IR 05000413/1990020

Insp Repts 50-413/90-20 & 50-414/90-20 on 900724-26. Unresolved Item Identified.Major Areas Inspected: fitness-for-duty Program

ML20059G630
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	08/28/1990
From:	Mcguire D, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20059G621	List: IR 05000413/1990020 ML20059G617
References
50-413-90-20, 50-414-90-20, NUDOCS 9009130040
Download: ML20059G630 (10)

Text

^

.

,.  !

+ . , , ,. '

' '

asmaop UNITED STATES .

?

'

'o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - .

y REGION ll ,

'I g 101 MARIETTA STREET, j

• * ATLANTA.GEORQlA 30323 -

• % l- 'I

.....

'

.  ; ;

.

,

,

Report Hos.: 50-413/90-20 and 50-414/90-20

'

,

'

j

!

Licensee: Duke Power Company  ;

422 South Church Street ,

t Charlotte, NC 28242 <

Docket Nos.: 50-413 and 50-414 License Nos.:' NPF-35 and NPF-52'

^

Facility Name: Catawba 1 and'2 r

Inspection Conducted: July 24-?6, 1990 Inspector: k k 'UE W. J. Tobin, 54cJor :afegua is; Inspector N I [ ate 51gned

~

l Accompanying Personne : L. Bush, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation- ,

L. McLean, Region IV  :

Approved by: ., -

k 28 90 D. R. McGuire, Chief /Date/ Signed Safeguards Section Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY ]

Scope:

l This special, announcee inspection was conducted in the area of the licensee's Fitness' for Duty (FFD) Program as required by 10 CFR Part 26.. Specifically, the licensee's Policy, Program Administration,. Chemical Testing and Key i Program Processes were reviewed using NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/106,  !

" Fitness for Duty: Initial Inspection of Implemented Program" dated July 11, 199 l Results: ]

Based upon the NRC's selective examination of key elements of the licensee's FFD Program, it has concluded that the licensee is satisfying the general objectives of 10 CFR Part 26.10. Strengths were noted in the Program; the licensee uses a lower cutoff level for marijuana than NRC requires, a medical evaluation is conducted of blood alcohol concentratioits less than the: NRC required .04 percent, a full time Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Counselor is assigned to each facility, FFD training was impressive as was the employee /

contractor retention of the training, and, 4 finally, the NRC noted the  ;

professionalism and expertise of the medical staff, and the Corporate and site' l FFD manager o 900828 PDR i

Q ADOCK 0500041? 1 PDC l

. - - -- , , . ..

. - ., ,

,

[ ,, 4

, .. .]Y

~ ..,rf, , ' L l} '

' q', ' #

i j

'

'. ,n

-

, -. ,

.;

4 .

....

. 1

, .,

' >

. y,. -

, ,s t

>;, a

,

.... ,

.i - . . .

.,.,

,- i , i .

l- .

-

,

,

., ,

<

ac =

,

,. , ,

-

-

, 7

,

,,1 - -  :

,

2 i,

'

'

)

.,..

.

, - - , a

,

= An Unresolved: It'em wasifound in ithatlhellicensee's- EAP Lisi not " designed to-

'

' achieve early !1ntervention and provide < for. confidential, assistance." . (See -

'

paragraph 3d)fURI No. 50-413 and 414/90-20-0 y

, >

,

,

'

l' ,

,

,

t ,

, 4.-

o j .P

, ,

i. :

, ..i

..

i 4 g - -. $I

' .'

,

9'

W

. p o ..

.e

.

. I; E i,,~

'

h i.' - .. -..,.

1 n

.,,~

,t i

-

I '

E

,\ 3 I.,' e ' - , . l

,

i k-

.i

.,-

&

,

8 c

{

<

!

1:

>

- 'i.,

..

s ,g

. . . ._ - __

.,

J

-. ,

'

'

.

,

!

.  !

