PY-CEI-NRR-1201, Forwards First Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept for Plant for 900103-0630,per 10CFR26.71(d) Requirements

Forwards First Semiannual fitness-for-duty Rept for Plant for 900103-0630,per 10CFR26.71(d) Requirements

ML20059D982
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	08/28/1990
From:	Lyster M CENTERIOR ENERGY
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
PY-CEI-NRR-1201, NUDOCS 9009070250
Download: ML20059D982 (5)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:. -- 4; camag l"Er4RY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Mad A00ress: 10 CENTER ROAD P.O. BOX 97 Michael D Lyster PERRY, OHl0 d4081 PERRY, OHIO 44081 Vice President Nuclear (216)259 3737 Aupc 28,1990 PY-CEl/NRR-1201 L 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Document Control Desk l Washington, D. C. 20555 Perry Nuclear Power Plant l Docket No. 50-440 Semiannual Fitness-for-Duty Report Gentlemen: Attached is the first Semiannual Fitness-for-Duty Report for Perry-Unit I covering the time period of January-3 through June 30, 1990, inclusive. .This report is submitted in accordance with 10CFR26.71(d) requiremes.ts. The-provisions of the fitness-for-duty program applies to all persons granted unescorted access to protected areas, and to Licensee, vendor, or contractor personnel required to physically report to our Technical Support Center (TSC) or the Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) in accordance with emergency plans and procedures. 10CFR26 regulations apply to Licensees authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor and selectively applies to Licensees holding permits to construct a nuclear power plant, with a plant under active construction. Please note that Perry Unit 2 (Docket No. 50-441) is on hold from' active construction.and therefore, is considered exempt from any of 10CFR26 requirements. Even though Unit 2 is 10CFR26 exempt, our Protected Area (PA) bet lary encloses Unit 2 effective August 11, 1990. l l If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely,

                                                           )     e Michsel D. Ly ter l

l MDL:NJL:njc l Attachments A, B, and C cc: NRR Project Manager b2) 001 lM/d ((/f 8h Sr. Resident Inspector USNRC, Region III 3lI I Operahng Units: Cleveland Electric illuminating Toledo Edison 9009070250 900828 PDR ADOCK 05000440 cm cann

                     .                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1 ATTACHMENT A Fitness for Duty Program Performance Data w            m % we                                               Personnel Subject to 10CFR 26                                                                                                        sn.colo Company                                                                                                                6 Months Ending                                                                                     i Cleveland Electric 111uminatine Company                                                                               June 30, 1990                                                                                   i I

Location l Perry Nuclear Power Plant 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 l Contact Name Access Authorization Phone (include area code) Michele Benedict Unit Sunervisor (216) 254-3737 Ext. 5850 Cutoffs: Screen / Confirmation (ng/ml) Appendix A to 10CFR 26 Marijuana 50 / 15 Amphetamines 1,nno / Son / Cocaine 300/ 150 Phencyclidine 25 / 25 / Opiates 300/ 300 Alcohol (% BAC) .04%I .04% / Long Term Short Term Testing Results Licensee Employees Contractor Contractor Personnel Personnel Average R 4er with unescorted te:ess 1165 363 M # Referred Access 8 # M g gg Tested Positive to EAP Restored Tested Positive Tested Positive I l Pre-employment 5 Pre-badgin9- 92 251 3 Periodic 79 For cause 1 2 Post accident 4 2 Random 626 l 185 I Follow-up , I Other 19 j Total 826 1 441 3

m. w

                                                                                         ~

w gl. u 4 i 9 9 1

• 3 ,

9 9 1

                                                     -                                         q t

s l u s e 2 R 9 9 s e m 1 c a n r a g t o 1 s r b P u g S i n i c t f i s c e e T 1 9 p m 9 ;r S 1 r o ' o d f 't n s a t R s e T e i v t i s 0 o 9 9 P 1 d 3  ; 1 e 1 3 m r 8 2 i 1 f n o d C d e e t 5 4 3 2 1 t s s e e e T T s n e i s e # e e v n d l v v a i i a i fi n m l i t oti a e s a c l du t i u n e t y o i i s s hs j i t e c h v o o po i a a h n o i P P aP r c i p e c d r a o p m h l n M C O A P A I #  % G%

ATTACHMENT C _ MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN

              - During the reporting period, there vere four positive drug tests.

One involved a company employee, as_a result of a random-test, and the other three involved contractor personnel as a result of pre-badging tests. The company employee was referred to the company's Employee' Assistance Program. After refusing the recommended treatment' program, disciplinary b action was initiated, and subsequently, employment was terminated. The y individual was also denied future access to plant' property. -{ Each contractor employee was denied access to the plant site, advised of theit- right to appeal, and provided with information regarding their - course of action for future consideration of unescorted access privileges, m None of the contractor employee's had been reinstated for unescorted access consideration during the reporting period.

                - There were six post-accident tests performed during the reporting period.

These tests were conducted on six individuals in response to five independent vehicle accidents. The individuals involved had unescorted access at the time of the accidents. Each test was negative.

                 - Two separate alcohol related in 4 dents occurred, which resulted in for-cause breath tests.

One incident involved two contractor employees who vere attending General Employee Training. The instructor had reason to-believe that the individual's were under the influence of alcoholic beverages, and reported this to Security personnel. Both individual's were given the breath analysis tests, lsoth of which were g- negative. Although one of the individual's result was measurable, it was below the .04% positive range. After further assessment of their condition, both individual's were required to leave the property for.the remainder of the day.

                  - The other incident was in response to a supervisor's concern of a company employee being under the influence of alcoholic Severages. The supervisor contacted security personnel of his concern, anu the employee was tested.

Tne result of the breath alcohol test was negative. After a further assessment of the individual's condition by the supervisor and the security 1 shift supervisor, the employee was permitted to return to work, but under close observation by the supervisor. The individual's work station was ' outside the protected area. 4 e

 .D e      ,       e l
     - Additionally, there were 20 tests performed for "other reasons,"-as indicated on the first page of the performat.ce data sheet under the
                                 ~
        "Other" category.

These tests were performed on indiviuuals that vere outside the scope of 10 CFR Part 26, but who work within the owner controlled area of the plant site (outside of the protected area). In response to finding contraband in a building located vithin_the owner-controlled area, but outside of the protected area, management required 15 employees, whose work stations were in close proximity of the location where the contraband was found, to be drug tested. All test results were negative. Three were follow-up tests performed on individuals outside the scope of 10 CFR 26, one was a post accident test of a company employee-who was also outside the scope of the rule, and one was a pre-employment test on a contractor, prior to performing Fitness for Duty administrative support activities. INITIATIVES TAKEN

    - Prior to implementing the requirements of the Fitness for Duty Rule,             i management organized a task force of representatives knowledgeable of the requirements to hold informational meetings for employees and contractors assigned to work at the plant site.

Several meetings were held which offered information to the employees, and provided them with an opportunity to ask questions. This process proved to be an excellent source of communication between management and the employees, and was benefical for the actual' implementation of the program.

    - Prict to Janttry 3, 1990, the on-site medical dispensary vas remodelel in preparation or implementing FFD program requirements.

The interior was redesigned to provide for separation of collection activities and other medical service related activities. Two separate collection rooms were constructed to ensure privacy and integrity of the specimen collection process. Additonal actions were taken to enhance security measures of both the exterior and interior of the facility.

    - A quality assurance audit was conducted of the FFD program to ensure regulatory compliance. No findings were generated as a result of the audit.

REPORTED EVENTS UNDER 10 CFR PART 26 , No events were reported during this period. ,}}