ML20202B181

Summary of Allegation Review Board 860625 Meeting at Region III Re Drug Use by Us Testing Personnel,Urine Sampling Program,Defective Relays & Inadequate Experience in Radwaste Dept

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 a .

p

~ '

JUL 0 21986 '

sp64l

~

MEMORANDUl$ FOR: E. G. treenman, Deputy Director,. Divis, ion of Reactor Projects FR0k: R. F. Warn 91 k, Chief, Reactor Projects, Brancti 1 ,

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:

' ~

85-A-0159 #163 Drug use Lf US Testing personnel I 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 IP rimary purpose of review board's input was to resolve C. . Wei-l's .

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.

'o 86-A-0088--Will be referred to'IP according to the Board Meeting held May 14, 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 y M

• 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 ,.,,s- w. - .~.y.__. .n

. e , .:, m . _a g c, _ , _.__.,._ , -.w-_ _ u .;y ,p ,a g,;, _

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. 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 2/23 tested drug ppsi t i ve; three ,, dayI'Plimit.

therefore, 's actions , persons in this case were

- a sufficient.

s

1. 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 d

work had.,any adve'rse impact on safety. ,, ,

~

1. 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

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. , - . ,

1. 4 e ,

6 e

s' .

e p .

e *.

$ e*

1. 0  % g

& 4

% O e

9 e g t ,

d

8

. e y e t '

• s

$ M 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...

switching' urine samgles during their* di ug bragged about 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 itg was performed under the influence of. drugs?

. 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 -

Test.i ng - personnel 'are gone, base . pour

- If all U.S.

. 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 h9 n 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,

.Af .

ac h w ed

.3 -

-