent violation of 10CFR26.2(a).
(50-155/90020-09;50-255/90027-09)-
The licensee's corrective action was to compile a list of all indivicuals identified in Emergency Implementing Procedures who are identified by name or position and are required to report to the EOF, and include them in the program pool.
The FFD Administrator was added to the Emergency Preparedness procedures distribution list so that updates to the E0F.
testing peol might be completed.
Review of Deviation Report No. D-QG-90-16 showed that corrective actions were completed May 1, 1990.
(10) 10 CFR 26.24(a) requires'that licensees conduct unannounced chemical tests imposed in a random manner for persons subject to the Rule. The tests must be_ administered so that a person completing a test is immediately eligible for another unannounced test.
10 CFR 26.2(a) states that the Rule applies to' licensee, contractor, and vendor personnel. required to physically-report to the licensee's Technical Support Center (TSC) and the licensee's Emergency Operations Facility (EOF).
The licensee had identified that some individuals were included in a testing program that was not random in nat'ure. The tests -
were only conducted periodically, i.e. these individuals were 14, b
-
.
.
.
,
.
.
selected.by the FFD Administrator to be tested only on
.
specified dates.
Consequently, the person completing a test was not inmediately eligible forlancther unannounced. test.
Individuals granted ur.ascorted access to Protected Areas-are part of a licensee computerized program identified as NUCPAS. - The licensee utilizes this computer program as. the.
basis for their random selection pool. The NUCPAS computer
,
program excludes personnel required to-report-to the of E0F and TSC.
(Note:
The NUCPAS'provides a data base for those individuals who have' completed the. screening-and training
'
requirements for unescorted access at the licensee's nuclear plants.) The'FFD Administrator ~ developed a handwritten method-that would." periodically" assure that_ the E0F/TSC personnei were tested.
This methodology does not meet the of random testing)-T requirement.
(50-155/90020-10;50-255/90027-10)
To resolve this issue, the FFD Administrator had a separate ~
'
personal computer prograin developed which' covered the TSC/E0F personne1Lin a random pool separate from the other-employee / contractor pools.
The inspector's review of the deviation report for this item.
>
showed that the corrective action was completed.May11, 1990.
.
.
t i
'
i
-f