IR 05000461/1986056
| ML20203P136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton, 07002947  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1986 |
| From: | Creed J, Drouin B, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203P135 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-461-86-56, 70-2947-86-02, 70-2947-86-2, NUDOCS 8610200294 | |
| Download: ML20203P136 (4) | |
Text
.
.
.
~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Report No. 50-461/86056(DRSS)
Docket No. 50-461.
License No. CPPR-137 Docket No. 70-2947 License'No. SNM-1886 Licensee:
Illinois Power Company 500 South 27th Street Decatur, IL 62525 Inspection At:
Clinton Power Station, Clinton, IL Inspection Conducted: August 11-14, 1986; August 25 through September 5, and September 17, 1986 on site.
August 18-22 and September 8-11, 1986 at the Region III office Date of Previous Physical Protection Inspection:
June 24 through August 6, 1986 Type of Inspection:
.
unced Preoperational Physical Protection Inspection Inspectors:
.h
~
/C s/4%lo
B. Dr6uin t
Date /
'
Physical Security Inspector 4cd
/clg/g6 kGn. PWtle Dater
'
Physicat Security Inspector.
Approved By:
/0 N
)'./ 1.. Creed, Chief Date
$4feguards Section Inspection Summary Inspection on August 11 through September 17, 1986 (Report No. 50-461/86056(DRSS)):
Concluded the review of the licensee's actions and progress for implementation of the security program.
Inspection emphasis included:
review of licensee's actions to correct or resolve security findings; completion of routine preoperational inspection objectives; and observation and evaluation of security force performance.
The inspection was conducted by two NRC inspectors and an onsite evaluation was conducted by the Chief, Safeguards Section on August 27-29, 1986.
Enclosure contains 8610200294 861008 SAFEGUARDS INFORMATIOK PDR ADOCK 0500
~ pon separation this '
U G
p:ge is Decontrolled -
..
-
.
,.
.
Results: The' security program was. considered to be adequate to support' fuel
,
load.
Sixteen previous security inspection findings were closed during this inspection.
One new finding pertaining to inactivation of security badges for personnel who have not completed the required security screening program, and changing security related locks and keys was identified during this inspection effort. The need to complete two modifications to improve security computer system reliability was discussed with senior management.
Additionally, a violation was identified for inadequate access control within a designated security area.
Finally, the licensee's actions in reference to a drug use allegation were reviewed and determined to be adequate (results addressed in the Appendix to this report).
(Details:
UNCLASSIFIED, Appendix pertaining to alleged drug use is NON ).
Euclosure contains SisFEGUARDS INFORMATION
Upon separation this p:-ga is Decontrolled
- - -
-
-
--
-
.. -
....
.
..
~
v
.
.
APPENDIX Review of Alleged Contractor Drug Involvement
At Clinton Station
. ' ALLEGATION FOLLOWUP (No. RIII-86-A-0088)
a.
BACKGROUND 1 ALLEGATION:
On May 13, 1986, an anonymous caller contacted the NRC Region III office with an allegation that:
~
-A U.S. Testing Company employee at Clinton Power Station had been fired after testing positive for illicit drug use.
It was further alleged that
- -
certain U.S. Testing Company personnel emp.loyed at'Clinton Power Station i
had switched urine samples during their drug screening.
[
Region III forwarded the allegation to the licensee for their action in a July 10, 1986 letter. -The final resolution of the allegation _would be j
based on s satisfactory review of the licensee's actions by Region-III.
The licensee,.in a July 23, 1986 letter, responded that no'U.S. Testing Company personnel had ever been terminated'due to a positive urine test.
Licensee records indicated that no U.S. Testing personnel had ever tested
,!
positive for illicit drug use.
The licensee further responded that the switching of urine samples could
'
not be substantiated.
The licensee concluded that the allegation was not valid, although steps were initiated to strengthen the control of test
j samples.
A similar issue was addressed in Section 6.d of Inspection Report
'No. 50-461/86037(DRP).
b.
NRC Review l
The inspector determined through interviews and record reviews conducted-
~
on August 12-13, 1986, that no U.S. Testing personnel had ever been terminated due to illicit drug use as indicated by a positive urine
-
test.
However, two U.S. Testing personnel did recebe positive results
,
on an August 9, 1985 test. One employee was taking medically prescribed i
drugs.
The other employee was retested-(new sample) on August 12,.1985
[
in a confirmatory test and received negative results.-
i i
It should be noted that Illinois Power Company's Nuclear Planning and l
Support Department Procedure (NP&S) 1.16, Fitness For Duty, did not-become effective until October 15, 1985.
NPS 1.16 requires that a i
confirmatory test be based on the original sample, i.e., the employee
!
provides enough specimen for two samples, one for screening test and one for a confirmatory' test, if necessary.
i I
l l
-
.r.-
..,,. -,,
_-,.,._,._,__r.-._,,
~_.___,,,_,,_-_,-___,__.m-..._,__,..r._,.,-.,m_
.. _ _,, _ _ _. - _ _ ~
_ _,,,, -
_
_
F.
.
.
The switching of urine samples portion of the allegation could not be disproved.
The U.S. Testing employees tested on August 9, 1985 were instructed by their supervisor at 2:00 p.m. to report to the Medical Program's (MP) office by 4:00 p.m. and to provide a urine sample.
Upon arrival at the MP office, the employees were given a sample container and instructed to provide a sample in the bathroom.
The employees were not controlled from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and they were not visually observed while they provided the sample.
In the 30 minute to 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> period following their initial notification, any of the employees could have obtained a urine sample from a co-worker and substituted the co-worker's sample for their own, behind the closed bathroom door, although there was no indication that they did.
A review of NP&S 1.16 and inspector interviews showed that certain procedural safeguards have been implemented to maintain the integrity of random urinalysis tests.
The most critical factor involves the no-notice natification of the employee to be tested.
The randomly selected employee is notified by an MP staff member and immediately escorted to the MP office where the sample is taken.
Certain practices have been implemented by MP to reduce the possibility of sample tampering by the selected employee, i.e, temperature test, specific gravity test, unavailability of water in the washroom.
However, these practices cannot prevent the sample from being switched because there is no direct observation of sample taking.
It is therefore imperative that no-notice tests be conducted to ensure the integrity of the random urinalysis i
program.
The licensee's Fitness-For-Duty allegation process, as detailed in Attachment 1 of NP&S 1~.16, may allow the individual,'who is alleged to have illicit drug involvement, to switch urine samples if the individual's movements are not controlled after notification.
The' integrity of urine testing should be maintained to ensure that future drug allegations are adequately addressed.
c.
Conclusion No U.S. Testing Company employee was terminated due to illicit drug use as determined by a positive urine test.
It can be neither proved nor disproved that urine samples were switched.
The licensee must strictly adhere to no-notice and controlled drug testing to insure the integrity of the Fitness For Duty Program.
-_
.
._ -
.
- _-.
-- - _ - -
,
.-_- __-
.
-
. -
.