IR 05000302/1990017

Insp Rept 50-302/90-17 on 900501-03.Noncited Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Fitness for Duty Program as Required by 10CFR26,including Licensee Drug & Alcohol Abuse Policies,Training,Chemical Testing,Appeals & Repts & Audits

ML20055H372
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	07/10/1990
From:	Mcguire D, Mcpeek E, Thompson D, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20055H371	List: IR 05000302/1990017 ML20055H370
References
50-302-90-17, NUDOCS 9007260118
Download: ML20055H372 (10)

Text

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

.. . .

!(;

,.a 4 s

'. :

'

p aarg'o . -

UNITED STATES t

!',,

- ~

7,{ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  :

g' s WASHINGTON, D C.20655 -

'

I%, . . . . . , .

&

Report No.: 50-302/90-17~ '

"

Licensee: Florida Power Corporation ,

3201 34th Street, South '

St. Petersburg, FL 33733 Docket No.: 50-302 License No.: LDPR-72 Facility Name: Crystal River 3 ,

r

.;

~ Inspection Conducted: May-1-3, 1990- ,

Inspectors:_ Eugene PtpPeek, UNRR MMI '

'

& [ M7d

'g Datg5 ped i hM -

Wi'liam J. Tob nl RI:

tM d L-fitb Dge S'igned-

.

g N ] S:_N= { V LS W <

David l (lD JTgned nomi son ('RIl p,- .V Approved By: sb. i -

'

,

David R. McGuire, Chief grat( Slgned Safeguards Section Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards ,

Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards ,

SUMMARY Scope: ,

This special, announced inspection reviewed the licensee's Fitnen For-Duty ,

Program as required by 10 CFR Part 26. Specifically the inspectofs evaluated .

the licensee's Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policies (as implemented by corporate and site procedures), Training, Chemical Testing Employee Assistance ; Program, Management Involvement, Appeals, Protection of Information,. Reports and Audit Results:

Based upon the NRC's selective examination of key elements of'the licensee's Fitness For Duty Program, it has concluded that the licensee is satisfying the general objectives of 10 CFR Part 26.10. Specifically, the following elements of the Fitness For Duty Program will be reviewed during a future inspection:

9007260118 900710 '

PDR ADOCK 05000302 C' PDC

- :-- .. - -

. - - - - .

'

<

. .

.

l;. . 1

. 1

.

.

2 1 i

,  !

l- i

1) Employees expressed a perception that self-referral.- to the- licensee's -

-

Employee Assistance Program would' result in ' automatic tyminatio :

(Paragraph 4,g)_(InspectorFollow-upItemNo.~90-17-01). I Random testing is not truly > random in that during certain; shifts th'e

~

I 2)

licensee does- not collect specimens thereby establishing predictable .

eriods during which workers will not be teste (Paragraph 6,b) '

p(Non-cited Violation _No. 90-17-02).

.

'

3) The licensee had-on one occasion incorrectly interpreted the reportability criteria. (Paragraph-6,e)(Non-cited.ViolationNo. 90-17-03). s The NRC _noted . strengths in the licensee's program for training employees and supervisors, the professionalism of the: Medical Facility staff and th aggressive Quality Assurance audit of its Fitness For Duty Program.

l I

t

$

.

h

.

• ;-

,

'

. ,

N i

!

REPORT DETAILS , Persons Contacted-l Licensee Employees

• J..Alberdi, Manager, Nuclear Plant Technical Support I

• R. Bright, Assistant to the -Senior Vice President

• J. Dalonzo, Manager, Crystal River Human -Resources

.

• R. Kline, Director, Corporate Health Services

• G. Longhouser, Superintendent, Site Nuclear. Security

• P. McKee, Director, Nuclear Plant Operations

• A. Sanchez, Medical' Doctor, Regional Medical Director

• K. Spillos, Physicians Assistant

• S. Uebel, Director, Recruitment and Area Human Resources Other licensee employees - contacted during this inspection included-craftsmen, engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members, technicians, and administrative personne Other Organizations

• N. Durbin, Battelle Human Research Center

• P. Hunt, Battelle Human Research Center l

NRC Resident Inspector 1 .

