ML18026A399
| ML18026A399 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1990 |
| From: | Albert R, Della Ratta A, Keimig R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18026A400 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-387-90-14, 50-388-90-14, NUDOCS 9011200040 | |
| Download: ML18026A399 (30) | |
See also: IR 05000387/1990014
Text
U.
S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION I
50-387/90-14
Report Nos.
50-388/90-14
50"387
Docket Nos.
50-388
License
Nos.
Facility Name:
Sus
uehanna
Steam Electric Station
Units
1
E
2
l
Licensee:
Penns
lvania Power and Li ht
Com an
Inspection At:
Salem
Townshi
Penns
lvania
Inspection
Conducted:
Jul
31 - Au ust
2
1990
Type of Inspection:
Initial Fitness-~por-Dot
Inspectors:
R.
. Albert,
afeguards
Inspector
date
. Della
atta,
Safe
rds Inspector
date
Approved by:
.
R. Keimig,
hief,
afeguards
Section
ivision of Radiat
n Safety
and Safeguards
gy-o7-pd
date
Ins ection Summar:
Initial Fitness-For-Dut
Ins ection
Combined
Ins ection
Re ort Nos. 50-387/90-14
and 50-388/90-14
W"i
training,'ey
program processes
and onsite testing facility.
90ii200040 90ii09
ADOCK 05000387
G
PNU
2.
~Findin s:
Based
upon selective
examinations of key e'laments
of PP&L's
Fitness-For-Duty
Program, it was concluded that, generally,'the
objectives of
10
CFR Part
26 are being met.
Management
support for this program
was apparent
by the quality of the testing facility and the professionalism
of the personnel
selected
to administer the program.
The following program strengths
and
potential
weaknesses
were identified:
Pro
ram Stren ths
The licensee
has
an excellent
computer
program for random selection.
The
program tracks the population comprising'he
random testing pools
and
calculates
the percentage
of a pool to be tested
on any given day to assure
that the required
annual
rate of testing is achieved.
2.
The licensee
has
reduced
the
number of personnel
with infrequent
unescorted
access
to the station
from 1,000 to 60, thereby significantly
dimini.shing the impact on the program by such personnel.
The testing facility was well designed
with physical barriers to separate
personnel traffic and collected
specimens.
The licensee
displayed aggressiveness
in administering tests to personnel
randomly selected for testing.
The licensee
gives supervisors
the option
of getting their people
in for testing or run the risk of having those
individuals'nescorted
access
revoked.
Potential
Pro
ram Weaknesses
t
The Employee Consultation
Services
(ECS) counselor indicated that
he would
not report to licensee
management
when
he determined that
a self-referred
individual's condition constitutes
a hazard to the individual, others,
or
the nuclear facility.
No such cases
had been
encountered.
However, this
position is not consistent with 10
CFR 26.25
and is considered
an
unresolved
item.
2.
The licensee
mandates
that
an employee
gives blood and urine in cases
of
for-cause
alcohol testin'g.
This is an apparent violation of 10
CFR
26.24(g).
3.
The licensee
does not conduct
random testing
between
the hours of 6:00
p.m.
and 6:00 a.m.
That predictable
gap in scheduling diminishes the
deterrent effect of random testing.
This practice is not consistent with
10
CFR 26.24(a)(2)
and is considered
an unresolved
item.
4.
The
MRO has the option of not personally interviewing an individual when
a positive drug test result is indicated.
This option is not consi stent
with 2.9(c) of Appendix A to
10
CFR Part
26 and is considered
an
unresolved
item.
DETAILS
Ke
Personnel
Contacted
Licensee
and Contractor
Personnel
W. L. Bohner, Director Corporate Security
- W. B. Dyer., Supervisor - Nuclear Communications
and Personnel
Systems
- A. C. Etzel, Health Services
Manager
"H.
E. Fetterman,
Instructor
- R. A. Hawkins, Registered
Nurse
R. Hollm,
ECS Counselor
- N. M. Licini, Supervisor - Personnel
Security
- C. D.
Lopes, Site Access Services
Supervisor
"W.
H. Lowthert, Manager - Nuclear Training
- D. F.
McGann,
Compliance
Engineer
R. J. Middleton, Medical
Review Officer
"K~
M. Roush,
Supervisor
Nuclear Instruction
"P.
P.
Rusanowsky,
Compliance
Engineer
E.
