IR 05000275/1991022
| ML16341G314 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1991 |
| From: | Reese J, Schaefer D, Schuster M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341G312 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-275-91-22, 50-323-91-22, NUDOCS 9110220132 | |
| Download: ML16341G314 (32) | |
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION V
Report Nos.
50-275/91-22 and 50-323/91-22 Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 License Nos.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Facility Name:
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and
Inspection At: San Luis Obispo County, California Inspection Conducted:
September 16 through 20, and 27, 1991 Type of Inspectiory.
Initial Fitness-For-Duty Inspectors:,Q~r, 4l.
iz/~./=
c ae er, ys>ca ecur> y nspector a
e 'gne c us er, r.
yslca ecurl y nspec or a
e 1gne Approved by:
a
.
eese, se
,
eguar s, mergency repa dness and Non-Power Reactor Branch LOB yJ a
e gne Ins ection Summar
Areas Ins ected:
This announced inspection reviewed the licensee's Fitness-or-u y program as required by 10 CFR 26.
The review was conducted in accordance with Temporary Instruction 2515/106.
The review included a review of the licensee's written policies and procedures; program administration and management support; employee awareness and understanding of the FFD program; training program; and key program processes.
Results:
Based upon selective examination of key elements of the licensee's FFD program, it has been concluded that the licensee is satisfying the general objectives of 10 CFR 26.
The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements within the areas examined during this inspection, except for one apparent violation involving the licensee's practice of allowing co-workers to perform collection specimens for other persons directly involved in operating the FFD program (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 7.b.2).
Vii0220i32 9ii008 PDR ADOCK 05000275
'
Four strengths were identified in the licensee's FFO program:
Management's strong support for the program (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 4.b.);
professional and technical expertise exhibited by personnel involved in administering the program (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 4.a.);
employee awareness and acceptance of the program (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 5); and the effective organization and operation of the two collection facilities at the site (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 7. b.1).
Additionally, two unresolved items were identified in the licensee's FFO program:
Licensee's past practice of not submitting blind performance test samples for the complete panel of drugs (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 4. f. ); and the licensee's failure to report to the NRC a confirmed positive test of a contract Foreman performing supervisory duties (Inspection Report Details, paragraph 6).
An unresolved item is a matter about which additional information is required in order to ascertain whether it is acceptable, a
violation, or a deviation.
These items will be forwarded to NRR for resolutio,
Ke Persons Contacted REPORT DETAILS 2.
~M. Angus, Manager, Technical Services, DCPP
"E.
Conway, Manager, Human Resources, DCPP
- A. Dame, Supervisor, Access Department, DCPP J. DeMartini, Senior Industrial Relations Representative, DCPP
- W. Drake, Supervisor, Fitness-For-Duty, DCPP
- R. Flohaug, Senior Supervisor, Quality Assurance Department, DCPP
"J. Griffin, Senior Engineer, Regulatory Compliance, DCPP
- J. Hays, Director, Security Department, DCPP
- K. Hubbard, Supervisor, Nuclear Regulatory Affairs, PG8 E C. Johnson, Counselor, Employee Assistance Program, DCPP
- J. Juarez, Associate Medical Review Officer
- R. Kohout, Director, Safety Health and Emergency Services, DCPP
- R. McDevitt, Sr.
Nuclear Security Administrator, Nuclear Operations Support K. McDonald, Technical Specialist, Quality Assurance Department, DCPP
"D.
Miklush, Acting Plant Manager, DCPP
- J. Miller, Dr., Counselor, Employee Assistance Program, DCPP
- M. Mills, Medical Review Officer
- D. Oatley, Manager, Support Services, DCPP R.
Paredez, Technical Specialist, Quality Assurance Department, DCPP
- D. Taggart, Director, Quality Plans and Audits, Quality Assurance Department, DCPP J.
