IR 05000295/1987025
| ML20236V888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zion File:ZionSolutions icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1987 |
| From: | Creed J, Mallett B, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236V879 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-295-87-25, 50-304-87-26, NUDOCS 8712070150 | |
| Download: ML20236V888 (4) | |
Text
F-
,
,
',
', *
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
Reports No. 50-295/87025(DRSS); 50-304/87026(DRSS)
Docket Nos. 50-295; 50-304 Licenses No. DPR-39;.DPR-48 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Zion Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: NRC Region III Office, Glen Ellyn, IL i
Commonwealth Edison Corporate Office, Chicago, IL Inspection Conducted: August 6 through November 18, 1987 l
Type of Inspection:
Special Allegation Review Date of previous Security Inspection:
February 23-27,'1987
Inspector: 3.1$-itD3 u/25/87 G. L. Pirtle Date.
~
Physical Security Inspector Reviewed By: Qbk h[#f[87-
/y.R. Creed, Chief Date Mafeguards Section
/h Approved By:
I B. S. Mallett, Ph.D., Chief Date Nuclear Materials Safety and
)
Safeguards Branch i
Inspection Summary Inspection on August 6 through November 18, 1987 (Reports No. 50-295/87025(DRSS);
No. 50-304/87026(DRSS))
Areas Inspected:
Special inspection pertaining to a named individual allegedly being onsite under the influence of drugs on July 26, 1987.
Results: The allegation was not substantiated.
8712070150 Q % 93 i
,
k
_ _ - _. -. _ _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _. -
-
.
-
..
DETAILS.
1.
' Key persons Contacted
- P. Laird, Corporate Security Directur' Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO).
,
- G, Toleski, Nuclear Security. Administrator, CECO
'
- J. Pullo, Senior Nuclear Security Specialist, CECO
.
- P. LeBlond, Nuclear Licensing Department. CECO W. Roberts, Corporate Industrial Re b tions Representative, CECO-The asterisk (*) denotes those personnel. present during~ the telephone exit'
interview conducted on November 18, 1987.
Since the allegation was.not substantiated, the nome of the' individual identified in the allegation.and his management position are not included
in the Report Details to protect the. individual's right to. privacy.
.
2.
Exit Meeting (MC 30703)
A telephone exit interview'was conducted on November' 18, 1987 with the licensee representatives denoted in Section 1 above. The licensee personnel.were advised of the allegation review findings and conclusions
!
identified in Section 3 below.
The licensee representative had no questions or comments pertaining to the findings and-conclus%ns. -They were also advised that the inspection' findings would be' subject to NRC Region III management review and the final inspection report would:
contain the formal perspective of the inspection results..They were also advised that the inspection report would be placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
3.
Investigation - Allegation Review The following information, provided in the form of an allegation, was reviewed by the inspector as specifically noted below:
a.
Background:
(Closed) Allegation No. RIII-87-A-0106. At approximately 1530 hours0.0177 days <br />0.425 hours <br />0.00253 weeks <br />5.82165e-4 months <br /> (3:30 p.m.) on July 26, 1987, the NRC Operations Officer received a telephone call.from an anonymous person who was described as being almost unintelligible. The individual said that a named individual (exact pronunciation was unclear) was in the plant and was under the influence of drugs.
The individual then immediately hung-up the telephone.
The NRC Region III duty officer was advised of the telephone call and he advised the Licensee's Shift Control Room-Engineer (SCRE) of the information received without suggesting a course of action. 'The Licensee employed an individual whose name phonetically matched the garbled allegation. The SCRE stated that he had been in personal contact with that individual and had seen no indications of the; individual being under the influence of drugs or any other substances.
I
.
.
..
' The. licensee was advised of. the allegation by letter, dated August 6, 1987.
They were requested-to initiate an investigation of the allegation and advise NRC Region-III of the investigation' results by September 6, 1987. The licensee' responded by letter, dated August 21,.
