IR 05000321/1992031

Insp Repts 50-321/92-31 & 50-366/92-31 on 921103-05.No Violations or Deviations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Fitness for Duty Program,Specifically Chemical Testing,Procedures, Repts & Audits

ML20126D936
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	12/01/1992
From:	Mcguire D, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20126D927	List: IR 05000321/1992031 ML20126D924
References
50-321-92-31, 50-366-92-31, NUDOCS 9212280236
Download: ML20126D936 (4)

Text

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.

p UNIT (D ST Af tS

1. 0 M %s,'o NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMisslON y*,7

<

"$ HEGION u

_g W MAH4TT A STHE ET,N *, %, y AR ANT A, GEOHGI A 30m h

.....

[

Report Nos.: 50-321/92-31 and 50-366/92-31 Licensee: Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 1295 Birmingham, AL 35201 Docket Nos.: 50 321 and 50-366 License Nos.: DPR-57 and NPF-5 Facility Name: liatch 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: November 3-5, 1992 Inspector:

W. J. T[obfii,I M /Ci1[ bet [ ~

      /> 'C/ -f r Senior SafdsuT vs lnspector l ate Signed 1_

3 % jl fj SA Approved by:b. R. IfcGuire, Chief to signed Safeguards Section Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY Scope: This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of the Fitness For Duty Program, specifically; Chemical Testing, Procedures, Reports and - Audit Results: In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identifie The licensee continues to have an effective Fitness For Duty Program which meets or exceeds 10 CFR Part 26. Chemical testing is random, professionally accomplished, and assures confidentiality of the results. Procedures and reports are adequate and current. Both the Site and Corporate Quality Assurance Audits are thorough and well documente {DR ADDCK 05000321 PDR __

 ..
 .
-. ,
,

REPORT DETAILS r Persons Contacted Licensee Employees J. Austin, Random Donor

 *P. Bizjak, Corporate Supervisor
 *K. Dyar, Auditor
 *T. Ellis, fitness for Duty Coordinator
 *A. Fraser, Audit Supervisor
 *S. New, fitness for Duty Clerk    ._
 *D. Road, Plant Manager, Administration L. Summer, Plant Manager
 *S. Tipps, Nuclear Licensing Manager E. Wright, Random Donor Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.-

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L. Wert, Senior Resident inspector

 * Attended exit interview Fitness for Duty Program Chemical Testing The inspector reviewed the records relative to the time of the day -

and days of the week-when random drug testing took place. No " safe havens" of shifts or departments could be identified. _ Testing occurred on Christmas, New Years, and Thanksgiving days in late , 1991, as well as on weekend Since January 1 until November 4, 1992, repeat testing has been as follows; Once 653' individuals - 653 Twice 237 individuals - 474 Three times 57 individuals = 171 Four times 20 individuals - 80 Five times 1 individual - 5 1383 Total Random Tests The inspector witnessed several random tests being. administered, reviewed-the presumptive testing techniques, and audited the chain of. custody. Two weaknesses. referred to in the prior inspection of the licensee's Fitress For Duty (FFD) Program (Report No. 91-29) regarding the prctection of the random donor list,-and the blind specimens being identified to the custodian have been correcte ._ . . . . . . .

_ ._ ___._._______ -_.__._ _ _ _ _ . . ._ -. _ . _ . _ _ _ __ _

 '

a t

. * .
.

