ML20072L870
Text
.. _
t e
December 26, 1990 h
s.T (\\
MEMORANDUM FOR:
File FROM:
Leif J.
Norrholm
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT - VISIT TO EPRI NDE CENTER, MCGUIRE AND CATAWBA SITES (November 5-7, 1990)
During the period November 5-7, 1990, Chairman Carr, accompanied by his Technical Assistant, Leif Norrholm, visited the EPRI NDE Center in Charlotte, NC, and the McGuire and Catawba nuclear plants, operated by Duke Power Complany.
On the plant visits the Chairman was also accompanied by Region II representatives James Milhoan (DRA) and Milton Shymlock (Section Chief).
A list of principal persons contacted during these visits is included as Enclosure (1).
The evening of November 5, 1990, tdua Chairman addressed a meeting of the local section of the American Nuclear Society (Piedmont / Carolina Section).
EPRI NDE Center (November 5, 1990)
On arrival in Charlotte, the Chairman first visited the corporate offices of the Jones Group, one of the subsidiaries of which operates the EPRI Center.
The discussions centered principally around the likelihood of new construction work in nuclear plants and the likelihood of new work related to plant modifications as a result of license renewal.
Following this meeting, the Chairman traveled to the site of the EPRI Center, northeast of Charlotte, where a briefing on Center functions by principal managers was followed by a tour of the facility.
The EPRI Nondestructive Evaluation Center is essentially a
" technology transfer" organization which develops innovative NDE techniques, provides information to utilities, responds to problems, and provides training to NDE and maintenance personnel.
Innovative techniques are documented in "first use" announcements, which are posted in the facility.
Management at the Center claimed a cost saving to utilities amounting to $ 490 million as a result of Center "first use" innovations.
The Center is currently' staffed by about.75 persons.
Funding is largely through the EPRI base, but for large projects, utility funding is sought.
The tour included several laboratory areas in the facility and some demonstrations.
Most notable was work in progress to assess a section of clad pressure vessel similar to the Yankee Rowe design, which was actually a pressure vessel section identical to 9409010119 940629 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
l j
-2 that used in the USS Nautilus reactor.
These vessels are j
essentially of the same vintage and use the same " stitch" weling technique in securing the cladding to the vessel.
The work in progress was an attempt to establish techniques to evaluate the condition of the underlying vessel base material.
Center personnel were expressing some optimism in being able to develop such techniques.
Piedmont / Carolina Chapter - American Nuclear Society The evening of November 5, 1990, the Chairman addressed a meeting of the local section of the American Nuclear Society.
The members were largely Duke Power employees, with some representation from the Jones Group, and other vendors.
The Chairman's remarks centered around his goals for the Commission for the remainder of his term.
Questions from the audience covered the following areas:
standardization vs. safety compliance (e.g.,
level of design detail), success of Commission collegiality meetings, solution to the problem of a training rule (as a result of recent court decision), court decision regarding Part 52 (second hearing),
Chairman's opinion of NUMARC, greatest personal surprise as a Commissioner [ response included; how long it takes to get things done, existence of 23,000 other licensees (materials), and having no " friends"), if the Chairman were a utility CEO how would he decide what plant to buy, prototypes for more advanced plants, potential for removal of seismic requirements, and potential for changing source term for the next generation of plants.
McGuire Nuclear Station (November 6, 1990)
Prior to visiting the site, the Chairman met with the resident inspectors and Region II representatives at breakfast enroute.
Upon arrival at the site, the Chairman sat in on the licensee's morning meeting, which was attended by 70-80 plant personnel.
Both units were shutdown, with Unit 2 in mid-loop operation.
The i
meeting was essentially a run-down of major activities planned for the day, with some inquiry as to the readiness for and status of selected jobs.
Following the meeting, a plant tour was conducted, which included the control room, auxiliary building, turbine building, containment building, diesel generators, several battery rooms, secondary chemistry area, and the standby shurdown facility (SSF).
While in the control room, the Chairman was invited to speak with three operators who had recently completed NRC requalification examinations.
The thrust of their comments, and later comments by station management, were that the requalification examinations i
i
4
-3 were a source of high stress to the operators.