1987, that an investigation. of the allegation had been completed and-that the named employee was determined not'to be under the influence
-
of drugs -on July 1 26, 1987.
The' letter also stated that;a report detailing the facts of the-investigation was on file at the licensee's Corporate.0ffice and was available.for NRC review.' A NRC' Region III-security inspector reviewed the investigation report at theilicensee's
' Corporate Office on. November 12, 1987.
b.
NRC Review Actions: The inspector's. review of the licensee's investigation report disclosed the.following information pertaining'
,
to the allegation.
]
(1) The investigation was conducte'd by the Nuclear. Security--
Administrator (NSA)..His report showed that the SCRE and Plant Manager had observed the individual identified as allegedly under the influence.of drugs on several. occasions:
and had talked to him on'several occasions on July.26, 1987.
j The SCRE had. talked to the individual for approximately_45 i
minutes and did not notice any indications that the individual
.)
was under the influence of ' drugs or any other substances. During conversations with the Plant Manager, he did not detect any indications that the individual was under the influence of drugs, or. an other substances. The individual was onsite to monitor the end-of-outage and startup of Unit 2.
l On July 27, 1987, the Plant Manager notified the Vice President, Corporate Industrial Relations Representative, and onsite Industrial Relations representative of the allegation received on July 26, 1987. Based upon the vague nature of the' allegation, question of positive identity of the individual, and the SCRE'.s and Plant Manager's personal contacts with the individual on July 26, 1987, the management personnel determined there was-reasonable assurance that there was no Fitness For Duty concerns l
involving the individual.
On August 6, 1987, the licensee received the letter from NRC j
Region III formally advising the licensee of the. allegation and.
requesting that the allegation be investigated.
Senior managers and the Senior Staff Physician determined on August 6, 1987 that the individual should report to the Medical Department on August 7, 1987 for an urinalysis drug screening test. The individual was relieved of duties until test results were received. On August 10, 1987, the results were' received j
and were negative. The licensee concluded that the allegation may have been harassment because of the individual's management-
position.
.
_ _ _ _ _ _
. _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _.. _
_.
_
. _ _ L 's - '.
-(2) During interviews with the NSA on November 17, 1987, he stated that the licensee ~does not.have'a procedure that' identifies what actions-are to be taken when a Fitness For Duty allegation.
is received.
Such incidents are. addressed by. management on a ca se-by-ca s e. ba si s.
An observation pertaining to adequate written procedures not-being de'veloped, and those procedures that were developed not being issued as an authoritative document, was identified.during a Joint NRC, HQ and NRC Region.III inspection of the licensee's Fitness For. Duty program conducted between July 13-17, 1987 (Inspection Reports No. 50-454/87-30'and 50-455/87-28). The
'
issue of adequate procedures for' program implementation will be.
monitored and resolved by NRC, HQ as.part of the followup to the July.13-17, 1987 inspection.
(3) It should.be'noted.that there'.is no regulatory requirement.for.
licensee Fitness 'For Duty programs.. The-Commission has issued:a Policy Statement (51 FR 27921) pertaining to Fitness For Duty and.
licensees are expected:to develop programs that meet the NRC-Policy Statement and Edison; Electric Institute Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness.for. Duty Policy. Development-guidelines.
c.
Conclusions:.The following conclusions were determined as a result of the allegation review:
(1) The allegation that a named individual-was onsite and under the'
influence of drugs on July. 26, 1987 was not substantiated.
(2) The licensee complied with the' provisions of their Fitness'For Duty program in reference to resolving the allegation.
(3) The issue of procedures pertaining to the' Fitness For Duty _
program will be resolved by NRC, HQ during followup for
'
Inspection' Reports No. 50-454/87-30; No. 50-455/87-28,. dated September 22, 1987.
(4) The allegation was investigated as requested by NRC Region III and an investigation report was prepared.
i
!
f i
l
-_ _ ___________-___-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ -._
__
_ _ _.
_-
_ __,