IR 05000456/1991003

Insp Repts 50-456/91-03 & 50-457/91-03 on 910103-30.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Physical Security Insp Re Allegations of Fitness for Duty Concerns

ML20217B543
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	02/28/1991
From:	Christoffer G, Creed J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20217B519	List: IR 05000456/1991003 ML20217B513
References
50-456-91-03, 50-456-91-3, 50-457-91-03, 50-457-91-3, NUDOCS 9103120147
Download: ML20217B543 (8)

Text

. _ . -

.

.

U. S. IIVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION 111 Report Nos. 50-456/91003(DRSS); 50-457/91003(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 License llos. 14PF-72; itPF-77 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Opus West 111 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, IL 60515 Facility Name: Braidwood fluclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Commonwealth Edison Company,liuclear Corporate Office Region 111 Inspection Conducted: January 3 - 30, 1991 Inspector: / )!L NI .- b' -

,? O~

Datf51gned

/ D~ T ~DhristofTer ~7 Physical Security intpector Approved By: /Ibad) 0I98I9/

/

samei R. Creed,lliief

~

t Date Elgiied l hafeguardsSection t

inspection Summary Inspection on January 3 - 30 1991 n (Report Nos. 50-456/91003(DRSSh 3DI4577DIDDMDR55]T ~

Areas InsgctEdi~~5pecial, announced physical security inspection involving l

illeiitions'6I~ fitness-for-duty concerns relating to Braidwood Station.

'

Results: llo violations were identified that related to the CECO TTtness-for-duty program. The licensee was lacking in their interpretation of fiRC regulations relative to a technical aspect of the FFD progra however, the licensee was responsive to llRC's concern and corrected the problem in a timely manner.

.

9103120147 910303 PDR ADOCK 05000456-O PDR

_ , __

_ _

q ,

s  !

,

_ETAILS D K 1 persons _ Contacted The inspector interviewed the key members of the licensee's staff listed below. The asterisk (*) denotes those present at the Exit Interview

.

'

i conducted telephonically on February 4,199 .i Dr. Haley, Medical Review Officer, Comonwealth Edison Company (Ceco)

• G. Toleski, Fitness-for-Duty Program Administrator, CECO

.

' Entrance and Exit Interviews (lp 30703): At the beginning of the inspection, Mr. Toleski of the licensee's staff was informed of the purpose of this visit and the functional areas to be examine At the conclusion of the inspection activities, Mr. Toleski telephonically acknowledged the inspector's comments that the i allegations-were closed and no cited violations existed.

. .AllegationReview(AllejationRlll-90-A-0068): This allegation is considered closed.

' (Background, Alleger 1)

On June 27, 1990, an individual called the Chief, Safeguards Branch, NRR, in NRC's Headquarters. The_ Safeguards Branch has program development / oversight for reactor fitness-for-duty (FFD) j programs. The alleger provided concerns regarding alle mismanagement of the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)ged FFD and

,

drug testing program relative to Braidwood Station. On or about July 23 and August 2, 1990, the Chief, Safeguards Section, Region i

'111 received telephone calls from the alleger with additional information regarding the FFD concern Allegation No. 1:

The alleger stated that sometime between March 19 and July 31,

-

1990, the Commonwealth Edison Medical _ Review Officer (MRO) refused to retest the alleger's positive-urine sample after the alleger requested the retes Review Action Taken: The initial screening test of the alleger's sample was conducteB on. March 7, 1990, at the Braidwood Station collection-facility. This test is- %unoassay screen for drugs or drug metaWites intended to elimete negative urine specimens from further consideration. The results of this test indicated

,

a presumptive positive for marijuana. In accordance with their 1- program, the specimen was then shipped to Bio-Analytical Technologies, a laboratory certified by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), for a confirmatory test. The test method .used was the gas chromatography / mass spectrometry (GCMS)

_ ._..u. _ _ _ _ _ ._ ._ _ _. __

l

.

l

.