Townsend, Vice President, Diablo Canyon
- L. Wandling, Coordinator, Fitness-For-Duty, DCPP
"W. White, Senior Instructor, Training Department, DCPP The above individuals denoted with an asterisk were present during the exit meeting discussed in paragraph 8 of this inspection report.
The inspectors also interviewed other members of the licensee and contractor staffs, both supervisors and non-supervisors, during the course of this inspection.
Ins ection A
roach By letter dated June 17, 1991, the licensee was notified of the dates and scope of this inspection.
They were requested to provide copies of policies, procedures, audits and reviews, and training material pertaining 'to the FFD program, which were reviewed in-office prior to the onsite inspection.
Onsite inspection activities included interviews of the key individuals responsible for program implementation to include:
Station Vice President, Support Services Manager, Human Resource Manager, Safety Health and Emergency Services Director, Medical Review Officer (MRO) and Associate MRO, FFD Supervisor, FFD Coordinator, FFD Staff, Employee Assistance Counselors, Quality Assurance Staff, Industrial Relations Representative, General Employee Training Staff, and Access Supervisor (suitable inquiries).
Additionally, the inspectors interviewed
licensee and contractor employees and supervisor The licensee's written Drug Prevention Policy is included within the Employee Conduct part of Standard Practice No. 735.6-1.
The policy directive includes individual responsibilities and sanctions for use of drugs and alcohol.
Interviews with employees indicated that the policy was understood.
The licensee's Nuclear Plant Administrative Procedure A-20, dated January 3, 1990, is the basic procedure that addresses the overall FFD program.
Additionally, the licensee has published the following nine supplements to this procedure:
General Requirements; Specimen Collection Process; Medical Review Officer; Protection of Information; Records; Reporting Requirements; Selection and Notification for Random Chemical Testing; For-Cause Chemical Testing; and Breath Alcohol Analysis Device.
These written procedures provide adequate guidance to fulfill basic program requirements.
4.
Pro ram Administration and Mana ement Su ort Following are the inspectors findings with respect to the administration of key elements of the licensee's FFD program.
a.
Delineated Res onsibilities The FFD program at Diablo Canyon is organized to facilitate coordination among the various program elements.
This includes the active involvement of the FFD Supervisor who is responsible for key program elements of:
collection staff, the random selection process, and FFD records.
The FFD Supervisor is provided assistance by the plant's:
Training Department, Security Department, Medical Review Officer, and by counselors in the Employee Assistance Program.
Additionally, he is provided assistance by the corporate equality Assurance Department.
The FFD Supervisor reports directly to the Director, Safety Health and Emergency Services, who in turn reports to the Manager, Support Services, and to the Vice President, Diablo Canyon.
Interviews with these individuals confirmed that they are cognizant of their responsibilities.
A notable program strength was the professionalism and technical expertise of the staff involved in administering the program.
b.
Mana ement Awareness of Res onsibilities Interviews with FFD program staff and selected supervisors, reviews of procedures and contracts, and discussions with licensee management, indicated that management at all levels is aware of its responsibilities under
CFR 26.
Managements involvement and their strong support for the FFD program is evident throughout the plant's FFD program, especially in the areas of:
Facilities, staffing, budget, labor negotiations, and training.
Program performance has been completely monitored by management personnel.
Management support is a notable program strengt Pro ram 'Resources The licensee operates three collection facilities, one at PGRE Corporate Headquarters in San Francisco, California, and two at the Diablo Canyon site.
One of the site collection facilities is for random test collections, and the second is for pre-employment collections.
The collection facility for random tests, is operated 7 days a week, 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day.
'I Mana ement Monitorin of Pro ram Performance The FFD Supervisor exercises effective daily oversight of'he program and maintains effective communications with the FFD program staff.
The licensee's six-month reports on program performance, indicate little substance abuse among its employees and those of its contractors.
Additionally, the licensee has established a Labor and Management Audit Review Committee.
