IR 05000341/1987041

Insp Rept 50-341/87-41 on 870824-1228.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Inadequate Controls for Drug Test Urine Samples,Excessive Alcohol Use & Drug Use at Offsite Locations & Personnel Under Influence of Drugs or Alcohol

ML20195H798
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	01/12/1988
From:	Creed J, Mallett B, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195H772	List: IR 05000341/1987041 ML20195H771
References
50-341-87-41, NUDOCS 8801200353
Download: ML20195H798 (7)

Text

.

..

.3 Report No. 50-341/87041 (DRSS)

Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 Safeguards Group IV Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2200 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48226 -

Facility Name: Fermi 2 Atomic Power Plant Inspection at: NRC Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, IL Inspection Conducted: August 24 - December 28, 1987

.Date-of Previous Physical Security Inspection: October 5-8, 1987 Type'of Inspection: Special Allegation Review Inspector S MMo Gary L.9irtle Da te 3 %, \L \ &99

'

Physical Security Inspector Reviewed By ( % /2, /9 88 a es R. Creed, Chief ae U feguards Section Approved By: tw/[ /

Bruce S. Mallett, Ph.D., Chief Meye /A //[

/

Darte (/

Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on August 24 thro _ ugh December 28, 1987 (Report No. 50-341/87041 (DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Special inspection of allegations pertaining to Fitness for Duty issues. Four allegations were reviewed. They pertained to (1)

inadequate controls for drug test urine samples; (2) excessive alcohol use and drug use by employees at offsite locations; (3) personnel working while under the influence of drugs or alcohol; and (4) strong odor of marijuana at areas l within the plan '

Results: The allegations pertaining to inadequate controls for drug test urine samples and excessive use of alcohol and drugs at offsite locations were not substantiated. The allegation pertaining to strong odor of marijuana witnin the plant was determined to be a concern during plant construction, but was nct a current concern, The allegation pertaining to personnel working while under the influence of drugs was substantiated for personnel who had positive drug screening test resbits. The licensee's arctions for personnel with positive drug test results appear adequat PDR ADOCK 05000341 G PDR'

- , . . ._ -

n

. _ . ._

...

. DETAILS Key Persons Contacted:

R. Kelm, Director, Nuclear Security, Detroit Edison Company (DECO)'

• J. Korte, Supervisor, Security Plans and Programs (DECO)

The asterisk (*) denotes the management representative contacted during the telephone Exit Meeting conducted on December 28, 198 . Exit Meeting (MC 30703):

A telephone exit meeting with the management representative denoted in Section 1 above was held on December 28, 1987. The individual was advised that the NRC Region III staff had completed review of the licensee's Investigation Report, dated November 20, 1987, and that the investigation appeared to be adequate in scope and methodology. He was advised of the specific allegations and our conclusions as described in section 3 of the Report Details. The management representative was'also advised that_the inspection conclusions were subject to NRC Region III ,

management review and that the final inspection report would contain the

-

formal perspective of the inspection results. He was further advised that the inspection report would be placed in the NRC Public Do;ument '

Room. The management representative acknowledged the inspector's coments pertaining to the allegation review and conclusion . Investigation - Allegation Review:

The following information, provided in the fonn of allegations, was reviewed by the inspector as noted below: Background: (Closed) Allegation No. RIII-87-A-0116. On August 24, i TW7, public Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) ,

and 10 CFR 50.54(f) meetings were held at the Monroe Community College, Monroe, Michigan. After the meetings, four Fitness for

, Duty allegations regarding alcohol and drug abuse, and inadequate

,

controls for urinalysis testing were provided by members of the l public. The licensee's Director, Nuclear Security was present at the meeting when the concerns were raise The licensee's Director, Nuclear Security (DNS) was formally advised of the specific allegations by telephone on September 11, 1987. The

-

allegations were also addressed by letter, dated September 18,198,

wherein the licensee was requested to analyze the allegations, initiate an appropriate investigation, and advise NRC Region III of their review and disposition of the allegations within 30 days after receipt of the letter. On October 9, 1987, the licensee requested an extension for completion of the investigation until November 20, 198 A letter from the licensee, dated October 19, 1987, formalized the request for extension and NRC Region III's approval of the reques The licensee's Investigation Report, dated November 20, 1987, was received on November 24, 1987. The NRC Region III's staff review of the Investigation Report was completed on December 23, 1987 cnd the licensee was advised by telephone of the review results on December 28, 198 . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ . . - . - _ _ _ . . . . _ ,

.