REPORT DETAILS -

,

. Persons Contacted Licensee Employees 4

• N. Alexander (Corporate) Director of Human Resource *R. Bisanar (Corporate) Attorney

• B. Caldwell'(Site) Station Services Manager J.-Caldwell, (Site) Construction, Supervisor

• J. Coutier (Corporate)- Employee Assistance Manager

• S. Cox (Site) Training Coordinator .

• W..Crawford (Corporate) Employee Assistance Counselo .

• D. Dukes (Corporate) Medical Review Officer F. Ellis (Site) Nuclear Production Department

• J. Effinger (Site) Quality Assurance Auditor B. Fagan (Site) Registered Nurse S. Garland (Site) Nuclear Production Department

• R. Gill (Corporate) Compliance Manager

• C. Hartzell (Site) Compliance Manager

,

E. Hutchinson (Site) K-Mac Contractor )

!

'

• P. Loper (Corporate) Medical Review Officer '

• C Mitchell (Site) Employee. Assistance Counselor

*S. Murdoch (Corporate) Fitness for Duty Manager l

• T. Owen (Site) Station Manager

• J. Roach (Site) Security Manager

• M. Tuckman (Corporate) General Manager

• J. Wells (Site) Fitness for Duty Coordinator

.

J D. West (Site) Bahnson Contractor J. White (Site) Nuclear Production Department .

Other NRC Fersonnel -

• L. Bush, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation .

• L. McLean, Region IV W. Orders, Senior Resident Inspector

• Attended exit interview f! Licensee's Written Policy and Procedures On January 3, 1990, the Chairman of the Board / President of Duke Power Company signed the most recent revision of Policy Statement No.1013  ;

titled, Fitness For Duty" which applies throughout the utility and was

.

originally written in 198 The Policy outlines in general terms the

,

i licensee's intent of providing a safe work environment meeting' all regulatory requirements. The Policy speaks to management responsibility, employee training, Employee Assistance Programs and mental stress or fatigue by any employee within the entire Duke syste .

., .

.-

,

'

- Management Procedure No.101.07' titled,. " Drug / Alcohol Use", also revised January 3,1990, provides the long' standing implementing criteria for.the Policy Statemen It details the utility-wide prohibitions for drug use, alcohol abuse, drug sale or- possession, as well as, o0' or of f Company

_

property . or during .. Company .. hour This Procedure explains call-in ;

procedures, searches, appeals' and for-cause testin Italicized; '

" Additional Requirements. for Employees Covered by NRC Fitness For Duty-Requirements" delineate such measures as random testing, five hours abstention from alcohol use, referrals to Employee Assistance Programs' and management disciplinary sanctions.'

Additionally,. a Vendor / Contractor Policy . Statement exists which essentially , repeats -the Duke Policy without reference to the licensee's '

Employee Assistance Progra . Program Administration  ! Management Responsibilitieg At the General Office (GO) in Charlotte, N.C., reporting directly to the Dire. tor of Human Resources, is the Nuclear Access / Fitness For Duty Manage This Manager is responsible for 10 CFR Part 26 implementation and furnishes guidance and direction- to the Site "

Fitness For Duty Coordinators. The Coordinators work within the site ;

Nuclear Support Sections and- provide day-to-day implementation for the program. During this inspection numerous personnel involved in the licensee's FFD Program were contacted by the inspector and found ,

to be knowledgeable i n ,' and dedicated to, their managerial responsibilitie The NRC considered a strength of the FFD Program to be the existence +

of one central authority at the corporate level, and focal points at each of the three nuclear stations for site FFD implementatio Resource Allocation I Resources in terms of staff assignment, management / supervision '

support and facility allocation appear to be appropriat The l

'

Medical Review Officers, registered nurses, laboratory technicians, and site and corporate managers all appeared sufficiently assigned and supported to perform their dutie The Collection Facility, exterior to the protected area, is deemed

-

sufficient in size and equipment to assist the staff in the collection of specimen The facility is secured during off-hours, and access controls'are exercised by a receptionist.

I e

- ,-

.

,

., .

