IR 05000324/1993024
| ML20059K680 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1993 |
| From: | Demiranda O, Jenkins G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059K624 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-324-93-24-01, 50-324-93-24-1, 50-325-93-24, NUDOCS 9311160141 | |
| Download: ML20059K680 (6) | |
Text
m
.
.
' UNITED STATES
.
meo%,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_/
h
REGloN !!
"'
"
101 MARIETTA STREET, N.W., SUITE 2900
'
' fn 4l ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323-0199 k...../
j
Report Nos.: 50-325/93-24 end 50-324/93-24 l
Licensee:
Carolina Power and Light Company j
P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, NC 27602
q Docket Nos.:
50-325 and 50-324 License Nos.: DRP-72 and DRP-62-
i facility Name:
Brunswick St'eam Electric Plant Unit 1:and _2 l
Inspection Conducted:
September 7 September 9, 1993 Inspector:
Ad df/
'lN/
8-3 l
Oscar iranda, Sen'or Allegation Coordinator.
Date Signed
-
Approved by:
Y O!7!h)
'
Gj rge R. Jenk)hs,.Dirktor Date Signed Efforcement and Investiga i i
Coordination Staff
.,
SUMMARY
?!
.
Scope:
This unannounced inspection was conducted by the Senior Allegation _
Coordinator, Enforcement and Investigation Coordination Staff, i
Region II, in the areas of site access _ interface control and handling of contractor employee concerns.:
Results:
No violations or deviations were identified.
There was one I
unresolved item pertaining to potential.. employee discrimination.
(paragraph 4)
Only badged' employees and employees who.will be on site greater i
than 6 months receive GET. This results.in individuals not
receiving training on the licensee's. Quality Check Program.
j (paragraph 2)
j Anumber.ofdeficihncieswereidentifiedwithregardtothe-
!!
handling of a specific former contractor's concern.
j (paragraph 2 and 3)
a
>
The adequacy of _ compliance with 10 CFR 50.7..is unresolved' pending:
!
NRC review and evaluation of circumstances surrounding this issue
including reviewing the licensee's investigation. (paragraph 4).
!
9311160141 931104
PDR ADOCK 05000324
<
G PDR_ a
]
r2
-
,
"
.
-
.
,
l l
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- R. Anderson - Site Vice President
- J. Dobbs - Special Assistant to Site Vice President
- C. Hinnant - Director of Site Operations l
- M. Brown - Interim Plant Manager, Unit 2 I
- W. Levis - Manager Regulatory Affairs.
- G. Miller, Manager - Technical Support
- C. Robertson, Manager - Environmental & Radiological Control
- M. Bradley, Manager - Brunswick Assessment Project
- G. Warriner, Manager - Control and Administration
- S. Vann, Manager - Civil Engineering
- E. Willett, Manager - Outage Management & Modifications (OM&M)
- K. Kirks, Quality Check Program
- M. Calvert - Associate General Counsel
- R. Godley, Supervisor - Regulatory Compliance
.
- S. Tabor, Senior Specialist - Regulatory Compliance Other Personnel Contacted
- R. Dionisio - Bechtel Site Manager l
l
- R. Prevatte, NRC - Senior Resident Inspector
- Attended exit interview Acronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragraph.
2.
Review of Site Access Interface Control The inspector reviewed the General Employee Training Self Study Guide,.
Revision 11, for site access control. GET is provided for individuals requiring badging for escorted and unescorted access to the protected area of the plant site. Individuals that would be at the plant site owner controlled area for a period greater than six months also receive
-
GET. The licensee advised the inspector that the procedure was being revised to change the six month period to one month and that this would
.
become effective on October 1, 1993. This change will result in a L
smaller number of employees who do not receive GET.
The inspector interviewed licensee personnel regarding employee awareness of the Quality Check Program. The Quality Check Program is used by the licensee to follow up on employee concerns. A policy statement from the site Vice President and the GET study guide containing information regarding the existence of Quality Check Program were reviewed by the inspector. These documents inform the employee how to report concerns and who may use the Quality Check Program.
i i
l
<
a
L
-
I
.
,
,
The inspector questioned licensee personnel regarding their overview of contractor activities associated with employee concerns. The inspector
,
determined the following:
s
-
There was no programmatic overview performed by the licensee of contractor employee concern programs.
_
-
There was no requirement specified by the licensee for
'
contractors to have employee concern programs. The
inspector was informed by the licensee that they advise
'
contractors that the Quality Check Program is available for employees to voice safety concerns.
-
GET is only for badged employees and employees who will be at the site longer than 6 months. As a result, a portion'of site employees are unaware of vital information contained in
-
GET which includes the existence of the Quality Check i
Program.
-
There was no process to assure that non-badged employees leaving the site are interviewed by representatives of the Quality Check Program, yet a memorandum dated May 3,1993, from the site Vice President to all Brunswick managers and
-
supervisors indicates that "all CP&L employees and contractors who leave employment at the Brunswick site must be processed or afforded an opportunity to be processed through the Quality Check Program."
'
3.