.

b. The specific allegations, NRC Review Actions, and conclusions are addrersed below:

(1) Allegation: An individual can provide a "clean" urine sample for another individual during the urinalysis sample collection process. The term "clean" was believed to mean free of any prohibited substances. The implication was that persons who used prohibited drugs could nullify the urinalysis test process by obtaining and providing a "clean" sample rather than their own urine sampl NRC Review Actions: 1he staff's review of the licensee's Investigation Report, dated November 20, 1987, disclosed the fallowing information in reference to the allegatio The source of the information stated that the event allegedly occurred d out the time Detroit Edison began its initial drug testing program in March 1984. Between March 1984 and October 1986 testing was only done during preemployment or annual physical examination processing and the screening was done on an

"announced" basis. In October 1986, stricter procedures were implemented. The current testing program, in reference to urine sample collection and control, included the measures described below:

Upon arrival at the medical facility lobby, the subject is positively identified via identification card and the subject takes off outer garments and then is instructed to complete several forms to include a Drug Screen Request form, two (2)

specimen labels, and a Drug Screen Referral For Once the paperwork is completed the subject is escorted into the medical facility by trained medical personnel. The subject is then instructed to place the two specimen labels onto two empty plastic specimen containers. The subject is provided a disposable paper cup and escorted to a near by toilet area and told to fill the cup approximately half full with urin The rest rocm facility utilized has been modified so that toilet water is blued and all other water to the facility is shut off. The subject who has already removed coats or suit coats, is observed by Medical Department personnel to determine whether ur not the subject is carrying any items that could be used to alter or defeat the testing system, (i.e., items concealed between the legs or under arm areas or unexplained bulges on the subject's clothing). The person enters the toilet area, provides the specimen, then exits and returns to the processing area (immediately outside the toilet area doorway).

The specimen is then temperature tested. The specimen normally must test between 95 and 98 degrees Fahrenheit to be acceptabl a -. .. - -

-

.

.

The subject then divides the sample into equal amounts by pouring the urine into the two containers previously labele The subject is then instructed to place the screw type caps on each of the split sample containers. The medical personnel overseeing the testing process then provides an evidentiary seal made of a fragile paper film. The seal is placed over each of the container covers, and initialed by the subject and the medical personnel involved. The subject then places one of the specimen containers in the freezer and another in the refrigerato Samples are then forwarded to the-lab providing the testing servic Chain of custody documentation is maintained throughout the proces Conclusion: The licensee's controls' initiated in October 1986 for obtaining urine samples appear adequate to reasonably assure that urine samples collected are from the person being tested, and thus."clean" urine samples can not be surreptitiously provided by the person being tested. Prior to that time, controls were less stringent, but complied with the licensee's program requirement (2) Allegation: Fermi employees leave work and arrive at the bars

near the Fermi plant already under the influence of drugs or alcoho NRC Review Actions

The staff's review of the licensee's Investigation Report dated November 20, 1987, disclosed the following information in reference to the allegatio Licensee contact with the person that provided the initial concern resulted in two local bars near the Fermi 2 plant being identified as the locations where Fermi employees allegedly arrived already under the influence of drugs or alcohol and continued to drink beers. The incidents allegedly involved personnel from the midnight shift and personnel during the lunch hou During November 1987, the owner and two waitresses at one of the bars, and a bartender and a waitress at the other bar were interviewed by the licensee's investigative personnel. The drinking establishment employees acknowledged that Fermi employees periodically came into their bars either after work or during lunch hours. In each instance, the employees have been able to observe the Fermi personnel present during the period the employees were working. No Fermi employees were remembered being under the influence of alcohol or drugs upon arrival at the bars. The bartender at the bar most frequented for lunch stated that any noon lunches served to Femi personnel included soft drinks only. The bartender was aware of the licensee's policy of no drinking of alcoholic beverages during business hours, and stated that to the best of his knowledge, Fermi personnel abided by the polic >

F'

.

.

