IR 05000295/1987023

Insp Repts 50-295/87-23 & 50-304/87-24 on 870901-1118 Allegation Not Substantiated.Major Areas Inspected: Allegation Re Inadequate pre-employment Screening in 1982 for Plant Employee

ML20236V875
Person / Time
Site:	Zion  File:ZionSolutions icon.png
Issue date:	12/02/1987
From:	Creed J, Mallett B, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236V868	List: IR 05000295/1987023 ML20236V865
References
50-295-87-23, 50-304-87-24, NUDOCS 8712070143
Download: ML20236V875 (6)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .
&
'

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,

l REGION III Reports No. 50 295/87023(DRSS); 50-304/87024(DRSS) i Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39; No. DPR-48 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Zion Nu: lear Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: NRC Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, Illinois Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office, Chicago, Illinois Inspection Conducted: September 1 through November 18, 1987 Type of Inspection: Special Allegation Review Date of Previous Security Inspection: February 23-27, 1987 Inspector: '

      /

L. Pirtle Date hysical Security Inspector Reviewed By: hM @ A/. R. Creed, Chief Date C$afeguards Section Approved By: WM M / 2//7 B. S. Mallett, Ph.D., Chief Date Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Branch Inspection Summary Inspection on September I through November 18, 1987 (Reports E. 50-295/87023DRSS); No. 50-304/87024(DRSS)) Areas Inspected: Special inspection pertaining to alleged inadequate pre-employment screening in 1982 for a nuclear plant employee at the Zion Nuclear Generating Statio Results: The allegation was not substantiated. The inspection shwed that pre-employment screening requirements identified in the licensee's security plan had been complete B71203 PR ADOCK0500g5

_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ - . _ ,

.  .

DETAILS l Key Persons Contacted

   *P. Laird, Corporate Security Director, Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO)

i *G. Toleski, Nuclear Security Administrator, (CECO)

   *P. LeBlonde, Nuclear Licensing Department, (CECO)

R. Haley, M.D., Senior Staff Physician, (CECO) D. Visin, Industrial Relations Representative, (CECO) D. Andriuzzo, Director, Human Relations, (CECO)

   *J. Roulo, Senior Nuclear Security Specialist, (CECO)

J. Arbitt, Ph.D., Professor, Northwest University Medical School, Chicago, IL H. Eber, Ph.D., President, Psychological Resources, Atlanta, GA Professional Organizations American Academy of Board Certified Psychologists, Washington, American Psychological Association, Testing and Measurement, Washington, Institute of personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL The asterisk (*) denoted personnel present during the telephone exit interview conducted on November 18, 1987. The name of the individual involved, position of employment, specific dates of hire, and other detailed information are excluded from the report to protect the personal privacy of the deceased person's famil . Entrance and Exit Meeting (IP 30703) The Nuclear Security Administrator (NSA) was contacted by telephone on September 1, 1987. The NSA was advised that we had received an allegation pertaining to inadequate personnel screening, but the specific allegation was not discussed with the NSA. He was asked to confirm; (1) whether the individuals identified to NRC Region III did work at the nuclear plant identified; (2) verify the pre-employment screening requirements in existence for 1982; and (3) identify the corporate office that had the historical personnel and security files for the former employee. Additionally, the specific allegation was not disclosed during interviews and record reviews conducted at the licensee's corporate office on September 25, 198 A telephone exit interview was conducted on November 18, 1987, with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1. The licensee representatives were advised of the specific allegation and inspection conclusions denoted in Section 3 of the inspection report. The licensee representatives acknowledged the inspector's comments and had no questions or comments pertaining to the allegation review inspection result _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ .

  . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
. .