• P. Holmes-Ray, Senior Resident

• Attended exit interview ,

, Inspection Criteria The by 10-NRC evaluated CFR Part thethe 26, using licensee's Fitness current NRC For (draft Duty)-(FFD)

Temporary Program, required Instruction titled, " Fitness For Duty: Initial Inspection of Program Implementation." l This evaluation included a review of theilicensee's -written policies and procedures and program implementation, is required by 10.CFR 26, in the -

! areas of: program administrations and magement support;. selection and .

notification for testing; collection at processing of-specimens; chemical j testing.for illegal drugs and alcohol; FFD~ training and worker awareness; '

the employee assistance program; management actions including sanctions; i appeals;' audits; and maintenance and protection of records.- The review of I the _ program implementation involved interviews with key FFD program i personnel and a sampling of the licensee's employees and contractor l employees with unescorted olant access, a review of relevant program l records, and observation of key processes, such as specimen collectio I

l

, ,

-. ,

'

.

.

L 3. Licensee's Written Policies and Procedures The licensee's written policies for alcohol and drug abuse are found_ in Volume 1, Section 6, of. the Human Resources Manual, as well as the Corporate Human Resources Procedure' No. 700, dated April 25, 1990 (Revision 1), and the Corpcrate Nuclear Operations Directive No. 41, dated April 26, 1990 (Revision 1).

The licensee's policies prohibit the use of illegal drugs 'and abuse of-legal drugs, as well as the consumption of alcohol during work and at least -five hours prior to scheduled ~ duties. Programs available for assistance to. " . . . overcome ; a broad spectrum of problems.. . family - .

!

difficulties, emotional, stress-related, alcohol abuse and substance abuse problems..." are also identifie The licensee's Helping Employee Live Productively Program (H.E.L.P.) is' also described, ' as is the chemical testing progra The licensee has utilized several mechanisms-to publicize its policy such as sending a copy -of the policy to the employee's home along with the_

paycheck, as well as the wide use of bulletin boards and newsletters.- )

4 Program Administration i Responsibility Although not explicitly addressed by the Rule, i_t was noted that two  ;

organizations were responsible for developing and implementing the licensee's FFD Program (Division of Nuclear Power, and the Division ,

of Human Resources). The licensee's FFD Task Force was co-chaired by :

managers from these two Divisions, and those responsible for daily '

site implementation worked for different; Vice . Presidents. The o inspectors believe that the reportability problems, discussed later in - paragraph 6e, could be the result of. this ' apparent lack _ of

-

singular authority and accountabilit The licensee's audit, discussed in paragraph 6f, concluded that the Program is "... split between many procedures, policies and responsibility areas..." Management Awareness of Responsibility

<

With the exception NRC performance of theatlithe problems .ensee's responsibility HHS-certified to rep (ort to the laboratory reference- ;

paragraph 6,e), managers appeared to be aware of their responsibil- '

ities for the many elements of the progra , Program Resources Program resources currently appear adequate. :FFD program staff with assigned program functions report that upper management, both at the j site and corporate levels, has been very supportive in providing the '

necessary program resources. The laboratory facility was adequate in j l

____

%

,

.-

,

.:

-3 size,-locked during'offhours, and visitor access was controlled and recorded on an access log; Management Monitoring of Program Performance

' The inspectors found the Medical Review Officer was trending 'and l analyzing data from the. chemical testing program. Additional

-

monitoring of program performance was accomplished by the-licensee's FFD Ttsk Force which met perodically to verify corrective actions and to track problem area ,

' Measures Undertaken to Meet Performance Objectives of the Rule ,

The licensee has provided adeouate resources and personnel. to meet -i the objectives of the FFD rul Although the rule does not specifically require such measures, the" licensee has conducted .

infrequent searches-of the workplace by drug detection dog '

The NRC found that the licensee has in place adequate mechanisms:to receive and provide " suitable inquiry" information relative- to an employee's -(or applicant's) drug and alcohol abus The licensee 1 uses the background and Resources screening Council (NUMARC 8 )"A" criteria of Nuclear relative Utility Management to the authorization 1 program for unescorted access, Sanctions '

s With respect to alcohol abuse by its own' employees, the licensee's 4 policy calls for termination upon' a third- positive test within a  !

three-year period, compared to the permanent revocation of access _fo a contractor upon a- second positive test within the -same perio With respect to drug abuse the licensee.does not distinguish between  :

its own employees and its contractors; that- is, the first= confirmed i positive test results in discharge of employees, and for contractors, permanent revocation of access authorization. The licensee's program-meets or exceeds the 14-day removal and suspension requirements of this part of the FFD Rul j

.

