ML20149G473

Forwards Proprietary & non-proprietary Response to 970620 RAI Re NRC-licensed Operator Testing Positive for Marijuana Following FFD Test.Proprietary Response Withheld

ML20149G473
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	07/18/1997
From:	Powers K CMS ENERGY CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML19317C515	List: ML20149G473
References
NUDOCS 9707230252
Download: ML20149G473 (9)

Text

.

CassumersEnemy A CMS Energy Comtuny Big Rxk PointNxlearPlant Kenneh R Peeners 10269US 3I Noe PlantGeneralManager July 18, 1997 ctwievou. u/ 49720 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-155 - LICENSE DPR BIG ROCK POINT PLANT - RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR INFORNATION WITH REGARD TO LICENSED OPERATOR POSITIVE DRUG TEST.

On June 20, 1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission forwarded a letter to the Big Rock Point Plant General Manager formally requesting information pertaining to an NRC-licensed operator testing positive for marijuana following a fitness-for-duty test. As you are aware, the licensed operator has been terminated from employment with the Company. A letter dated June 23, 1997, was forwarded to the Commission confirming this action. This letter also providad the operators name and license number. His duties as a Nuclear Control Operator included, but were not limited to, continuous surveillance of plant conditions and system parameters, manipulating the controls and equipment to start up, change output and shut down the plant as required by operating schedules and load demands, and to initiate inmediate actions necessrry to maintain the plant in a safe condition during abnormal and emergency operations as directed by the Shift Supervisor. The evaluation of the individuals past activities did not identify an unacceptable performance.

In accordance with your request and 10 CFR 2.790(b), find attached to this letter:

1. An Application for Withholding accompanied by an affidavit signed by the General Plant Manager. Consumers Energy believes that this information should be held from public disclosure because this type of information is customarily held in confidence by its owner.

2. A reply that does not identify confidential or privileged information.

3. A reply that has been designated with appropriate deletions identifying what Consumers Energy Company considers to be confidential and/or privileged information.

Please contact Ellen Zienert, Human Resources Manager, at 616-547-8110 if you have any additional questions.

4

(

Kenneth P Powers -

f' & \ \

Plant General Manager CC: Administrator, Region III, USNRC NRC Resident Inspector - Big Rock Point ATTACHMENTS 9707230252 970718 PDR hlllllllllllllhlllllhlll kh C #(

ADOCK 05000155 ***c a -

)g Cy p Cf V PDR A,,JQ/s(_. I .>

QM* O kncs . Q RL Ppp I f W ' ,I

- -- . . . . .. . . . = . . - .- . - - . - - . . . . . . . . . - . . _ . . - . - . . . . . .

l l l l . .

t i l

l l

l 1 i l 1.

l l

i i

l l

! i ATTACHNENT 1 CONSUNERS ENERGY CONPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT i

DOCKET 50-155 APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING AND AFFIDAVIT Submitted July 18, 1997 I

I l

l i

l i

l-(

APPLICATION FOR WITHHOLDING Document to be Withheld DOCKET 50-155 - LICENSE DPR BIG ROCK POINT PLANT - RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR INFORNATION WITH REGARD TO LICENSED OPERATOR POSITIVE DRUG TEST; ATTACHNENT 2 (Dated JULY 18,1997).

AFFIDAVIT Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(b)(1), I hereby request that the aforementioned document be withheld from public disclosure based on 1) the information has been held in confidence by its owner [10 CFR 2.790(b)(1)(4)(i)], and 2) the information is of a type customarily held in confidence by its owner [10 CFR 2.790(b)(1)(4)(ii)]. Further, 10 CFR 9.17(6) states that "the following types of agency records are exempt from public disclosure under 10 CFR 9.17(a)(6);

personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy".

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the contents of this submittal are truthful and complete.

By M Kenneth P Powers Plant General Manager Sworn and subscribed to befnre me this 18th day of July 1997.

hf/Jtt ,bt+, Wl0$dk9--

ennifpfLynnfelms,NotaryPublic Chtrievoix County, Michigan My commission expires August 29, 1999.