te detect levels of the metabolites of the drugs identified in -l 10 CFR 26 Appendix A Subpart B, Section 2.7.(f)(2). The specimen l was received by the lab on March 8, 1990, and the test results i were completed on March 14, 1990. . The detected levels of the

- metabolite carboxy THC (marijuano) oxceeded the regulatory confirmatory test cut-off level During the intervening time period, the licensee cocounicated to the alleger via letters and tt:ephone conversations, matters such as test results, denial of access, right to appeal, etc. The alleger

. subsequently cocaunicated his disagreement with the test results and filed an appeal which was reviewed and denied. The alleger also completed a "get well" program and was notified he was eligible for retest. .He never requested a retest during that proces . On July. 25,-1990, the individual telephonically contacted the MRO to discuss the test results. According to the MR0, it was during that conversation that the alleger " mentioned the possibility" of i retesting the original specimen, but did not explicitly requed a )

retes On July 31, 1990, the individual met with the MRO to review and discuss the results of the testing. At the meeting, the individual i specifically requested a reanalysis of the original specimen by a second approved laboratory. The MRO, who has an extensive background with drug testing, determined, after a review of all laboratory 3 information, that there was no scientific reason to conduct a reanalysis. The MR0 conferred with the director of Bio-Analytical Laboratories who also determined that there was no scientific reason to conduct a' reanalysis. The MRO informed both.the individual and the Fitness for Duty Program Administrator (FFDPA)

of those determination Nevertheless, since the individual had made the request, the MRO authorized the FFDPA to proceed in taking the-appropriate' actions to get the original sample retested. The FFDPA then instructed the individual that a written request for a retest must be received by the licensee within five days. Additionally, the charge required for-the retest was $8 ~

On or about August 1, 1991, after being contacted by the alleger, representatives of NRC Region 111 Safeguards Section, contacted the g FFDPA to determine CECos policy for charging for retesting. The licensee was advised that 10 CFR 26, Appendix A, Section 2.9(e),

requires that should any question arise as to the accuracy or validity of a positive test result. -the MR0 shall authorize a reanalysis of the original sample, at laboratories certified by

- DHH The cost cf the retest should not be a limiting factor for a retes After this discussion and a review of 10 CFR Part 26,

- the licensee decided to order the reanalysis at no cost to the ind iv _idua l . The FFDPA ordered the reanalysis without receiving any formal request from the individual. The individual was notified by letter dated August 1, 1990, that a retest was ordered at no cos . . - - -,c,.- _ . - . _ . - - .- _ - . ~ . - . - . - ~ - . - . _ . - - ..

- ..____ .m. ._.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _._ _ _ _

.

i

.

5 The sample (part the specimen originally collected on March 7, 1990) for reanalysis was received at Pharmchem Laboratories, Inc.,

a second NIDA certified laboratory on August 8,1990, and the results were certified on August 9, 1990, as detection of a marijuana metabolite. Additionally, the lab (Bio-Analytical Technologies)

that conducted the first confirmatory test with the GCMS, conducted another GCMS analysis of the sample. The results, completed on August 7, 1990, confirmed earlier results. The individual was sent

>

a letter dated August 10, 1990, with the results of the reanalysis conducted by the second HIDA certified laboratory.

. Conclusion

!

The MR0 did not agree, far scientific reasons that the original sample should be reanalyze However, the MRO authorized a reanalysis after the individual verbally requested it on July 31, 1990, on the condition that payment be made by the individua This condition was retracted the next day, after discussions between NRC, Rtgion 111 and the licensee, and the retest was done at no cost to the individual. The licensee has revised their FFD policy and reanalyses are now conducted at no cost to the individuals.