The inspectors noted that the- MRO counsels employees for alcohol u abuse upon their first failure, which is considered by the inspectors to be a worthwhile practice in the interest of a safe work environmen , Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

The licensee maintains an EAP which offers assessment, counseling and referral services through a series of qualified local EAP professional Interviews and discussions with employees and appropriate staff personnel revealed the perception by employees that self-referral would result in automatic suspension of access which,

'

r r

,

.- ,

i e

. .

I

~4  :

I the employees felt,J violated - their confidentiality. Employees, in'

effect,' equated self-referral'with automatic termination. Apparently )

this' perception is based on earlier procedures-which did not inform '

employees of the preliminary evaluation conducted by the EAP professional to determine if the employee is ai threat: to self or-public safety. The inspector. determined that self-referrals are very rar The licensee responded-to this observation by emphasizing the current practice for self-referrals is-to first make a determination

'

'by not )a constitute qualified EAP professional a threat to self that thesite,.

or the individual doescase in which (or does

- ;

management would be so informed and access would be voided.- The licensee pointed to numerous other reasons why access :would be voided;. overdue training or physical examinations, temporary layoffs,

'

or transfer-to corporate. . Given the employee perceptions, the rarit of self-referrals, and the recently revised policy. and- procedures, the 'NRC and- the licensee agreed that_ the EAP; should ' be

--

,

re-communicated to the ' plant populatio This is considered - -

Inspector Follow-up Item No.- 90-17-0 !

5. Training Senior, Corporate managers L specifically ' visited the site' to ' attend the awareness training relative - to this -Rule.- These managers ~ actively participated in the question and answer sessions. To foster a better understanding and acceptance of the program, key union and~ employee representatives were escorted through the Medical Facility and were given tours of the-testing laborator ,

'

Several bulletin boards were noted to:be advertising the Fitness For' Duty 3 Program including the EAP. The NRC was also advised that the licensee i publicized the Program by sending brochures along with paychecks to the employee's home. The inspector also noted that prominent notice of.the-Prog' ram was displayed at the offsite employment application facility and that the licensee's-policy was clearly identified'in the cover letter for each employment applicatio The licensee's awareness training prior to the effective date of this Rule was randomly witnessed by the Resident Inspector- using NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/104 and was found to be acceptable.- During this inspection a limited sampling of employees and contractors- were

,

interviewed and found to be knowledgeable of- the FFD-Program and their ;

responsibilitie Additionally, during this inspection a limited sampling of supervisors and *

individuals authorized to be escorts were interviewed and found to' be knowledgeable of the FFD Program and of their responsibilities. The inspectors found a notable strength of this Program to be the realistic training (two days in length) furnished by federal and local law enforce-ment agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Employees at various levels of. responsibility spoke highly of the emphasis placed on recognizing locall.y aiailable drugs, and

-

.-

,

'

,

=*

,

.  ;

'

.

.

.

1 the training given in behavioral observation techniques needed to detect-impairment. The inspectors reviewed training records and les ton guides, finding them to be thorough and appropriate. The NRC was iniormed that the training film used to instruct employees of the licensee's Program was-being updated to reflect recent ' procedural revisions. For~all'of the ,

above reasons the inspectors considered this area to be a. particular-strength of the li m see's FFD Programc 6. Key Prcgram Processes Notification of Testing .