2 4

 '

The inspector randomly reviewed training, qualification, and certification files of the registered nurses, technicians, and testing specialist involved in the program, and found all records acceptable. The licensee uses its corporate security staff to test < those employees who administer the FFD Program and who have been randomly chosen for drug tests. The licensee has identified family , members at the site who are related to those responsible for  ! administering the program. Procedures are in effect to preclude relatives from testing family. Additionally, contractors who collect specimens are precluded from being tested / collected by their employer, i.e. employees of the Woods Technical Services Inc. are not tested nor collected by the registered nurse who is the owner'of this compan . Chemical testing, as reviewed, meet regulatory requirement There were no violations of regulatory requirements noted in this are t Procedures The inspector reviewed Administrative Procedure 10 AC-MGR 014-05 titled " Fitness for Duty Program," Revision 4, dated August 15, 199 This 20 page document details the licensee's FFD Program and specifies duties and responsibilities for all participant This procedure implements the Corporate Guideline (No. 720 001) titled

  " Fitness for Duty," dated October 30, 1992. The inspector noted that the corporate procedure uses the term " Return to Work" as one of the kinds of drug screens that it performs, however this kind of       a test is not defined in the procedure; all the other types of drug screens are, for example, " Random" or "For Cause." The licensee        ,

explained that a " Return to Work" is not a " Follow-up" test. . A

  " Return to Work" is a witnessed drug test performed after successful completion of rehabilitation, and is not part of the 36 month follow-up testing required by the Rule. The licensee will define
  " Return to Work" drug tests which are not defined in NRC's Part 2 The inspector randomly reviewed the 18' site FFD procedures to~

include; SHFFD013 " Medical / Psychological Evaluation of Employees following Confirmed Positive Drug Screens," dated June 29, 1992, and - SHFF0005 " Medical Review Officer," dated July 15, 199 Procedures reviewed during the inspection effectively implemented the progra There were no violations of regulatory requirements noted in this area, Reports-The inspector reviewed the four FFD events which were reported by-the licensec via the " red-phone;" on May 15, 1990 (Foreman, positive

             :

A.._._u.,_.- -..2,,_,. , . _ . , _ . _ . . , . _ _ _ . . _ = . _ , , . . . , _ _ . . , - - _ _ , _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - - - , _ - _ , . _ . . . - . , ~ _ - . . . - ,

 .
 *
.
< * .
          ,

l

          :

  '        '

alcohol test); on December 18, 1990 (Supervisor, positive alcohol test); on August 4, 1992 (Supervisor, positive alcohol test); and on September 23, 1992 (Supervisor, positive alcohol test). All red-

   - phone events were made the same day as the event. .The inspector reviewed Administration Procedure No. AC-REG 001-05 titled " Federal and State Reporting Requirements," Revision 2, dated August 8, 199 '

The inspector also reviewed the latest six month FFD Report for January - June 1992 Performance Dat All appropriate data has been furnished by the license There were no violations of regulatory requirements noted in this area, Audits

          .

The licensee's Safety Audit and Engineering Review (SAER) Board performed Audit No. 92-FFD-1 from April 20 - May 4, 1992, by one auditor. The results of this audit have been furnished to the appropriate site and corporate management levels. One Audit Finding Report (AFR) was identified relative to the confidential identification of those infrequent visitors who have been randomly chosen for drug testing. The licensee was placing these visitor's access badges "on hold" at the Security Building such that the-badges were noticeable to anyone accessing through the are Corrective actions were taken, inspected, and closed out by documentation dated August 1 A Corporate Audit of the Safety and Health Department was performed April 6-7, 1992, by four auditors. No AFRs were identified. Three

    " comments for further evaluation" were identified. The auditors found the FF0 program to be effective at protecting personal information, insuring confidentiality, the staff was well qualified'

and professional, potential non-compliance were minimized, and the program effectively implemente These two audits were thorough and exhaustiv There were no violations of regulatory requirements noted in this are l Exit Interview

  - The inspection scope and results were summarized on November 5, 1992, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1. The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspectiot. results. The Fitness-for Duty Program-is effective:and well implementted and has-several strong points specifically, random _ testing, medical staff, audits and procedures. Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.

. l

          -
,
'
,_._.-- ,.,y., ao9,a., g.,y.-p -
   ..,.,.,,,...w.7-., ,, ., -.p-v.,,,..w. ,pcmm,wyj - ,,y-.-__# 9 , . - s.-

}}