Two particular areas were of primary concern.
The first was the use of a
" critical tasks" during simulator examinations, failure to perform any one of which will result in an individual examination failure.
The operators expressed the opinion that, if crew perof[mancedemonstratedtheabilitytodetectandcorrectsuch failure on the part of an individual, the failure of the individual to perform such a task should not result in failure.
The second area of concern was the apparently long delay in scheduling re-examinations for individuals who have failed a requalification examination.
The example cited was six months.
After the plant tour, the licensee made several presentations over a working lunch.
The first topic discussed was, again, operator requalification examinations.
The licensee suggested that NRC revisit the concept of evaluating licensee programs rather than individual operators.
In addition to the comments provided earlier by the operators, the licensee suggested that j
simulator scenarios should reflect events that have actually happened at similar plants.
The Chairman stated that he was under the impression that the examination was fair, but he would take a look at stress reduction.
In a discussion of the fitness-for-duty program, the licensee I
stated that the testing program covers Duke employees, contractors, and applicants.
Confirmed positive results include 16 Duke employees and 41 contractors.
Of the 41, 29 were pre-access results.
The licensee requested that NRC consider reducing the sampling rate from 100 percent.
The licensee also I
noted that they use lower cutoff levels in testing, and that 44 %
we of their positives would have been missed under the HHS cutoff
(
levels.
t l
The station manager discussed McGuire strengths, successes and I
current challenges.
These are summarized in the presentation j
slides, included as Enclosure (2).
At the end of the presentation, Chairman Carr made the following i
remarks.
He observed that the plant was not dirty, but appeared
" dusty".
He also noted that plant staffing, especially at the management level, included a lot of "inside" people, with little input from outside the company.
The Chairman was impressed by the youth in the station organization.
Acknowledging that Duke had a good reputation as a leader in the industry, the Chairman cautioned that they may be losing that stature.
He advised that, today, if you stand still, you lose ground.
He also r:oted the indicators of impending complacency - long run, good INPO evaluation results, and good NRC SALP results.
In respcnse to a question, the Chairman clarified the Appeals Court ruling relative to Part 52 (only affected the second hearing opportunity aspect of the rule).
s
-4 Duke Enaineerina (November 6, 1990)
Following the McGuire plant visit, the Chairman stopped in at the i
Duke Power Company corporate offices in Charlotte to observe a demonstration of the PASCE (Plant Applications and Systems / Combustion Engineering) system.
This is a CAE/ CAD system currently in use at Duke Power.
The capabilities of the system
)
in providing layout and preventing interference were impressive.
l The bottom line, however, was that the system is as good as the
)
level of detail provided as input.
The question again comes down l
to one of economics.
The system will do the job well if enough data and power plant systems are input to the model.
Catawba Nuclear Station (November 7, 1990)
Prior to arriving at the Catawba site, the Chairman met with the i
resident inspectors and Region II representatives at breakfast.
On arrival at the site, the Chairman attended the licensee's morning staff meeting.
Both plants were operating at essentially full power, and the meeting was largely a summary of planned activities for the day.
Following the morning meeting, the Chairman toured the plant, including; turbine building, auxiliary building, maintenance areas, secondary chemistry room, control room, diesel generators, Technical Support Center, and the Standby Shutdown Facility.
One item of note was the fact that the licensee had applied lessons learned from the earlier construction of McGuire to the Catawba design (e.g.,
much improved diesel generator room accessibility).
The tour was followed by a working lunch, during which the licensee made several presentations covering such subjects as the mintenance engineering services organization, reliability i
centered maintenance, and fitness-for-duty.
Copies of the presentation materials are included as Enclosure (3).
A few notable aspects of the fitness-for-duty programs were; the licensee has a full-time counselor on site, the licensee uses a 50 ng limit for marijuana rather than the requisite 100 ng, for alcohol testing results in the 0.011 to 0.039 " gray area" range the licensee relies on a determination of impairment made by the Medical Review Officer.
- thns, At the conclusion of these presenta@ hear that the licensee was the Chairman made closing remarks.
