ML20128F586
| ML20128F586 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1994 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128F432 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-95-81 PR-II-94-046, PR-II-94-46, NUDOCS 9610080132 | |
| Download: ML20128F586 (7) | |
Text
. . . - .
g f "..g UNITED STATES
/ \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
! : OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION ll 101 Marietta St., Suite 2900, Atlanta, GA 30323
\,***** / Tel. 404-3315503 No.11-94-46 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Ken Clark Tuesday, May 10,1994 Telephone: 404-331-4503 NRC REEVALUATING THE RANDOM DRUG TESTING gr REQUIREMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UCENSEES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reevaluating whether utilities licensed to operate nuclear power plants must conduct random drug testing of those workers who do not perform safety-related jobs, but who have unescorted
, access to the plant's protected areas. The Commission is requesting information on several issues to aid the NRC
- staff in completing its evaluation.
The reevaluation stems, in part, from a June 1992 decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the random drug testing requirement and, at the same time, questioned the justification for imposing random drug tests on workers who.se jobs do not directly relate to safety - particularly clerical workers.
- Since then, the intemational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245 has submitted a request for an exemption from the random testing requirements for certain clerical workers at Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, Califomia.
]
As part of its reevaluation, the Commission has identified five approaches:
a e 1. Retain the current requirement that all workers who have unescorted access to protected areas be subject to T random drug testing. (A protected area is an area encompassed by physical barriers and security systems and to which access is controlled.)
l 2. Exclude from random drug testing certain groups of workers who have unescorted access to protected areas but not to vttal areas. (A vital area is any area that contains vital equipment such as the nuclear reactor and its major systems. Vital areas are located inside protected areas.)
- 3. Require random drug testing only for workers who have unescorted access to vital areas.
i
- 4. Require random drug testing only for workers who have jobs involving safety or security functions, regardless of their access to protected and vital areas.
- 5. Allow use of altomative testing methods (in lieu of urinalysis) for certain groups of workers who have unescorted access to protected areas but not to vital areas. The random selection process would still be used to select the j workers for the attemative testing.
{
The central issue in determining an appropriate scope for random drug testing remains the need for a proper
, balance between safeguarding individual rights and the NRC's responsibility to protect the public health and safety.
In this regard, the Commission is interested in several related issues including: (1) the threat from deliberate and accidental acts by individuals who may be influenced by substance abuse; (2) the interactions between changes to !
the scope of random drug testing and the reduction of safeguards for access into vital areas from protected areas; I and (3) the validity of performance testing measures as an attemative to drug testing.
4 9610080132 960827 f PDR FOIA WILMOTH95-81 PDR !
Wrkten comments on these and related matters should be received by August 8. They should be addressed to the Secretary of the COTT4 ;ca, Nuclear Regulatory CO... J icn, Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and i
Service Branch.
- NOTE TO EDITORS
- This information also has been released by the NRC in Washington, D.C. l i
esos een == w = m
==nas m=o saaes man.e w 1n1s.*seems seepage not EW uotospmuoo hopsin5eg Joelone p sessis pegun
a
- 6. ==mi=======
w%. % n. -
~w O
h Atlanta Constmmon Power .
a
~
ficials have not yet dMdad if the company will appeal the fme.
Plant Vogtle's rhe fme fonows a iengthy investigation into allegations TCCOrClS CitCd that senior Georgia Power
- manaFers made false state-By Charles Seabrook ments to the NRC regarding sTm WWTER . , the reliabiiityofdieseigenera-I tors at Vogtle following an ac-The Nuclear Regulatory cident at the east Georgia Commission on Tuesday pm- ! plantin 1990. ,
posed a $200,000 fme against Georgia Power Co.forsupply- The accident occurhid when a tmck backed inta,a inginaccurate andincomplete utility pole at the plant and.
information about the reliabil' . knocked out electrical power.
ity of diesel generators at the company's Vogtle nuclear for 36 mnmen The bachiup generators failed tostart atito-powerplantnearWaynesbom. matically and the water tain-The NRC also said itis de- perature of the reactorcoolms manding additional informa-system mse 50 degrees before.
tion from Georgia Power re* power was restored.
garding " individual perfor- After the accident, th'e mance failures" of six ofBcials NRC ordered the utility .to.
to help the agency determme keep the plant's nuclear rea~c ~
whether additional enforce-ment actions are necessary.
tors shut down until it could The fine proposed Tuesday demonstrate to federalregulii is a civilpenalty.Itstemsimm tors that the backup genera ~
repeated failmes of M tors were operating properitr Powers management "to p* "We did make some mis
- videcomplete andamurstem takes and collecting and re-porting information when this formation related to sucass-fulstarts, failures orproblems event occurred four yeart hwg with the diesel gen- ago," Wright said. "But ther-erators," said Ken Clark, were honest mistakes and un- '
spokesman for NRC's regional intentional." -
headquarters in Atlanta.
