IR 05000259/1991029
| ML18036A361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1991 |
| From: | Mcguire D, Thompson D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18036A360 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-259-91-29, 50-260-91-29, 50-296-91-29, NUDOCS 9109100035 | |
| Download: ML18036A361 (6) | |
Text
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTASTREET, N.W.
ATLANTA,GEORGIA 30323 and 50-296/91-29 Licensee:
Tennessee Vailey Authority 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
~pS Af:0II>
0p.0
~
+p*y+
Report Nos.:
50-259/91-29, 50-260/91-29, Docket Nos.:
50-259, 50-260 and 50-296 Facility Name:
Brown Ferry 1, 2, and
.";License Nos.:
i7
,;
.. and;DPR-68; r> ',
Inspection Con Inspector:
g /iI
'l
~
Approved by:
mp n,
a eguar s
nspector ted August 8, 1991 a
e
~gne
. MIcGuire, h>ef Safeguards Section Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards at signed SUMMARY Scope:
This routine, announced inspection was conducted in the areas of the licensee's Fitness for Duty (FFD)
Program.
Specifically, the licensee's corrective actions to Severity Level IV Violation 91-18-01, and Inspector Followup Item 91-18-02 were inspected.
Results:
In the areas inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
It was noted that the licensee had taken corrective action to improve the'ecurity of the collection facility and to ensure that weekend and holiday drug and alcohol testing was conducted.
9109100035 9'10829 PDR ADOCK 05000259 Q
REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Gregg, Unit 3 Security Coordinator, BFNP
- R. Hughes, Human Resource'Manager, BFNP
- C. Kelley, Acting Security Manager, BFNP
- R. Morris, Manager, Health Services, Corporate Office
- P. Reynolds, Employee Relations Manager, Corporate Office
- S. Ridge, Site Programs/Support, BNFP
- P. Salas, Licensing Manager, BFNP.
Other licensee employees contacted during this inspection included engineers, security force members, technicians, and administrative personnel.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- C. Patterson, Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview Key Program Process During the initial Fitness for Duty.(FFD)
Program inspection, conducted April 30 to May 3, 1991, it was found that there were deficiencies in the licensee's specimens collection program.
Title 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A (Subpart B, 2.4, Specimen Collection Procedure)
requires various measures to ensure the security 'of the collection facility during specimen collection, and the validity of the chain-of-custody by not allowing candidates access to other water sources, or hand-carried purses.
Additionally, Subpart B requires the candidate to remain in the presence of the site collection technician during the collection process.
The inspector noted during the initial inspection that the rear door of the collection facility was propped open and could have allowed unauthorized access to the collection facility during the time of specimen collection.
During the follow-up inspection conducted August 8, 1991, the inspector noted that the licensee had installed a local alarm on the back door, therefore, when the door is opened the alarm sounds inside the facility and is responded to by the on-duty technicians.
The key to disable the door alarm is maintained by the site docto It was noted during the initial inspection that candidates waiting for specimen collection were allowed to carry personal belongings (purses)
into the hallway of the collection facility and leave them on the chairs.
After washing his/her hands,.
the candidates are given the specimen container and then leave the technician and walk down the hallway, around the corner, and enter one of three bathrooms (only one bathroom had blue dye in the reservoir, others had faucets and other water sources)
affording the candidates access to their personal items and unauthorized water source.
The inspector noted during the followup inspection that the licensee had constructed three private collection facilities with one bathroom in each facility.
They had also installed personal lockers outside the collection facility for candidates to store their personal items while inside the collection facility.
Severity Level IV Violation 91-18-01; corrective actions appears adequate and therefore is closed.
During the initial inspection, it was noted that the technicans did not keep the candidates specimen in view at all times prior to sealing the container.
Personnel interviewed believed that weekend holiday drug and alcohol testing did not occur.
During the followup inspection the inspector noted that during specimen collection at the newly constructed collection facilities the candidate was able to maintain continuous observation of their specimen.
It was further noted that the licensee had in the "Nuclear Horizons,"
and
"TVA Today" informed personnel that it was a
TVA policy to drug and alcohol test personnel one weekend and holiday.
The inspector was presented with a
copy of the licensee's increased weekend and holiday random testing program, which if followed, should provide adequate testing to satisfy the off shift, weekend and holiday testing requirement.
Inspector Followup Item 91-18-02 concerning weekend and holiday testing wi 11 be closed based on the above comments.
In addition to the other corrective actions to the violation and inspector followup item, TVA committed to conducting quarterly visits to all TVA collection facilities by the FFD Coordinator, and Health Services Supervisor of Clinical Support, Training, and Compliance to ensure FFD testing is properly performed.
It was noted that at least one unannounced visit had been conducte During the inspection the licensee's list of relatives of employees who access the daily random selection through the automated Drug Screening Program, dated July 15, 1991, was received and it determined that the FFD Manager had taken adequate action to resolve the inspector's concern.
3.
Exit Interview The inspection scope and results were summarized on August 8, 1991, with those persons indicated in Paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas inspected and discussed in detail the inspection results.
The licensee was informed that the actions taken in response to the previous cited violation and inspector followup item were adequate and that the items noted in Paragraph 2 were closed.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.