IR 05000373/1986020
| ML20212A085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1986 |
| From: | Axelson W, Creed J, Drouin B, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212A045 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-86-20, 50-374-86-19, NUDOCS 8607280109 | |
| Download: ML20212A085 (6) | |
Text
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-373/86020(DRSS);50-374/86019(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374 Licenses No. NPF-11; NPF-18 Safeguards Group IV Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: LaSalle County, IL Type of Inspection:
Unannounced Special Security Inspection Date of Inspection: March 24 - June 16, 1986 Date of Previous Physical Security Inspection: March 24-27, 1986 Inspectors:
3.3.9A r ful 9%
G. L. Pirtle Date Physical Security Inspector
.26.9 0 % o 1 lao t t 6 MB.Drouin Date Physical Security
'
Inspector Reviewed By: h f J I/M!N (J. R. Creed, Chief Date
' Safeguards Section Iw/2 db d 7/4/f6 Approved By:
W. L. Axelson, Ohief Date Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch Inspection Summary Inspection between March 24 - June 16, 1986 (Reports No. 50-373/8620(DRSS);
I 50-374/86019(DR55))
!
8607280109 860723 PDR ADOCK 05000373 G
.
.
Areas Inspected:
Included inspection of allegations pertaining to off duty drug and alcohol use by contractor personnel, and inadequate security screening procedures for contractor personnel.
Results: The licensee was found to be in compliance with NRC requirements within the areas examined. An allegation pertaining to excessive consumption of alcohol by certain craft personnel prior to reporting to work has been forwarded to the licensee for action.
NRC Region III will review the investigation results.
?
L
.
.
DETAILS 1.
Key Persons Contacted
- J. Brennan, Nuclear Security Director, (CECO)
- B. Saunders, Nuclear Security Administrator, (CECO)
J. Roulo, Security Screening Coordinator, (Ceco)
- D. Hamilton, Assistant Station Security Administrator M. Jordan, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC Region III
- Denotes management personnel contacted during the July 2, 1986 telephone exit meeting.
2.
Exit Interview (IP 30703)
An exit interview was conducted by telephone on July 2,1986, with the personnel denoted above.
They were advised of the general nature of the allegations addressed in Paragraph 4 below. They were also advised that no apparent violations were noted as a result of the inspection effort pertaining to the allegations.
No written material pertaining to the inspection findings was left with the licensee.
The licensee representa-tives were advised that the final inspection report would include the formal perspective of the inspection findings.
3.
Background Information On March 6, 1986, the Resident Inspector at the LaSalle Nuclear Plant received a comment from a licensee employee about the apparent inadequacy of contractor employee security screening.
A subsequent meeting with three licensee employees identified the potential concern to be a contractor employee working out of the Marseilles, Illinois labor local.
More specific information was not provided.
The three individuals provided their names and requested that they be contacted offsite.
The areas of concern addressed possible felony convictions and alcohol and drug abuse.
The inspectors were at LaSalle between March 24-27, 1986.
During this inspection, the three individuals were contacted in an attempt to obtain sufficient information pertaining to the allegations to determine the appropriate action to be taken in addressing the allegations.
The individuals were contacted offsite as requested.
One of the individuals agreed to a personal interview and was interviewed on March 25, 1986.
The remaining two persons were interviewed (by telephone) at their residence on March 27, 1986 and April 1, 1986, respectively.
All three of the individuals contacted had basically the same concerns pertaining to felony checks for contractor employees; use of alcohol by
'
contractor employees prior to coming to work; and drug screening for contractor employees.
All of the individuals stated that they have not seen any employees (licensee or contractor) use alcohol or drugs onsite.
Further, they had not found alcohol containers onsite for the past year or two.
Their concerns pertained to craft employees only and only those craft employees who were hired for short durations during outages.
The
- -.
. - - _ _ - _
-
-
. - - - -.
_
-,
__ __ -
-
.
.
individuals emphasized that, in their judgement, the concerns did not constitute a perceived threat to the site in the form of possible sabotage
,
or malicious damage to plant safety systems. The concerns pertaining to
'
use of alcohol by contractors before coming to work was limited to backshift periods.
The contractor employee, who was the primary concern pertaining to an alleged past felony conviction, was terminated from employment at LaSalle prior to our contact with the allegers. The termination information was confirmed by the inspector. The individual allegedly assaulted a supervisor and this action was the primary reason for his discharge. Site access was terminated on March 13, 1986.
The individuals providing the information stated they did not bring their concerns to management because they were concerned about their personal safety and relationship with contractors and peers if they were identified as a source of allegations.
