IR 05000155/1997012

Insp Rept 50-155/97-12 on 970812-1007.Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Miscellaneous Security & Safeguards Issues

ML20198L192
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	10/17/1997
From:	Creed J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20198L185	List: IR 05000155/1997012 ML20198L182
References
50-155-97-12, NUDOCS 9710240274
Download: ML20198L192 (7)

Text

.

'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGIONlli Docket No: 50-155 License No: DPR-06 i

l Report No: 50155/97012(DRS)

Licensee: Consumers Energy i

Facility: Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant Location: 10269 U.S. 31 North Charlevoix, MI 49720 Dates: August 12- Octooer 7,1997, in NRC Region ill Office Inspector: Gary L. Pirtle Physical Secur;ty inspector Approved by: James R. Creed, Chief, Plant Support Branch 1-Division of Reactor Safety 9710240274 971017 PDR ADOCK 05000155 0 PDR

l

,

'

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant NRC In",pection Report 50-155/97012 This inspection included a review of the licensee's actions in reference to Fitness-For Duty allegations received by the licer.see on June 10,1997, and the subsequent evaluation of their FFD program based upon evaluation questions provided by NRC Region til on June 19,1997, and responded to by licensee letter dated July 17,1997. One Non-cited violation and one inspection Followup item were noted as described below:

.

A Non-Cited violation was identified for failure to follow procedures in some cases in reference to notifying personnel scheduled for FFD testing (Section 38.b.(4)).

.

An Inspection Followup Item was noted pertaining to program enhancements for the FFD program (Section S8.b(8)).

.

The evaluation of the FFD program effectiveness was thorough, comprehensive, well documented, and of sufficient scope and depth to address NRC identified question .

Report Details Plant Support S8 Miscellaneous Security and Safeguards issues a. Insoection Scooe (IP 81502)

The licensee received an allegation on June 10,1997, that a named NRC licensed operator used drugs frequently, had a marijuana business, and was able to circumvent the Fitness For Duty (FFD) Program. The licensee notified NRC Region 111 on the same day. The licensee required the licensed operator to participate in a for-cause FFD tes On June 16,1997, the FFD test results were determined to be positive. On June 19, 1997, NRO Region ill requested by letter that the licensee address four major areas (with 20 subparts) pertaining to their FFD program and advise us of their evaluation results. The licensee responded by letter dated July 19,1997. The licensee also

,

informed the NRL of the incident as required by 10 CFR Part 26.73(a)(2)(ii).

This inspection scope included review of the licensee's investigation results, review of selected licensee FFD procedures, and telephone interviews with the site Human Resources Manage b. Observation and Findings (1) The NRC licensed operator tested positive for a prohibited substance. This test was completed by a Department of Health and Human Services certified laboratory in accordance with the licensee's FFD progra (2) The allegation pertaining to the NRC licensed operator having a marijuana business was not substantiated. The licensce contacted local law enforcement agencies to address this issue. Th; agencies contacted and information they provided is considered exempt from public disclosur (3) The allegation about circumventing the FFD " system" was not substantiated, The licensee did note however a weakness in their program in reference to urine specimer.s with low specific gravity. However, the licensee's existing program meets 10 CFR Part 26 requirements. The licensee is evaluating actions to take to strengthen this aspect of their progra (4) A violation of the licensee's FFD procedures pertaining to notification of individuals selected for FFD testing was identified by the licensee and is addressed belo Section 26.20 of 10 CFR Part 26 requires licensees to establish and implement written policies and procedures designed to meet the general performance objectives and specific requirements of 10 CFR Part 2 __

,

Section 5.1.C of Consumers Power Company Administrative Procedure 02,

" Fitness For Duty Collection Site Procedures", Revision 6, effective May 1,1996, states that Human Resources Directors shall notify department contacts of employees to be tested or the employee directly if unable to contact the supervisor within a reasonable time fram Section 6.1.2 of Consumers Power Company Administrative Procedure -02,

" Fitness For Duty Collection Site Procedures", Revisica 6, effective May 1,1996, g states that the Human Resources representative shall notify a department contact of eaeh individual who has been selected for drug and alcohol testing, requesting that individual to report to the collection site as soon as possible but no later than one hour from the time of notification. The employee mey be contacted directly if the department contact is not available within a reasonable tim Contrary to the above, the individual sc.ieduling random FFD tests referred to a work schedule rather than directly dete mining whether an individual was available for testing. Direct contacts WD the department heads or individuals were not made.- On June 16,1996, this resulted in an individual who had been randomly selected for FDD testing, not being teste An interview with the site Human Resources Manager disclosed that although l the erroneous notification method occurred more than once, the error has not