The committee meets as necessary, but at least once each quarter, to look for ways to improve the effectiveness of the FFD program by reviewing procedural issues in terms of operating the program in the most efficient and consistent manner possible.
Measures Undertaken to Meet Performance Ob ectives of the Rule The licensee has aggressively monitored and evaluated information concerning techniques that individuals may use to adulterate or otherwise subvert the chemical testing process.
The FFD supervisor coordinates with the MRO and the contract "blind" specimen provider, to conduct tests to assess information concerning potential adulteration methodologies that may mask the presence of illegal drug metabolites in an individual s urine specimen.
Pro ram Testin Standards As negotiated between the licensee and local unions, the licensee's FFD program includes pre-access testing, for-cause testing, random testing, and follow-up testing.
The specific drugs tested for, and their cut-off levels, are identical to those described in 10 CFR 26.
Additionally, for all individuals seeking employment, the licensee conducts pre-employment testing.
The drug panel. for pre-employment testing also includes three additional drugs:
barbiturates, benzod)azepines, and methaqualone, at the initial test level of 300 ng/ml.
Additionally, pre-employment testing includes an initial test for the marijuana metabolite at a lower level of 20 ng/ml.
The testing for additional drugs and the lower testing level for marijuana was considered a program strength.
In discussing pre-employment testing, the licensee indicated that when an individual's pre-employment test satisfies the requirements for pre-access testing (i.e., the individual is granted unescorted site access within 60 days), that the additional pre-access test is not completed.
Thus, in most cases, an individual's pre-employment FFD test satisfies the requirement of, and is conducted in lieu of,
the pre-access test.
However, personnel transferring to Diablo Canyon from within PGEE, receive the required pre-access testing.
CFR 26, Appendix A, paragraph 2.8, titled:
equality Assurance and equality Control, requires that licensee's'omplete blind performance drug testing with each of their HHS-certified laboratories, such that approx>mately 80 percent of the licensee's blind performance test samples are blank (i.e., certified to contain no drug),
and the remaining test samples are positive, such that all of the drugs to be tested are included in the test sample.
Contrary to these requirements, the licensee indicated that their blind performance drug test samples submitted to the HHS-certified laboratories, did not include barbiturates, benzodiazepines, nor methaqualone, which are part of the drug panel for pre-employment testing.
During this inspection, the licensee verified that the laboratories internal quality assurance program include these three drugs within their blind testing program.
The inspectors identified the above issue as an apparent violation during the exit meeting on September 20, 1991.
On September 25, 1991, the licensee voluntarily provided Region V written comments on this issue.
In summary, the licensee indicated that their submission of only the NIOA-5 drug panel to its laboratories as part of blind performance testing, was predicated on its interpretation of NRC's stated intent in this rule, of not becoming involved with licensee's hiring practices (pre-employment testing).
The focus of
CFR 26 is only on pre-access, random, for-cause and follow-up chemical testing.
Additionally, the licensee indicated that although PGEE takes credit for pre-access testing as part of pre-employment testing, the Semiannual Fitness for Duty Performance Reports submitted to date report pre-employment data separately.
The licensee believes that their omission of barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone from their blind samples does not represent a violation of 10 CFR 26.
Upon reviewing the requirements of 10 CFR 26, and the licensee's written comments, it has been determined that the licensee has incorporated pre-employment testing as part of their required pre-access testing.
However, the licensee's failure to include barbiturates, benzodiazepines, and methaqualone with their blind performance test samples, has been established as an unresolved issue, to be forwarded to NRR for resolution.
(URI 275/91022-01)
Sanctions and A
eals The licensee's FFO program has established sanctions consistent with
CFR 26.27(b).-
The sanctions apply to licensee and contract employees.
(1) Ille al Dru s.
The first confirmed positive test for illegal rugs resu s in a suspension of site access for a minimum of
14 days, referral to the Medical Review Officer (MRO) for treatment assessment and evaluation, and follow-up testing for a minimum period of three years.