Sevem,
FFD Laboratory Supervisor
R.'heets,
FFD Laboratory Technician
"G. Stanley,
Superintendent
of Plant
- R. L. Stotler, Supervisor of Security
- C. Whirl, Assistant
Manger - NgA
L.
M. Yupco, Site Access Coordinator
4'G
R*L
- R
'k*E
S. Barber,
Senior Resident
Inspector
L. Bush, Chief,
Program
Development
and Review Section,
NRR/RSGB-
Headquarters
R. Keimig, Chief, Safeguards
Section - Region I
B. King, Safeguards
Inspector
"Attended the exit meeting
""Participated in the inspection
as
an observer
2.
Entrance
and Exit Meetin
s
The inspectors
met with the licensee
representatives,
indicated
above,
at
the Susquehanna
Station
on July 31,
1990, to summarize
the
scope
and purposes
of the inspection
and
on August 2,
1990, to present
the inspection findings.
The licensee's
commitments,
as documented
in this report,
were reviewed
and confirmed with the licensee.
3.
~Aroach
The inspectors
evaluated
the licensee's
Fitness-For-Duty
(FFD) Program
using
NRC Temporary Instr uction 2515/106:
Fitness-For-Dut:
Initial
Ins ection of Pro
ram
Im lementation.
This evaluation
included
a review
of the licensee
s written policies and procedures,'nd
program implementa-
tion,
as required
by 10
CFR 26, in the areas of:
management
support;
selection
and notification for testing; collecting and processing
specimens;
chemical testing for illegal drugs
and alcohol;
FFD training
and worker awareness;
the employee
assistance
program;
management
actions,
including sanctions,
appeals,
and audits;
and maintena
.ce
and protection
of records.
The evaluation of program implementation
also included:
interviews with key
FFD program personnel
and
a samplirg of the licensee's
and contractors'mployees
with unescorted
plant access;
a review of
relevant
program records;
and observation of key processes,
such
as
specimen collection
and onsite
screening
processes.
4
~
Written Policies
and Procedures
The inspectors
determined,
through in-office review of PP5L's Fitness for
Duty Manual, Revision
1 dated
March 28,
1990,
and discussions
with the
licensee,
that the licensee's
written
FFD policies
and procedures,
with
few exceptions,
met regulatory requirements.
The following policy was
found to conflict with the requirements
of 10
CFR 26.
Parts
10. 1
B and 10.2 of the
FFD Manual state,
in part, that
.
chemical testing processes
shall consist of collection of urine,
breath
and,
upon demand,
blood specimen for analysis
and detection of
drugs,
drug metabolites,
or alcohol.
When the inspectors
asked for
clarification of "upon demand" in regard to testing for alcohol,
licensee
management
explained that the giving of blood is mandatory
in cases
of for-cause testing involving alcohol.
The licensee
added
that the
company opted to continue that policy after it implemented
the
NRC
FFD rule because it considered
the testing of blood to be
more accurate.
The inspectors
dete'rmined that for-cause testing
was generally
done
at local hospitals,
which did not have breath
measurement
instruments,
and that one individual gave blood on January
12,
1990,
as mandated
by company policy.
Part 26.24(g) of Title 10,
Code of Federal
Regulation states,
in part,
that tests for alcohol
must
be administered
by breath alcohol analysis
devices
meeting certain
standards.
The confirmatory test for alcohol
shall
be done with another breath
measurement
instrument.
Should the
person
demand further confirmation, the test must
be
a gas
chromatography
analysis of blood.
Ll
The licensee's
policy of mandating
the giving of blood in cases of for-cause
testing for alcohol is an apparent violation of 10
CFR 26.24(g).
(VIO
50-387/90-14-01
and 50-388/90-14-01).
Other policies
and procedures
which were of concern to the inspectors
are discussed
in other sections of this report.
5.
Pro
ram Administration
Following are the inspectors'indings
with respect
to the administration
of key elements of the licensee's
FFD Program:
a.
Delineated
Res onsibilities
With few exceptions,
overall
program responsibilities
have
been clearly
delineated
by the licensee's
primary
FFD Program procedures.
In general,
major
FFD Program functions
have
been
assigned
to appropriate staff
elements.
The licensee's
FFD Manual, Part 4.9, designates
the Manager
Nuclear
Administration as the
FFD Program Manager,
but, in practice,
the Site
Access
Services
Supervisor
serves
as the
FFD Program
Manager.