, t
- l. Ausus7N CH k nur s -a w I'
i l
' Georgia Power Co.i. s -
l ' to face. hefty fm' e .[ .
\ [3 Utility may be fined for information it gave l about Plant Vogtle emergency generators \
l lates nuclear power plants, eled i .
' 99JeheWieless .
has demanded additionalinforme6
- af Wrefer . tion on the settons of sit company
)
- c. ~ LASHING'tDN .:- The Noelear .ofnetals to determine whether
. Regulatory Commiselonla " additional enfeeement actions
) . Ing a 4900.000 fine against gis are necessary."
Powte Od. fot giving the esency The proposed fines follow a
- " inaccurate and theornpitte" In- nearly four. year investisetton 6nto
! , format 6on concerning the relidbil- the March 1990 ette area emergen.
- ' lif 6f emergency generatete at ey at Plant Vogtle - the seeend i .' PtantVogtle. .- -
e dne ammision;.whkh reg + --
m' ore then fier yeere ago.
n6er monasement.
~~~'
"De f(RC is wry coneemed "Does mtetskes were honest g
! nuc lear emergency alert about these violations," the agen. . and uninidntionet." he added.
cy said in a letter to the company. "When we discovered the ads-
! Ocotten. takes, we reported these to the
! he wee declared "Otven the importenee of the
! plant aner off.elte NRC's having complete and secu. NRC."
I was lost when a truck rate informatlen befor's makihg a Mr. Wright said the company .
l Into a transformer and the restart deele6en, the lleonese's has not made any doctelon about renanning on4tne backup (Georg6s Power) M whether to pay the nne or appeet weeunacceptable." i,.J it. He also sold the is i gnerator fated to start. ing
- A former maneser et the plant, he NRC conehlered the com. "looking forward" to
, a-4len Mosbaugh, later accused pony's settons a Severity Level!! .the NRC with additlanal i doorgia Power managere of lying violat6en, the ascond highest. Se tion it requested.
t) the NRC about the reliabluty of > violation equates to a base civil ne NRC has requested addt-tlanal information en the actions the generators in order to getennniesten approval to restart penaltyof400.0Ie. Ag l
< plant. eskisuch a v6elationis denned se volved with the reporting on the
! , The fines and investigation een- of"very signt6eent concern. It in- generatore.Dey rense fHnn eninoerrect information the volves the actualor high potential neere to adddle managers to ses originally gave the NRC nmpact on the public.Our enforce- niermanagere ibaut the rel6 ability of the emer- ment se*lan states it wee not be- Among theindividuele are Ken gamer diesel generatore to start- cause et an actuel threat,but of k McCoy, vied preendestanseleer at
$. The NRC used that ineerrect potentielthreat." the thne and nowvien president of Ipfsemation to pHow the company The NRC increased the penalty Plant Vogtle Thomme Greene, so-trnstart the. reactor aner .the by le percent because the e sletant I manager at the in. time now nacieer 1.'-- T-emergency.
~0eergia Power later corrected ite innatigation. It a Identifled most of the ineressed and I manager: M Es inhrsnelloa. It origineHy sold the penalty another les percent George Jr.. forneer there ware no preidesne with re- beesuse Georgte Power had a PlantVogtlegeneralmenager,and ~~
Narung the , but later number of ocessions to correctits now general .
the generators did information, but gened to do ao in technk alearvices.
aptresterteverytime. a timely manner,
- neNRC etted thecompanyfbr in a propered eletament, com-(ve v6elettone relating to giving pony spokesman Tel Wright ased, [
ineerrect inkrinaths, falung to "we did make sonw nestaban in cogeeting and reporting informe- 4 serveel Abr andthe data in d.
improper a thnely
_ by es.seen- .tlen ehen then. event task pleos j
-a= . a=*e em. ...--.w. m. m ,u,,,.e, ee uy gen
.g . _- _ - - -m
)
Q 1
.f/3 1
.b$26wo, Y V/W0$kSWOlk 6
/s 77/M7 77//S
$$$? /$ 7~On mc4*A' d4~ RE/ EASED), #NO j
re se por w rw
/
"^'Ad'" N o.
j 66[ was st.;Acatsky coonoimmu s res. )
l you w a a r a n ,v r i
\
7D CNEdN MW77/
of C 8F S /E reffA/f M f-warsAi44 4
1 1
h y.