! been repeated since identified by the licensee and corrective actions were implemented. The person inve' ad in the erroneous notification method had earlier been advised that she cc i .d check a work schedule to determine if FFD collection personnel needed to respond to the site during a back shift period. If the work schedule indicated that none of the personnel selected for testing would be onsite, then the planned trip to the site by the FFD collection team could be canceled. She thought such actions were also appropriate for routine FFD notification and testing purposes. The individual has been thoroughly briefed on the procedure requirements in reference to notification expectation This non-repetitive, licensee-identified and corrected violation is being treated as a Non-Cited Violation, consistent with Section Vll.B.1 of the NRC Enforcement Policy (50-155/97012-01).-

(5) The two individuals conducting the investigation (an attorney and former quality assurance auditor) were experienced, very qualified, and independent of the program being evaluate (6) The scope and depth of the investigation were excellent. All appropriate personnel were interviewed to include past and present Medical Review Officers, the Sheriff, the lab toxicologist, FFD computer programmer, hospital FFD collection coordinator, co-workers and supervisors, Plant Manager, et Appropriate documents were also reviewed as part of the investigation to include

.,

.

. ..

. . ..

. .. .

.

..

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

.

county and circuit court records, personnel files, FFD excused absence forms, FFD audits, control room logs, condition reports and several other record (7) The major areas and subparts of the four major areas requested by NRC Region ill to be reviewed were addressed in the investigation repor (8) The report was candid and addressed practices that, although they met the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26, could be improved to strengthen the FFD program (i.e. better controlling perscnnel during the drug testing process, particularly personnel with for-cause tests; expanded time for contract collectors to be onsite; stronger measures for specimen samples with low specific gravity, testing for specific gravity at time specimen is provided, etc.). Subsequent contact with the site Human Resources Manager disclosed that all areas identified by the licensee investigation team as program areas that could be improved were being evaluated or revised to address the investigation team members concerns. Additionally, the Plant General Manager noted in his July 17,1997 letter that additional program enhancements have been implemented pertaining to better security for the FFD testing calendar and the names of personnel selected for FFD testing, and requiring supervisor's signatures for excused test forms. Followup on this matter will be monitored as an Inspection Followup Item (50-155/97012 -02),

Conclusions The licensee's inquiry into the information received about alleged drug abuse was thorough, comprehensive, and well documented. Their evaluation of their FFD program effectiveness was also comprehensive and well documented. Areas requested to be evaluated were reviewed by the licensee's investigation team. A Non-Cited violation was identified in reference to notifying personnel selected for FFD testing. An inspection Followup Item was noted pertaining to program enhancements for the FFD progra X1 Exit Meeting Summary The inspector presented the inspection results by telephone to members of the licensee management on September 30 and October 7,1997. The licensee representatives acknowledged the findings presented. The inspector asked the licensee representatives whether any material examined or inspection findings discussed during the exit meeting should be considered as proprietary information. It was agreed that the name of the individual with the positive FFD test should not be disclosed because of personal privacy reasons. No other proprietary information was identifie *

.

PARTIAL LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED Licensee:

M. Van Alst, Supervisor, Property Protection E. Zienert, Human Resource Manager NRC; R. Leemon, Senior Resident inspector INSPECTION PROCEDURE USED IP 81502 " Fitness For Duty Program" issued May 31,1991 ITEMS OPENED AND CLOSED OPENEQ 50-155/97012-01 NCV Procedures not Followed in Some Cases for Advising Individuals of Selection for FFD Testing 50-155/97012-02 IFl Implementation of FFD Program Enhancements Will be Monitored CLOSED 50-155/97012-01 NCV Procedures not Followed in Some Cases for Advising Individuals of Selection for FFD Testing

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _

I-jo-

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED FFD Fitness For Duty IFl Inspection Followup Item NCV Non-Cited Violation PARTIAL LISTING OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED Consumers Energy Letter, dated July 17,1997, Subject: " Response to NRC Letter Dated June 19,1997 With Regard to Fitness For-Duty Program Evaluation"(45 pages)

Consumers Power Company Administrative Procedure FFD 01," Fitness For Duty Requirements and Responsibilities,' Revision 8, Effective October 1,1996 Consumers Power Cornpany Administrative Procedure FFD-02," Fitness For Duty Collection Site Procedures," Revision G, Effective May 1,1996 Consumers Power Company Administrative Procedure FFD-03, " Medical Review Officer Guidelines," revision 2, Effective May 1,1996 Consumers Power Company Working Level Procedure FFD WLP-02," Fitness For Duty: For Cause and Post-Accident Testing," Revision 4, Effective May 1,1996 Consumers Power Company Procedure FFD-PO-01," Employee Fitness For Duty Policy,"

Revision 5, Effective October 1,1996

- ~