IR 05000440/1988002

Allegation Review Insp Rept 50-440/88-02 on 880323.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Allegation Received by Region III of Employee Allegedly in Possession of Illegal Substance.Allegation Not Substantiated

ML20197E232
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	05/24/1988
From:	Christoffer G, Creed J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20197E229	List: IR 05000440/1988002 ML20197E226
References
50-440-88-02, 50-440-88-2, NUDOCS 8806080147
Download: ML20197E232 (2)

Text

. - - _ _ _ - __ _ ______ _____ ___________ _ _

.

-

'

O .

i U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-440/88002(DRSS)  !

Docket No. 50-440 License No. NPF-58 Licensee: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 10 Center Road Cleveland, OH 44081 Facility Name: Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Inspection At: Regional Office Inspection Conducted: March 23, 1988 *

Type of Inspection: Allegation Review '

,

Inspector: hp L.bM.()

Christoffer Da~te

5 ([8f Ifhysical Security i Inspector

'

Approved By: (df[86 ,

Afmes R. Creed, Chief D6te Wafeguards Section l Inspection Sumary '

Inspection on March 23, 1988 (Report No. 50-440/88002(DRSS)) f Areas Inspected: Included a review of an allega' tion received by Region III l of an employee allegedly in possession of an illegal substanc Results: The licensee wes in compliance with NRC requirements within the areas examined during the inspection. The allegation was not substantiate .

t I

I t

!

l L

8806080147 880525 '

PDR ADOCK 05000440

'

Q DCD

._ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ .__ _______ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

'

. .

'

.. . .

r DETAILS Key Persons Contacted f

• T. Mahon, General Supervisor, Site Protection, CEI i

• Telephonically contacte f Entrance and Exit Interviews (IP 30703) e There were no formal entrance or exit interviews conducted. However, a telephone exit interview was conducted on April 11, 1988, with Mr. T. Mahon. He was advised that the allegation was not substantiate . Allegation Review (099014)

! The following infomation, provided in the form of an allegation, was -

reviewed by the inspector as specifically noted below:

Backaround: (Closed) Allegation No. RIII-87-A-0140. A Region III ,

'

Resident Inspector received infomation on October 13, 1987, that in April or May 1986, a contract employee was terminated for alleged possession of marijuana in his-vehicle that was parked on the main parking lot of the Perry Nuclear Plant. The marijuana was discovered during a search of the parking lot by a dog trained to detect drug ,

The contract employee allegedly worked at Beaver Valley after temination of employment at Perry and subsequently was hired again

'

by a contractor at Perr Allegation: A contractor employee was teminated for possession of marijuana while working at the Perry Nuclear Plant and was subsequently rehire Review: The inspector reviewed the licensee's January 25, 1988 written response to Region III's inquiry of the allegation, as well t

'

as telephonically contacting the site protection supervisor on i March 23, 1988.

'

On March 14, 1986, a security officer on patrol oaserved three i individuals quickly departing an area of the plant as he approache The security officer inspected the area and smelled an odor which he believed to be marijuana. All three individuals were subsequently identified and required to submit to a drug screening test. The individual in question was tested on March 18, 1986, and the results were negative. The other individuals' test results were aiso negativ .

'

On March 27, 1986, the car belonging to the individual was parked in the site parking area and was searched for illegal drugs. This search :

was a result of an alert by the company's drug detection dog, indicating '

.

,

the presence of an illegal drug substance. During the vehicle search, marijuana was found. The individual was immediately denied access to ,

the entire site for potential possession of a controlled substanc [

L i

_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

__ -__ _ ____________

~

.

. .

.

.

Since the individual had negative test results during drug screening throughout the period of these allegations, and ownership of the  :

controlled substance found on March 27, 1986 could not be established, the licensee did not deem it necessary to conduct a review of the individual's work during that time period, j Subsequent to the discovery of the controlled substance, the case was reviewed by the licensee's legal department. Following the review, ,

the decision was made that the individual should not be denied access to the site if there was proper completion of all Perry Nuclear Power  !

Plant _ ", Fitness for Duty requirements. The individual successfully passed these requirements, which included drug screening test t The individual was, therefore, allowed to return to the Perry Plant and given access to the plant f',r two periods of work. The first period was from October 23, 1986 to October 16, 1987, at which time he was laid off due to lack of work. The second period was from December 30, 1987 to '

January 15, 1988. Again he was laid off due to lack of work. Prior to being granted access to the protected area, the individual was required to properly complete all PNPP Fitness for Duty requirements including drug screening and criminal history check The licensee is not in violation of any regulations because there is no current regulatory basis for Fitness for Duty issue Conclusion: This allegation was not substantiated. A contractor employee, while working at the Perry Nuclear Plant, was denied site access because marijuana was found in his car which was parked in the site parking are After properly completing Fitness for Duty requirements, the individuals *

access was reinstated. The individual was laid-off due to lack of work for the contractor with whom he was empicye