IR 05000250/1991040
| ML17348B191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1991 |
| From: | Mcguire D, Thompson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17348B190 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-250-91-40, 50-251-91-40, NUDOCS 9110290218 | |
| Download: ML17348B191 (9) | |
Text
~
1PS Racy,
Cy
~i nO
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 Report Nos.:
50-250/91-.40 and 50-251/91-40 Licensee:
Florida Power,.and Light Company 9250 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33102 Docket Nos.:
50-250 and 50-251 Facility Name:
Turkey Point 3 and'4 License Nos.:
.Inspection Conducted:
Inspector:
hompson, September 3-4, 1991
>o i i.\\ I( i>
feguar s,
nspector ate igned C
Approved, by:
.
R. McGusre, h>ef Safeguards Section Ndiclear Materials Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards a
e igned SUYiYiARY Scope:
This special announced inspection was conducted in the areas of the licensee's Fitness for Duty (FFD) program as required by 10 CFR Part 26.
Specifically, the-licensee's Program Administration and Key Program Processes were reviewed using NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/106,
"Fitness for Duty -,Initial Inspection of Implemented Program,"
dated July 11, 1990; Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
Based upon NRC's selective examination of key elements, it was concluded that the licensee is satisfying the general performance objectives of
CFR Part 26.
Several strengths were noted in the licensee's FFD Program, i.e., the professionalism of the site FFD coordinator and assistan't,
.FFD staffing and facility, and FFD training.
9>soz902fs 91ioo4 PDR ADOCK 05000~50
~ REPORT DETAILS
'ersons Contacted Licensee Employees J. Beasley, FFD Technician, Industrial Medical Corporation (IMC), Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (TPN)
- W. Bladow, guality Assurance Manager, TPN
- J. Denton, Site FFD Coordinator, TPN N. Diaz, FFD.Technician, IMC, TPN S. Hoadley, FFD Technician, IMC, TPN
- L. Pearce, Plant Manager, TPN
- T. Plunkett", Vice. President, TPN
=
M. Poole, FFD Technician, IMC, TPN
- D. Powell, Licensing Superintendent, TPN E. Smith, Site 'Assistant FFD Coordinator, TPN
'*J. West, (Corporate)
Nuclear Security Manager T. Wordley, FFD Technician, TPN
- W. Zinn, Security Operation Coordinator, TPN
'ther licensee employees contacted during this inspection included.
'craftsmen, engineers, operators, mechanics, security force members,
'technicians, and administrative personnel.
NRC'esident Inspector
- R. Butcher, Senior Resident Inspector
- G. Schnebli, Resident Inspector
- L. Trocine, Resident'nspector
- Attended exit interview C
~
2.
Licensee's Written Policy and Procedures
~
.
E As noted in NRC Inspection Report No..50-335, 389/91-05, prior to 10 CFR Part 26, this licensee had an FFD Policy which included drug testing for pre-employment, pre-access and random testing.
Additionally; supervisors were provided FFD training.
Tests were evaluated by a Medical Review Officer (MRO)
and there was an Employee Assi'stance Program (EAP).
Currently, Nuclear Policy titled, "Fitness for Duty," is the statement of the licensee's FFD "Objectives and Required Actions," which was approved by the Nuclear Division President.'he licensee's procedures are detailed and provide adequate information to each person participating in the FFD Progra ~
'
e
3.,
Program Administration, a.
Management Respon'sibilities
.
The Nuclear Security'epartment has the overall responsibility for implementing the FFD program in accordance with 10 CFR Part 26.
He reports to the Senior Vice President of Nuclear Operations, and is assisted by a Corporate FFD Coordinator; At the site, the FFD.
program is administered by a Site Coordinator and an Assistant.
As noted previously, both the Site Coordinator and Assistant were very aware of the Part 26 requirements and were intent to ensure the program was correctly administered.
b.
Resource Allocation
'I The technicians are housed at the onsite collection.facility, exterior to the protected area, within the site's Medical Station; h'owever, the specimen collection facility is adequately separated.
The technicians were attired in distinct matching uniforms which contributed to the overall professionalism of the personnel and collection facility.
Floor space, office. equipment, storage facilities and collection equipment have been made available for th'
ecimens..
on-duty collect>on of.sp 4.