In
fact, the inspectors
determined that the Manager
Nuclear Administration
has
no responsibilities for the
FFD Program.
Also, the procedures
were not clear
as to whether decisions
impacting
the program required concurrence
or input from the Site Access
Services
Supervisor.
Therefore, it is possible that that individual would not
be provided with all the information needed
to administer the program
properly.
The licensee
previously identified these conflicts and was in the
process
of rewriting the procedures
to reflect that the Site Access
Services
Supervisor is the
FFD Program Manager
and that that individual
reports to the Superintendent
of Plant.
The revised
procedures will
be reviewed during
a subsequent
inspection.
Mana ement Awareness of Res onsibilities
Each of the licensee's
managers
who have assigned responsibilities
for program functions appeared
knowledgeable of their responsibilities
as described
in the
FFD Manual.
Pro
ram Resources
Program
resources
appeared
adequate.
FFD program staff with assigned
program functions report that upper management,
both at the site
and
at the corporate office, have
been
supportive
in providing the
necessary
program resources.
The licensee
has provided
a laboratory facility for on-site collecting
and screening of specimens.
The laboratory
was well maintained
and
equipped,
exhibited excellent
housekeeping,
appeared
adequate
in size,
and was locked when not in use.
Access to the facility was well
controlled by laboratory personnel,
and visitor access
was recorded
in
a log.
Mana ement Monitorin
of Pro
ram Performance
The licensee
was in the process
of developing
a methodology for
analyzing
program performance
data but had not conducted
an analysis
at the time of the inspection.
The inspectors~ressed
the
importance that the
NRC places
on program performance
analysis
in
order to evaluate overall
program effectiveness.
The licensee
agreed.
Measures
Undertaken
to Meet Performance
Objectives of the Rule
The licensee
has provided adequate
resources
and personnel
to meet
the performance objective of the
NRC's
FFD rule.
In regard to
a drug
free workplace,
as stated
in 10
CFR 26. 10(c), the licensee
brought in
State Police personnel
to conduct training sessions
for the security
force.
Also, each security officer attended
a one-week
session
on
illegal drugs
and drug paraphernalia.
The licensee's
objective
was
to increase
drug awareness
in security officers as they controlled
access
to the station
and patrolled the protected
and vital areas.
In the event that
an individual has
a confirmed positive test result,
the licensee's
actions
include reviewing previous work performed
by
the individual.
The licensee
also indicated that
an individual with
a confirmed positive test result would be questioned
to determine if
the drug were obtained or used in the protected
area.
In addition,
if a situation warranted,
a physical
search of the protected
and vital
areas,
by whatever
method the licensee
deemed appropriate,
would be
conducted.
The inspectors
also
found that the licensee
had adequate
mechanisms
in place to receive
and provide "suitable inquiry" information relative
to an employee's
or applicant's
drug or alcohol
abuse.
f.
Sanctions
)
The licensee's
procedures
establish
sanctions
consistent with IO CFR
26.27(b).
As stated in the
FFD Manual, personnel
who refuse to
appear for testing will have their unescorted
access
to the station
suspended
and will be subject to disciplinary action,
up to and
including discharge,.
With respect
to drugs,
PP&L employees
are
subject to termination following the first confirmed positive test.
As an alternative,
an employee
may accept referral to the
Employee
Consultation
Services
(ECS)
Program for treatment.
If the alterna-
tive is accepted,
the employee will be
suspended
without 'pay for five
days
and, in addition, will be denied
access
to the station for a
minimum of 14 days.
Contractor or vendor employees with a confirmed positive drug test
shall
be denied
access
to the station for
a minimum of 14 days.
Those individuals will not be allowed to.return until management
and
medical
personnel
provide satisfactory
assurance
that they are fit to
resume their duties
and activities.
A subsequent
confirmed positive drug test of a
PP&L employee will
result in termination of employment.
A subsequent
confirmed positive
drug test of a contractor or vendor employee results
in permanent
barring of access
to the station.
Mith respect
to alcohol,
a breath alcohol content of 0.04 percent or
greater,
which is detected
during initial, random,
follow-up or
for-cause testing,
is treated
by the licensee
as follows:
( 1)
A first time offender is taken
home without pay, is paid for the
following day while his/her case is decided,
and is given
an
option for
ECS referral.