A second confirmed positive test for illegal drugs results in revocation of site access for a minimum of three years.
Any sale, offer of sale, and/or possession of illegal drugs for sale, either on-duty or off-duty, results sn revocation of site access for a minimum of five years.
(2)
Alcohol.
Consumption of alcohol within a five-hour period smmeimsately preceding the start of scheduled work or consumption of alcohol on-duty, results in suspension of site access for 14 days, and referral to the MRO for treatment assessment and evaluation.
The first confirmed positive test for alcohol, lacking any other evidence to suggest that consumption of alcohol occurred within the five-hour period
'mmediately preceding the start of scheduled work or while on-duty, results in suspension of site access for 1-14 days, referral to the MRO for treatment assessment and evaluation, and follow-up testing for a minimum period of three years.
A second confirmed pos)tive test for a]cohol, during the period that a person is subject to the follow-up testing program, results in suspension of site access for a minimum of 14 days, referral to the MRO for treatment assessment and evaluation, and follow-up testing for a minimum period of three years.
A third confirmed positive test for alcohol, during the period of follow-up testing, results in revocation of site access for a minimum of three years.
An employee whose site access has been restored shall be subject to the licensee's follow-up testing program as well as the random testing program, to ensure continued abstinence.
The MRO notifies the individual of a confirmed positive test result and offers an opportunity to discuss the results prior to notifying the FFD supervisor.
The individual is given the opportunity to request that the split specimen be screened and confirmed by the licensee's alternate HHS-certified laboratory, independent from the primary laboratory that completed the initial test.
h.
Em lo ee Assistance Pro ram (EAP)
The licensee maintains an EAP program that offers assessment, counseling, and referral services through both a qualified company and contractor counseling professional.
EAP services are available to employees and their immediate family.
A noteworthy feature of the licensee's program is that EAP services are also available to contractor employees.
The inspectors interviewed both counselors and found them to be knowledgeable of the Rule, FFD procedures and with the facilities and numerous EAP services available to employees.
The inspectors determined that the licensee would be informed of an employee whose condition constitutes a hazard to the plant, themselves or others, when the EAP counselor identifies such a situatio The inspectors determined through interviews with randomly selected employees and contractors that the EAP is well accepted and is utilized by the employees.
It was also noteworthy that the EAP program has a lending library which includes audio and video tapes.
Considered a strength is the expertise, professionalism and caring attitude of the present EAP staff.
Trainin and Em lo ee Awareness/Acce tance of the FFD Pro ram The inspectors reviewed the licensee's lesson plans, training record, and four video training films. It was apparent that the licensee has expended considerable efforts to ensure the effectiveness of the training.
In discussions with a senior training instructor, the licensee was reminded of the nominal 12 month training requirement.
A sample of training records reviewed, revealed that many employees were beyond a 12 month cycle.
Although NRC recognizes a period of between 9 and 15 months for training requirements, employees receiving training at 14 or 15 month cycles will fail to achieve the nominally 12 month requirement, if continued for a three or four year period.
Additionally, employees who are not receiving refresher training at a shorter period will not retain the awareness described above.
The inspectors interviewed 19 personnel subject to the licensee's FFO program.
These personnel were selected using the licensee's computer-generated random selection system, and included licensee and contractor supervisors and employees.
Included in this sample was an equal representation of both male and female personnel.
Host of the personnel had been selected one or more times for FFD testing and all expressed the opinion that the FFD program was acting as a deterrent for drug abuse and that management was serious about a drug-free work place.
Those personnel that had been tested felt that their individual rights and privacy had been adequately protected under this program.
Employees and contractors interviewed were knowledgeable of the FFD program and the sanctions that would be taken in the event of a positive test result.
Most all employees had praise for the collection site personnel and their treatment.
The employees awareness and acceptance of the FFD program was a notable strength.
Re orted Fitness-For-Dut Events
CFR 26.73 requires in part that each licensee telephonically notify the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, of any acts by any supervisory personnel assigned to perform duties within the scope of 10 CFR 26, that result in a confirmed positive test.
Ourinq this inspection, the inspectors reviewed FFD records for individuals that had previously been confirmed positive by the HRO for illegal use of drugs, and were presently enrolled in the licensee's FFO follow-up testing program.
The licensee's records for a contract employee revealed that in Hay 1990, immediately prior to being randomly selected for FFD testing, he "was a
Foreman supervising the installation of PI's (pressure instrumentations)
and TI's (temperature instrumentations)
on the Service Cooling Mater
Pumps."
Additional.ly, "he was also supervisinq the Hot Torquing on the Unit 2 Feedwater Heaters."
These duties were identified as being
"Non-Safety Related."
The FFD Supervisor indicated that this confirmed-positive test had not been reported to the NRC because the Foreman was not a supervisor, nor was his work safety related.
During the exit meeting on September 20, 1991, the inspectors identified this as an unresolved issue, and that additional in-office review of this employee's case file was needed.
On September 25, 1991, the licensee voluntarily provided Region V written comments on this issue.
The licensee indicated that their definition of
"supervisor",
as it relates to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 26, had been based upon guidance contained in FFD NUREG's, and did not include bargaining unit classifications such as foremen, general foremen, leads, group leaders, etc.
The licensee indicated that the contract employee (Foreman) in question did not have any supervisory responsibilities, but only had the responsibility to monitor individuals at their work sites.
The project superintendent (non-bargaining unit)
was responsible for worker supervision.
Upon reviewing the requirements of 10 CFR 26.73, and applicable NUREG's, it has been determined that the above Foreman did not fit the licensee's strict definition of a "supervisor",
however, his stated duties (i.e.,
"supervising the installation of...") indicate that he was performing
"supervisory" duties.
The licensee's failure to telephonically report to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, this confirmed positive test of a contract Foreman performing supervisory duties, has been identified as an unresolved issue, to be forwarded to NRR for resolution.
(URI 275/91022-02)
7.
Ke Pro ram Processes a.
Selection and Notification for Testin The licensee's selection and notification process appears to be carried out in a manner that meets the objectives of 10 CFR 26.
A list of individuals for random testing is generated by a computer on a daily basis, Monday through Friday, from a pool of all individuals with unescorted access to the site.
Also included in the random pool are those individuals required to physically report to the Technical Support Center or the Emergency Operations Facility, in accordance with the licensee's emergency plans and procedures.
Saturday, Sunday and holiday selections are derived from those persons not available from the previous days within the same week.
The random pools are updated, daily, prior to each random selection.
No category of personnel, are routinely excluded from being tested when selected.
An individual selected for random testing ss immediately eligible for selection the following day.
A review of data compiled for the first 12 months of program implementation indicated that the goal of testing 100 percent is being achieved.
The licensee conducts random testing on backshifts, weekends and holiday Notification of employees selected for random testing is conducted by a member of the FFD staff to a Designated Notification Person (DNP) in each division/office.
The DNP then notifies the selected employee's supervisor, who in turn notifies the selectee employee.
The notification is documented and the selected employee has two hours to report to the collection point.
Normally the notification process provides for a specific reporting time, not to exceed two hours.
Employees/contractors who are not at the site or corporate office or are otherwise unavailable for an approved reason, are tracked for two weeks as to their availability for testing.
After two weeks their access to the protected area is suspended until testing is completed.
b.
Collection and Processin of S ecimens (1)
Collection of S ecimens For Plant Em lo ees.
The inspectors con uc e
a wa roug o
e proce ures for collection and processing of a specimen.
The licensee has designed two collection facilities at Diablo Canyon.
One fac) lity was designed to process one person at a time, and is primarily util)zed to conduct tests of employees that were randomly selected.
The second facility is capable of processing eight persons at a time, and is utilized to conduct pre-employment testing.
The layout of both facilities was conducive to monitoring individuals as they proceed through the collection process.
Access to the facilities was well controlled by collection personnel, and visitor access was recorded in a log.
Both facilities prov)de adequate security for specimens, collection equipment, and records.
Both facilities had implemented effective measures to prevent subversion of specimens.
Blueing agent was used in the toilet facilities, and the sink area used for hand washing was easily visible to the technician performing the specimen collection process.
Both facilities were well stocked with supplies and maintained excellent housekeeping practices.
The collection site personnel appeared to have a thorough knowledge of specimen collection procedures.
The organization and operation of the site's two collection facilities were a notable program strength.
(2)
Collection of S ecimens for FFD Staff.
CFR 26, Appendix A, paragrap
.
discusses preven sng subversion of testing, and reads that, "Supervisors, co-workers, and relatives of the individual being tested shall not perform any collection, assessment, or evaluation procedures."
Contrary to these requirements, the inspectors determined through interviews that the FFD staff, to include collection personnel, have unescorted access to the protected area, and that their specimens are collected at one of the site's collection facilities.
As a result, FFD supervisors are subject to the collection process by the same staff members
'
they supervise, plus co-workers were performing collection duties of other members on the FFD staff.
The licensee advised the inspectors that they were aware of these requi rements and felt they were meeting both the spirit and intent of the rule by requirinq an additional member of the FFD staff to be present during the collection process.
During the exit meeting on September 20, 1991, the inspectors identified this as being an unresolved issue.
The licensee affirmed their earlier conviction that they have been in compliance with the spirit and intent of the rule.
On September 25, 1991, the licensee voluntarily provided Region V written comments on this issue.
In summary, the licensee indicated that their increased monthly testing of all FFD program personnel provides a higher assurance of personnel honesty and integrity.
Additionally, the provisions of having an additional certified collection site individual present to witness the process and independently review the completed paperwork, mitigates the potential for compromise, and satisfies the intent of 10 CFR 26.
The licensee, however, is examining other alternatives to provide additional
"independence" in the specimen collection process for the FFD staff.
Upon reviewing the requirements of 10 CFR 26, and the licensee's comments, the licensee's practice of allowing FFD staff members to collect specimens from the FFD supervisors, plus allowing co-workers to perform collection of specimens for other persons directly involved in operating the FFD program, represents a violation.
(VIO 275/91022-03)
(3)
Processin of S ecimens.
Upon collection of specimens, the licensee orwar s
e individually wrapped specimens, via air-express, to their primary HHS-certified laboratory at another location.
Upon testing, the laboratory notifies the NRO of the results of all tests.
Develo ment Use and Stora e of Re'cords A system of files and procedures to document the program and to protect personal information has been developed.
The inspectors examined the security and contents of the files and found them to be adequately secure and current.
Access to sensitive information is limited to individuals with a need-to-know.
Additionally, chain-of-custody procedures appear to be followed at all times.
The licensee maintained excellent documentation of its FFD testing program.
The documentati.on was centrally located, well maintained and easily retrievable.
The licensee's permanent record books were well maintaine The licensee has completed the following audits.
In all cases, audit findings were reported to appropriate levels of management and corrective actions were documented.
(1)
The licensee conducted an initial audit of the FFD program from June 18 to August 30, 1990.
This audit included a review of 10 CFR 26, assuring that their procedures complied with these requirements, then verifying the implementation of these requirements in the FFD program.
(2)
From September 10 to October 19, 1990, the licensee contracted with Bensinger, DuPont and Associates to conduct an audit of the FFD program.
This audit consisted of a review of policies and procedures, training, chemical testing, medical review and contractor programs as they relate to the FFD program.
During this audit, the primary laboratory (CompuChem)
and the alternate drug testing laboratory (National Center for Forensic Science),
plus the associate and the alternate MRO offices were evaluated.
