IR 05000282/1988018

Insp Repts 50-282/88-18 & 50-306/88-18 on 880919-22.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Concerns Associated W/Allegation RIII-A-0111

ML20196A938
Person / Time
Site:	Prairie Island
Issue date:	11/30/1988
From:	Funk D, Januska A, Schumacher M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196A932	List: IR 05000282/1988018 ML20196A928
References
50-282-88-18, 50-306-88-18, NUDOCS 8812060151
Download: ML20196A938 (6)

Text

_ __

'

,

.. ._ .

. .

U. S. NUCLEAR RE@i ATORY COWi!SSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-282/88018(ORSS); 50-306/88018(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-282; 50-306 Licenses No. DPR-42; DPR-60 Licensee: Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Hall Minneapolis, MN 55401 Facility Name: Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1 anti 2 Inspection At: Prairie Island Site, Red Wing, Minnesota Inspection Ct.,nducted: September 19-22, 1988 Inspectors: WY A. yanuska so!I8/88 Date M D. Funk 'I/3c[88 Date

~)//,,kdswi.u/n Approved By: M. Schumacher, Chief #'M Radiological Effluents and Date Chemistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on September 19-22, 1988 (Reports No. 50-282/88018(DRSS);

Fo. 50-306/88018(DRSS))

' Areas Inspected: Nonroutine, unannounced inspection of concerns associated with Allegation No. RIII-A-011 Results: Concerns regarding allegations were reviewed and close The review disclosed unrest in the chemistry technician group and conflict between the technicians and their minagement. The licensee has formulated an improvement plan for implementation in early October 1988. No violations of NRC regulations were iaentifie G81130 '

DR ADOCK0500gg2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

'

.. .

. .

DETAILS Persons Contacted 2M. Chanaka, Senior Employee Relations Consultant 2P. Jarcho, Manager, Social Resource Center A. Johnson, Radiation Protection Supervisor 2R. Kamann, Administrative Specialist 10. Hendele, General Superintendent, Plant Engineering and Radiation Protection 10. Schuelke, Superintendent, Radiation Protection E. Watzl, Plant Manager 1J. Hard, NRC Senior Resident Inspector The inspectors also held meetings and discussions with other plant employee Present at the exit meetin Contacted telephonically during the inspectio . Allegation Followup The NRC Region III office received several telephone calls from unidentified individuals alleging that missed Technical Specification (TS) chemistry analyses led to disciplinary action against an employee, that plant workers who contacted the N:X were in jeopardy of losing their jobs, and that the licensee fitness for u ty standards for managers are different than those for worker Two inspectors went to the Prairie Island Site on September 19, 1988 and interviewed NSP Corporate personnel (telephoni ully) and site management and Radiation Protection Specialists with regara to these allegatica concerns. The inspection was concluded on September 22, 1988 with an exit meeting attended by personnel denoted in Section Allegation Concern #1 Disciplinary action was taken against a technician for failure to tske a dissolved oxygen (00) sample required by the technical specification However, no backup samples were taken and the "bogus" results were net removed from the recor Discussion The inspectors interviewed plant and chemistry management, all chemistry technicians, several health physics technicians, and reviewed licensee records concerning this matter. The chemistry technician on the midnight shift normally collects and analyzes the 00 samples in the hot laboratory using reagents stored there and enters the results into a computer data base. This computer record is reviewed at least weekly by managemen No other log or recora is made of this analysis by the technicia The technician on this shift works largely independently with limited direct supervisio ______ ____- ___ - .____.

l-

.. .

\

l

-

l

?

!

In mid-July 1988, a chemistry manager suspected a particular technician of not taking the samples and attempted to confirm this by carefully

, noting the position of the reagent bottles before and after sampling.

! The manager, noting that the bottles had not been moved, concluded that l the samples had not been taken and confronted the technician during the technician's next scheduled shift some ten days later.

!

In interviews with the inspector, the manaaer recalled the technician j had responded that some samples may have oeen missed but the manager

could not prove it. However, the technician recalled saying, in l effect, that if sample results were recorded then they had been done.

l The technician stated the samples had been analyzed using reagents prepared and stored in the cold laboratory after being warned by another l technician that the manager was "out to get" the technician. The technician told the inspector that the manager was told of the second

'

set of reagents on the day of their confrontation; the manager could not recall when but stated that it was not during the confrontatio The principals agreed that a "Step One - Cral Reminder" - the least serious of NSP's three step Positive Discipline Program - was given I during the confrontation with a written summary later being placed in the l technician's fil The technician later contacted the NSP employee relations group which led to a meeting attended by the plant manager, the

'

l senior Employee Relations Consultant, the technician and two members of

,

'

chemistry management. In this meeting, the plant manager concluded that the evidence was not strong enough to support a conclusion that a sample had been missed, rescinded the disciplinary action, and had the reprimand removed from the technician's fil In discussions with the inspector, the manager acknowledged that backup samples were not taken but noted that only one sample was really suspected of having been missed and this would not have been a problem inasmuch as six samples are normally taken each week whereas TecMical