He was pleased to dealing with problems rather than focusing on successes.
He noted that plant cleanliness was good in the well traveled areas, but corners and less accessible areas needed cleaning.
The Chairman observed a number of different types of tags still hung
)
on plant equipment, in some cases with no currently valid reason
I 4
. for being there.
He also noted that it was not clear whether deficiency tags were removed when the work to resolve the
- deficiency was completed.
In some areas of the plant, system leakage was evident by boron crystal deposition.
He noted that the plant people were impressive and morale appeared to be all right.
He also cautioned the licensee that it knew better than was evidenced by the mistakes that were being made.
The chairman said that he looked to station and corporate management to.
prevent people from making errors.
He further observed that you never get to the point of making no. mistakes, but we can reduce their frequency.
As a final note, the Chairman observed that this was-the first machine shop he had toured in 6 or 7 months that had something going on in the way of work.
\\
l
\\
i x
'kb s
L if Jh Norrholm l
i l
l i
l I
I
4 1
Em:losure (1) l Personnel List NRC l
Jim Milhoan Deputy RA - Region II Milt-Shymlock section Chief - Region II P. Kim VanDoorn SRI - McGuire Todd Cooper RI - McGuire Steven Vias RI - McGuire (temp. rotational assignment) l Bill Orders SRI - Catawba Perry Hopkins RI - Catawba John Zeiler RI - Catawba Jones Group, Inc.
j Johnie H. Jones COB and President, Jones Group, Inc.
James A.
Bowden Senior VP and CFO,-Jones Group, Inc.
Charles-T. Davidson President, J.
A. Jones Construction Co.
James Cotton-President, Metric Construction, Inc.
"Vald" Heiberg President, J.
A.
Jones Const. Services Co.
Thomas Nemzek President, J.
A. Jones Applied Research Co.
Allan L.
Purtill Sr. VP, J. A. Jones Constr. Services Co.
William &1 Lee Sr. Bus. Dev. Mgr.,
J.A. Jones Constr. Co.
C.
Ray Partain VP & Corp. Secy.,. Jones Group, Inc.
J.
Carlton Fleming Director, Jones, (attorney,'
ANS Piedmont / Carolinas Chapter l
Susie Adams Chairperson Judy Shulte Vice-Chairperson Richard Wilson Secretary Carole Lewis Treasurer Duke Power Hal B. Tucker Senior VP - Nuclear Tony McConnell Station Manager, McGuire Jim W. Hampton Station Manager, Catawba Dave Rehn Duke Engineering
Enclosure (2) r r a
le VCbuire Cenii y
,1 aerma. s,
...:Iciency
- Genera; ion ;Recorc.
mow 7 rcec Ou; age ;Ra;e 0
F1 rus;ec. in ae Communi;y l
l l
l l
l
VeGuire S:rengas m
- Good People
- Dedicated Support Organization
- Excellent. Scheduling Function
- Shift Manager
- Modification Control
- Good Maintenance Program and Facilities
- Material Control Program -Bar Code-
- Maintenance Data Base & Equipment History
- Maintenance Engineering Services
- Pipe Erosion Monitoring
- Predictive Maintenance
- HX Maintenance and On-line Monitoring
- Water Chemistry Control i
i
Recen; Successes Contamination & Dose Reduction Efforts
- Outage dose reductwn i
- Reactor building contamination control
- Reduced personnel contamination
- Improved dose tracking and reporting l
- Special attention to high dose jobs
- Management Support l
l Steam Generator Testing & P.M.
Program l
- NDE
- Destructive examination l
- Chemistry control
- Pro-active repair, sludge lance, and plug replacement l
- Moisture carryover identified i
- Industry involvement Improvements in Security Compliance l
- Decline in badge incidents
- Aggressive hardware corrective actions
- Pro-active Reporting / Consulting with NRC
,m
+
a s.,
...,a-
-s-m
--+<.ma.--
a.