..-

,

. Pro-active Measures The licensee established a Drug Study Group composed of numerous

.

personnel from various entities within L the utility to establish and monitor those points of its FFD Program required by the NRC This Group, which includes the Medical Review Officers, monitors the

.

effectiveness 'of its chemical testing program. To date there:have been few " lessons learned" due to the lack of experience with'the new Rul One interesting _ " lesson learned" .-is the licensee's practice of leaving the lights on inside the Medical Facility during off-hours. -

This is. in response to the employee perception that random testing is 1 conducted only. when : the nurses and ' technicians are on duty. The 1 inspector noted that only the 3,edical . Review' Officer (MRO) has a reserved parking space assigned at the Facilit A "200 percent" pool has been established to randomly test corporate and site FFD managers and coordinators, the medical staff -including, the 'MRO and EAP counselors._ Background investigations of these, individuals include a deliberate effort to identify family relations subject to the FFD Program. Additionally, psychological screening is conducted of the FF9 staf Employee and contractors receive a " suitable inquiry" under. the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Cour.cil Guideline No. 89-01 prior to being granted unescorted protected area acces With respect to security, the licensee's proprietary force experiences a low turnover rate (usually intra-utility transfers within the nuclear operations / maintenance. departments) and is composed of a large percent of. former law enforcement officers. The Site Security Manager tetively participates _-in the local Criminal Intelligence Council of local,- county and state police agencie Searches of vehicles, packages and workplaces -have been reserved for only those interior to the protected are ,

'

Ir early 1990 the licensee instituted a formal investigation process whtreby all individuals involved-in a positive drug or- alcohol test (arcJ their supervisor) are interviewed by the Site FFD Coordinato During these interviews the coordinator explores such questions as th involvement of coworkers in obtaining illegal drugs, .what work v.s performed while the individual was. possibly impaired, and what quality assurance controls were exercised, r; . Ey loyee Assistance Program One particular strength of the licensee's FFD Program was the ,

assignment of EAP counselors full-time to each nuclear station as '

well as at the GO. It was noted that employees visiting the EAP-

)

._

,

..

., ..

'

.

.4 l

-;

c could use a- rear door 'to the Medical Facility allowing discrete f

' access to the Counselors Office from the ' parking lot. The inspector #

1 earned that employees wishing to consult with the EAP counselor may j do so' withotit losing time charged to Annual or sick leave, tThe ~l counselors:are available to eNr'oyee family members and can provide

'

assistance in marital and other issue .

The inspector discussed Procedure No. 101.07 with the Catawba Station

. Counselor and confirme6 that the licensee records self-referrals 'to the EAP as a positive drug- screen. It was further confirmed that !

this practice applies to self referrals to an EAP outside.of the Duke Program which employees are required to report ' to the Site . FFD_ -

Coordinatnr or EAP Counselor. Additionally, while'self-referrals are ;

sutomaticallyl equated to a positive drug screen there may be'no such, test performed on~the cmployee. - Since the effective date of Part 26 there have been only two-self-referrals to'the Catawba EAP. This practice l was discussed at_. length with several individuals. within the licensee s FFD staff who expressed a wide' divergence of opinion on the topi The licensee was referred to~ NUREG-1385, " Fitness for- '

Duty in the, Nuclear Power Industry: . Responses to Implementation i Questions" (Question No. 9.12).which indicates that self-referrals to +

an EAP would be treated confidentially and - without management notification (unless a determination was made that- the employee _

'

."

l poses a threat to self or to the facility) ;10'CFR 26 25 ' requires -'

l that EAPs be designed to achieve early intervention -ind to provide for confidential assistance. The licensee's practice of -treating :

'

self referrals, to include self-referrals outside o+ the licensee s EAP, as a confirmed positive test is not conducive to achieving early intervention and does not provide _ for confidential assistance. _ The '

!