Training/Policy Communication Based upon input from the Resident Inspectors'ttendance at the
'FFD
.training prior to January 3,
1990, and upon the results of limited inter views conducted during this inspection, it was very evident that. the licensee's policy and program were well communicated to the workforce.
The licensee continues to use a variety of mediums to educate the
,employees and contractors on the FFD program:
newsletters arid articles in the newspaper, memorandums, internal TV bulletins and, a combination of pamphlets and booklets.
't ~
During interviews with supervisors, licensee employees, and contractors, the inspector found that personnel were very knowledgeable of the contents being presented during annual training.
Interviewees further stated that follow-up annual training was well presented and reinforced the initial training.
5.
Key Program Process
.
a.
Identification/Notification Every weekday, the licensee's Site FFD Coordinator and Assistant will request'
random draw of approximately 20 to 25 names (depending on plant population)
from the computerized Nuclear Employee Plant Access (NEPA) data bank.
Two passwords and one user identification code are necessary to program this draw.
The two password identification code prevents one Site FFD Coordinator from entering into the data base
for the other site.
Once the draw has been printed, the person
'ulling the list compares it to the work schedules of plant
'mployees.
Using'he list and work shift schedules,
'the person, responsible for the list prepares a schedule for the 'subjects to report for testing.
Once a supervisor i's notified, the employee is.
given two hours to arrive at the site collection facility where positive identification by photograph and social security numbers are verified.
b.'n response to an Inspector Follow-up Item (50-335, 389/91-05-01), it was noted that. the licensee had developed a more strenuous weekend and holiday testing program and, to date, Turkey Point had conducted.
20 tests on holidays.
Pers'onnel stated during interviews that they were aware of weekend/
holiday testing and did not believe that there was a "safe area" from testing.
Testing At the Turkey Point Nuc]ear Plant, the licensee averages testing between 20-25 candidates per'ay.
During the calendar year January 1,
1991, to September 3,
1991, the licensee tested from the plant population 2,894 candidates.
The plant 'population for this period has averaged 3,861.
The percentage of population tested was 74.95.
Percentage selected but not tested was 10.43.
The percentage positives and refusals was 0.55.
Random tests were as follows:
Licensee Once Twi.ce Three Times Four Times Five Times 1,576 438 113
3 The inspector observed collection and testing of specimens and noted-that the personnel were friendly, professional and highly trained to perform their assigned duties.
Each person interviewed considered the collection facility adequate and staffed with professional personnel.
Sanctions and Appeals I
A positive test for alcohol or illegal. drugs results in termination or, in the case of a contractor, the sanction is denial of access.
Refusal to test, possession of alcohol on the licensee's property and possession of
=
illegal drugs on or off the job also results in terminatio ~ '
7.
Audit The FFD program was audited during the period 5arch 5, 1991, to July 1, 1991.
The audit was conducted to verify that Nuclear Sec'urity has developed-and effectiv'ely implemented the FPL FFD program per
CFR Part
and that corrective action items from a
previous audit (gAS-FFD-90-1) were implemented and effective.
The FFD program audit was divided into the following categories:
general provisions, program elements and procedures, policy communications and
'awareness training, training of supervisors and escorts, contractors and vendors, chemical testing, employee assistance programs, management actions and sanctions to be imposed, appeals, protection of information, inspections, records and reports, audits, MRO, and laboratory facilities.
One finding was identified.
However, the 'audit concluded th'at FPL's FFD program has been effectively developed, implemented and documented.
The inspector reviewed the 'FFD audit and concluded that the guality Assurance (gAS-FFD-91-1)
was a thorough review of the program and was well documented.
8.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on September 6,
1991, with those persons indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results listed below.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee..
The. licensee was complimented for having a
program which satisfies the general performance objectives of Part 26.
'There were several strengths noted in the program.
Those strengths were the professionalism of the site FFD (coordinator and assistant),
FFD training, FFD facilities and the excellent technicians who operated the collection facility., The licensee was informed that Inspector Follow-up Item 91-05-01, noted during the Corporate/St.
Lucie FFD inspection 50-335,389/91-05, would be closed in
.
.this repor '