L The alhgation was partially substantiated in that the licensee had imposed inappropriate monetary conditions on the retesting, inasmuch as this matter has been corrected by the licensee, i Alleoation No. 2:

The urine sample erroneously tested positive for marijuana because the individual was taking other prescribed drug Review Action Taken: The documented results of the individual's TiiltTiil jiranunoassay screening test showed a detected level of a marijuana metabolite. The presumptive positive specimen was then sent to Bio-Analytical Technologies Laboratories and received on March 8,1990, for confirmatory testing. The process used for this test was a gas chromatography / mass spectrorcatry (GCMS) analysi Tho confirmatory GCMS test results detected a level of a metabolite of marijuana. NUREG/CR-5227, " Fitness for Duty it: the Nuclear power Industry: A Review of Technical Issues," states that immunoassay screening procedures may produce false positive results when certain other substances are in the urine. Additionelly, it further states that confirmatory testing eliminates the possibility of a false positive resulting from a cross-reacting drug detected during initial screening. The specimen was sent to a different DHHS approved laboratory in August 1990, and the results of the GCMS revealed a level of marijuana metabolite. Bio-Analytical Laboratory conducted the third'GCMS in~ August 1990, and the results again revealed a level of a marijuana metabolit According to the MRO, his medical judgement was that the medications that the individuel was taking would not indicate a positive for a marijuana metabolite on the GCMS analysi i

,- n.- ~~ ---a w-n-, - - ,n. , - , ,,------=we~---n.--,,-,--. ---- --,,,,e-s-----,,r,,n_-----.-,,,,-,, -

ann...-,ae n,, - , , , , - --

l

.

Conclusion-The licensee conducted one immunoassay and three GCMS tests on the urine sample. The results of all the tests were positive for marijuana. The sample was not erroneously evaluate This allegation is not substantiate A11eaation No. 3:

The MRO made a confirmed positive drug test determination on or about liarch 15, 1990, four days before the MRO spoke to the individua Review Action Taken: The MRO received the confirmatory test results UT~the individuaTTrom Dio-Analytical Technologies on March 15, 1990. On the same day, the MR0 informed the FFDPA that.the individual needed to contact the MRO. The FFDPA then telephonically contacted the Ceco Engineering and Construction (, ENC) FFD Coordinator. As a result, the ENC FFD Coordinator telephonicall contacted the site superintendent of the individual's company. We found no information. substantiating whether or not.the individual was actually contacted on March 15, 1990. The site superintendent and the individual's foreman no longer work for the company and could not be located. When the individual did not contact the MRO prior to close of business on March 16,1990 (Friday), the MR0 informed the FFDPA that in the absence of the requested contact, a confirmed positive test result was being verified. A representative of the FFDPA staff then telephonically notified the Draidwood Station Assistant Security Administrator to deny site access for the individual. The individual learned of the denied site access and was informed to contact the MRO, on March 16, 1990, after the

- MR0's normal working hours. The individual contacted the MR0 during the next normal business day, March 19, 199 The MRO made a positive drug test determination before speaking to the individual for several reasons. -The MR0 wanted to stay within the regulatory requirements of (10 CFR Part 26.24(e)) completing the review of test results and notifying licensee management within 10 days of the initial presumptive positive screening tes Additionally, since the individual did not respond before close of

. business on that Friday, the MRO took 'a conservative approach and made the positive test result determination. The MR0 felt that it was prudent to make the determination rather than waiting and allowing the individual to have site access for a few more days because in his medical Judgement, the individual hadLused drug Conclusinn:

This item is substantiated in that the MR0 made a positive drug test determination before speaking to the individual. The MR0's action was acceptable in that his actions were an attempt to meet a FFD program objectiv _ . - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . .

,

.

A B gation No. 4:

On March 24, 1990, the individual was informed of a positive test result upon receipt of two letters dated March 13 and 16, 199 The letters were not received in tine to call the MR Review Actions Taken: Accordina to interviev,s with the FFDPA and FI R o Tetter TTetter s1) dated'tiarch 13, 1990, (per licensee - I this March 13, 1990 date is a typo aad should have been dated 1 March 15,1990) the individual's employer was notified on March 15, i 1990, that the individual was to contact the MR The letter was not intended to be the primary means of notifying the individual of fitness for duty test result It was used as a means of documenting the notificatio The licensee sent two 12tters dated March 13 and 16 (letter #2), l 1990, initially to an out of state address provided by the individual's employer. Letter il irformed the individual to ccntact the MR0 and letter #2 informed the indivloual that unescorted access to Ceco nuclear stations was denied. The two letters were resent to a local address on March 21, 1990, after the licensee was informed of the new addres The individual first contacted the MRO on March 19, 1990. This was discussed in Allegation No. 3. The individual was inforroed during that telephone conversation with the MRO of the FFC positive ter o result Conclusion:

