ML17334B330

Forwards Response to 890809 Request to Investigate Allegation RIII-89-A-0093 Re Alleged Drug Use by Employee at Plant.Search of Employee Personal Automobile W/Use of Trained Drug Dog Revealed No Controlled Substances

ML17334B330
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	09/11/1989
From:	Will Smith INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML17334B329	List: ML17334B330
References
AEP:NRC:0995D, AEP:NRC:995D, NUDOCS 8910020021
Download: ML17334B330 (4)

Text

Indiana Michigan Power Company Cook. Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 616 465 5901 lNDIAMA NEC8lGAN PQWM AEP: NRC: 0995D I R!.'i~i7y ..GUT".V:

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 License Nos. DRP-58 and DRP-74 Allegation RIII-89-A-0093 Mr. A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator F1LK U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 61037 Attn: Mr. John W. N. Hickey, Director Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards

Dear Mr. Davis:

This letter is in response to your request of Aug. 9, 1989, to investigate allegation RIII-89-A-0093 which involves alleged drug use by an employee at the D. C. Cook Plant. The written response is contained in the attachment to this letter. The response contains no personal privacy, proprietary or safeguards information and can be released to the public and placed in the NRC Public Document Room.

This document has been prepared following Corporate and Plant Procedures which incorporate a reasonable set of controls to insure its accuracy and completeness prior to signature by the undersigned.

Very truly yours, Plant Manager Attachment cc: D. H. Williams, Jr.

M. P. Alexich R. C. Callen, Lansing G. Charnoff NFEM Section Chief, Lansing SEP >1 1%0 NRC Resident Inspector 8'710020021 890922 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P PNU

ATTACHMENT TO AEP:NRC: 0995D Following is the response to NRC Allegation AMS RIII-89-A-0093:

ALLEGATION RIII-89-A-0093 An individual contacted the NRC Region III office with information concerning alleged drug use by an employee at the D. C. Cook Plant.

Allegation No. 1: The caller stated that an employee of a contractor at the Cook Plant used cocaine. The caller claimed to have seen the employee "high" on cocaine.

Allegation No. 2: The caller further stated that the employee was a supervisor in radiation control and has never been required to submit to a urine test for drugs because supervisory personnel are not included in the drug testing program.

The NRC requested that the Cook Plant's review of these allegations include as a minimum the following matters:

1. If this individual works at D. C. Cook, is he fit for duty?

What is the basis for your determination?

RESPONSE

A review of Cook Plant's Access Authorization records revealed that the employee noted in the allegation has been employed by an on-site contractor from 5-16-88 to present.

Interviews conducted with the contractor and Indiana M.chigan Power supervisory personnel directly responsible for observing the employee's activities on a daily basis revealed no fitness for duty concerns. One supervisor stated the employee's "performance and appearance were above reproach". Another expressed a desire that all radiation personnel would emulate his work ethics and performance.

A physical search of the employee's personal automobile was conducted on site by security personnel including the use of a trained drug dog. The search revealed no controlled substances or other contraband items.

Employee attendance records for the employee indicated no unusual absences or tardiness.

ATTAQiKÃT TO AEP:NRC: 0995D 0

ALLEGATION RIII-89-A-0093

'Page 2

2. Are supervisors, company or contractors, exempted from your fitness for duty testing program? Has the employee been tested for drugs'ESPONSE All personnel with unescorted access to Cook Plant's protected area, including company and contractor supervisors are subject to the Plant's Fitness for Duty testing program.

Copies of drug screening records obtained from the contractor revealed the following:

1. The employee submitted to a pre-employment drug test on 5-19-88. Results of the test were negative.

2. The employee submitted to a random drug test initiated by the contractor on 6-5-89. Results of the test were negative.

In addition to the above tests for drugs, the employee willingly submitted to a drug test after being informed of the allegation.

Results of the test were negative.

SUMMARY

A thorough investigation of this allegation revealed no reason to question the employee's fitness for duty. During the course of the investigation, the employee volunteered that the allegation may have resulted from a recent break-up with a girl friend, who remained upset with him.