Selection for random testing was conducted .by use of a computer-generated list. Notification is made from the Medical Staff to:the appropriate supervisor and an appointment time is finalized. Delays are allowed if significant inconvenience or important~ work stoppage would occur, Chemical Testing The licensee has an onsite chemical collection facility (Medical Facility) and an additional facility at its corporate- office which i

provide for the collection of samples for pre-access, random,~ for cause and follow-up testing. The~ contract testing laboratory, Doctors and Physicians Laboratory in Leesburg, Florida, was certified by the National Institute on Drug Abuse to be meeting:the Department s of Health and Human Services Mandatory Guidelines for FederL1 Workplace Drug Testing Program This certification is dated- ,

February 22, 1989.

l The licensee meets the NRC criteria for preliminary and confirmatory ( cutoff limits and exceeds the criteria by using a lowero cutoff -

t level of 50 ng/millileter for marijuan Additionally, the licensee exceeds the requirement of 10 CFR Part 26.24(a)(1) by pre-access-testing contractors who have had a break in service of 15. days.

l As of the dates of this inspection, the licensee had conducted _ a ,

I total of 622 tests (plus submitting an additional 123 blind specimens). As a result of random testing, two individuals were- ,

determined to have blood alcohol concentrations greater than 04 r percent. There were no other positive- random test results. During the current outage, there-are 2392 badged individuals which form the population from which two '

.

percent are randomly chosen every week by computer selection (0.4 percent each day for five days resulting in the selection of in excess of 100 percent annually).

One of the key program elements needing improvement is to expand the o

'

random testing to the backshift, weekends and holidays. Employees on these shifts are subject to random selection, but because.there is no sample collection done on these shifts, they are not subject to testin In addition, a limited number of employees are permanently

.

- - , - , ,

_ _ ___

. . . . . . _ _ _ .

_

_

.

_

5 assigned back shif ts and therefore, are not subject to random testing. This in effect forms a "safehaven" for employees to be _

immune to random selectio The licensce's Quality Assurance audit (see paragraph 6.f) had identified this weakness and the licensee's 'n

_

corrective a: tion will be implemented by June 1,1990. Although this C is a violation of 10 CFR Part 26.24(a) Chemical testing require-

__

ments, this licensee-identified violation is not being cited becaL3e the criteria specified in Section V. G. of the NRC Enforcement Policy have been satisfied. (Non-cited Violation No. 90-17-02).

The NRC witnessed tht licensee's practices for conducting a random -

alcohol breathalizer test, noting that the licensee uses CMI Model 5000 Intoxilyzerc for both the preliminary as well as the -

confirmatory tests. Tha licensee is also equipped to collect onsite blood samples for a gas chromatography analysis upon an employee deman i c. Specimen Collection jg The Medical Facility and the medical staff were noted to be very  ?

professional and very unobtrusive to the employee being teste i Subversion would be difficult although the staff was more conscious of unintentional errors tha , intentional substitution. The chain of custody for samples, and storage areas at the facility appeared to be appropriat The inspectors concluded that the operation of the Medical Facility and the conduct of the MR0 and his staff were a strength of the licensee's FFD Progra '

d. Offsite Personnel Personnel who are randomly chosen for screening who for reasons of sick leave or pre-approved vacation are not available that day are returned to the plant population and become eligible for future random choic Personnel who happen to be at the Corporate Offices, or who are Corporate personnel, are screened at the Corporate collection facility the day they are randomly chosen. Contractors and vendors randomly chosen would be screened if available, however, their immediate availability for testing is not considered an issue since a break in service of 15 days results in automatic pre-access testing upon their return to the statio Reporting of Results The inspectors reviewed an April 19th telephone notification made in accordance with Part 26.73(a)(2)(IV)... "resulting in a determination of unfitness for scheduled work due to the consumption of alcohol..."