(3)
A third licensee audit was conducted in August and September, 1991, immediately prior to this NRC inspection.
The inspectors reviewed the audit findings, as they were being prepared to present to appropriate levels of management.
During this inspection, the inspectors also discussed with the licensee the requirement contained in 10 CFR 26, Appendix A, Section 2.7, to conduct a pre-award inspection and evaluation of their primary and alternate HHS-certified laboratories.
As discussed at the exit meeting on September 20, 1991, the licensee was unable to locate their complete file documenting their pre-award inspection.
On September 25, 1991, the licensee voluntarily provided Region Y
written comments on this issue.
The licensee indicated they were unable to locate their wor ksheets for the first phase of inspections.
However, the licensee provided a copy of their pre-award inspection worksheets, for their second phase of laboratory inspections.
Two of the provided worksheets reflected the inspections conducted for their primary and alternate laboratories.
8.
Entrance and Exit Interviews The inspectors met with the licensee representatives on September 16, 1991, to review the scope and schedule of the inspection.
On September 20, 1991, at the conclusion of the site visit, the inspectors met with the licensee representatives identified in paragraph 1 above to summarize the scope and the preliminary results of this inspection.
The inspectors concluded that the FFD program had been effectively developed, implemented, and monitored, and was meeting the general performance objectives of 10 CFR 26. 10.
The violation, program strengths and the unresolved issues identified in the inspection were discussed with the license '
On October 4, 1991, 0. Schaefer of this office discussed the final results of this inspection with Mr.
R.
Kohout, PG8E.
The areas discussed are addressed in paragraphs 4.f, 6, and 7.b.2 above.
Attachment A - Licensee's comments to Region V, dated September 25, 1991
'
ntracto ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FITNESS FOR DUTY INSPECTION PGKE defines a "supervisor" as follows:
A firstline supervisor through an executive with primary responsibility for the planning, organizing, directing, and/or controlling the work activities of individuals assigned to perform duties within the scope of 10 CFR 26.
A supervisor is also responsible for evaluating the performance and ongoing behavioral observation of the person conducting the work.
(Under the requirements of 10 CFR 26, this title does
~o include, for example, bargaining unit classifications such as foremen, general foremen, leads, group leaders, etc.)
This definition, as it relates to the reporting requirements of
CFR 26.73(a)(2),
was developed based on the following documents:
e NUREG/CR-3l96,
"Drug and Alcohol Abuse:
The Basis for Employee Assistance Programs in the Nuclear Industry," which states,
"Included in the job category 'managers're firstline supervisors through executives...The requirements of managers include planning, organizing, directing, and/or controlling the activities of other..."
~
"Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Industry:
Responses to Implementation guestions,"
which responds to the question
"Who is a supervisorT" by stating that the determination should be based on factors such as "...Who is responsible for behavioral observation of the person...Who is in charge of the work...Who is responsible for evaluating the performance of the wor k..."
~
PG8E's Supervisor's Administrative Manual, Section D-l, "Definition of Terms," which states,
"Firstline Supervisor:
A position with primary responsibility for directly supervising all work in progress performed by employees in weekly-rate, non-management classifications."
The individual in question did not have any supervisory responsibilities as outlined above, but only had the responsibility to monitor individuals at their work sites.
The project superintendent (non-bargaining unit) was responsible for worker supervision.
Laborator Selection As requested, data on our laboratory selection process is provided in Enclosure 2.
The first half of the data (Nichols Institute, PharmChem, ChemWest Analytical) reflects the presentation given after the first round of laboratory inspections.
Inspection work sheets could not be recovered.
The second half of the data (SmithKline, CompuChem, National Center for Forensic Sciences
[formerly Maryland Medical]) provides the inspection work sheets for the second round of laboratory inspections.
Please note that two of the worksheets reflect inspections conducted of our primary and secondary laboratories.