A first offender also
has to make
a
commitment that
he or she will abstain
from consuming alcohol
for 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> before
a scheduled
work period
and during work.
(2)
A second
time offender is taken
home without pay, is suspended
for five days without pay,
and is given
a mandatory
ECS referral.
(3)
A third time offender is terminated.
If a blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) of below 0.04 is indicated
as
a result of random or for-cause testing,
the licensee
considers
the
result to be negative,
irrespective of when the test
was administered
during the work shift.
The licensee
makes
no attempt to calculate
what the individual's
BAC was at the beginning of the work shift or
if the individual consumed
the alcohol during the shift.
The licensee's
program could
be enhanced if provisions were included to make this
determination.
Em lo ee Assistance
Pro
ram
The licensee
maintains
an
EAP, referred to as the Employee Consulta-
tion Services
(ECS), which offers assessment,
counseling
and referral
services
through
a contracted staff of qualified counseling
professionals.
The program appeared
adequate
in meeting
the requirements
of the
Rule with one exception.
Part 6.2.D. of the 1icensee's
FFD Manual states
that voluntary
participation
may also result in temporary suspension
of unescorted
access
and management
disclosure if the
ECS determines
that
an
individual's condition constitutes
a hazard to him/herself or others.
The inspectors
advised
the licensee that the wording in that part of
the manual
appears
to give
an option regarding
management
disclosure.
During an interview with the principle
ECS counselor,
the counselor
disclosed 'to the inspectors
that
he would not inform licensee
management,
because
of confidentiality, when
a self-referral constituted
a hazard to him/herself,
others,
or the licensed faci 1,ity
The
counselor's
position is not consistent with 10
CFR 26.25,
which states,
in part, that the
Employee Assistance
Program staff shall
inform licensee
management
when
a determination
has
been
made tlat any individual's
condition constitutes
a hazard to himself or herself,
or others
(including those
who have self-referred).
The inspectors
confirmed that there
had not been
a self-referred
individual who constituted a.threat
to him/herself, or to others,
since the program
was
implemented.
The licensee
immediately discussed
this issue with the
ECS counselor
and his management
to ensure that
they understood
the responsibility to report
such cases
to licensee
management
as required
by the rule.
This is an unresolved
item pending
revision of the licensee's
manual to delete that option.
(UNR 50-387/90-14-01
and 50-388/90-14-01).
It will be reviewed during
a subsequent
inspection.
Based
on interviews with selected
employees,
the inspectors deter-
mined that the employees
possessed
a thorough understanding
of the
ECS program
and considered it to be
a worthwhile service for them and
their families.
There did not appear to be any apprehension
about
participating in the program.
~Tnainin
The licensee
has
implemented
a training program which appeared
to meet the
requirements
of the rule with two exceptions.
The inspectors'valuation
was based
on comments
by resident
inspectors
who attended
the training,
onsite
'review of the licensee's
FFD lesson
plans,
and interviews with licensee
employees
and contractors
concerning
special
aspects
of their training and
interpretation of the
FFD performance objectives.
One exception
was the licensee's
appeals
process.
Although the process
was addressed
in the licensee's
FFD lesson
plans, it did not appear that
the lesson
plan was in sufficient detail to ensure that each class
member
fully understood
the process.
The licensee
committed to readdress
the
appeals
process with plant personnel
and also revise its
FFD lesson
plans
to include more details.
This will be reviewed during
a subsequent
inspection.
Additionally, the inspectors'eview
of selected
FFD training records
identified
10 supervisors
who had not been retrained
and retested after
scoring less
than
70 percent,
the proficiency level established
by the
licensee,
on
a written supervisory examination.
Of those
10 personnel,
2 did not have current station access.
The failure to retrain
and retest
those
supervisors
appeared
to be as
a result of an administrative
oversight during the transfer of training records
from a manual
system to
a computerized
system.
P
The licensee initiated immediate corrective action
and committed to retrain
and retest
the supervisors
by August 10,
1990.
This matter wi 11
be reviewed
during
a subsequent
inspection.
Based
on selected
interviews conducted
by the inspectors,
they determined
that supervisors
and escorts
were knowledgeable
of their roles
and
responsibilities
regarding
the
FFD program.
The inspectors verified that
all of, the supervisors
who were interviewed
had achieved
70 percent or
higher
on the supervisory
FFD written examination.
7.
