ML20086B935

Affidavit of W Fernandez Re DM Manning Refusal to Provide Second Urine Sample on 901009

ML20086B935
Person / Time
Site:	FitzPatrick
Issue date:	06/06/1991
From:	Fernandez W POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK
To:
Shared Package
ML20085N398	List: ML20086B893 ML20086B935 ML20086B968 ML20086B989
References
EA-91-054, EA-91-54, NUDOCS 9111210143
Download: ML20086B935 (8)

Text

_

cMITun aTATna wre u u n.ast u tomY ecuminaten

)

. t.,e Mattwr of  !

E Davit l

)

DAY!D M. IOXWIWQ, ) Dockst No. 55-86'S senior Reactor operator.

) License No. SCP-1056;.1 I

! Enforcement Action '

) No.91-054 STATE Or NEW YO U) ss:

cot lNTY OF OSWIGC )

i WILLI AM FEMAND8 3, II, being duly evorn, respectfally l deposes and states to the United States Nuclest kegulatory j consission (commission) that:  ;

1. I am Resident Manager in charge of the overall operation of the James A.

TitsPatrick Nuclear Plant (TittPatra:k of the New York Power Authority (the Authority) lectcod at Scrita, Nav York. I have been employed by the Authority at Tit Patrick since June 1974 cnd, prior to my becoming Resident Manager in January of 1949, I served as the Assistant to the Maintenance Superintendent (June 1974 to April 1940), Technical Services Superintendent (April 1980 to October 1982), Maintenant l Superintendent (Gctober1982toJanuary1985), operations d Superintendent (January 1985 to August 1985) and Superintendent l

of Power (August 1985 to January 1989) .

2. I have a Masters degree in Builiness Administration from Syracuse University, a Bachelor of Science degree in 6

9111210143 91110b PDR ADDCK OD003615 1 0 l'Uli -

. _.. _ _. - _ . _ __.____. . _ _ _ - . ~ _ . - _ _ _ . _ . _ .

Mechanical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I received an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy as a Lieutenant Commander and Nuclear Qualified Submarine officer.

3. I as fully familiar with the operation of the rit: Patrick Nuclear Plant and have extensive experience in working with licensed reactor operatora, both in my employment with the Authority and in my experience as a naval officer. With regard to David M. Manning, senior Reactor operator, I indirectly supervised him when I served as operations superintendent.

4. I as familiar with what has occurred with Mr. Manning since october 9, 1990. My personal involvement includes, but is not limited to, personal conversations with and observatiuns of Mr. Manning, verbal and written reports from the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and the reports of those who have supervised Mr. Manning, both before October 9, 1990 and since his return to work on December 3, 1990. I have also had numerous t

consultations with the headquarters and regional staff of the commission regarding Mr. Manning. The particular details of my involvement and what has occurred are as follows:

i A. Upon Mr. Manning's refusal to provide a second urine sample on october 9, 1990, I was called to the test site. I advised Mr. Manning what would

, i happen if he refused the test. I treated Mr.

i Manning's refusal as a first positive test under I

Part 26 and the new TittPatrick Fitness For Duty

Program. Due to a prior event in 1988, Mr. Manning was informed that the incident would be treated as

a second offense against the established union-management agreement on Fitness For Duty (in effect prior to NRC Part 26 rule making) . I then j

suspended Mr. Manning's unescorted access for a minimum of fourteen days and referred him to the i EAP.

i 2

i .

3. Also on October 9, 1990, by telephone to the i

NRC's event notification operations center, the NAc was made aware of what had occurred regarding Mr.

Manning and my initial actione in response.

c. on or about october 10, 1990, Mr. Manning reported to the EAP which was at that time operated under contract for the Authority by Managed Health Network, Inc. (MHN).

D. On October 12, 1990 I had a telephone conference call with representatives of the consission at both the regional and headquarters offices. I reported what had occurred and discussed Mr. Manning's employment history including an earlier positive urine test in 1988.

E. On or about October 18, 1990, I learned that Mr. Manning's evaluation had been completed and that the EAP recommended he receive inpatient treatment.

T. October 22, 1990 - Mr. Mannin itted to the n atient treatne t facility, for a mont ong treatman prog ram. By correspondence, dated October 22, 1990, sent to Mr. Thomas T. Martin, Regional Administrator of the consission, I advised the commission of Mr. Manning's removal from licensed duties (Reference Exhibits, Exhibit Tab E).

G. October 29, 1990 - I participated in a second conference call with the regional and headquarters -

offices of the Comaission to update them. ,

, H. Movember 16, 1990 - I again spoke by conference

telephone call with the headquarters and regional commission offices about Mr. Manning. I was tt,1d that a letter would be forthcoming from the commission officially requesting information

. regarding Mr. Manning and what had occurred.

I. Y er 21, 990 - Mr. Manning was discharged

! fr J. On November 26, 1990, I spoke with of NHM, EAP Program Administrators abo e discharge summary. I discussed those issues which

' should be followed-up with Mr. Manning.

t 3

'l

i i

l l

l 1

i j

.. Also on November 26, 199 ,

I again spoke with j tne C:ssission and reported on the seating with Mr.

Manning and what and how he was doing.

i l M. November 30, 1990 - I received the official discharge summary free Managed Haalth Network j

(Medical /Tinancial Records Exhibit Tab 0).