'

licensee informed the inspector that this' practiceLwas decided upon '

only after long and hard deliberations by senior managemerit who were -

concerned about the substance abuser repeatedly using the EAP without i disciplinary sanction. According to Procedure No.101.07, a second'

positive screen results in terminatio This is considered an ,

Unresolved Item (No. 50-413 and 50-414/90-20-01). ,

4. Training t

' Policy Communication A booklet titled " Fitness Fer Duty 1990" was furnished to all the attendees at the licensee's FFD training sessions. Additionally, several handouts in the form of Questions' and Answers have been disseminated to the workforce which emphasize various revisions of the FFD Polic .

t k

-

.

... ..

, .

. Training The licensee's awareness training prior to the effective date of this Rule was randomly. witnessed by the Resident- Inspector using NRC ,

Ten:pnnry - Instruction 2515/104 and was found to be acceptabl '

Durink this inspection ' a limited sampling of employees and contractors were interviewed and found to be-knowledgeable of the FFD Program and their responsibilitie ]

' Additic,nally, daring' this inspection a limited sampling of' :

supervisors and individuals authorized to be escorts were interviewed 1 and found to be knowledgeable . of the FFD Program and _ of their - i responsibilitie Of particular note was. the retention of the FFD i training as - reflected by the employees during the NRC interviews, l The inspectors reviewed training _ records and lesson guides, finding

'

_

them to be thorough and appropriate. The NRC was-informed that the

-

)

training film used to instruct l employees of the licensee'i Program q was being updated to reflect recent procedural-revisions. ( ' all'of the above reasons, the inspectors considered this area to ae a particular strength of the licensee's FFD Progra *

5. Key Program Processes Random Testing I By letter dated January 2,1990, the licensee advised the NRC that its FFD Program was implemented in accordance with 10 CFR Part 2 The licensee utilizes an initial cut-off level of 50. nanograms! for marijuans metabolites, and, also evaluates on- a case-by-case basis blood alcohol concentrations less than 0.04 percent to determine if the results should be considered positive or negative. These. efforts :

are considered to be a strength to the licensee's. program.

! The site FFD Coordinator receives weekly Primary and Alternate l

Selection Lists from the FFD Manager at the GO which have all of the ,

candidates (2 percent) chosen from the employee and contractor populations. A candidate can appear in at least duplicate on these -t lists because the random generator queries the. populatit,. s multi- '

times before completing the i skly printou Thus~an individual tested on a Monday is immediately eligible for retesting during the next seven days. Supervisors notify some candidates in the morning and others in the afternoon of their appointment Candidates are i allowed 30 minutes to report to the Medical Facility. During the NRC interviews only one candidate stated that he was informed at-approximately 10:00 a.m. of a 2:30 p.m. appointmen '

'

With respect to non-regular hours, the licensee conducts tests during 3 of 9 holidays, and on five percent of all weekends and night l shifts. As of January 1,1990, the FFD Manager produced a randomly l

l u i l

l l l .

_ . _ _

, '.

.

'

P generated list of testing _to be dne during . holidays, weekends and night shifts which is shared with the Site FFD Coordinators every '

four month The schedule is different for each of the four licensee nuclear facilitie It is possible that. testing would be-

'

conducted only once if a night shift was chosen which happened to coincide with a holiday on a weeken For the first six months of 1990 the licensee randomly tested at the Catawba Station a total of 1340 candidates of whom 46 tests occurred during htlidays, weekends, and night shifts-(3.4 percent) . >

Another strength in the licensee's Program ~ is its practice of pla::ing access badges on " Fitness for Duty holds" if a person who has been, randomly chosen happens not to be available that week. These holds !

are conducted at all three nuclear = stations and at the G0, and require chemical testing be conipleted before: issuance of the access i badge ,

b.. Chemical Testing At the Catawba Nuclear Station the licensee averages random testing of 14 candidates per day. .The ~ licensee averages testing 180 5 individuals per week at the three nu: lear stations and at the G Preliminary statistics for the first six months of 1990 reveal that the Nuclear Department averaged 8,622 individuals with unescorted access (7,027 employees and 1,595 contractors) who were submitted to 4,855 random tests and of those tests, 24 resulted in positive confirmed tests (15 employees' and 9 contractors)._ - Additionally, the licensee conducted 13 for-cause, 42 follow-up and 2,653 pre-badging ,

test Substances detected were marijuana (40), cocaine (23), and ,

alcohol (8). These statistics are for the three nuclear stations and the GO which make up the Nuclear Departmen Procedure 101.07 requires the licensee to conduct a- medical'

evaluation of all blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) even if they are below the 0.04 percent cut-off level to determine if the individual has been using alcohol on shift. The MRO does not evaluate BACs less than .011. The licensee's policy regarding alcohol _ use applies to !

