IR 05000456/1988002

Insp Repts 50-456/88-02 & 50-457/88-02 on 871120-880722.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Alleged Use & Sale of Drugs by Some Named Contractors Employed at Site & Criminal Records of Some Employees

ML20207G357
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	08/17/1988
From:	Creed J, Madeda T, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20207G343	List: IR 05000456/1988002 ML20207G339
References
50-456-88-02, 50-456-88-2, 50-457-88-02, 50-457-88-2, NUDOCS 8808240099
Download: ML20207G357 (6)

Text

..

,

.

.

.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Reports No. 50-456/88002(DRSS); 50-457/88002(DRSS)

Docket Nos. 50-456; 50-457 Licenses No. NPF-72; NPF-77 Licensee: Commonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Facility Name: Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Inspection At: Braidwood Station Inspection Conducted: November 20, 1987 through July 22, 1988 Inspectors: huv Terry h&rsdde_ k/7/9}

. adeda Da'te '

Physi a Security Inspector i d

Gary L.71rtle bo 8/tllBS l Date :

Physical Security Inspector Approved By: kM Sedames C Creed, Chief e/t7/88 Date Safeguards Section Inspection Summary Inspection on November 20, 1987 through July 22, 1988 (Reports No. 50-456/88002(DRSS); No. 50-457/88002(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: The allegations pertained to the alleged use and sale of drugs by some named contractors employed at the site, and that some individuals j had criminal historie '

Results: The allegation of drug use by some contract employees was l partially substantiate Positive test results confirmed drug use by two of 13 employees teste Those two individual's employment was terminate The remaining portions of the allegations regarding criminal convictions, sale of drugs, and a secretary having knowledge of drug use were not substantiate Licensee action as it relates to this allegation is consistent with the licensee's Fitness for Outy Progra gDR ADOCK 05000456 PDC

-

i

, ]

.

.

.

DETAILS 1. Key Persons Contacted

'

• P. Laird, Corporate Nuclear Security Manager-J. Roulo, Corporate Nuclear Security Specialist R. Preston, Director, Quality 'First - Braidwood Station B. Saunder, Nuclear Security Administration The asterisk (*) denotes the individual present at the Exit Interview conducted on August 16, 108 . Entrance and Exit Interviews (IP 30703)

The inspector. telephonically discussed our. findings with the licensee representative denoted in Section 1 on August 16, 1988. No written material, other than a December 11, 1987 letter which requested that the licensee initiate an investigation to analyze the allegation, was left with the licensee.or contractor representatives. The identity of the alleger was not released. A general description of the scope of the inspection was provided. Briefly listed below are the findings discussed during the exit intervie The details of these findings are referenced, as noted, in this report. Also included below is a statement provided by '

or describing licensee management's response to each findin The allegation that six named contractor employees used drugs was partially substantiated in that drug screening teste provided positive results for.two of the six named employee '

Coth individuals employment has been terminate The remaining ;

individuals showed negative test results for drugs, None of the named individuals were found to have a criminal i conviction record, or served time in jail as specifically  :

alleged by the anonymous sourc ! No additional information was developed during the licensee's investigation, or our review, that showed potential drug use or sale by other Braidwood employee . Investigation - Allegation Review: The following informatio rovided in the form of an allegation, was reviewed by the inspectors '

specifically noted below: Background (Closed) Allegation No. RIII-87-0151 l

On November 20, 1987, the NRC received information from an anonymous source relating to alleged drug use at the Braidwood Nuclear Statio ;

The alleger stated that an unnamed employee of a named contracto i was heavily involved in the use of cocaine, marijuana, alcohol and !

"crank" (amphetamines) and the sale of cocaine. The individual also 1 4

.

l l

'

.

-

. .

e allegedly had several criminal convictions and also served several jail sentences. The individual'was an Instrumentation Technician and had w, eked at the site since July 1987. The anonymous source also identified four other contractor' technicians and pipe fitters (names not provided) as. allegedly involved in the sale and use of:

cocaine while working at the Braidwood site. These individuals had been assigr.ed to-the site beginning in April 1987. Although their identities were not provided, the narie of their employer was provide On the same day, the above information was telephonically provided to the licensee by a Region III Physical Security Inspecto On November 25, 1987, the anonymous source provided the NRC with the names of five individuals discussed above. The alleger provided additional information that a named secretary employed by the same contractor had knowledge that the above named personnel at the Braidwood site used drugs. On the same day, the above information was telephonically provided to the licensee by a Region III Physical Security Inspecto On December 11, 1987, the same source provided the NRC with tFe name of another Braidwood employee, employed by the same contractor as noted above, that allegedly used drugs. This information was telephonically provided on the same day to the licensee by a Region III Physical Security Inspecto On December 11, 1987, a letter was also sent to the licensee describing the allegations received and the identities of the individuals (not the alleger) involved in this "Fitness for Outy" issue. The licensee was requested to initiate and/or conduct an investigation in order to fully analyze the aliegations and to provide the investigation results to the NR On January 12, 1988, the licenses provided the results of their review of the allegations as requested. The licensee'.s response showed that each individual who tested positive on a drug screen was discussed with the NRC Region III staff. The licensee results showed no deficiencies in any work performed by any individual.in question and there was no impact on safety-related equipmen The licensee also stated that investigative results concluded that the licensee was in compliance with their "Fitness for Duty Policy," and that detailed information concerning the investigation was available for review at the Braidwood site. They concluded that the individuals who tested positive were isolated incidents and that the site did not have a drug proble Our initial review of the response concluded that the licensee had not provided sufficient detail for the NRC to make a determination on the legitimacy of the allegation. Specifically, the response did not identify the number of positive test results; the response did not indicate that a review of criminal checks and convictions 3 ,

,

.