5486S/0085K Attachnent A
'
'
8 i d
e ormance e
rocedu e
CFR 26, Appendix A, Section 2.8(e),
"Licensee Blind Performance Test Procedures,"
Subsection 3 states:
Approximately 80 percent of the blind performance test samples shall be blank (i.e., certified to contain no drug)
and the remaining samples shall be positive for one or more drugs per sample in a distribution such that all the drugs to be tested are included in approximately equal frequencies of challenge.
The positive samples shall be spiked only with those drugs for which the licensee is testing.
PGEE's position on submitting only the NIDA-5 drug panel to its laboratories as part of the blind performance testing was predicated on its interpretation of the Rule's intent.
The Rule specifically prescribed the five drugs to be included in its chemical drug testing panel.
To provide an additional assurance of trustworthiness and reliability grior to employing individuals for work at Diablo Canyon, and as part of the administrative testing of FFD staff personnel, PGttE elected to increase this prescribed panel by three additional drugs, as well as lowering the cutoff level on two of the prescribed drugs.
Considering the guidance provided by Loren Bush (NRC Headquarters)
during the 1989 EEI FFD Conference in Boston that it was ~ the intent of the NRC to become involved with licensee's hiring practices (pre-employment testing)
and the focus of the Rule being on pre-access, random,
"for-cause,"
and followup chemical testing, the blind performance testing program was developed to include only the prescribed NIDA-5 drug panel.
It should be noted that although PG&E takes credit for pre-access testing as part of pre-employment testing, the Semiannual Fitness for Duty Performance Reports submitted to date report pre-employment data separately.
During the recent inspection of PGKE's Fitness for Duty Program, it was the NRC's position that failure to include the "enhanced" drug panel in our blind performance test program was a perceived weakness.
PGSE agrees with the NRC's position as a prudent approach to strengthen the integrity of our Program, even though these three additional drugs are in fact being routinely submitted as part of both laboratories'nternal blind performance testing programs.
PGSE's blind performance testing panel submittal was modified on September 19, 1991, to include these three additional drugs.
PGEE does not believe however, that omitting these blind samples represents a violation of IO CFR 26.
5486S/0085K
CFR 26, Appendix A, Section 2.3,
"Preventing Subversion of Testing," states in part:
Licensees shall carefully select and monitor persons responsible for administering the testing program...
based upon the highest standards for honesty and integrity, and shall implement measures to ensure that these standards are maintained.
As a minimum, these measures shall ensure that the integrity of such persons is not compromised or subject to efforts to compromise due to personal relationships with any individuals subject to testing.
As a minimum:
(I) Supervisors, co-workers, and r elatives of the individual being tested shall not perform any collection, assessment, or evaluation procedures.
Monthly "administrative" chemical tests are conducted over and above the random selection process prescribed in 10 CFR 26 to provide an assurance that PG5E's Collection Site personnel and those administering NPG's Fitness for Duty Program are held to a higher standard of honesty and integrity.
Additionally, the laboratory is requested to conduct an adulteration panel to independently assess the quality of the specimen provided, as well as analyze the specimen to PG8E's
"enhanced" (pre-employment)
drug panel.
When FFO Program staff personnel are selected for either an administrative or random chemical test, it is our current practice to have an additional
"certified" collection site individual present to witness the process and independently review the completed paperwork to mitigate the potential for compromise.
The individual witnessing the process 'is generally a senior member of the collection site staff.
Contracting an "outside" collection service was considered prior to implementation; however, in the strictest interpretation of the Rule, once contracted, the person becomes a member of the collection site staff and hence, a "co-worker."
It is PGFE's position that the current practice satisfies the intent of the Rule to mitigate the potential for subversion of chemical testing.
PGKE is, however, examining other alternatives to provide additional
"independence" in the specimen collection process of its FFO staff as recommended by the NRC.
5486S/0085K-3-