-p 4
a--
a, a-m
.-a
~
1 4
m m
=
k 's QN e
a N
c=5 Q%
~k C
~
s' y
~S wsg e us x) t O
g K
s it i
m O
d SD
-s
%e
%q l
6 D
v 1%
$ k
@W l
cs$ -k E4 S
h Vl' %as j 's n[$
e*
d$'
7s E=l %m s hm t a
@ 415s 4 C E t t)b 4 8 c
e E-c N
o
- m at 4
E!!
4 i.
~
a 1
ei 0858068
. cd i
i i
ga "m8sgW 0
i g.
i p
"E8 m
24g N p,ua q Ea i
t-s g g
S sgS,,8I i
53-t c s 2)3$ *3 a
S kt-8g[.'M$b s
yog tu '
ua-I
]/
/
\\
AU o~EN ND
\\.
i Jg k
b [m
., u
\\ i" 3el@> $.E{E W:
si s
%.e g
g g
g a a E a B
- ,o $ $_._ $_.. $ a i
c=a-ca **
g So l
b dm i
tit i
x% %s Se I<;
i
~3 g
% 'y 20 I)2 e m Q5 13
- D cEk!)
i
\\
5 51 1
il i
~2 =it
~
3
=
x ux _
I, 4
l l
D
%$o i
a o
o o
a 4
o oC o
o o
g O
T
~
9_..
_N.~
O J
l i
N i
lN N
\\
l l
i t
N J'
x i
, **q 4
\\
1.
i b
\\
\\
i Q:
\\
~
ho,8
'N I 8i l\\
,.s
'I' i
(f) '
uS
\\
b
'i
.m o
%q Ac Eu'
[h j'
}
s
$=
a 3
i.
g
\\
l y
\\\\
'b i
v 1
i e >m, i
Scl
-\\N 1,
s y
s s
no i
.s a
i
\\
h (i vu
!8mi 4
m-Q 28 it'!
x 2QN 'J Q
SA.
A
- N N
s o
4 s na A
w;
\\\\
K m*
Q
_$h I
\\
Y
. o m o!
NN N
4
=C) 137!
! y l
s x
N
- o u e-g s
seg I
$3
- Cn 'l
'V\\
N m-i 1885
\\
l' i
2
'\\s l00 0 s
g
--r s
y s
s 1
%%%%%%NN\\\\\\\\NNNNWh% '
ns KJ l l I'
f
\\x \\q \\x
[
~
~.
i
\\
O t
N
\\
yC a i
G j
N N-N
\\
\\
~
l i
?
L i,
3 O
1 1
i i
l l1 l
0_
O O
- D N
E O
R T
O 0
O S
O N E 0
.ii $ ::i !* 9 O G
.!:!i!!! j!i:!i:i!li!i:i:i 9
1 I
O TD AA O
TB O
S O
T O
RS AO O
EL 0
L 0
R C O O
U O
ND O
E E 9
ii!!!jiii:!:iil!!i:
8 R C
- !i-Qi!:ii* 9 1
A 0
IU L O
GP O
cS O
MIM O
O O
O 4
g 8
9 1
5 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
5 O
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
yoo<t o H e o ( o w O 4 '-Q E n
- ill, I
i
A aA u[p n
n ' ~}n~plv.a.T pA n
v u..
.. r '1 '}'p'])'
Il{~"
U.../.J..
..k.J.
v v
1.
ni.ia ives "o lec uce neic en;s
- Control room work practices l
l
- Station communications "PLEASE LISTEN" l
l
- Pilot HPES l
- Procedure Adherence
- PIR review & Integrated safety assessment
- Ventilation systems task force l
l 1
1 l
a Oaer marovemen ni ia ives
- i
- Supervisory effectiveness -Sile-
- CRIPS
- Fire doors
- Material condition and housekeeping
- Work Request backlog
- System Expert Engineer
- Raw water system
- Current Problems t
- VC System
- Ice condenser bolts 4
i 4
d
t CONTROL ROOM INDICATION PROBLEMS (reportable to INPO) l 80, m
aWT
'~
ABLE agage
$60-8 h50--
Eo40-u.
p 30- 0 9
UI U2 Ut U2 U1U2 UIU2 UI U2 UIU2 UIU2 UIU2 U1U2 UIU2 UIU2 UtU2 i
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT i
PERCENTAGE OF NON-OUTAGE CORRECTIVE WORK REQUESTS CLOSED IN 30 DAYS OR LESS CRIP VS. REGULAR O
O O
O 80-E 0
0 0
O O
a a
O 60J O
O REGULAR O
O o
e a
w m
i O
o 4
o 0
s 0
o O
zw o
o o
i
$40-l a.
i 9 REGUUUt
.~
20-I O
1999 1990
ij.
l.