4 4
E0 'd ~1W 0i cae u U m cials ham M6Y /r,Mit' i
may face. .
l penalties.. y ,,
gs .sg yGh to
- a Nuclear Regulatory O a. I p1 Commission continues coIIecting *O E,3 *l}g.h E $1 E Intbrmation on senior executives **
l b'lyl,g
,f ,gl @ g g,iE5 khi at Georgia Power }.g}
j
'
- g
- ef m ww.m g.
lgzp 's i l. 3 4
! StafWHrer g g S :
WASHINGTON Senior Georgia Power om-clats could be removed from any involvement M i - 3 .E $ k .E
~
~ UE pigf g-gsk5fE i ,
V with Plant Vogtle based on the outcome of the Q 5. t' E 4
j Nuclear Regulatory Commissiona's further inves- *M ~t I*u ffy.ga,58 tigation into the plant's 1990 site ares emergency, M $ $
5 5's5*
For now, the NRC, which oversees nuclear M m 1 j power plants such as Plant Vogtle outsidt GO b 5 TII Waynesboro, Ga., is collecting additional infor. O ,
.m f i
mation on company omelais.
The NRC could deelde to take no further ac.
W 2lis @ ,,
3 s j tion, issue additional fines or nrder Georgia Pow-r eep certain ometals from working at Plan't w QT j } hQg#
e ." $j*
C' 3
Georgis Power already is facing a $200.000 fine levied last week because company omelais gave Q .gIE ! ag " $ g i
i the NRC erroneous information about the rell D .
- .- e lE y l 1 ability of emergency backup generators. *M g.?l $ ,.e ga 4**I, The NRC used that information to allow the O
- E "$
l plant to restart the reactor, which had been shut down after losing all on site and emergency pow- -
Q h 'y ]m. .*O:
I ce 01jg -
- $E
,i er in the March 20,1990, incident. .U, do ] ,j @II CS During the investigation, at least one internal E l
NRC report determined Georgia Power ometals ~. y]' .
E j 3m 1
intentionally lied to the NRC. Another repott though agreeing Georgia Power gave incorreck d "jEg.2d b g information and at times. acted with " careless disregard," found no instance where any compa-Y* 3 8gg
- l ny ometaldeliberatelylied. 2 *k R** '&
"They have been etted (fined) for incomplete and incorrect information, but they have not been h g 3 3 I h g a $,'"
a g
chai ged with deliberately doing it," NRC spokes-man Ken Clark said. "The NRC staff will review h g E
8 ,g 1g the additional information provided to determine & ." T$$ I 5"-
whether additional enforcement is appropriate." g *g.g In a prepared statement, company spokesman oe ,,,,
o -
, y g.gg ,n yj $ g y, --
Tal Wright admitted the company made mis-takes, but said they were unintentional and em-ployees acted honestly.
g sut j
- fy $,]j Ik-3 . ,.Pa "Until now, the company and the individuals W ._ .- g I g i.3 have not had an opportunity to present our side, *WW %! g 5 1g and that's why the NRC is asking for more infor-mation," he said. "We think it's unfair and pre-Q IuI sg g,lE[=e, M
I !.E .E g ELgg l _g,3 t mature to assume these questions are an indica- ,s T 's a 55 ,
en E g..
tinn anyone did anything wrong before we have ) .g E g .E .g yJ had a chance to tell our side of the story." 'E 8 5 d .,!js <k
.. ..The
.NRC.h.as.
,. .lf M 't E5'
. . . . . . .requested.a.dditional..infb.rm,
........ ~ .. . . - . . ation
..._a _ _ - . _ _ .,..a - . . - . . . .a.. 2 2 --__..__.2_ .._.a.--~,4._.-.___.m _ ___.. .
l* Uk BocLj m hvM s 5-a-1y G & m / de um
- %)usf4w g44~
tDn 7slaA gw w mr
- 2. Beds Meetim su,/an sav-ms :
- 3. enyx ca n o w niec/ae- Sc6 /cro 4 @Y I. /h&2L<sA' AM 6Z (4M)13/-624 i l&& B. H+/ca & soi-apo-2rer ;
c.3sb s. arrrass ec we (3&wsrk i 2 &c Ger gi<c/cac (w) so4 -2797 l
$ d ~ t w e aas,e w ivac AE s .>< rov z m 9 79ce Recktsckc4A. LE #4 .2e V-/W i i
l l
p,i