O. December 3, 1990 - I had my second nauting with l Mr. Manning, his union representatives and others '

which lasted at least an hour. I reviewed each of the recommendations with Mr. Manning, in detail, and was satisfied that he had made significant progress in addressing his problem. M )

l he would be disenarged if he rela se1. i 1

determined to put Mr. Manning back to war in a non-licensed position. He was granted unescorted access to the facility. l t

p. On or about December 3, 1990, in a telephone cernferance with representatives of the conaission. ,

! I informed them of my plaa of returning Mr. Manning l to non-licensed duties, observing him for three to  !

four months and then, if appropriate, returning hia l to his licenced duties. The representatives of the

=

1 commission did net object te RY pina or my return of Mr. Manning to unescorted kccess.

ls 4  !

l

i l

l l

i g,

! In early December 1990, in a telephone conference

! e 11 with the cos.misoton's statt, initiated oy them, l I was told that the provtously indicsted commissten

! tottet of inquiry would not be forthcou.nq arid that what I was doing regarding Mr. Manning was acceptable.

h R. Be twe en Dec e mbo r 3, 1990 and M&y 2, 1991, I l did, on a f requent bes ts, speak with Mr. Manning in j regaris to his progress in af ter care and how Mr.

j Aanning was doing generally. I also frequently set

and spoke with Mr. Manning'. immediate supervisor, Douglas Lindsey, Planning superinterdent, as to his work performance and conduct. My personal I

i 1

5. In March and April of 1991, while at the regional office of the Commission, I inquired about l the proper steps to be followed to racertify Mr.

i Manning f or operator duties. Shortly therea f ter, ! ,

' received a telephone call from Mr. Wayne Hodges, 01 rec *or, Division of Reactor safety within the

! Commission's Regional of fice, concerning the

! reinstatement process. Conversation included some ,

of the forms that would require submittal and the

! fact that the commission desired to work in

! parallel with us during the process. ,

! 4. Prior to octsber 9, 1990, I knew Mr. Manning to be a i i

! good employee with a good record of positive accomplishment wh:

}

on the job. I believed this to be exemplified by Mr. Manning's fi 4

rapid licensure as a Senior Reactor operator, his three upgrad ,

I to Assistant Shift supervisor, and by his being selected as th l l i

j ,

operator liaison on the three person team which oversaw the

! I j creation and installation of the piant specific operations l

i i

l, simulator. I never doubted that Kr. Manning safely and i

4 i l o

5  :

I h

appropriately supervtsed the operation of tha reactor and saw tit to offer him a promotion to AssLatant Shif t supervisor on a tu; * . .

stas basts.

S.

Since his return to employment, but not to operattnq dut;es, Mr. Manning has success f ully performed his job assite. e..:

in the planning Department by taking on roles of tesponsabilt:y in planning, scheduling and monitoring the progress of a planned outage at the Tit:Patrtek Huclear Plant.

Mr. Manning worked 1:n; nours and up to six day work weeks, all while continuing his recovery program. Mr. Manning's participation in the planned outage contributed to its success.

6. I believed in October, and still do, that the f alse sample was symptomatic of a drug probles and not an issue of trustverthiness or ability. Mr. Manning's access authorisat :n process was similar to other individuals with identified fitness for duty problems and was handled in accordance with the provisions of 10 crR 26.and cite procedures. This process allowed the ability to continue to observe and evaluate Mr.

Manning in his recovery from his substance abuse problan in orde to be totally confident that Mr. Manning's rehabilitation progressed and that the return to his normal duties would not give rise to 8 relapse.

7. -It is both my legal and moral obligation to run a sa and efficient plant. This includes amploying personnel who are trustworthy and fit for duty. I will not permit any employee t i

work at Fitzpatrick who I do not believe to be so qualified.

6

8. I believe that en otherwise qualified employee can, with the appropriate care and treateent, and his or her own strengtn of character, recover from a su.bstance abure precies.

Th;s is the rationale behind the Authority's ritness Tor Outy Program, and I believe, was an assumption in the KRC rule to CTR.

Part 26.

9. I have f aithfully f ollowed the ritness Tor Outy Program, Wor.k Activity control Procedure of the Authorit/ in regards to this matter (Exhibit Tab F). At his asetings on November 26 and Cecember 3, 1990, Mr. Manning committed to me t=

As recommended by the reployee Assistance Prograr and to continue to be free of all involvesant with drugs as required by the procedure. The R.AF has provided me with a report attesting to Mr. Manning's fitness for duty (Medical /

rinancial Records, Exhibit Tab D) and a satisf actory follow-up program has been established which Mr. Manning has been adher:nq r I

to. I know from reports made to as that Mr. Manning has been randomly tested about eight times since his return to work and j

all have been negative.

i .

l 10. In regards to Mr. Manning, the Fitness for Duty I

l

Program has successfully accompilshed what it is intended to do I

j detect drug use, evaluate the problem, treat it, establish a

' rehabilitation program, and return him to work.  ;

L 11. I heileve that Mr. Manning has and continues to make significant progress in his rehabilitation from his

and, at this time, have no reason to doubt that Mr. Manning's 1 a

7 I i

l

1

/

t a '. .

12. tr e rmi t t ed to continue the plan of monitoring Mr.

l Manning' p r og r e s.s ,

which includes continued test;ng

) .

l f or drug usa, and his on-the-job performance, together with a l j

i program of training for racertification as a senior Reactor I Operator, I anticipate that Mr. Manning can be returned to nor-a i

duties as an operator.

l t i t i

(

/s/ William Fernandet. II WILLI AM TERNANDEZ, 11 l l i Sworn to before me this 6th day of June, 1991  ;

0. Jtmer c%w Y

i

%asm . e. tow n w m 0.4 w aCaeeaes* .

m w 44:2 W Yo 9

l I

A 1

t a l

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