1 i
i i
i 8 f i
i i
i-50c i
I I
I I
I I
k*
i I
I i
l I
i a*k I
I l{
l I
i b $ h *3 I
I I
I I
I 3 g 1
I i
i l
I i_ f *e[ y w
l I
I I
I I
1 C
1 1
I I
I 3
o l
l l
l l
l_
i
= =
l l
l l
1 l
'o m
i 1
1 I
I I
i l
l 1
I c
W I
I I
i i
I4 1
I i
I I
i i
I Lo
^
l i
b i
i l
i i
1 2S2 S
I i
1 i
i 1
e l
l l
l l-;a$s i
C 1
I i
i i
i m
2 O
I I
I I
I L u@ h i
I I
p I
i I
i O
o-1 1
I I
I I 2 Z
l I
l i
i 1
^
4 I
I 2
I I
i lo i
i 1
5 L9 1
1 1
l
'o 3
i l
i
?1 1
1 l
E i
g i
I a
i l
i i
s i
j 1
1 g
1 I
l l
i 3
i I '@
i 0
i
!! /
l l
l La 1
j Q
l I
I I
i 1 0 3
h i
I i
g I
I I l i
I i
l2 m
i l
i l
i i
C I
I I
I I
2 C
I l
55 O
O O
O O
O O
O l
O O
O O
O O
e to e
n m
s4senboy naog ;o JeqwnN j
i 1
j
tcW 3
a 7ON S
2
~
t 1
n n
~
o e
pN
~
re m
eg
- S a p l
i
~
u uo
~
g n-q n
~
7u oE N
A
,d o
~
e t
~
c rlu a
i l
t
- J e
R a
~
t n
n t
L1%1l i u a
~
S J
l bI P
1I 1I II I
I I I
~
n y
~ m~
ra o
r 0
~
M f
9 )d a
~
9 l
o 1
e r
7p-r A
a l
i
~
u 9 e c
~
o 8 y i
r9
~
- n u
a ra1 1
~
- u
- M n
N
~
~
(
~
~
s b
~
c Te s
t e
~
F e
r qu TIiTIITI ITI u
TII-n e
i l
I ^!
s a
R
,J t
s
~
k e
w-u G
r
~
q -
o e
c R
re W
c
~
k
- D r
g
~
W n
o M
~
v d
i 0
~
8 go n
N lo a
rG t
o s
t T
t c
u O
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
0 5
0 5
0 5
3 2
2 1
1 n ?.ra'j _
koE3z t
a m
I.
a-n unangmg cu ure l
.0 4
}
~
4 7
'l mvo ve &.smoower.smloyees I
i
Enclosure (3)
Catawba Maintenance Engineering Services Organization and Purpose l
Maintenance Engineering Services (MES) was formed beginning in June of 1988.
Prior to that time engineering support for the Mechanical Maintenance (MM) and In'strument and Electrical (IAE) sections was contained within each organization.
In June of 1988 the mechanical engineering technical support portion of Mechanical Maintenance was split off and became the initial staff of Maintenance Engineering Services.
In October of 1988 the electrical engineering technical support portion of Instrument and Electrical was split off and joined Maintenance Engineering Services.
The purpose of Maintenance Engineering Services is to provide engineering support to the maintenance organization at Catawba. MES is charged with providing daily technical support to the work execution crews as required, development and implementation of the preventive and predictive maintenance l
programs, parts procurement and setting up of inventory parts, failure l
analysis and trending programs, researching and initiating equipment l
modifications to enhance reliability and operability, etc. MES staff members function as " Component Experts" for the station. At this writing MES has identified approximately 170 assigned " Component Expert" areas.
l A listing of these areas is shown on the attached Technical Support Program Accountabilities letter.