On March 30, 1990, an individual tested positive for alcohol abuse based upon a random test. This individual had arranged previously to work only half a day and upon reporting to work was notified that he had been randomly chosen for testing, in accordance with its Policy the licensee suspended the employee without pay for the remainder of

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

_ _ _ _ _ - _

.,,

.. A g ,

, .1 I

I ,

the day. It was not until a routine: Task Force meeting:on April 18 that the Manager, Nuclear Plant Technical Support, was informed by

the MR0 of the March 30 event. - The NRC was advised that there was internal disagreement about the employee being considered -a

" supervisor" as referred; to in ~10 CFR Part 26.73(a)(2). 'i he individual in question does not-perform any-nuclear safety related ciuties; the NRC was informed that this person supervises one clerk in administrative duties. .By letter dated April 25, the Nuclear Licensing Branch furnished guidance to the MRO relativeito- the reporting requirements of Part.26.73. Although this is a violation >

of 10 CFR Part 26.73(a)(2)(ii) Reporting recuirements, this licensce- ;

identified violation is not being cited >ecause the criteria-specified in Section V. G of the NRC Enforcement Policy. have been satisfied. (Non-cited Violation No.- 90-17-03.)-

During this inspection, an additional reporting- requirement- a deficiency was- noted.- In April 1990, three of the blind specimens - j submitted by the licensee to its contract laboratory were erroneously reported as negative. -The MRO notified the laboratory of the; errors, and by letters dated April' 24 and 26. -the laboratory responded citing ,I technical issues with the quality of the blind performance: specimen provide It was licensee s interpretation of the rule that false negatives were not reportable in that they did not qualify as - '

" unsatisfactory performance testing results"-(Part 26 Appendix A, Subpart B, Section 2.8(e)(4)). The licensee submitted the required-report to the NRC by -letter dated May 10, 1990 -l f. Audit Program j

The licensee has completed audits 'of- a limitedi scope (procedure !

reviews) of five major contractors. There were no adverse findings !

as a result of these reviews. While the-licensee does not extend its !

Employee Assistance Program to contractors and vendors, it does its !

own chemical testing program for both employees, contractors and -i vendor The licensee conducted a Quality Assurance Audit No. 90-01-FFDR from I January 22 to February 2,1990 at the Crystal' River Medical Facility, the Corporate Offices in St. Petersburg, Florida' and at the contract 3~

laborator The auditors concluded that, "...significant i improvements will be required to assure that the program effectively 1 meets the codes..." In addition to many procedural and contractual- i deficiencies, the audito'rs determined that . the present chemical !

testing program was not random'in that, permanent backshift personnel were not randomly tested. Additionally, the' auditors found that, with respect to the Rules reporting requirements, "...there was no reporting vehicle from the MR0 to the Nuclear Security Superintendent-nor a method for the MR0 and/or Human Resources Department to - "l determine if individuals are operators and/or supervisors..."

'

,

,

4 r ,-

e' ,

'*

8:

The-inspectors found the licensee's audit to be a timely and thorough effor This audit allowed for self-identification of several '

weaknesses in the licensee's FFD Program, and the correction of these weaknesses could be tracked-through-to their completion Appeals #

The licensee has; established - a written process for' licensee,

-

contractor and- vendor employees to appeal _a positive alcohol or drug-determination. Licensee bargaining unit employees = exercise - their

'

rights under a Memorandum of Agreement between the licensee and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).- The Office and Technical employees and ' exempt employees follow the. grievance rules contained in the Hun'an Resources Administratives Policies and Procedures Manua The Manager, -' Central / Northern Division, Human Resources Office, coordinates the contractor / vendor inquiries-_on appeals, however. it is the responsibility of- the contractor and vendors to administer their own appeals program j l Protection of Information i The inspectors found the licensee .to be protecting personnel = and -

medical information as required by this part of the Rule. Files containing testing data, as well as laboratory results, were secured in a locked four-drawer cabinet. The Medical Facility is locked q after hours; it is located on the first- floor of the Administration- '

Building, itself a secure facilit ! Exit Interview

!

On May 3,1990, the results of this inspection were summarized for those j persons indicated in paragraph 1 of this report. During a detailed -

'

discussion of this inspection, the licensee agreed that -- future '

" unsatisfactory performance testing results"- (paragraph 6,e)' would: be report.ed to the NR ,

The licensee voiced strong support of-its Employee  !,

Assistance Program, especially for self-referrals, and agreed that- it ,

would attempt to improve the employee's perception of that . program l (paragraph 4,g).

On July 10, 1990, the two Non-cited Violations documented earlier in this 1 report were discussed with the licensee, who took no exception to the l

' finding '

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _