ML20066H339
| ML20066H339 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1991 |
| From: | Gates W OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| LIC-91-069R, LIC-91-69R, NUDOCS 9102200284 | |
| Download: ML20066H339 (6) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s v
_. ;_.7-....7._
- g. - - - -- - -.. :
3 7
4,.C f.~,: .~ _ ;, _
.. n.
Omaha Public Power District 444 South 16th Street Mall Omaha. Nebraska 68102-2247 402/636-2000 February 13, 1991 LIC-91-069R j
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, DC 20555
References:
Docket No. 50-285 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Report of Unsatisfactory Performance Testing Pursuant to 10 CFR 26, Appendix A, Subpart B, Section 2.8(e)(4), please find attached a report of an unsatisfactory.9rformance testing incident.
The incident was reported to Omaha Public l'ower District (OPPD) on January 17, 1991, by the OPPD Medical Review Officer with resrect to testing which was conducted on December 13, 1990.
If you should have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
- p. 2. As W. G. Gates Division Manager Nuclear Operations WGG/sel Attachment c:
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV W. C. Walker, NRC Project Manager S?kobO$b 45-5124 Empicymen th Opportunity j
190n99 T'
m m
t B
PHYSICIANS CLINICn January 18, 1991 Mr. Robert Guy Manager-Labor Relations Omaha Public Power District 444 South 16 Street Mall Allergs A imrnunology Cardioloev Re:
Drug Screening Sample ISCM092460
(
l herma toloe y Earw. La a Throat
Dear Mr. Guy:
Famnv Practre Ga st n.en terology Tbts report is a follow-up to' our conversation - of January 17 llemat oioe v -onn.i"')
regarding the drug screen on -#SCM092460. As I indicated by Internal hheme telephone, the problem with the initial drug screen was addressed Whcal Pochologs and I feel confident it has been corrected.
obstetnes & Gvnecolo.:v occupaimnal Whci""
Drug screen NSCM092460 underwent a random drug screen on' December OphthairnologV 13, 1990.
On the 17th of December we received a report of Orthotche sar,: ry amphetamines in significant quantities of 645 ng./m1, Because we Pediatnes had not previously received.iny previous reports of positive Physwal Therapy amphetamines and because the donor was taking an Ephedrine-like Plastw. Recon.<tructn e
- compound, I
requested a
rechec.
of-the urine and second
& iland surgerv confirmation by Compuchem.
surgerytien.ral C '"3"" Y On December 20 of 1990 a report was received from -Compuchem indicating again not only the presence of amphetamines in a concentration of 682 ng./ml.,
but also methamphetamine in a concentration of 1264 mg./ml. The methamphetamine had not been reported on the initial drug screen.
j j
{
The drug screen was reviewed with the donor on_the 20th of December l
by Dr. Dean Wampler. He was pronounced not fit for duty on that i
- date, j
Because of the failure to report methamphetamine on the initial report, we have requested further information f rom Compuchem re-i garding this discrepancy. I 'am enclosing a copy of a letter from Dr. Michael Peat regarding-this testing and after receiving this letter a phone call was placed to Dr. Peat on the 16th of January.
10c30 Itegency Circle Dr. Peat apparently was out of town on that date but on che 17th of Omaha. NE 68114 January I received a phone call from one of the. laboratory personnel regarding the problems that led up to this discrepancy.
Mns S. I12nd Street Essentially his verbal report confirmed the written report extended Millard. NE fal37 by Dr. Peat.
40249M490 14625 California Omaha, NE 68154 102/4940610
t k
.i Mr. Robert Guy Manager-Labor Relations 7
Omaha public power District page 2 i
I feel confident that Compuchem has addressed this problem appropriately.
I also feel
- that, at.
no time was the Fitness-for-Duty program jeopardized. in-any. way : by this report i
since amphetamines were found in.the urine and the employee was k
removed from duty in an appropriate and timely manner. The problem remains, - however, that there was an error in :. reporting a drug i
screen which in essence is a partial f alse-negative report. Again, in no way_ did-this ' jeopardire the Fitness-for-Duty' program, but I felt that follow-up and report of ' this incident should be carried out.
Sincerely, f
ACC(' Ah0//lG^tLWif(l Ronald W. Olnhaustn, M.D.
radical Director j
Physicians Clinic (402) 390-1352-i RWO/vmt Enclosure l
l j
'i
+
t 4
f i
i I
i b
,.y,-e
,.,_.y
_r
,,g.,..g,,
,,,,-,,,w..
- - l
==
COMPUCHEM FATOE, IE.
P.o Dod 12652 3308 ChapeiHdt/Netsan H:ghway ResearchTnangle Park,NC 27709 (919)S49-8263 January 10, 1991 To:
Dr. Olnhausen Physicians Clinic 10060 Regency Circle Omake NE 68114 (2-w 40 RE:
SCM092460. CCNS32081416 and 30525828
Dear ~Dr. Olnhausen:
The above referenced sample was received on December 13, 1990 and reported to you on December 17, 1990 as positive amphetamine.
On December 18, 1990 you requested a retest for amphetamines by GCMS, the results of this test were reported to you as positive methamphetamine and amphetamine.
The reason for the discrepancy was a failure by our data review staff to interpret the GC-MS chromatographic traces correctly.
The tracing for methamphetamine from the original test is attached to this letter.
The three items I
of interest are the squares labelled in the bottom left corner 255, 210 and 254 as these represent methamphetamine.
Each of these squares contain two peaks, one large one at 4.74/4.75 and one smaller one at 4.61 which is I
methamphetamine.
The software integration failed to detect l
this smaller peak and therefore reported the result as negative.
However the data reviewer should have caught this error and requested that the GC-MS data be reprocessed.
For your interest the peak at 4.75 represents the active constituent of Primatene.
l
~
l l
To avoid a reoccurrence of this error GC-MS operators l
and data reviewers have been counseled and have been l
instructed to ensure that such peaks are reprocessed.
We are also in the process of changing our sof tware to ensure i
that it selects the correct peak rather than the largest peak.
I l
9 L
s.
I trust that this explanation is satisfactory but if further information is required please call me at 919-248-6810.
Yours sincerely,
/
Mich eat Ph.D.
Vice President of Toxicology cc:
Ms.:Kathleen Flaherty l
t i
l l
i i'
s o-,---n-r e-n,n
-e,----
vev 9,-
p---e,,m-<r
< - - - + -
i.
-4 s..,.
CompuChem Laboratorics Forensic Drug Testing Methamphetamine Confirmation by GC/MSD s
19 32081416 ALS Bottic No.
Sample Name
=
=
975
>11DT6::U);
Operator DataFile
=
=
Time of In'icction =
12/14/90 17:37 Rotention time =
4.59 DS-MIsP
{
+ -2% =
4.51 -
4.69 Rotention Time =
4.74 MAP
<OUT> + -2% =
4.51 -
4.70 Micc. info
=034251 I#27 P=* AMP ST= AMP OP#975 14 Dec 90 5:37 pm ION PEAK AREAS and RATIOS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7944330 210 =
132664 255 = 2261201
' MAP
=>
254
=
D5-MAP
=>
258 =
158905 120 =
16276 213 =
48295 0.02
<OUT> +/- 20% =
0.37 0.56 MAP
=>
210/254
=
0.28
<OUT> t/- 20% =
0.09 0.14 255/254
=
0.10
+ - 20% =
0.08 0.1' D5-MAP
=>
120 258
=
0.30
+ - 20% =
0.24 0.36 213 258
=
MAP / D5-MAP =>
254/258 a 49.99 *** QUANT RATIO Dru Not Identified =>
Concentration =
0.00 ng/ml Times!ampofLastCalibration=<901214.0201>
Fi1e >11DT6 117.0-257.0 amu 4.75 4.59 800000-4 80 000 C".
~
10000-40000Cs 4400000 4. 7.,
4 400000CW
~
b. 47
.H C-m,y C
t 120-l.S.
2f;-MAP I
320000 i
4.09 4,74 6000C4 2800000h 80000C 4000Cq 400006 4.61 2000C
,J" 200000C" i
g 4-l i
'21 3 210 1600006 120000 20000C-300000Cc 80000C$
200000CJ 100000CC 40000Cd c
Jt c ',
. L. _. r j C"
Ce
,L~
r-,
4 4'4 4'8 758 254 SIM-TIC '
b l
'