4.
Allegations / Concerns (RIII-86-A-0041)
The licensee employees declined to identify any specific individuals or contractor firms, except the contractor employee mentioned above, in reference to their allegations.
Due to the lack of specific identification of individuals or contractor fims, the inspection effort concentrated on the licensee's programmatic approach to addressing contractor security screening and alcohol and drug awareness and abuse as it pertains to contractor personnel. The concerns, inspection actions, and conclusions are addressed below:
a.
Concern: The licensee employees stated that they felt felony conviction checks should be conducted for craft employees as part of the personnel security screening process. Their concern was based primarily on their personal knowledge of the personalities and conduct of some of the craft workers and rumors of alleged felony convictions pertaining to individuals. The contractor employee mentioned in Paragraph 3 above was the only individual specifically identified by one of the licensee employees as having a possible felony conviction based upon an alleged incident, perhaps up to ten years ago, whereby the employee used his vehicle to deliberately collide with a police car. The licensee employees thought their security screening included a felony conviction check.
Inspection Actions:
The inspector reviewed the personnel security screening requirements contained within the licensee's approved security plan. Such screening requirements for contractor personnel are identified in Section 4.4.3 of the security plan.
Felony checks are not required to be conducted for any employees, licensee or contractor, unless the employet is a member of the security organiza-tion.
Personnel convicted of a felony in accordance with the Illinois law can not be assigned to the security force.
Interviews with the corporate Nuclear Security Administrator showed that the security departnent in all probability would follow up on any information that indicated that an employee had a felony conviction but such incidents would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
f
.
.
Interview results also concluded that contractor security screening programs are audited by the corporate security department. The inspector reviewed onsite records for approximately 20 contractor personnel. The required documentation was available and no deficiencies were noted.
Conclusion: There is no current regulatory basis to require felony checks of contractor personnel to be completed on a routine basis.
The licensee was complying with the personnel security screening requirements identified in the approved security plan. The licensee would be responsive to any information that indicated an employee with unescorted access to the plant had been convicted of a felony.
b.
Concern:
The allegers believed that contractor personnel should be required to submit to mandatory urine or blood testing for drug abuse. The allegers had no personal knowledge of recent actual offsite use of drugs by specific contractor personnel. Their concerns were based on knowledge of the life styles of certain contractor personnel ard rumors that the persons used drugs. Some persons known by the allegers supposedly used drugs in the past. The allegers declined to provide the identity of any such individuals or contractor firms.
Inspection Actions:
Interviews were conducted with corporate security representatives pertaining to fitness for duty programs for contractor personnel. The interview results showed that purchase orders involving contractor labor requires the contractor to have a
" fitness for duty program." Although it may be called another name, the purpose of the program is to assure personnel are fit for duty while working at the site. The general requirements are considered to be equivalent to the licensees Fitness for Duty Program require-ments. The specifications in a purchase order pertaining to the program do not make mandatory or random urine analysis a requirement.
Such testing is left to the judgement of each contractor. Contractor Fitness for Duty programs are audited by corporate security personnel during their audits of the Personnel Security Screening Program. A memorandum, dated November 27, 1985, Subject: 53N Stamp; with an attachment describing Fitness for Duty specifications, showed that a contractor's Fitness for Duty program must be reviewed and approved by the corporate Nuclear Security Director. The corporate Nuclear Security Administrator stated that the licensee would monitor action by contractors, to possibly include mandatory testing for drug abuse, if there was probable cause.
Such cases would be addressed on an individual basis and the primary responsibility of the contractor.
Conclusion:
The licensee requires a contractor to have a Fitness for Duty program that is equivalent to their program if the contractor personnel work at a nuclear pcwcr station licensed by the NRC.
Such programs are subject to audit by the licensee's corporate security staff.
i
..
,
c.
Concern: Craft personnel allegedly consume excessive amounts of alcohol prior to reporting for duty at the LaSalle Nuclear plant.
The implication of the allegation was that the condition constituted a working safety concern and supervisors were not sensitive enough to the issue. The allegers stated that during their backshift tours, they have, on several occasions, smelled the odor of alcohol on persons in elevators and at the Radiation Protection check-in countei-area. The identities of the persons involved were not provided; however, they allegedly were craft employees who have worked at the site for a short period of time. The time frame for the alleged incidents was within the first hour or two of the backshift period.
These incidents have allegedly occurred only since the refueling outage (September 1985).
Inspection Actions: This allegation will be provided to the licensee for action.
Results of the licensee's actions will be reviewed by NRC Region III.
(373/86020-01;374/86019-01)
6