The licensee representatives were advised that the inspection findings were subject to NRC Region.III management review and that the final inspection report would contain the formal perspective of the inspection findings. They were also advised that the inspection report would be placed in the NRC Public Document Roo . Investigation-Allegation Review: The following information, provided in the form of an allegation, was reviewed by the inspector as specifically noted below: . Background: (Closed) Allegation No. R-III-87-A-0094. The NRC Region III office received an allegation on June 25, 1987 that a plant employee did not receive an adequate pre-employment screening for mental illness in 1982 during the hiring process at the Zion Nuclear Generating Station. The specific identity of the individual was not provided to NRC Region III until August 7, 1987. The individual's employment at the Zion Nuclear Generating Station and pre-employment security screening requirements applicable to the individual were confirmed by telephone contact with the licensee corporate Nuclear Security Administrator (NSA) on September 1, 198 The NSA identified the corporate office which possessed the employee's historical files and the inspector reviewed the files and interviewed the licensee's Senior Staff Physician, Industrial Relations Representative, Personnel Director, and corporate Senior Nuclear Security Specialist on September 25, 1987. Interviews with selected psychologists were also completed by November 18, 198 The specific allegation, NRC review actions, and conclusions are addressed below and in the attachment to this repor (1) Allegation: An individual hired in the early part of 1982 did not receive an adequate pre-employment screening for mental illness upon being hired by the Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) because CECO only required the individual to complete a questionnaire which asked questions such as, are you mentally ill; have you ever been mentally ill; or seen a psychiatrist? Allegedly, no psychiatric test or evaluation was performed at the time of being hired. The alleger stated that the individual was mentally ill as evidenced by an unsuccessful suicide attempt approximately 17 months after being hire (2) NRC Review Actions: Interview results and record review by the inspector developed the following information pertaining to the allegatio (a) At the time the individual was hired by the Commonwealth Edison Company, General Procedure No. 150, " Personnel Screening Program - Nuclear Stations," effective May 19, i 1980, and Section 4.1 and subparts of the licensee's NRC f l approved physical security plan addressed requirements for l

      ,
         +t e , a -

1-

           '

s ,. t

. .     +  

l'

     '
     ,.   ,
           )6
    ,
     ; ,i      i
     ,~, , ,r     .J f     ?

Jf ,1 . ~

           '

!

    <

pia-emplb pent screening. The screening requirements for -

           '

l non-securfty personnel with less than one year employment I , with CECO consisted of: L., ASainistering a psychological. test, g

            Co.detion of- employment applicatio \
      \

y ,

       \   .\ \ Verdficdtion of employment application to include i'  ,'

l- prepyaus employer, a school reference,- and one \- ' persp al reference being checked. When a school, refep ence employer o,could notreference r parsonal be contacted, an additional was contacte The purpose of the pmploymst application verification i was to reasppatWe assur% that the applicationgas not i inte'ationally falsifie f Review of the individual's s(curity screening file showed that the person's previous enqloyer (U.S. Navy) was verified by review and retent' ion of a copy of the individual's DD Form 21 Completion.of Education was verified by review and retention of the individual's High-School' Diploma.' Three references were provided by the D individual and CECO contacted all three references by mail. Two of the refkrences respo,nded with posith* remarks. The th'frd reference did not resbond to the written inquiry. One reference knew the individua1'and his family for a 18 yeah pe d d; the other reference knew the individual in excebi of two year .{

         .

i (b) Review of the individual's employment records .shcwed ttiat ' the former employee received two merit increase within d 14 month period after being hired. A performance i tppraisal (referred to a " Coaching Review Form") completed approximately eight months after being hired wus - satisfactory with no significant areas ider.cified  ! pertaining to work performance or'(ob-related weaknesse { The individual was also promot'ed approximately 35 nonths j after being hire (c) Interviews with the CECp senior staff physician sntwed tl.at the individuhl was administered two written j p' psychological e' valuations (the 16 Personality tactor ,. i Questionnaire {li PF], and the Thurstone lamper< ment l Schedule) in a timely manner. The evaluation results ,