The licensee's Investigation Report stated tha? increased surveillances for possible prohibited offsite u.te of alcohol were also conducted in October and November 1987. One hundred fifty-nine such surveillances were performed. It was determined that 28 Fermi personnel in 39 separate instances were observed at the two bars during the surveillance period. In no instance were the employees on duty at the time they were observed in either of the two facilities. The personnel either did not work on the day they were observed in the bars, or they were present at the bars after completing their work shift. The surveillances also includo increased observations of personnel using access portals for entry into the proteuted area of the plant. No personnel under the influence of drugs or alcohol were detected entering or departing the access portal Security officers and licensee and contractor supervisors receive training on how to identify personnel under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Additionally, background investigations, continual behavioral observations, psychological testing, and medical testing for drug and alcohol abuse are implemented as required by the licensee's security plan and fitness for duty progra During the period September 2 to November 4, 1987, various local law enforcement personnel were contacted, to include the Sheriff, Monroe County Sheriff's Department; the Post Commander, Michigan State Police, Flat Rock, Michigan;~and, Criminal Investigative Unit, Officer in Charge of the drug suporession team in Southeastern Michigan. Each reported that their agencies had no current infonnation with regard to illegal drug use, possession, sales attributed to any Fermi employee. Each agency agreed to contact the licensee should any information be developed which would not compromise an investigation in progres Conclusion: No evidence or information was discovered during the licensee's investigation to confirm that Fenni 2 employees leave work and arrive at the bars near the Fermi plant already under the influence of drugs or alcoho (3) Alleaation: Individuals reported to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol and performed work under the influence of drugs or alcoho NRC Review Actions: The staff's review of the licensee's Investigation Report. dated November 20, 1987, and interviews with the Supervisor, Security Plans and Programs disclosed the following information in reference to the allegatio Seventy-four personnel have tested positive during drug screening

' tests between January 1,1986 and September 30, 1987 (21 month

! period). Sixty-six of the positive test results were detected during phy ical examination drug screening, and eight of the positive test results were detected by random drug tests. Ten of the 74 positive test results involved Detroit Edison company l

_ - ___ _____________

_

.

'

.

employees, and the remaining 64 positive test results involved other personnel. Of the 74 positive test results, 13 personnel were granted unescorted access to the plant. The remaining 61 positive test results were detected during the employment screening process or under other circumstances whereby the personnel had not been granted unescorted access to the plan Twenty-three Security Incident Reports pertaining to alcohol-related and drug-related incidents were prepared between January 1,1986 and September 30, 1987. Only 4 of the 23 reports have been pre ared since October 27, 1986 (date random drug testing was initiated .

Interviews conducted on December 23, 1987 with the Director, Nuclear Security (DNS) disclosed that personnel who have tested positive on drug screening tests have been interviewed by the security department. Personnel involved with safety-related systems or components are identified to the appropriate supervisor or manager to determine if the work performed by the individual requires review or other action. The licensee's review showed that one individual had done safety related work which had been re-reviewed and approved during the routine plant QA proces Conclusion: Detroit Edison and contractor personnel who have tested positive during drug screening may have worked while under the influence of drugs. The trend of positive test results has

'

been declining since 1986 when 41 positive test results were noted,

'

compared to 33 positive test results through September 30, 198 Additionally, the trend for alcohol and drug related Security Incident Reports has declined between January 1,1986 and September 30, 1987. All personnel who test positive for drug abuse l

> are interviewed, and identified to appropriate supervisors if the person is involved in safety-related work. There are no indications of inaclequate safety related work that could be attributed to alcohol or drug problem (4) Allegation: There are areas in the plant with a strong odor of marijuan NRC Review Actions: The staff's review of the licensee's Investigation Report, dated November 20, 1987, and interviews with the DNS disclosed the following information in reference to the allegatio Licensee contact with the individual that provided the information disclosed that the concern was not a current concern but pertained to the days of Fermi 2 plant constructio An interview with the DNS on January 8, 1988, showed that this allegation was not specific and that the person was providing second-hand, hearsay information. No specific information could be provided that could be reviewed. Due to the vagueness of the allegation, the exact method of handling specific cases during "construction days" could not be determine ,

m y }-

However, it is genert.lly known that several actions were taken to address problems including terminations, suspensions, dog searches, etc. The DNS (who was not at the plant during construction)

stated, that an extensive QA program reviewed safety related work and equipment, and no known outstanding safety issues were attributable to fitness for duty problem Conclusion: The allegation does not involve a current concern at the plant. The training provided to security force members and supervisors should provide an effective basis for detecting the odor of marijuana and deterring use of marijuana at the plan No safety related. issues at the plant have been attributed to drug or alcohol abus The NRC Region III staff has detennined that the licensee's investigation of the allegations was thorough, methodical, and of sufficient scope to resolve the issue Conclusions within the Investigative Report were supported by investigative findings.