Ke
Pro
ram Processes
a.
Selection
and Notification for Testin
Random selection for testing
was conducted
by use of a computer
generated list.
At the time of the inspection,
only two individuals
had access
to the
random selection
process.
Once the selection
process
was initiated, the computer could not be affected
by
manipulation,
and
names 'could not be added to or deleted
from the
random selection
process.
Once the
random list was printed,
the Site Access
Services
Supervisor
made all of the notifications and coordinated
appointment
times with
the selected individuals'upervisors.
Delays were allowed if signi-
ficant work in progress
would be interrupted.
A time limit between
when
an individual's supervisor is notified and when the selected
individual
shows
up for testing
had not been established.
The
inspectors
indicated that the licensee's
program could be enhanced
by
establishing
such
a time limit or by developing
a mechanism
to provide
a check
on unduly late arrivals.
b.
Collection and Processin
of
S ecimens
The inspectors
evaluated collection and processing
of specimens
by
observing licensee
personnel
go through the screening
process.
The
observations
included processing
of urine specimens
and breathalyzer
examinations.
The specimens
were properly identified, positively
controlled,
and analyzed
according to the laboratory procedure.
Use
of the breathalyzer
equipment
was also observed
to be proper
and in
accordance
with the licensee's
procedure
and the rule.
The licensee
does
not test
between
the hours of 6:00 p.m.
and 6:00
a.m.
That predictable
gap in scheduling
diminishes
the deterrent
effect of random testing
and
may be contrary to the intent of 10
CFR
26.24(a)(2).
The licensee
was in the process
of 'evaluating its
testing pattern to address
the predictable
gap.
This is an
unresolved
item pending further review by the
NRC.
(UNR 50-387/90-14-02
and 50-388/90-14-02).
This item will be
reviewed during
a subsequent
inspection.
c.
Medical
Review Officer's
Review
Through
a review of. Part 10.06, Part 13.0 and Attachment 4 of the
licensee's
FFD Manual
and interviews with FFD program administrators,
the inspectors
determined that the
MRO appears
to have
an option of
personally interviewing an individual who tests positive.
The
FFD Manual
reads
as follows:
-Part
10.06 states,
in part, ... the
MRO may choose
to conduct
employee
medical interviews,
review employee
medical history,
or review any other relevant biomedical factors...
-Part
13.0 sta'tes,
in part, ... the Medical
Review Office'r may
conduct
a medical
interview with the individual,
a review of
the individual's'medical
history, or
a review of any other
relevant biomedical factors ...
-Part II B(3) of Attachment
V states,
in part, the
MRO shall
undertake
the evaluation of alternative
explanations
of a
positive test result.
This may include the conduct of
employee/applicant
interviews,
review of an individuals's
medical history or the review of other biomedical factors...
The interviews disclosed that,
when
a positive test report is
received
from the HHS-certified laboratory,
the Plant Nurse collects
pertinent data
on the affected individual, reviews the medical
records
and interviews the 'individual.
The information obtained
by the nurse
is forwarded to the
MRO, who may choose
to accept
the results of the
nurse's
interview in making the final decision with respect to
verification of a positive test.
Appendix A, subpart B.2.9(c) of 10
CFR 26 states,
in par t, that, prior
to making
a final decision to verify a positive test result,
the medical
review officer shall give the individual
an opportunity to discuss
the test results.
Despite the apparent
option given the
MRO by the
licensee's
FFD manual,
the
MRO advised
the inspectors
that
he would
personally interview anyone
who tested positive prior to final
disposition of the test.
10
This is considered
an unresolved
item pending revision of the
manual
to delete that option
(UNR 50-387/90-14-03
and 50-388/90-14-03).
This matter will be reviewed during
a subsequent
inspection..
Develo ment
Use
and Stora
e of Records
A system of files and procedures
to protect personal
information
contained
in
FFD related records
had
been developed.
Such records
were
used
and stored in an appropriate
manner.
Access to these
records
was limited to medical staff members
who had job-related
"need-to-know" responsibilities.
Results of positive tests
from the HHS-certified laboratory are
electronically transmitted to
a terminal with a printer located within
the Plant Nurse's office.
The information is stored at the terminal
until it is printed.
In order for the information to be printed,
the
nurse
has to log in with a special
password
to activate
the printer.
The l,icensee
has
a policy that directs the Plant Nurse to notify the
Corporate
Nurse
when positive test results
are received
from the
HHS-certified laboratory.