          <
            {

were :onsidered 'satisf tctory. The test results were  ! evaluated by a Ph.D. (.plsultant who is a Professor at , j the Northwestern Univch sity Medical School in Chicago, j i Illinois. The licenste has all behavioral reliability 17 j tests evaluated by th}s university rnedical school; faculty membe . 4 ,

     ,,
. - - . - _ . _ _ - _ - _ . - - . _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ . _ . . - - - -       -'

      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ __  - . - -
          ,
     . ,    fr
   '
 .    >
.
'f   g k   '( I ri b   The inspector confin$d through the Illinois Department of Registration and Education that the consultant retained n*   by Ceco was licensed to perform the type of test evaluation described above, and other psychological L    evaluations and counseling, as of 1982. The consultant is also currently licensed by the State of Illinois to provide such services. It should be noted that the NRC has not stipulated the type of psychological tests to be
,

used for behaviural reliability evaluatio Such ( decisions are normally made by the licensee's management ) based upon consultation with personnel experienced in the

 ;  field. However, it is expected that such tests are evaluated by professional personnel licensed by the

[['

  -

appropriate state to perfona such services when the state ' t

 ,

requires such licensing.

,k "

   (d) Telephu.e interdews with a psychologist identified by the American Academy cf Board Certified Psychologists (AABCP)

as an expert in Ave. hating the 16 PF, and a staff psychologist fer tne current publisher and copyright holder of the 16 PF, disclosed that the 16 PF is an 9xtensively usde e d validated test which is used for Mhavioral assessment purposes by other nuclear power

   , licensees and bstinesses, as well as the U.S. Navy .

Although the 16 PF is not designed to identify specific clinical psychological problems, the 16 PF test evaluation profile of an individual with significant clinical psychological problems et the time of test administration should indicate the need for further evaluation. The licensee's consultan has developed an overall rating system that required additional testing and consultation if a person's overall ' rating is not within a specified

 ,

1 rang Interview resMts with the licensee's Senior Staff

 /  Physician disclosed that the former employee's overall evaluation rating was within the range that did not require further testing or consultation. The AABCP did not identify any psychologists considered as an expert for
* '

the Thurstone Temperament Schedule (TTS). The TTS was

 , ,

considered as an older test that measures factors similar

\

to the 16 P i

  / (e) Interviews with the psychologist retained by the licensee disclosed that Mk TTS does measure some of the factors addressed by the 16 PF. The psychologist used the TTS as an additional e/aluatian tool and a form of quality control check for the 16 PF test evaluations. The psychologist confirmed that the former employee's initial evaluation results were within the range that indicated I  that followup terting or evaluation was not require (. .
  '

During the interviews, the psychologist stated that his re-evaluation of the test results showed no adverse indications which would warrant further psychological l -

 "

I

   "

_ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ -

w . , . , , m - . _ . . . . - - . f

,... ,
 ,  testing or consultatio The psychologist also stated i I

a that the tests used (16 PF and TTS) meet standards J deveUJped by the American Psychological Associatio (f) Interviews with the licensee's Senior Staff Physician showed that no significant problems were noted during the individual's pre-ereployment physical examination. In the judgement of the Smior Staff Physician, the physician that performed the physical examination of the former einployee was very experienced and would have noted physical indications of eme:1onal instability. Interview results also disclosed that no medical information was in the individual's file that would indicate emotional

,

instability at the time of being hired or prior to the Q , initial suicide attemp .; (g) Approximately ten days prior tc the initial suicide attempt, tne former eniployee contacted his supervisor about problems pertaining to stress and the individual was referred to a local Psychological Counseling Service. The former employee was scheduled for an appointment on the day of the initial suicide attempt and the appointment with the counseling service was not completed. After the initial suicide attempt, the former employee was placed in a medical disability ! status by CECO for approximately a 15 month period. The individual was not rehired after the 15 month period because of emotional problems existing at the time, Conclusion: The allegation was not. substantiated. The inspection shewed that the former employee was screened at the time of being

'

hired by CECO, to include a psychological evaluation, as required by the licenree's security pla }}