ML20214M183
| ML20214M183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214M174 | List: |
| References | |
| 1957K, NUDOCS 8609100567 | |
| Download: ML20214M183 (3) | |
Text
..
') Commonwealth Edison
,- One First Natormi Plav, Chicago, lHinois
~#
Address Reply to: Post Omco Box 767 Chicago. Illinois 60690 - 0767 August 6, 1986 Mr. James G. Keppler Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Subject:
LaSalle county Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/86020 and 50-374/86019 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374
Reference:
J. A. Hind Letter to Cordell Reed dated 1
July 23, 1986.
Dear Mr. Keppler:
Attached is commonwealth Edison's response to the special security inspection conducted by members of your staff between March 24, 1986 and June 16, 1986.
It is understood that there were three allegations / concerns listed and that items "A" and "B" have been resolved and require no further response. The third allegation / concern is addressed in the attachment.
If there are any further questions regarding this transmittal, please contact this office.
_a s_=_z;
-e D nis L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing pjl/Im Attachment 1957K 8609100567 860826 PDR ADOCK 05000373
' AUG 11196 O
ATTACISEDrf Concern:
Craft personnel allegedly consume excessive amounts of alcohol prior to reporting for duty at the LaSalle Nuclear plant. The thrust of the allegation was that the condition constituted a safety concern and supervisors were not sensitive enough to the issue. The allegers stated that during their backshift tours they have, on several occasions, smelled the odor of alcohol on persons in elevators and at the Radiation Protection check-in counter area. The identities of the persons involved were not provided, however, they allegedly were craft employees who have worked at the site for a short period of time. The time frame for the alleged incidents was within the first hour or two of the backshift period. These incidents have allegedly occurred only since the refueling outaga (September 1985).
Response: As indicated earlier in your report, Commonwealth Edison does have a Fitness for Duty Policy and does require all contractors working at a nuclear site to submit an equivalent policy for their personnel, one of the aspects of a Fitness for Duty program is the continued observation by supervisors of their employees. This continued observation is the method by which we address and discover this type of above mentioned allegation.
Commonwealth Edison's ingress screening procedures and instructions to the guard force are to be attentive to personnel who appear to be under the influence. Guards do evaluate people entering the gatehouse for outward signs of being intoxicated (i.e., slurred speech, staggered walk or the smell of alcohol).
However, if the person does not exhibit any visible signs of being intoxicated and if the person does not speak directly to anyone (asking for a security badge through an intercom does not qualify as speaking directly), the security force will not be aware of any problems or concerns as it only takes approximately 40 seconds to clect the screening equipment and receive their security badge. This is why the continued observation is so critical to a Fitness for Duty Program. Even though a person may manage to initially pass through security undetected, that person should be discovered through the course of their normal work activities. This discovery could be made by their supervisor, another worker (either contractor or Edison) or by the normal contact with the guard force. Based on the allegation, it is apparent that people on-site are aware of their responsibility to report potential violations of the Fitness for Duty program.
r -
v
,/
.. Since January 1986, there have been three occasions during which contractor personnel were involved with alcohol related incidents at LaSalle. On 3/10/86, a guard who was posted at the Unit I equipment hatch stated that he believed that a contractor, working for A & M Insulation, had the smell of alcohol on his breath. The guard contacted another guard who in turn notified Edison security management personnel of the concern. Security management personnel contacted Edison's Superintendent of Station Construction who together with the Superintendent of A & M Insulation went to the Unit I equipment hatch and talked with the contractor who allegedly smelled of alcohol. It is documented that neither the Edison manager nor the A & M manager smelled alcohol on the breath of the contractor. Additionally, an evaluation was made that the contractor did not appear to be unfit for duty.
On 3/27/86, a contractor working for Morrison construction was terminated by Morrison and ultimately denied access to all CECO sites. This contractor had been successfully processed through the gatehouse without incident. Later, after being observed by a Morrison Supervisor, he was declared " unfit for duty" (due to his apparent intoxication) and was escorted out of the Protected Area.
His unescorted access was denied as soon as security was notified.
On 4/25/86, another contractor working for Morrison was detected attempting to bring a can of beer into the protected area in his lunch box. The guard upon viewing an image of'a can through the use of the x-ray machine, hand searched the lunch box and found the alcohol. The contractor was not allowed to enter at that time and his unescorted access was revoked. Morrison construction also terminated this individual's employment with their company.
As evidenced by the above three incidents, concerns / allegations regarding alcohol usage are addressed once we are notified of the situation. Additionally, it should be pointed out that security and fitness programs at Edison are stressed as being everyone's responsibility to adhere to and to report violations of these programs to their supervisors. Once this occurs, action will be taken. It is Edison's position that our current Fitness for Duty Program does address these types of concerns and allegations.
1957K