IR 05000348/1991002
| ML20029A284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1991 |
| From: | Mcguire D, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029A285 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-348-91-02, 50-348-91-2, 50-364-91-02, 50-364-91-2, NUDOCS 9102080043 | |
| Download: ML20029A284 (4) | |
Text
-
-
- - - -
e Ric UNITED STATES
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
o,'n REGION li g
j 101 MARIETTA STREET,N.W.
't ATLANT A, GEORGI A 30323
~s.,...../
Report No.: 50-348/91-02 and 50-364/91-02 Licensee: Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Birmingham, AL 35291-0400 Docket Nos.:
50-348 and 50-364 License Nos.:
NPF-2 and NPF-8 Facility Name: Farley 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: January 8,1991 Inspector: h k
(
b w SL (W W.v.TobinGenior Safeguards Inspector Date Sign ~ed g
Approved by:
/ 3/ 7/
-
s V. R. McGuire, Section Chief D'a te '31 gne d Safeguards Section Nuclear Material and Safety Safeguards Branch Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards SUMMARY
,<
Scope:
This special announced inspection was conducted to verify the licensee's corrective action for two prior violations relative to Part 26, Fitness for Duty.
Also addressed during the inspection was the licensee's practice of providing employees access to their test records.
Results:
In-the areas _ inspected, violations or deviations were not identified.
The licensee corrective actions are acceptable and prior items No. 90-18-01 and No. 90-18-02 are closed.
- 9102080043 910201 DR ADOCK 0500 8 g
-
'
.
,
.-_
.
.-.
..
_
.. _ -
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
l
!
!
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Persons Contacted Licensee Employees
- P. Bizjak, Safety and Health Department (Corporate)
- L. Enfinger, Administrative Manager (Site)
- S. Fulmer, Safety Audit and Review Supervisor (Site)
- E. Manely, Safety and Health Department (Site)
- D. Morey, Plant General Manager (Site)
- J. Ripple, Administration Manager, (Corporate)
- J. Sims, Nuclear Project Engineer (Corporate)
NRC Resident Inspectors
- G. Maxwell, Senior NRC Resident
- M. Morgan, NRC D;"irient
- Denotes those in attendance at the Exit Meeting 2.
Licensee Actions on Previous items Non-cited Violation No. 50-348 and 364/90-18-01 (Closed):
By correspondence dated August 15 and September 28, 1990, the licensee finalized its intent to assure all supervisors, including contract supervisors, are trained relative to their duties and responsibilities under the licensee's Fitness for Duty Program.
For new contractors, Purchase Orders now define the required training, and for current contractors, revised procedures and revised contracts now define supervisory positions and duties.
The licensee's Corporate Quality Services has initiated a one year effort to audit these contractors and this supervisory training.
Violation No. 50-348 and 50-364/90-18-02 (Closed):
By correspondence dated September 26, 1990, the license responded to this violation furnishing its corrective ma:r.res. Beginning the week of September 10, 1990, the licensee modified its computerized random selection process such that five independent r3ndom selections are performed for each of the four nuclear / headquarters facilities iteneur the weekly program is requested.
The random generator now
'. lows for
-
duplicate selections (candidates for retesting) to appear on the five lists.
_ _ _ _ - _- _ _ - - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
- _ _ - - - -
_ - _ _ _ _ -
_
___
_
_
_
____
.. _
. _ _
-,
,
.
Since this action was taken a candidate was duplicated for the week of the September 14, and another candidate was duplicated for the week of December 28.
There were 11 other candidates which were examples of duplicate testing within the week as examples on an alternate list.
As part' of its random effort the licensee has tested 188 employees twice, 56 employees three times,10 employees four times, 5 employees five times and 1 employee six times.
A sampling of the random testing records revealed testing of various shif ts, days (including Holidays and weekends), various categories of the workforce and its management and supervision.- No " safe havens" could be identified.
Since the initiation of the testing program in January,1990, the licensee "for cause" tested 8 individuals, 3 of whom were contractors.
The forms used by the candidates reveals if the test is "for cause" or other reasons, i.e, random, pre-access, etc.
According to the licensee, randomly chosen contractors of the laundry service and the exterminator service who are relatively close to the Plant are requested to report to the site for testir.g because of the unique frequency and circumstances that they may access the facility.
No " holds" are put on candidates if they will not be available the week they were chosen.
3.
Access to the Test Records 10 CFR Part 26, Appendix A. Subpart C, 3. 2. Individual Access to Test and Laberatory Certification Results requires that licensees provide access to any records relative to an employee's test pursuant to Part 26.
The Rule
--requires-this access be requested in writing.
In NUREG 1354, Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry:
Responses to Public Comments, (question No.14.3.1) the NRC furnished a response to comments regarding-the-intent of this section of the Rule.-
The NRC expects-licensee management to allow workers to review their personnel records at any reasonable time and place, and to comply with requests (if warranted) to correct-inaccuracies -in those records.
Furthermore, in the event of an appeal of a positive drug test, the NRC expects licensees to provide all records,- documents, and chain-of-custody forms relating the initial and positive test results.
It is the licensee's practit e in the event of an appeal of a positive test-result: to furnish to the individual the results of the preliminary test, breath alcohol o analyses records, chain-of-custody forms / laboratory transmittal letters, medication / prescription histories, Medical Review Officer's evaluation and Employees Assistance records.
It had-been the licensee's practice to furnish the employee with
. preliminary test results and the breath alcohol analyses records for negative tests.
However in mid-1990 the employees began requesting
-
extensive documentation, some of which the licensee did not possess, i.e,
-..
-
- -.
..
-
---
-. -
. _._..
_. _
_. _.
.. - _. _
. - - _._. _ - _ _
... _ _ _. _. _., _. _
_..___.;
t.
.
quantitative laboratory results.- During the Fall of 1990, through a
,
series of meetings with representativesLof the workforce -the licensee explained what records rare available and what:information could be gleaned from theLrecords.
The licensee.had been responding to these voluminous records requests with a pre-printed form letter that merely reiterated the fact that an employee-had been tested on a specific date and that the' results of the test had-been negative.
Currently, it is the licensee's intent to furnish all records relative to a test to an employee
.
and to make available a review of the " sign in/ sign out" log located at
.1 the; testing facility.
4.-
Exit-Interview.
The inspection scope and results sumarized on January 8,1991, with those persons-indicated in paragraph 1.
The inspector described the areas
. inspected and discussed. in detai1 the-inspection results listed.
Dissenting comments were not received from the licensee.
a
.
t
. -.
..n..
e.,
_
....
,.. -.