alcohol in a person's -biological system while on dut On one occasion the MRO considered a level less than 0.04 percent to .be a positive resul The inspector toured the Medical Facility ' at the Catawba Nuclear Station and at the G0, no waknesses were found in the collection process, chain of custody, %r the storage and transportation of the collected specimen Records and Reports ,

,

l The inspector reviewed varit us logs, records and other documentation ,

relative to the licensee's FD Program and those personnel charged with it's implementatio I

-j

_ m i

, .. a  !

.

.

By letters dated June 19 and 26, 1989,- the' National Institute on Drug Acuse certified the licensee's contract laboratories.as meeting the requirements of the Department of Health and Human Services, y During the course of this inspection,. the_ ONRR representative :

discussed with 'the MR0s, Licensing Manager and FFD Manager the i reporting criteria for " unsatisfactory performance testing results" as required by Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 2 l Sanctions and Appeals j Terminations result from . a' second confirmed drug test, . a- third confirmed alcohol test, or a confirmed drug test anda confirmed

'

31cohol tes As part of the telephonic interview the MR0lexpl.ains the appeal process to an it.dividual experiencing a confirmed positive tes .

Within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> an individual.must notify EAP if they wish to appeal the results, and if they wish' to have the frozen sample tested. An '

Appeals Panel Moderator interviews the individual, convenes a meeting of the FFD Manager, MRO, either an Employer Relations, or Human Resources representative and the individual. A negative result of the frozen sample will overrule any sanctio ; Audit ,

From April 9 to May 26, 1990, the licensee's Quality Assurance .

Department performed an audit of the FFD Program at the G0, three ,

nuclear stations and two minor other facilities. ~The audit report ,

was provided to the Human Resources Power Group in the GO with copies to the Manager of Licensing, the MRO, the FFD Manager and the

'

licensee's legal department. Ten " findings" were noted, as were .17

" followup items", 3 " discrepancies",- 8 " observations" and 10

" recommendations." The depth and thoroughness of this audit was .

considered to be a strength for the licensee's FFD Progra <

As part of this Audit, the licer.see calculated nuclear power department rates of nif-admissions to-the EAP prior to the. Rule (1st quarter 1986, a total cf 5) and ccmpared them to after the Rule (1st quarter 1990, a total o: 3). Supervisory referrals for the .;ame i dates went from 6 to 1 . Exit Interview -

The inspection scope and results were summarized on July 26, 1990, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1. The inspectors described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed belo .

,

t a u

. - . . . -

..'.,-)

' -

k '4 y . 'e g

_

,,

'o +

,

,

1l + rf : :s

.

,

, [

,

,  ;. c - .- 8- >

'

l -

.

The. licensee was complimented on the many. strengths of its Fitness for

~

-;

Duty LProgram.. A'. discussion Lwas held. relative ' to' the~ licensee's - }

interpretation - of reporting , " unsatisfactory . laboratory findings."  !

Additionally, ~ the i nspector's concern that the:1: licensee wasi not;  !

- administering its- Employer Assistance Program in accordance:with the Rul was discussed.as'a possible violatio ;

,

.

' s ,in

'

'

)

,

~7

,;

~

, i

>

,1s

'

t, .: f

[

,

ld

. c::i

'

i f

!

.  ;;

I*

?

if

..

,

,

.,

,

?

'I t

'

'

l

,I-i

,

>

.

.

t

-

, . . _ . . . , _ . . _ .

4 ,y _ ,, , . _ , , , . . - . . . , - , , , . . . -,