In addition, if the Plant Nurse
has
difficulty obtaining information,
such
as
a list of medications
and
prescriptions
which may contribute to a positive drug screen,
from an
individual with a presumptive positive test,
the Plant Nurse is directed
to notify the Health Services
Manager
(who is responsible
for
supervising
the collection and testing facility) for guidance.
The inspectors
expressed
concern that,
in addition to the Plant Nurse,
one other person,
and possibly two, could be informed of an unreviewed
positive test result before the
MRO has
a chance to render
a decision.
The inspectors
stated that the licensee
should evaluate its "need-to-know"
policy as it relates to the requirements
of Section 2.7(g) of Appendix A
to
10
CFR 26 (Also see
Item 5.6 of NUREG-1385).
The licensee
committed
to conduct this review.
This will be reviewed during
a subsequent
inspection.
The licensee
had completed
a Quality .Assurance
Audit (QA) of the
program prior to its implementation.
The inspectors'eview
disclosed
that the results of the audit were reported to the appropriate
levels
of management.
The corrective actions
implemented for the findings
of the audit'appeared
appropriate
and were satisfactorily resolved.
8.
Onsite Testin
Facilit
The onsite testing facility was centrally located,
modern,
spacious,
well-equipped,
and adequately
staffed
by personnel
who displayed
a high
level of proficiency and professionalism.
The facility had physical barriers
to separate
personnel traffic and collected
specimens.
However,
some minor
flaws were noted,
in particular,
access
to the
MRO's on-site office required
11
passage
through the testing area.
This has
the potential for compromising
the integrity of specimens
and
FFD records,
as well as the individual's
confidentiality.
The licensee
had already identified that
some design
changes
were
needed for the collection facility.
While it evaluates
other
design
changes,
the licensee
committed to evaluate
redesigning
the
NRO's
office to facilitate
a private entrance.
This will be reviewed during
a
subsequent
inspection.
a.
Written Procedures
The licensee
had written procedures
for key -functions
and processes.
Based
on review of the procedures
and observation of the procedures
being
implemented,
the inspectors
determined that the procedures
were
adequate
and met regulatory requirements.
b.
Practices
The inspectors
observed facility activities
and determined
those
activities to be in accordance
with the general
regulatory require-
ments.
The inspectors verified that the licensee's
testing
meets
or
exceeds
the requirements
of 10 CFR 26, Appendix A. 2.7(e)(1)
and (2).
c.
ualit
Controls
The inspectors verified that the licensee
followed the blind
performance test procedures.
In addition, quality control
measures
met the intent of the
FFD rule.
The licensee splits all urine
specimens,
does on-site
screening,
and
sends all presumptive positive
preliminary tests
specimens
to an
HHS-certified laboratory for further analysis.
d.
~Securit
Although personnel
access
was controlled to the facility, the
refrigerator for storage of specimens
was located outside of the
facility access
controlled area.
In response
to the
inspectors'oncern
for the security of collected
specimens,
the licensee
moved
the refrigerator inside the
FFD access
controlled area
when this was
pointed out.
OUTSTANDING I
S F)LE SINGLE DOCKET ENTRY FORM
REPORT
HOURS
1. Operations
2.
Rad-Con
3. aiaintenance
4. Surveillance
5.
Emerg.
Prep.
6. Sec/Safegrds. +g~g
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Outages
Training
Licensing
gA
Other
Fire Protection/
Housekeeping
Docket No.
I
Ic I- IS'IP l8'
Originator, ~Hw727
Reviewing Supervisor
P. E&~AtwC.
Item Number
T
e
Hlo - l Vl-
Ori inato
odifier
SALP Area
Iuldlrlrl
I
Res
Sec
j
I
Area
Action Oue Date
.
U dt/Clsout
R t/
I
I~IPIPI
I
I I-I
I I-I
I
I
I
I I-I
I l-l
I
I
HH
YY
Oescri tive Title
Date 8/H/Cl sd
6 I/I-IQ2I=KI~
HH
Yi
Itee Number
9-0
Ori inat
ifier
SALP Area
claim
YI
I
~Res
Sec
Area
Action Due Date
IPl
HH
YY
U dt/Clsout
R t/
-I
I
I
Dated)/M/Clsd
5JPPI*lOn
Y
T c=s
r Iz
r
Descri tive Title
Itee Number
T
e
o-
i inat
difier
SALP Area
z culg
Res
Sec
Area
Action Due Date
U dt/Clsout
R t/
1~Ii/I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~l
MH
YY
'Oescri tive Title
DateSYH/Clsd
Region I Fore 6
(January
1987)
OUTSTANDING ITE
FILE SINGLE DOCKET ENTRY FORM
REPORT
HOURS
1. Operations
2.