,

Specification 4.1.C requires only five. The manager did admit that a

! backup sample would have been a good idea and stated that the computer

, record of the suspect samplo analysis had not been altere Finding The principal NRC concern in this allegation, whether missed chemistry samples resulted in a violation of NRC regulations, could not be substantiated. The technician denied missing the samples; the manager's suspicions were focused with certainty on only one particular sample and were based on the assumption that a specific set of reagents would have been used - a supposition disputed by the technician. The NRC inspector confirmed that six entries were in the computer for the analysis in question for the week in question whereas five analyses would have satisfied technical specification 4. No documentation such as sample or analysis sheets or laboratory logs bearing on this matter were found by or presented to t M inspecto Their absence hindered this review but is consistent with licensee procedures and the technical specification _

.. .

.

The licensee did not take backup samples and did not remove any results from the record but neither action was necessary absent a missed sampl However, given the suspicions of the manager at the time, it would have been prudent and appropriate to take backup samples and to have noted in the record any uncertainty over the result Finally, it was confirmed that disciplinary action was taken against a technician for not'taking a sample. However, it was rescinded for lack of compelling evidence upon review by the plant manage No violations or deviations were ioentifie Allegation Concern #2 Employee jobs are in jeopardy for talking to the NRC. Two allegers stated in telephone calls to the NRC that contact with the NRC would result in their being fired if management found out and that management gets upset even when outsiders from the corporate office come around asking question Discussion This issue was discussed with plant and chemistry management, all chemistry technicians and several health physics technicians. In discussions with the inspectors, licensee management called attention to the Handbook for General Employee Training which contains a statement pointing out that an employee can have a private consultation with the NRC regarding matters related to NRC regulations without fear of losing theirjo This handbook is given to all employees during their initial company trainin Licensee management indicated they knew of no other written policy statements on this matte In response to the inspector's questions as to whether they feared reprisal for talking to the NRC, all of the technicians stated they had no such fear. Two elaborated on their answer by asserting that they definitely would contact the NRC if issue? they regarded as important

were not adequately addressed by the compan Finding

This allegation was not substantiate The technicians were clearly

'

unhappy with the managerial style of one chemistry manager; they appeared to particularly resent prohibitions on eating and drink 1ng in the cold l

laboratory and the manager's looking into cold laboratory drawers

! regarded as personal by the technicians. However, such matters are

! beyond the purview of the NRC and are more properly in the realm of labor management relations.

i l

No violations or deviations were identifie Allegation Concern #3 A fitness for duty issue was mishandled because NSP has a different set i of rules for supervisors and workers.

!

t

I

,

. W

r

'

.. ..

.

Discussion During the allegation review on September 19 and 20, 1988, the inspector reviewed the licensee's Fitness For Duty (FFD) program by examining published guidance and through interviews with both supervisory and non-supervisory personnel. No evidence or information was developed to indicate that FFD issues are handled differently for supervisors and worker In July 1988, the issue of a manager's behavior was first brought to management's attention in the form of a personal concern for an employee's welfare. The employee's manager upon learning of this conducted a limited review through observation and interviews and made the assessment that while the employee was having personal problems, they were not having an affect on duty performanc Then, in August, NSP Social Resource Center (5RC) personnel notified the Plant Manager of a possible FFD concern involving the employee and suggested ways to address the issue. The possibility of an FFD concern was based on information from an investigation into a subordinate's appeal of discipline administered by the employee (a manager) regarding a possibly missed chemistry sample. Based on this information, the plant manager requested the employee's manager to conduct a FFD assessment. Following the NSP FFD guidance, the supervisor conducted a review using interviews with both supervisory and non-supervisory personnel, general observation of the individual and a review of the licensee's FFD supervisors handbook. The manager responsible for this assessment determined the individual in question to be fit for dut This manager then discussed his findings with senior plant management who concurred with the assessmen Finding The review confirmed that the licensee has a multi-faceted FFD progra The licensee followed the program guidance and no evidence or information was developed to ir.Jicate that FFD issues are handled any differently for supervisors than for workers. This allegation was not substantiated and is considered close No violations or deviations were identified.

,

3. Exit Meeting

The inspectors met with licensee representatives (Section 1) at the i conclusion of the inspection on September 22, 1988 to discuss the individual allegations and findings. The inspector observed that there

was considerable discontent expressed by several of the chemistry

! technician group over matters that appear to be assor.iated mainly with personality and style of management. It was also noted that not all of i the technicians indicated the same depth of feeling or were as outspoken

,

!

.- - .-.

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

.. .*

4 *

in their criticism. Other matters discussed in some detail with licensee management included management attention to fitness for duty issues, the need for better awareness of technician activities by management, and the desirability of open communications between management and technician The licensee acknowledged the inspectors comments and agreed to followup on the matters discussed and to attempt to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions.

l l

l t

.._