Follow-up of Contractor Employee Concern by Bechtel Construction Company A former Bechtel employee expressed a concern related to color vision testing practices by the licensee and a concern that expressing this concern was not processed appropriately. Specifically, the individual
'
alleged that he was cautioned by a Bechtel supervisor to discontinue pursing the color vision testing issue or else his future employment
{
status would be terminated. The individual elected to resign because he
,
did not feel he could adequately work in an environment that did not
'
foster employees raising safety concerns without fear of reprisal. Upon
!
leaving the job site, the individual provided three separate letters
addressed to three separate Bechtel supervisors regarding this matter.
The individual informed the inspector that he has never been advised of the resolution of his concerns.
l The inspector reviewed the Bechtel Project Interface Manual which
!
provides the methods for employee concerns resolution to determine if they had been properly followed. The inspector determined that the procedures for processing employee concerns were primarily for resolving i
engineering technical issues and for expressing concerns at the
,
termination of employment.
In this case, neither concern fell into the
!
Bechtel procedures for processing employee concerns.
,
h
t
'
.
-
.
,
,
i
-
The inspector interviewed one of the Bechtel supervisors that
-
received the individual's concern letters. The Bechtel supervisor recalled the circumstances surrounding the employee concern and reported that he had assured the individual that the color vision r
concern would be reported to the licensee. The Bechtel supervisor reported that he also assured the individual that he must have
.
misunderstood the Bechtel supervisor who allegedly threatened the-individual's employment.
-
The inspector requested the Bechtel supervisor to provide the file which documented the resolution of the matter and the Bechtel _
,
supervisor stated that the file had been destroyed because he felt
'
'
the matter had been resolved, that sufficient time had lapsed and that the project was nearing completion.
-
Based on the interview with the first Bechtel supervisor, the inspector determined that the Bechtel supervisor accused of threatening the individual's employment was not questioned regarding this matter. The first Bechtel supervisor stated that the Bechtel supervisor accused of threatening the individual's employment had been contacted and informed that the individual must have misunderstood him.
-
One of the individual's letters that was written after resigning from his employment indicates that even if he misinterpreted the Bechtel supervisor's comment regarding his employment status,
-
this, in and of itself, constituted a problem in that no individual should be under the impression that his employment would be adversely affected for raising safety concerns.
During the review, the following observations were made:
-
The inspector determined that Bechtel failed to respond to the individual's letters regarding this matter.
-
Bechtel did not advise the licensee of the individual's employment discrimination that was identified in two letters as part of the color blindness employee concern. Bechtel i
only shared one of the letters with the licensee which i
solely identified the color blindness concern.
i
,
-
Bechtel was unable to produce copies of the individual's
]
letters and did not document the interview with the individual or the resolution of this matter.
-
Bechtel did not conduct a formal interview to ascertain' the i
facts and circumstances associated with the Bechtel
'
supervisor accused of telling the individual that his employment would be terminated if he continued to pursue the color blindness concern.
o
.
~
.
.
.
f 4.
Follow-up of Contractor Employee Concern by the Licensee The inspector reviewed the licensee's Quality Check Program files to determine if the individual's concern had been entered into the Quality Check Program. The inspector determined that the individual s concern
'
was not entered in the program and that the individual had never been
interviewed by representatives of the Quality Check Program.
The inspector determined that the licensee was partially aware of the individual's concern; however, it was not processed by the Quality Check Program nor wa.s the full scope of the individual's concern made known to the licensee.
During the review, the inspector determined that Bechtel advised the licensee that the color blindness concern was resolved. No further action was taken by the licensee regarding this niatter. The licensee informed the inspector that Bechtel's failure to inform CP&L of the employee discrimination concern will be investigated. The NRC review of the licensee's investigation will be URI 93-42-01.
5.
Exit Interview (30703)
The inspector met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1)
'
at the conclusion of the inspection on September 9, 1993. During this meeting, the inspector summarized the scope and findings of the inspection as they are detailed in this report, with particular emphasis i
on the Unresolved Item addressed below. The licensee representatives
)
acknowledged the inspector's comments and did not identify as proprietary any of the materials provided to or reviewed by the inspector during this inspection.
No dissenting comments from the licensee were received.
Item Number Description and Reference 324/325,93-42-01 URI: 10 CFR 50.7 Possible Employee i
Discrimination for allegedly threatening a
<
contractors employment for reporting a safety concern. Review the licensee's investigation into contractor safety concerns, paragraph 4.
j 11.
Acronyms and Initialisms ACR
-
Adverse Condition Report AFW
-
Auxiliary Feedwater ANSI
-
American National Standards Institute CI
-
Concerned Individual CP&L -
Carolina Power and Light Company CPU
-
Central Processing Unit
r
.
'
.
'
-
-
.
Charging Safety Injection Pump CSIP
-
CVCS' -
Chemical Volume Control System EDG
-
_
ERFIS -
Emergency Response Facility Information System FSAR -
Final Safety Analysis Report FWH
-
-
General Employee Training gallons per minute GPM
-
HDP
-
Heater Drain Pump IFI
-
Inspector Fcilow-up Item IST
-
Inservice Testing LOCA -
Loss of Coolant Accident MST
-
Maintenance Surveillance Test NPSH -
Net Positive Suction Head NRC
-
Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRR
-
Nuclear Reactor Regulation OP
-
Operating Procedure OST
-
Operations Surveillance Test PCR
-
Plant Change Request RCS/RC-Reactor Coolant System SI
-
Safety Injection TS
-
Technical Specification URI
-
Unresolved Item VCT
-
Volume Control Tank
..