I (SEAL]

l

i i ATTACHNENT 3  !

! l CONSUNERS ENERGY CONPANY BIG ROCK POINT PLANT I DOCKET 50-155

! DESIGNATED RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO LICENSED l OPERATOR POSITIVE DRUG TEST.

Submitted July 18, 1997 l

t i

l l

I I

i

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

~

Licensed'00erator Fitness-For-Duty Questionnaire

^

1. Name =an'd responsibilities of the operator.

^

i l

l Nuclear Control Operators are l responsible for:

i.

a. Maintaining a current active Reactor Operator's License.

i i b.. Initiating immediate actions necessary to maintain the Plant'in a safe condition during abnormal and emergency operations as directed'by the-Shift Supervisor.

c. Performing shift operations in-accordance with the procedures,  ;

instructions, set points, limitations and precautions contained in the '

!. Technical Specifications and the Operating Procedures.

d. Exercising continuous surveillance of Plant conditions and system

. parameters.

e. Manipulating the controls and equipment to start up, changing output and shut down the Plant as required by operating schedules and load demands.

L

f. . Ensuring that all records, tests, reports, and logs generated in the -

Control Room are properly maintained and reviewed on his assigned shift.

l g. Notifying the Shift. Supervisor of conditions that may be reportable.

h. Remaining alert to and knowledgeable of all Plant operations. in progress that involve functioning of equipment controlled from the-l main Control Room and anticipating potential problem areas.

i. Directing the removal-of Plant equipment from operation by writing Switching and Tagging Orders subject to approval by the Duty Shift Supervisor.

l j. Participating in any special tasks or assignments involving the Plant under his control'as may be established by his Shift Supervisor.

l l

l Eachl shift, one of the Nuclear Control Operators is designated as Lead

. Nuclear Control Operator by the Shift Supervisor. Additional

. responsibilities of the Lead Operator are:

a. Assuming direct control' of the Control Room activities when the Shift Supervisor ~is not in the Control Room during routine Plant operations.

l The principal responsibility of the Lead Control Room Operator is for the overall operation of the Plant.

3

'b. Establishing and maintaining post-accident operations in a safe

, condition, shutting down the Plant if necessary.

- . _ . , . . - . . - - - - ~ - - - - - ' ~ " " ~ ~^ ^^^ ~

. l 2

1

)

! c. Receiving and executing or transmitting orders from the Dispatcher and making telephone summary reports to the Dispatcher.

t l 2. A summary of the operator's entire fitness-for-duty testing history. Please i include the dates and times the operator was tested, the reasons for the ,

tests (i.e., random, for-cause, or follow-up), the results of the tests, )

including quantification, and the dates that any test were confirmed '

positive.

1 l

~

i i

l

^ 3. Whether the operator used, sold, or possessed illegal drugs. If so, please provide the details of the circumstances surrounding such use, sale, or i possession.

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

. 3 There is 'no firm evidence available to support the conclusion that drugs were

!- not used or sold within the protected area. The evidence that is available is L as follows:

I

1. While the allegations by the tipster to the Sheriff were that the operator  ;

was both a' user and a seller of marijuana, the informant did not go so far i as to say that 6his operator used or sold drugs at work.

2. Packages brought into the protected area are carefully checked by security each time someone enters that area.

3. Security guards make regular documented patrol rounds throughout the Plant ~

on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day basis and are trained to look for unusual circumstances.

L 4. This operator has no history of any criminal offenses on file with the l District or Circuit Courts.

t

5. Supervisors and co-workers noticed no unusual behavior or conditions with respect to this individual. Some of the signs that might be expected to show up if this person was a heavy user would be blurry or bloodshot eyes, inattentiveness, laziness, increased rate of errors, smell of marijuana, conversations about drug use, unusual interest in FFD test dates,

- consumption of.large volumes of liquids, short attention span, attendance '

. problems, difficulty comprehending new concepts, protectiveness of and l secrecy with personal belongings, apathy, refusal of overtime and lack of

- initiative.