.

.

-

had been conducted; and there were no indications that appropriate interviews were conducted relating to the alleger's concern that a secretary had additional information about drug use. An-NRC inspector.was dispatched to the site on May 26, 1988 to review and evaluate the licensee's investigation and all associated documentatio The onsite review was also followed up with several telephone contacts with licensee corporate security representatives on July 20, 198 Based on our review of licensee documentation and our onsite inspection effort, the following information was daveloped in relation to the allegation b. NRC Review Action (1) Allegation An anonymous source alleged that six (6) named contractor employees classified as Instrumentation and Calibration Technicians and Pipefitters employed for.a specific contractor since April 1987 had used and sold drugs while being employed at the Braidwood sit Allegation Review On November 20, 1988, the licensee site Security Department began an investigation of the drug allegations based on information provided by NRC Region III. Twelve contractor individuals were identified as being employed at the site during the time period (April to July 1987) provided by the allege These individuals were scheduled by the contractor for a drug screen test on November 24 and 25, 198 After receiving the information from the alleger, NRC Region III provided the licensee additional information on November 25, ;

1987, which identified the names of five specific individuals

! alleged to be drug users. Four of those individuals had-already been scheduled for drug screening on November 25, 1987. The fif th individual had been included in the group screened on November 24, 198 The five named individuals were denied site access pending their test result Our review of the licensee's program for chemical testing of body fluids in relation to the allegation showed the following:

Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) does not test contractor-employee Rather, Ceco expects (but not in writing) that its contractors will test their own employees before they are provided unescorted access to the site, or for any cese that establishes a cause for testing. An interview with a corporate security representative on July 20, 1988 confirmed this polic The licensee requires the use of an enzyme-multiplied immunoassay test (EMIT) for initial screening of urine. Established cutoffs

_ - - - ,

.

.

~

.

are 20 nanograms per milliliter for THC, 75 for-PCP and 300 for cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates, narcotics, opiates,.and methaqualone. Test results above those cutoff levels are considered positive, subject to confirmation. All - confirmation tests are by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometr If the presence of the substance is confirmed, the sample is reported as being tested positiv Negative drug screening test results were received on November 25, 30, and December 3,1987, for eleven (11) of the twelve individuals tested. The remaining individual required a retest due to medication the individual was taking. A retest was conducted and the licensee was informed on December 8, .1987 that the retest results were positive for THC. THC is the active ingredient in marijuan The individual's retest results indicated 28 nanograms per milliliter of THC, when the licensee's threshold level for a positive test is 20 nanograms'per millilite Site-access was permanently denied and the individual was terminated upon receipt of the positive drug screening _result On December 11, 1987, the alleger informed the NRC, who in turn notified the licensee, of the name of one additional. individual who allegedly used drugs and a ocug screening test was immediately scheduled. The individual was also denied site access pending-test results. Results of testing were received by the licensee on December 16, 1987, and showed a positive screen for cocaine. At this time site access was permanently denied and the individual was terminate Inspection results involving a review of licensee records and interviews with a corporate security representative confirmed that two of the six named individuals tested positive for drugs. The other individuals identified by the anonymous j source tested negative for drugs. The reviewed action as it related to this allegation appeared to be consistent with the !

licensee's current "Fitness for Duty Program", in that '

individuals tested positive for drugs were removed from the site after positive test result (Note: NRC has no current regulatory requirements defining a Fitness for Duty program).

The licensee also reviewed all work projects performed by the two individuals who tested positive and concluded that all ,

work conducted by these individuals was fully acceptabl :

This determination was based on a review of system documentation j packages; system testing; quality assurance testing and startup j testin The licensee's review conclusions were presented to i the NRC Region III staff on December 14, 1987 during a meeting !

between licensee and NRC representatives at the NRC Region III .l office in Glen Ellyn, Illinoi l l

l

l

!

'

.

a

.

Conclusion Based on these findings, a porr. ion of the allegation was partially substantiated because two of the six named individuals tested positive for drug us (2) Allegation An anonymous source stated that one of the alleged drug users identified in the above allegation had several criminal convictions and had served several jail sentence Allegation Review The inspector confirmed though interviews with a corporate security representative that criminal record checks, utilizing FBI records, had been completed on all the named individuals involved with the above drug allegation. These checks were cor; ducted in early January, 1988. All record checks were negative in reference to criminal activities and incarceratio Conclusion Inspection results based on interviews showed that the allegation relating to criminal activities was not substantiate (3) Allegation An anonymous source alleged that a specific contractor secretary had knowledge of drug use by the individuals identified in the 3 drug allegation noted above (1) and/or other personnel employed at the Braidwood site who used drug Allegation Review An interview with a licensee corporate security representative confirmed that the named contractor secretary had been interviewed by the licensee regarding knowledge of drug use by personnel at the Braidwood site; specifically those identified by the allege l The secretary said he/she was not aware of any Braidwood employee l who uses drugs. (Note: This individual was one of the individu. sis included in the drug screening process. Test results for this l individual were negative.) '

Conclusion Based on our review of the licensee's investigation and documented test results, this allegation is not substantiate