The allegation was substantiated in that the written notificatiens that a positive test result determination had been made regard'ng the urine sample were not received by the individual until af t er March 21, 199 However, the licensee's actions were found to be acceptable in that the licensee did attempt to provide the individual with written notification in a tinely manne Allegation flo. 5:

The licensee required payment for a retest of the original sample before it would be ordere Review Action Taken: Information derived from an interview with the FTWA anTletter dated August 1,1990, to the indivicual, indicated that on July 31, 1990, the individual was informed that the licensee had to be paid $85 before the reanalysis by a second laboratory of the original sample would be ordered. On or about August 1, 1991, af ter being contacted by the alleger, representatives of flRC Region Ill Safeguards Section, contacted the FFDPA to determine CECO's policy for charging for reanalysis. The licensee was advised that 10 CFR 26, Apper. dix A, Section 2.9(e), indicates that should any questions arise as to the accuracy or validity of a positive test result, the MRO shall authorize a reanalysis of the original sample, at laboratories cerLified by DHHS. The cost of the retest should i C

,

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

.- _ -. . . _ - - -

.

.

.- l l

not be a factor as to when the reanalysis will be given. The I licensee did not have a clear understending of the regulation l regarding the reanalysis process. After this discussion and a j review of 10 CFR Part 26, the licensee decided to order the ,

reanalysis at no cost to the individua The FFDpA ordered the I reanalysis without receiving any fornal request from the individual. The individual was notified by letter dated August 1, 1990, that a retest was ordered at no cost to the individua )

Conclusion: j It was substantiated that the licensee requested payment for a retest of the original sample before it would be ordered. As reted in the conclusion to Allegation No. I above, the licensee has corrected this program deficienc . (Bac' ground, Alleger 2)

Regio,111 received a letter dated July 12, 1990, from another alleger regarding FFD concerns relative to Braidwood Statio Allegation No. 6:

The test result of 16.4 ng/ml for marijuana may have erroneously been called positive because the cut off level is 20.ng/m Review Action Taken:

The individual provided a urine sanple on March 5, 199 On March 6,1990, the sample was received by Bio-Analytical Technologies. The GCMS was conducted and completed on March 12, 1990. The confirmator ng/ml of carboxy-THC (y test results a marijuana indicatedThe metabolite). a level licensee of 16.40 is consistent with the confirmatory test cut off level of 15 ng/ml for a marijuana metabrlite as indicated in 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A, Subpart B.2.7(f)(2).

Conclusion:

This allegation was not substantiated. The test result for marijuana was not erroneously called positive. The individual's confirmatory test results indicated a level of a marijuana

. metabolite higher than acceptable by the licensee and regulatory limit Allegation No. 7:

Sometime after March 19, 1990, the alleger requested a retest of the urine sample but was denied by the MR0.

I

'

Review Action laken: The MRO was telephonically contacted by the indivRilal on MarcF15 and 19,1990. An interview with the MR0 and

' a review of FFD documents, which included the MRO's detailed case history notes, indicated that the individual was concerned about the o

l-

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

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

.

.

test results and requested that written notification of the test results be sent to a specified address. There was no indication that the individual requested a reunalysis, Congusion:

This ellegation could not be substantiated. There was no infortnation developed during the insptction to substantiate that the alleger request (d a reanalysis of the urine sample. As noted iri Allegation No. I above, the licensee had agreed to retesting another individubl's sample in this same time f rente, although an ineppropriate enor.etary condition was it; posed. The inappropriate condition has since been retracted by the lictnse .

8

. . . . _ _ _ _