6. If the person had a business selling marijuana, as was alleged, some additional signs might be that he appeared to be living beyond his means, excessive use of the telephone, suspicions by law enforcement officials and protectiveness concerning his private' vehicle. Inter si:ws disclosed none of the signs listed in'5 and 6 above.

7. The employee's job performance was reviewed and his work was found to be

, accurate, neat and in accordance with expectations. His performance l appraisals were also reviewed and he has consistently been rated fully L effective or higher.

8.

l l 9. As in any work place, word spreads quickly when an employee is discharged at BRP. Every individual who was interviewed by the investigators were i aware, prior to the. interview, without being told by the investigators,

! that this employee was discharged due to a positive drug test. When those who were acquainted.with him were asked whether this came as a surprise to t hem, t eh answer was unanimously "YES."

l Based on the evidence available in this investigation, it can be said with a

_high degree of confidence that controlled substances were not used or sold within the protected area.

,e -. . , . - . . , - . , , -

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

d

. 4 l

l 4. Whether the operator was at the controls or supervising licensed activities i

Lwhile under the influence of marijuana. If so, please provide details of the operators's performance of licensed dutles while under the influence of marijuana.

L The operator was assigned to the control' room on the day of the'for-cause l

testing. As discussed in Question 3, there was no evidence that the operator was under the influence of any drugs at anytime that he was at the controls or supervising licensed activities. The confirmed positive test for marijuana was-based.on 1ow levels of THC. Therefore, the Big Rock Point staff can 1

reasonably conclude that the operator was not under the influence the day of .I the test.

1 A work performance review was performed by licensed Senior Reactor Operators (SR0's) and' encompassed a review of control room logs,. lock valve checklists, 1 tests, procedures and performance.

, Control room logs were reviewed from August 1,1996 to June 12, 1997, the

period during which he was a licensed Control Operator, to determine if any operator actions, associated Plant responses, log book entries or. operator responsibilities were questionable or. in error. Earlier'surveillances were not reviewed since equipment operability has been verified through system l performance and subsequent surveillance tests. In the SR0's judgment, he l L could not find any inappropriate operator actions or responsibilities not i L fulfilled other than occasionally failing to sign out on logs. His actions appeared to be appropriate for all conditions. He was involved in several

, plant shutdowns, some plant start-ups, several power changes, and two reactor trips. .His actions.were found to be proper and log entries complete. One of the reactor trips was planned and the other occurred due to voltage. regulator problems.

' A review of log books, periodic and scheduled tests was conducted to determine procedural adherence for the period the individual was a Control Operator. It  !

was determined.that approximately 84 technical specification tests and 53 heat balance calculations were performed whileLthe individual was on shift. All of l these were reviewed and found to be properly completed with calculations performed. accurately.

l The lock valve check list from the 1996 refueling outage did not have any input'from the Control Operator in question. ,

'5. Whether the operator was involved in procedural errors related to this occurrence. If so, please provide the detafis of the procedural errors and i

the consequences of the errors.

There is no evidence that the operator was involved in procedural errors related to this occurrence. This conclusion is based on querying the l -Corrective Action system to determine performance trends. Approximately 2200 l Condition Reports (CR's) initiated after January 1, 1995 were reviewed for Human Error Failure. The trend data was broken down by calendar quarters for both the Plant as a whole and for the Operations Department. The results of L

2aa4-M-_a O ea.__ ____ . . .a_s.kxm4a.Amn ~ ,n-1 L__- e .= - _ .- J.JM...e _.4- a eh-+ 4 1+ - - 4L v i

- 5 L

the . review did not identify any correlation between the Condition Report issues relating to human error and the Fitness-For-Duty (FFD) program.

! 6. Your intention with regard to the operator's resumption of duties under the 10 CFR Part 50 and Part 55 licenses, including your plans for follow-up testing.

The operator was terminated from the employment of Consumers Energy Company on June 16, 1997. The NRC was notified by letter forwarded June 23, 1997 to the Commission.

i l

i i

i