IR 05000206/1988014
| ML20246E001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1988 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D534 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-490 50-206-88-14, 50-361-88-12, 50-362-88-12, NUDOCS 8907120063 | |
| Download: ML20246E001 (3) | |
Text
.
.
.
.
,'
.
i i
!
i
,
d.
(Closed) Follow-up Item (50-206/88-01-03) and 73.71(c) Event Report (88-01-50).
Licensee Corporate Security Investigation of p_ rug u
Program._ On December 21, 1987, the licensee' telephonically notified Region V of an ongoing investigation by their Corporate Security
'
concerning alleged improper drug screening operations.
The licensee initiated this investigation after receiving information that a medical Substance Abuse Technician working in the Itcensee's drug 9907120063 090710-3 PDR FOIA
'
-..~- "
---...-
,
.~ ' -
PARRISH88-490 PDR
>
_n
. _ _
I
--
- _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ _ _ _ _ _ _
_
-
screening program O d aflegedly (in some manner) been changing the
,
'
results of annual urinalysis tests for friends' samples that might
,
otherwise exhibit drug traces.
Initially, the licensee identified, and requested urinalysis tests of six " friends" of the named Substance Abuse Technician.
As a result
,
of these tests, two employees and one contractor were identified with positive traces of drugs, one employee resigned in lieu of being tested, and the remaining two employees tested negative.
In accordance with the licensee's Substance Abuse Program, the two licensee employees testing " positive", were immediately denied unescorted access to the protected area, and placed into a drug program and will be evaluated to determine their fitness to return to work.
The third employee was a contract employee, and was denied access to the site.
None of the persons involved in this incident were Ifcensed plant operators.
As part of their overall investigation into this matter, Corporate Security interviewed all persons involved in this incident.
No further leads developed as a result of the interviews of the six
" friends." During interviews of the medical Substance Abuse Technician, he denied any wrongdoings, and indicated that the complainant in this matter (his former girl friend), was merely attempting to discredit him.
The licensee also requested a urinalysis test of the Substance Abuse Technician. This test indicated positive traces of drugs.
Since his use of illegal substances was a flagrant violation of the trust placed in him, his employment was immediately terminated.
During this inspection, the inspector reviewed the licensee's January 14, 1988 Report of Investigation into this matter, and determined that the licensee's actions in this matter, were appropriate.
As indicated in this report, the licensee's Corporate Security Department was unable to confirm the allegation that the Substance Abuse Technician had previously falsified drua screen tests.
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
i
' UNITED STATNS
/**y ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
f i
,
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL AND PUBUC AFFAIRS, REGION V
.
....*
1450 Marie Lane, Suke 210, Weinut Creek, CA 94596 5388
\\
NRC:Y-3588 FOR IP94EDIATE RELEASE
,
' Contact: Greg Cook June 16, 1988
Office: 415/943-3809
.
'
Home: 707/644-2428 NRC STAFF SUSPENDS LICENSE OF MAURICE P. ACOSTA, JR.
The Nuclear. Regulatory Commission-staff has suspended the reactor operator license of Maurice P. Acosta, Jr., effective immediately, and has denied an
)
application for renewal. Mr. Acosta is employed by Southern California Edison l
Company (SCE)andislicensedtomanipulatecontrolsattheSanOnofreNuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3, located 5 miles southeast.of San Clemente.
.
l The Comission's Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty provides that all j
nuclear power plant utilities should establish prog ~ rams to provide reasonable
'
assurance that all nuclear power plant personnel with access to vital areas of operating plants are fit for duty.
SCE has established such a program.
On March 6, 1986 May 12, 1986, and May 28, 1988, the licensee failed urinalysis screening tests con. ducted by SCE, testing positive for marijuana.
.After confinned results of each of these tests were reported to the company, SCE counseled the licensee to emphasize that access to the San Onofre plant site is contingent on abstinence from the use of illegal drugs'.
SCE has also suspended the licensee's protected area access.in acco'rdance with company procedures.
The failure of the licensee to conform to SCE's prohibition against illegal drug use, which has the purpose of protecting the public health and
- sfety, demonstrates a disregard of the important obligations of a licensed reactor operator and of the public's trust in him. While the tests themselves do not necessarily establish that the licensee was incapacitated at the time the samples were taken, the NRC does not have the necessary reasonable assurance that the licensee will carry out his duties in the future with sufficient alertness and ability to safely operate San Onofre Units 2 and 3 and to observe all applicable requirements, including obligations imposed by SCE's policies and procedures.
Mr. Acosta may show cause in writing within 20 days #why his NRC license should not be suspended, or may consent to the requirements of the order.
Upon consent of the licensee, or on failure to answer within 20 days, the requirements shall be final without further order.
The licensee or any other person adversely affected by the order may request a hearing within 20 days. Such requests must be submitted to the
\\ Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
<
.
Washington, DC 20555.
l N
_
up.
WtrlM