ML20059A204

Forwards First Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept from 900103- 0630.Util Pleased W/Program,However,Concerned About Incorrect Test Results for Blind Performance Specimens Received from Roche Labs

ML20059A204
Person / Time
Site:	Summer
Issue date:	08/16/1990
From:	Bradham O SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9008220162
Download: ML20059A204 (7)

Text

,

', n,a - . '. d> f.'

i

'h South Caroline Electric & Gas Company otil+ S. Brodham m : .. P,0. Box 88 Vko PrColdent

.& c U '

Jenkinsville. SC 29065 Nuclear Operations (803) 345-4040 l;!

lH -_;: *y" SCE&G u

g' -,

Dl:.

August 16, 1990 -I Si$ \

U:[

. -Document' Control Desk I U. S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 f

Subject:

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station ,

Docket No. 50/395 l 4 Operating License No. NPF-12 I w fitness for Duty - Semiannual Report g Gentleent As required by 10CFR26.71(d), attached is the first semiannual Fitness for

, LDuty Report. This report, which contains data for the period from January 3, 1990, to June 30, 1990, includes the required test results and data analyses, a list of events reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,~and a summary' a 2'

of management actions taken as a result of the testing.

'Should you have any questions, please call at your convenience.

Very truly yours, t g" to s#

0. S. Bradham ,

-EWR/0SB:db' 1

1 Attachment >>

c:- 0. W. Dixon, Jr./T. C. Nichols, Jr. J. B. Knotts, Jr. 1 g> E. C. Roberts G. F. Gibson R. V. Tanner D. L. Arthur a S. D. Ebneter W. H. Johnson J. J. Hayes, Jr. E. W. Rumfelt (

General Managers R. E. Enkeboll C. A. Price NSRC R. J. Waselus NPCF K. E. Nodland RTS (SA-100)

, J. C. Snelson File (811.02-50.019)

NRC Resident Inspector -

(108Ch 9008220162 900915 PDR ADOCK 05000395 R PDC ggg i; m p , ///

e. (

5

.? 1 - 'e . j Fitness for Duty. Program '

Performance Data Personnel Subject to 10CFR26 s

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company June 30,1990

(.mp.ny 6 M.mths tnding V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jenkinwille, SC to. .

G. F. Gibson/D. L Arthur (803)345-4520/345-4272 i o

c.at.o n en.a.cao i.e.i t.

L Cutoffs: Screen / Confirmation (ng/ml) O Appendix Ato10CFR26 t-1 Marijuana 50/10 Amphetamines 1000/500 serbiturates 200/200

. Cocaine 300/150 Phencyclidine 25/25 senrodlarenines 300/300 y opiates 300/300 Alcohol (% SAC) .04 Methaavalone 750/200 f

Long Term . Short Term.

i; Testing Results Contractor Contractor -!

y Licensee Employees Personnel Personnel Average Number with '; mQ' d"M @

1 Unescorted Access. 769 349 293 l- _

l! g p Referred Access y p p p l i Categories Tested Positive to EAP Restored Tested Positive Tested Positive Pre employment g qy ' QQGM 121 1 m . a PHe 14 0 4 0-l' Pre-badging 42 1 s f['> [c u s , e[lE 59 0 1179 18 >

3x <

"3

" ' ' ',M is Periodic 0 0 T#l ' '

'O O O O

<m .

,m Forcause 0 0 W@. >

/" 0~ 0 2 0  !

sW> m ,s Post accident - 4 0 O'<> ,%,. 0 0 0 0-

.,>  ; W6 Random 498 0 k%Mr *%  % 207 0' 112 2 h

Tsem@@',{" , . 4. ,

"ollov..up 0 0 s[ 0 0 0 0

. <s ,

eq.s _ m Other 1 0 t" AMtH 1 W'i 4 0 0 0

,, Total 666 2 0 0 284 0 1297 20

~

~

. Random Testing Program Results .

Individuals Tested 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 .~

1. Positive

1. Tested 2 817

% Positive .24%

i Graph of 5 ,

% Positive 4 3

2 ,

i e I

'l .t

.I Confirmed Positive Tests for Specific Substances Marijuana 7 Cocaine 10 Opiates 0 Amphetamines 0 Phencyclidine 0  !

Alcohol 5 i

Barbiturates ' 2 i

Benzodiazepines ~2 i Methaqualone 'O l

l I

l.--_.__ _ __ _ _ - _

.- . -_ _ - _ ~ . .. .. .. . . . - -

w: ,.

(1' N

4

~E Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station fitness for Duty Summary

+

yI 10CFR26.71(d) Requirements y

for x January 3, 1990 - June 30, 1990 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Positive 'est Results - There were a total of 22 positive test results during this reporting period. These results and the subsequent management actions can be categorized as follows:

A. Fifteen positive results for drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol were received on pre-badging tests, in all fifteen cases, unescorted '

access authorization was denied following confirmation of results. In accordance with SCE&G policy, these individuals will not be allowed to apply for unescorted access authorization in the future. Notifications of [

the positive results were made to the appropriate management personnel of .

the companies employing the affected persons. l B. Four positive test results for alcohol only were received on pre-badging tests. In two cases the individuals were allowed to: retest after counseling since they were not currently working in the protected area and

-had not been exposed to fitness for Duty Training. These individuals both tested negative on the second test and were eventually granted unescorted access. In another case, the individual was disqualified for unescurted access due to medical problems prior to retest. The other case involved an individual who could not produce a urine sample at the time and never returned. This individual was denied unescorted access. Notifications were made to the appropriate management personnel of the companies employing the affected persons.

V C. One positive test result for drugs was received on~a pre-employment test.

