ML20202B181
| ML20202B181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1986 |
| From: | Warnick R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607100227 | |
| Download: ML20202B181 (6) | |
Text
-
~
'o p
a
~
JUL 0 21986 sp64l
~
MEMORANDUl$ FOR:
E. G. treenman, Deputy Director,. Divis, ion of Reactor Projects FR0k:
R. F. Warn 1 k, Chief, Reactor Projects, Brancti 1 9
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONREVIEWBOARDMINUTESF0RCLINTON(ARMNO.20)~
An ARM was conducted on June 25, 1986. Present were:
N~. Chrissot.imos C. Weil R.'4arnick F. Jablonski 4
l During the meeting the following allegations were discussed:
I
~
85-A-0159 #163 Drug use Lf US Testing personnel 86-A-0088 #189 Urine sampling program 86-A-0094 #190 '
Defettive relays 86-A-00XX,#191)
Inadequate experience in radwasta department 86-A-0104 #192)
Foreign substance o,n electrical penet.
At,the meeting it was agreed'that the allegations would be disposed as follows:
85-A-0159 I rimary purpose of review board's input was to resolve C.. Wei-l's P
comments made to report submitted by C. Scheibelhut. 85-A-0159 will be closed in report 86037 as described in the inspection plan included as attachment 1.
Urine sampling'will be reviewed under allegation 86-A-0088.
86-A-0088--Will be referred to'IP according to the Board Meeting held May 14,
'o 1986. The letter to IP will incorporate the elements of the inspection plap igcluded'as attachment 2.
86-A-0094--Will be, reviewed by DRS according to the inspection plan included' as attachment 3.
86-A-00XX--W111 be forwarded to DRSS by C'. Weil; DRSS will develop inspection plan.
a
.a II 8607100227 860702
'PDR,ADOCK 050004 1 gu\\
3 x
~
G
~
a.
6 E. G.~Greenman 2
- d 02'1986 86-A-0IO4--Will be closed in report 86037 based P. Hiland's memo of Jtine 13,
~
1986; RE: Weil's memo to Norelius of June 25, 19&6.
- urloMi sk e:O. i. i., t. e a rv. i d:'
R. F. Wartlick, Chief Reactor Projects Branch.1 Attachments:
1.
Inspection Plan for RIII-85-A-0159 2.
Inspection Plan for RIII-86-A-0088 3.
Inspection P,lan for RIII-86-A-0094 cc: ARM Members
^
C. Paperiello C. Norelius T. Gwynn 5
R. ksep
~
e s
O 9
M y
e
(
8 e
O O
k g.
e t
Q r
P e
3 e
O
(;
a 0
RI~I I, g
i arnick/jp 7l/lffs e
L
\\
.g. a
.m
, s. ;?r% 'y.;
,x 1
e s,. - w. -.~.y.__..n e,.:, m. _a g c, _, _.__.,._
-.w-_
_ u.;y,p,a g,;,
,,s TWLP
."' INSPECTION PLAN FOR ALLElBATION~RIkI-BS-A-0159-02 1#163) W ~*'i;: RA Preapred by F. J.*Jablosqki, DRP DATE: 06/10/86 e.
RESPONSE
TO C.
WEIL COMMENTS ABOUT THE' ABOVE ALLEGATION ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AS PART OF A REPORT PREPARED BY C.
SCHEIBELHUT - USE OF DRUGS BY U.S.
TESTING PERSONNEL
~
KEY ELEMENTS OP ALLEGATION A..
DRP submits ** attachment 1 from F.
Gwynn which* clarifys
)
the original inspection report.
o B.
Attachment 2 inc'ludes. comments from C.
Weil about the original inspection report.
C.
DRP responces to C.,Weil's comments:
- 1. A's stated in the inspection report urine tests were' s
perform 4d
'the d'ay' after the allegation was'
- made, well within the three,, day limit. actions, persons 2/23 tested drug ppsi t i ve; therefore, I'P ' s in this case were sufficient.
a s
- 2. DRP does not*know what IP has done to assure that urine samp'les are not switched; however, that aspect
- will be included during the inspeciton of Allegation
' R I I I - 8 6 - A.O O B 8'.
o
- 3. Nothing was done -
NRC.doeg not have a program'nor a erequi'rement to evaluate the work,of persons on perscription i
drugs; however, we rely on the applicant's management staff to be aware of such occurances and take appropriate action i
whe'n and if necessary.
DRP has no reason to believe that "the in'ividual'*s work had.,any adve'rse impact d
on safety.
- 4. DRP will add the ' word -" illicit" drugs to the second
~
sentence of. Review.
.o l.
- 5.
DRP can' remove the last ' sentence;
- however, DR'P '
believes that the sentence. is valeid.,
I 1
- 6.
DRP can notify Creed by supplying him with a copy of the inspection report and copy of thi s inspection plan.,
/
e l
- 7. URP will supply a, k.ey for the cast.cf ch'aracters t'o l*
C.