I Starting in the fall of 1988 Maintenance Engineering Services began development of the " Technical Support Programs" for each of the 170 component expert areas.
The technical support program is a formal document that addresses such areas as design bases, PM effectiveness, PM and inspection schedule, enhancements, budget, etc. for each component area. The program, in l
combination with the component experts information files, functions as a "living" document that is revised on an as needed basis to reflect changes and improvements in equipment reliability and operability.
Another major function of the Maintenance Engineering Services Section is functioning as " Job Sponsors" for major outage jobs.
Examples of these are Steam Generator Work, MOV Diagnostic Testing, Reactor Head Work, Main Turbine Inspection, etc.
Total number of areas for which MES assigns job sponsors is about 40 per outage.
The job sponsor has the overall l
responsibility for each assigned job starting with the preplanning phase i
through the use of preoutage meetings and concluding with post outage critique meetings once the outage is over.
Specifically the job sponsor is charged with defining the scope of the work, providing technical support in the areas of procedures, parts, tooling and planning, monitoring the progress of the overall job during the outage, interfacing with other l
station groups in support of the job (Operations, Radiation Protection, etc.), monitor work quality, etc.
The job sponsor works closely with the j
planning and execution sections in maintenance to accomplish these tasks.
i l
Over the past two years the Maintenance Engineering Section has grown to a staff of 44 technical support engineers / specialists supervissd by 4 engineering supervisors and a section manager.
MES current organization l
consists of two electrical groups and two mechanical groups.
At the present
i i.
time MES is in the process of selecting a fifth supervisor which will function to supervise a combined group of mechanical and electrical staff.
The future also includes integrating two of the existing groups personnel such that MES has three groups with both electrical and mechanical responsibilities and the remaining two groups dedicated to strictly electrical or mechanical technical support.
l l
l l
4 Ensuring Equipment Reliability Component Failure Data==> PM Enhancements==> Increased Equipment Reliability 1
-Component experts in MES have direct responsibility for ensuring Preventive Maintenance programs are developed for plant equipment as required
-That responsibility encompasses the need to take component failure data and revise / adjust pM programs as necessary to enhance equipment reliability
-This is accomplished through the following methods / programs:
-Component experts review ALL corrective and preventive maintenance work requests upon completion of field work
-Data from these work requests is recorded and trended in a number of different manners
-Individual computer data bases for specialized components (for example steam generator inspection results)
-Common data base for non-specialized components (for example pressure transmitters)(FAT database-Failure Analysis and Trending) l
-This allows for easy identification of recurring problems and may result in PM changes or design changes
-An enhancement for this area will be in the implementation of the new Work Management System in December of 1990.
This new system allows for easier access of past work history and will allow past history to be retrieved and included in each work package.
l
-Component experts also make use of feedback from craft staff and supervisors to enhance the PM program based on the results they see when performing each job.
l
-MES staff also functions as " Job Sponsors" for major outage jobs l
such as steam generator work, valve work, etc.
This function allows close involvement with major component corrective and preventive maintenance during the outages and allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of the PM program.
-MES also makes use of the Component Failure Analysis Report to review Catawba maintenance history compared to the rest of the industry.
-MES also performs special searches of NPRDS data base and the Catawba maintenance history database to investigate component failures on an as needed basis.
-MES is also beginning to use Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) to aid in reviewing past history and PM program effectiveness.
l
RCM was done on the diesel generator in 1989 and we are planning to two major RCMs in 1991 using vendor support while at the same time develop resources within MES to do these studies.
-Morning daily status meetings are used to identify problem areas on a daily basis and frequently result in review of PM program to ensure comprehensiveness.
-The Problem Investigation Report (PIR) process is also used to document and investigate abnormal failures of important equipment and frequently can result in PM program enhancements.
-General Office contacts in Nuclear Maintenance section assist in reviewing maintenance history / problems between all three stations to aid in identifying common problems.
-Station has formed a " Safety System Availability Steering Committee" to improve availability of key safety systems.
Part of this approach is to review and optimize the PM program for these components.