The individual was denied. unescorted access authorization and will not be i allowed to apply for unescorted access in the future.

D. Two positive test results for drugs were received on random tests. Both of these. individuals had their unescorted access authorization revoked upon confirmation and will not be allowed to. apply for unescorted access in the l future. One individual resigned from his company just prior to  :

confirmation. In both cases notification of the positive test results l; were made to the appropriate management personnel of the companies l employing the affected persons.

1 i In three of the positive cases ahere the individuals denied taking the substance, the Medical Review Officer directed the split sample to be Ll l submitted to.the back Lp laboratcry for gas chromatography / mass spectrometry analysis. The back up laboratory confirmed the findings of Roche Laboratories.

h

b y' \ -

T In one case, an individual requested that a blood sample be taken following a positive breath analysis. The gas chromatography analysis of the blood -

specimen confirmed the positive breath analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS A. Additional Substances / Lower Cut-Off Levels.

1. Testing for Additional Substances. ,

'The additional substances tested for by SCE&G resulted in three confirmed positive tests. There was one positive test for barbiturates, one for benzodiazepines, and one for a combination of ,

barbiturates and benzodiazepines, in all three instances, the '

individuals did not have a valid prescription for the substances '

detected.

Approximately fourteen percent.of the confirmed positive tests for specific substances were the result of SCE&G's testing for additional substances (barbituratesandbenzodiazepines). As such, SCE&G will continue to test for these substances. Even though testing for the additional substance methaqualone did not produce any confirmed positives, SCE&G believes that it is prudent to continue testing for' use of methaqualone.

2. Lower Cutoff Levels, s .

SCE&G's fitness for Duty Program has a more stringent confirmatory cutoff level for cannabis than is required by 10CFR26. Even though this lower cutoff level did not result in any additional confirmed positives, SCE&G continues to believe that testing at the more sensitive level will aid in the detection of " casual" abuse of the drug.

B. Blind Performance Testing.

During the first 90 days of the Station's Fitness for Duty Program, there were 1502 genuine samples and 605 blind performance' test samples submitted to our primary testing laboratory. The number of blind performance samples submitted was 21% higher than the maximum of 500 blind samples required by 10CFR26 Appendix A. The percentage of positive and negative blind samples submitted was 19.83% and 80.17%, respectively.

In the second quarter of 1990, there were 751 genuine samples and 100  !

blind samples submitted to our primary testing laboratory. The number of blind performance samples submitted is equivalent to the 13.32% of the genuine samples submitted, which is 3.32% higher than the requirement of 10%. The positive / negative percentage for the 100 samples was 20% and 80%

respectively.

There were 3 discrepant results received out of the 705 blind samples 1

1

=

tested during this reporting period. These discrepancies are outlined in the Reportable Events section of this' report.

C. Positive Test Results.-

It should be noted that a large number of the confirmed positives for all  :

types of tests (20 of 22) can be attributed to short term contractor personnel. The number of short term contractors given pre-badging tests '

(1179) was much higher than the average population (293) because the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station completed refueling outage number 5 during this reporting period..  ;

REPORTABLE EVENTS There were three reportable events during this period, all involving blind performance test specimens tested by Roche Biomedical Laboratories. Two of the incidents involved false positive results and the other a false negative.

A. The false negative test result occurred due to a clerical error. The sample in question had tested. positive for amphetamines on the initial test, but was not listed on the manual worksheet. The corrective action taken by the laboratory involved bar coding all specimens so that their computer would automatically generate a rescreen worksheet.

B. The first false positive test result involved a sample spiked with two barbiturates that tested positive for three barbiturates. Pentobarbital '

and secobarbital were correctly identified as present in the sample, but the presence of phenobarbital was also detected. A retest of the sample t was ordered by the Medical Review Officer and the correct substances were identified.

An-investigation by the laboratory revealed that the probable cause of the false positive result was human error that resulted in contamination of the blind performance test. specimen.during the extraction process. It is. i believed that the technologist performing the extraction' inadvertently transferred a portion of the extract for the sample sequentially following the' blind performance test specimen'into the-extract for this sample. The other sample was positive for phenobarbital at a high level.

The corrective action taken by the laboratory involved: (1) reviewing this problem with all technical staff members (2) stressing total attention to i detail during extractions, and (3) reducing all possible sources of distractions.

'C.-The second false positive test result involved a specimen that tested positive for two benzodiazepines when only one was present. This incident was similar to the previous false positive report issued by Roche Laboratories. <

The laboratory investigation revealed that human error resulted in a mis-identification of the extract at some point during the specimen ,

preparation for gas chromatography / mass spectrometry confirmation. The i i

f. D

' e 4

corrective action involved requiring the label on each specimen tube to be l' transferred.to'the tube receiving the extract at the time the transfer is made instead of pre-labeling tubes to receive the extracts.

SUMMARY

Overall, SCE&G is pleased with the Fitness for Duty Program at the Virgil C.

Summer Nuclear Station. SCE&G is, however, concerned with the incorrect test  !

results for blind performance specimens received from Roche Laboratories. As such, SCE&G has informed Roche management that incidents of this nature will not be tolerated. SCE&G is currently procuring a contractual agreement with another qualified laboratory for use in the event that Roche does not perform  !

at the acceptable rate of reliability required by 10CFR26 and the National- ~

Institute on Drug Abuse guidelines.

SCE&G is committed to maintaining a drug-free work environment at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station and feels that the Fitness for Duty Program currently in place is adequate to achieve that goal. As such, SCE&G does not intend to modify the existing Fitness for Duty Program.

l l

Y l 1

l 1

l 1

l I

l

,