Weil for input:to th'e allegation file.
s EXPERTISE Speci al i st i DRP
~
WHAT TO LOOK AT Based on the comments by P.*
Gkynn an'd i t emt
- 1 -#,7,-
no further inspection, effort is considered necessary.
DRP m li ci. d > f y t w i n :; c:t t en report n H ntrd in m t w wm t l'
,~
4&&mdi-
7 s
S m.4,.
/Eh4 and in' items #4 & #5 above,.tand implement items
- 6 &
- 7.,,
above.
s-WHO TO TMt_K TO p
NA o
POSSIBL-E DUESTIONS NA
't CONTINGINCIES None e
WHAT IF Non'e
.c GEigERIC I'SGUES 4
None e
i.
4 e
6 e
s' e
p e
e
- 0 g
4 O
e 9
e g
t d
8 e
y e
t M
s t
l O
l i
e j
9 6
O g
e e
e f
e E'
A f /cghma
'l t
L
r m
<u s
INSPECT. ION PLAN FOR ALLEGATION RIII-86-A-OOOO (#189)
Preapred,by F.,J.
Jablosnki.y DRP DATE: D6/10/06
DRUG USE BY U.
S.
TESTING PERST3NNEL FOLLOWUP DN ALLEGATIONS AT DRESDEN
( RE':
MEMO
- WEIL, TO.
NORELIUS DATED MAy 14,*1986.
ONLY THE *LAST PARAGRAPH ON PAGE- $ OF THAT MEMO APPLIES TO C&INTON).
- +ALSO SEE ALLEGATION RIII-85-A-0159-02**.**4*
c KEY ELEMENTS OF ALLEGATION' U.
S.
Testing. per sonnel employeed at d2Inton openly v...
bragged about switching' urine samgles during their* di ug screening; a U.S. Testing employee was recently fired for drug use.
w EXPERTISE h
Gerieral i st ; DRF' (Perhaps get Crieed or 01 involved)
WHAT TO LOOK AT 1.
De~termine 14 any U,.
S.. Testing personnel at Cfinton were
. fired for drug use.
If thePe were, d'etermine the eat'ent i
arrd type of work 'the person (s) dideand.what
- IT' did-to,
^
verif9.th5t the work-was,done.corre*ctly, e.g.,
sampling.
2.
Review IP's " fitness f or' duty" pr oc ectur es,
specifically
(
for controlling urine sample controls.
s
~
'WHO TO. TALK TO.
Security and personnel dept; U. 5, Testing personnel if st'i l l on site.
o POSSIBLE QUESTIONS i
c 1.
Any knowledge of p ers.onnel being fired for drug use?
C.,How was that per' son"es work verif i ed to be acceptable if it was performed under the influence of. drugs?
g 3.
What are the procecures f or supp1*ying urine samp. leu?
4.
Do you know of anyone who subr#tituted another's urine ps.
a sample inofder to pass a drug screenirig test?
CONTINGINCIES If all U.S.
Test.i ng - personnel 'are
- gone, base
. pour inspection on th'e revi ew of records such as personnel files arfd IP investigati6n repor'ts, and interviews with IP, BA or SbW craft / inspection personnel.
WHAT.IF See above
' GENERIC ISSUES.-
Nohe 4
- T *%.
e G
L 5
r s'
s e
INSPECTION PLAN.FOR. ALLEGATION RIII-86-A-0094.(#190)'
Preapred by F.
J.
Jablosnki,1 DRP DATE: 06/10/G6-
.DEFECTIVEkELAYS
+
KEY ELEME$TS OF ALLEGATION RELAYS INSTALLED IN SAFETY AND..NONCIAFTY SYSTEMS NERE COMMEFICI AL GRADE, JAMNED DURING
' REPAIR AND HAD CRACKED.
RELAY'
- BLOCKS, dDENT,IFIED AT
'OCONEE BEFORE 1CCFR21 REQU I REMENTS", SAFETEAM DID INADEQUATE REVIEW OF* CONCERN.
- EXPERTISE Specialisti DRS
.~
~
WHAT'TO LOOK AT'.
Perf orm in house review of. SAFETEAM repor4 12512-A
'(DRP h n 9
copy).
C WHO TO TALK TO t
Per schnel,identi fied,in the SAFETEAM report.
P95SIBLE' QUESTIONS'
~
1.
Do ytu use ITT J-13P relays in safety related circuits?
2.
Arq the.y qualified for safety related use?
- 3. Have you experienced any problems with them7 9
d.,If yes,'*what tkave you done to rectify the p'roblems?,,..
~
'CONTINGINCIES
'If the review of the SAFETEAM report satisfies the concern document your results in an inspection r,ep or t i,1 f
- not, proce6ed to the site for intervie,ws and other i hspec t i'on to 9erify that.only the correct type of relays fee being used, and/or resolve' ge problems with the SAFETEAM investigation.
WHAT IF*
- See above GENERIC ISSUES
'None 9
1 0
8, A f ac h w ed
.3
.