-MES reviews and evaluates recommendations from NRC IE Bulletins, Generic Letters, INPO SOERs, etc. for incorporation into the PM program as necessary.
i l
l l
l
1, l
l l
Equi pment, Syc_cesse.g._
Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Turbine Robotic Installation / Removal of Steam Generator Nozzle Dams Josyin Clark Contact Carrier Screws Investigation of Borg Warner Gate Valve Problems l
l l
l l'
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION Fitness For Duty Program h ting Data For Persons i
Covered By The teC Fitness For Duty Rule 01/03/90 - 10/31/90
)
COMPANY EMPIDYEES CATEGORIES S TESTED
- POSITIVE PERCENTAGE Pre-Badging 154 0
0.00%
Random 1845 10 0.54%
Other 50
_1 2.00%
i Total 2049 11 0.54%
l 1
VENDOR /CONIRACTOR EMPIDYEES CATEGORIES S TESTED
$ POSITIVE PERCENTAGE Pre-Badging 762 10 1.31%
l Random 386 0
0.00%
i Other 6
0 0.00%
l
~
Total 1154 10 0.87%
1 l
SUBSTANCE BREAKIXMi l
Cocaine 11 i
Marijuana 8
(4 positive at the NRC cutoff of 100 ng:
4 at the Duke Power cutoff of 50 ng)
Alcohol 2
Total 21 i
i l
i
I 1
DUKE POWER COMPANY FITNESS fVR DerT 1
TESTING DATR FOR PERSONS BY THE WRC FITNESS FOR DOTT RULE 01/03/90 - 06/30/90 COMPANY EMPLOYEES REPORuna t0Can0NS------
camm mus CAT &WBA MCGUIRE OCONEE GENERAL OFFICE
.s1+l%
11 sl+l %
ll el+1%
11 sl+ l%
11 sI+1%
I I
11 I
I il l
I ll 1
I il i
I PRE-BADGING 110 l 0 l 0.00% ll 204 l 3 l 1.47% ll 261 l 6 l 2.30% ll 178 l 0 l 0.00% ll 753l 911.20%
l l
ll l
l 11 I
I 11 l'
I il i
I J
RANJOR 1106 l 5 l 0.45% ll 1035l 7 l 0.68% ll 1148 l 2l0.17% ll 630l 110.16% ll 3919 l 15l0.38%
l l
11 1
I 11 I
I ll l
l ll l
1 OrHER 17 l 1 l 5.88% ll 51 l 2 l 3.92% ll 21l 1l0.00% ll 4 l 0 l 0.00% ll 93l 4l4.30%
i l
11 I
I 11 1
I il i
I il i
I I
I ll ll l
1 Il i
i 11 1
I TOYALS 1233 l 6 l 0.49% ll 1290 l 12 l 0.93% ll 1430 l 9 l 0.63% ll 812l 1l0.12% ll 4765 l 28 l 0.59%
VENDOR /CO M ACTOR EMPLO M S CanaatES
REPORunG toCanans mus CATAWBA MCGUIRE OCONEZ sI+1%
ll
- I+l t ll sI+1s 11 eI+1%
1 1
11 1
1 11 1
I ll l
l PRE-B&DGING 693l10l1.44% ll 893 l 18 l 2.02% ll 288 I 3 l 1.04% ll 1874l31l1.65%
I i
11 1
I ll l
l Il I
I RANDOR 235 l 0 l 0.00% ll 403 l 7 l 1.74% ll 288 l 2 l 0.69% ll 926 l 9 I 0.97%
l l
11 1
I il i
I Il 1
I OTHER 5 l 0 l 0.00% ll 3l 1133.33% ll 3l 1[33.33% ll 11 l 2118.18%
I I
il l
l 11 1
I ll 1
I I
i 11 I
I 11 I
I ll 1
i TOTus 933l10l1.07% ll 1299 l 26 l 2.00% ll 579 l 6 l 1.04% ll 2811 j 42 l 1.49%
LEGEND: #=lplBER TESTED, +=WUMBER POSITIVE (ALCOHOL AND DRDG), WPERCENTAGE