ML20077N195
| ML20077N195 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1991 |
| From: | Ralph Beedle POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Sniezek J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| EA-91-053, EA-91-53, NUDOCS 9108140251 | |
| Download: ML20077N195 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
=w
}Cb 113 Ma;n Soect Whoe 5%ns New nah 1Xc1 914 t B1 (44(-
- > NewYorkPower n.m., u....
4# Authority ll". ;;.n -
August 8, 1991 Mr. James H. Sniezek Deputy Executive Director for Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Matter of New York Power Authority (David M. Manning)
Docket No. 50-333, License No. DPR-59, EA 91-053
Dear Mr. Sniezek:
I.
Introduction This letter supplements the Authority's response to the May 2, 1991 Order Modifying License (Efisctive Immediately) (Order) with respect to the James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
The Order provided that one of the Authority's Senior Reactor Operators, David M.
Manning, "shall net participate in any licensed activity" under the FitzPatrick Part 50 onerating license without the prior written approval of the NRC Region I Administrator.
On May 31, 1991, the Authority submitted its Answer to the Order in which it requested reconsideration and rescission of the Order.
Absent the granting of that relief the Authority requested a hearing on the Order.
An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established and by a Memorandum and Order dated July 2, 1991 the Board requested an NRC Staff response to the Authority's answer.
Pursuant to that request the NRC Staff filed a response on July 16, 1991, in which it proposed to allow Mr. Manning to " perform Part 50 activities," but with conditions imposed on the Authority regarding application of its fitness for duty (FFD) program to Mr. Manning.
The Board has scheduled a prehearing conference for September 5, 1991 in Cyracuse, New York.
t The Authority is in agreement with the NRC Staff's position that matters cf public health and safety, gra en cm.;.7+
ft
(
er 1
l' l
particularly at a nuclear power plant, cannot be compromised.
By this letter, the Authority is detailir.g the stepa already taken and those it plans to take regarding this matter.
We are hopeful that the NRC Staff will conclude that the Authority's actions do and will provide reasonable ascurance that the public health and safety are protected, and that the Staff's order, as modified in its response, is accordingly not necessary.
This would allow the Authority to withdraw its request for a hearing on the Order.
II.
Ibo FitzPatrick FID Procram To promote and assure a drug-free environment, and in accordance with NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 26), the Authority has implemented a FFD program for FitzPatrick.
I am enclosing a copy of the FitzPatrick FFD policy for your convenience.
I draw your attention, particularly, to the following sections which are most applicable to the Manning case:
4.12; 5.1.3; 5.7.1; 5.7.3; 5.7.4; 5.9.3; 6.1.2; 6.3.2; 6.3.3; 6.3.5; 7.4.1; 7.4.2; 7.4.9; 7.8.1; 7.8.5; 7.8.6; 7.8.7; 7.8.8; 7.9; 7.9.1.
The Authority has dealt with and will continue to deel with Mr. Manning pursuant to Part 26 and the Authority's FFD program.
The Authority's FFD program provides a deliberate, conservative set of progressive steps designed to detect, respond to and rehabilitato employees with substance abuse problems.
Our view is that the NRC should not interfere with :he implementation o" this program by the Authority.
Absent a showing, not present here, that the Authority's program is not adequate to do the job, the NRC Staff should allow it to function as intended.
III. The Procram as annlied to Mr. Mannina The Authority's May 31, 1991 Answer detailed the steps the Authority tock with regard to the rehabilitative efforts of Mr. Manning.
These steps were consistent with and pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 and the F#D program.
To summarize: upon learning of the drug testing incident, the Authority relieved Mr. Manning of his unescorted access badge and suspended him; the EAP provided an assessment and counseling and established a plan for treatment, follow-up and future employment; during Mr. Manning's rehabilitation the Authority was in frequent contact with the EAP counselor and received progress reports; after Mr. Manning completed the inpatient phase of his rehabilitation and had satisfied 2
(
J
~ _.. - -
\\
=,
the health care professionals associated with the EAP that no was fit to work, Authority met with Mr. Manning to discuss further s' ops for the continuing rehabilitation process and to ab.n.ro itself that Mr. Manning was sincero in his efforts to rehabilitate himself and that he was fit to return to work.
After Authority management felt Mr.
Hanning would continue with the rehabilitation program established by the EAP (which included group and individual therapy sessions, and family and social support), and after advising him that he would be subject to a follow-up testing program for a three year period, the Authority assigned Mr. Manning to perform non-licensed i
duties in the Planning Department.
In accordance with the FitzPatrick FFD policy, from the time of his reinstatement following his suspension, Mr. Manning's behavior and performanco has been observed by his supervisors and by other management personnel.
He has boon found to be onthusiastic and rollable; there has boon nothing in his performance or desianor to indicate that he reverted to drug or other substance uso.
Furthermore, the testing schedulo required by the NRC regulation and by the FitzPatrick FFD program was adhered to:
Mr. Manning was tested twice in December 1990; three timos in January 1991; once in February 1991; once in March 1991; once in June 1991. There were no positive test results.
The follow-up testing plan established for Mr.
Manning pursuant to the FitzPatrick FFD policy is as follows:
(a) for t.he three year period following his return to Part 50 licensed activities, the Authority will conduct drug tests of Mr. Manning and observe the collection of urino specimens provided by him in accordance with Section
- 2. 4 (f) of Appendix A, 10 C.F.R. Part 26 and its established procedures.
(b) the period between each drug test shall not exceed a 90 day period, with the 90 day period to begin after a test has been conducted.
(c) for the three year period following his return to Part 50 licensed activities, NYPA shall conduct observed drug tests of Mr. Manning on the first day back from any unexcused or unanticipated absence of more than two calendar days.
(d) the Authority will obtain the concurrence of the NRC Region I Administrator beforo deviating from the
-program described in subsections (a), (b) and (c) above.
In addition to the testing required by the above follow-up testing plan, Mr. Manning has been and will 3
l l
- s continue to be subject to random drug testing, in accordanco with the FitzPatrick FFD policy and Part 26.
It should also be noted that Authority management maintains regular contact with the EAP contractor (Corporate Counsolling Associatos) handling Mr. Manning's caso.
At last report Mr. Manning was continuing to do t
well, attending all acheduled appointments, workiny in his therapy sessions and actively participating in his treatmont.
Conclusit As indicated in the Authority's Answer, after the Order kas issued Mr. Manning was assigned non-licensed duties et the Emergency Operating Facility.
He performs maintenance tasks, including mowing lawns, planting flowers and trimming bushes.
11 0 is under the observation of his supervisor who monitors his performance and attendance; there have been no problems noted.
The follow-up tests and personal observations of Mr.
Manning, as prescribed in the NRC's Fitness for Duty rule and in the' Authority's FFD policy has boon, and will continue to be followed.
The Authority is confident that all reasonable steps have been and will be taken to ansure that Mr. Manning will perform work at FitzPatrick only if he is fit to do so.
It is the Authority's responsibility as the licensee to assure that this occurs, and we take that responsibility with the utmost seriousness.
There is no need for the NRC Staff to inject itself into the administration of FitzPatrick as the Authority management is alreaoy fully complying with Part 26 and the Authority's Part 26 mandated FFD program.
Moreover, inasmuch as the Authority's position, as expressed in this lettor, is the same as the position set forth by the NRC Staff in its July 16-response to the Board, the issuance of an Order to the same offect is unnecessary.
I look forward to the NRC Staff's early and positive response to this offer so that the Authority can withdraw its request for a hear!ng on the Order.
Very rul
- yours, e --
.j RalhhE.
~
Beedle Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation 4
.