Rad-Con
3. Haintenance
4. Surveillance
5.
Emerg.
Prep.
6. Sec/Safegrds.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Outages
Training
Licensing
qA
Other
Fire Protection/
Housekeeping
I I
II.
Originator
Reviewing Supervisor
5 Zuac
Item Number
T
e
Ol- 0
in
/Nodifier
0
AJ
SALP Area
c ul4z3rf
I
Res
Sec
Area
Action Due Date
U dt/Clsout
R t/
I
~IIPIPI
I
I I-I
I I-I
I
I
I
I I-I
I I-I
I
I
HH
00
YY
Descri tive Title
DateQb'H/Clsd
HH
YY
Itee Number
in
ifier
SALP Area
~Ree
Sec
Area
Action Oue Date
U dt/Clsout
R t/
Date69'H/Clsd
HH
YY
HH
DO
YY
Oescri tive Title
Itee Nueber
Ori inato
ifiet
SALP Area
C Q
Res
Sec
Area
Action Oue Date
U dt/Clsout
R t/
~IPSE
I I-
I I-
I
HH
Y
Oescri tive Tit1e
Dated&8/Clsd
D t -IOI
-I '
D
Y Y
Region I Fore 6
(January
1987)
l
'U'j/
1
g
r
~Ogn
v g
Docket Nos. 50-387
50-388
Pcarer and Light Can@any
ATIN: Nr. Harold W. Keiser
Senior Vice President
Nuclear
2 North Ninth Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania
18101
Gentlemen:
l'ubject:
In~ion Report Numbers 50-387/90-13
and 50-388/90-13
%his refers to the routine safety ~ration conducted by Dr. Jason
C. Jang of
this office on June 25-29,
1990 of activities authorized by NRC Li~Numb~
and to the discussions of our findings held by Dr. Jang with
Nr. R. Breslin and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the
inspection.
Areas examined during this inspection are described in the NRC Region I
Inspection Report which is enclosed with this letter.
Within these areas,
the
inspection consisted of selective exaaunations of procedures
and representative
records,
interviews with personnel,
and observations
by the inspector.
Within the scope of this in@~ion,
no violations were observed.
No reply to this letter is required.
Your cooperation with us in this matter is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
O;::
PiOMlc P. B'.,"=",;~
Ronald R. Bellamy, Chief
Facilities Radiological Safety
and Safeguards
Branch
Division of Radiation Safety
and Safeg~z3s
Enclosure:
NRC Region I Inspection Report Numbers 50-387/90-13
and 50-388/90-13
]og0
Pcarer and Light Ccaapany
2
cc w/encl:
A. R. Sabol,
Manager, Nuclear Quality Assurance
J.
M. Kenny, Licensing Group Supervisor
R. G. Byram, Vice President,
Nuclear Operations
H. G. Stanley,
Superintendent of Plant SSES
S. B. Ungerer,
Manager, Joint Generation Projects Departnent
J.
D. Decker, Nuclear Services Manager,
General Electric ~ny
B. A. Snapp,
Esquire, Assistant Corporate Counsel
H. D. Woodeshick,
Special Office of the President
J.
C. Tilton, III, Allegheny Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
Public Document
Room
(PDR)
?veal Public Document Roam
(LPDR).
Nuclear Safety Information Center
(NSIC)
NRC Resident Inspector
Ccaramnwealth of Pennsylvania
/l[~
jgi +0
Poorer and Light Company
3
1
bcc w/encl:
Region Z Docket Roam (with concurrences)
Management Assistant,
DRY (w/o encl)
R. Bellamy,
DRSS
P. Shetland,
M. Conner, ~ Reports Only
K. Abraham,
PAO (20)
SALP Reports and
(2) All ZnsI~ion Reports
J. Caldwell, HX)
M. Thadani,
D SS:RI
G5 /90
DRSS:RI
BORES
7//y /90
DISS:RI
BELLAHY
/p /90
P ~