ML20246N848

Forwards Responses to Allegations Requested in

ML20246N848
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	09/23/1988
From:	Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20246N845	List: ML20246N841 ML20246N848
References
1-837, NUDOCS 8903280054
Download: ML20246N848 (7)

Text

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

C2 (

,-- e .

TDLEDO EDISON '

ACatreEg C m DONALD C. SHELTON va %m-w, Decket No. 50-346 """

License No. NPF-3 fi l

Serial No. 1-837 September 23, 1988 A. B. Divis, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Subj ec t : Response to Allegations Concerning Activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant (RIII-88-A-0074)

Dear Mr. Davis:

The attachment provides Toledo Edison's response to allegations requested in your letter dated August 12, 1988. Based on our discussion with Mr. J. R.

Creed on September 12, 1988, the response to these allegations was extended to September 23, 1988.

The attachment to this letter is considered exempt from Public Disclosure in accordance with 10 CFR 2.790.

If you have any questions contact Mr. R. V. Schrauder, Nuclear Licensing Manager, at (419) 249-2366.

Si'ncerely,

' - x) WHEN SEPARATED FROM THE ATTACHMENT THIS LETTER IS DECONTROLLED EXEMPT FROM Putt,1C DISCLOSURE GAB /dlm PER 10CFR 2.790 Attachment ec: J. R. Creed, Region III DB-1 Resident Inspector Document Control Desk A. V. DeAgazio, DB-1 Senior Project Manager i

P

. .. , Docht No. 50-346 ,

.. 'Lic nsa No. NPF-3 T4amss of parties and ce'rtain other identifying 5erici NJ. 1-837 datails have been removed in order to prevent Fage 2 a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personoi privacy of the Individuals involved.

1 INTRODUCTION The following sumiaarizes the results of the Toledo Edison investigation of the allegations transmitted by NRC. Regien III to Mr. Robert Ginn, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Centerior Energy Corporation by letter dated August 12, 1988.

Mr. Ginn forwarded the NRC request for investigation to Mr. Dcnald Shelton, j Toledo Edison Vice President, Nuclear for further processing. Mr. Shelton assigned the matter to the Toledo Edison Industrial Security Division for a complete investigation.

The allegations concerned the Fitness-for-Duty I

l The investigation involved interviews with approxi-

! mately 15 individuals including Company employees, contractors and medical pro- )

fessionals, as well as a review of existing documentation. The interviews were -

not transcribed but notes and supporting documentation are available to the NRC upon request.

For the purpose of clarity, each allegation vill be reviewed and responded to separately below, followed by the Company's specific responses to the six information requests submitted by the NRC.

BACKGROUND l i j

$'who is the subject of this investigation, served asi. j iat the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station from approximately i

tuntil _ ;vhen he was removed from that position and assigned to Both positions report to the.

At the time, was hired by Toledo Edison on _ _ _

met all Unescorted Access requirements including the successful completion of a j Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and a drug screening test.

ALLEGATION #1 4

"The emp)evee allegedly has been seeing a psychiatrist. The alleger questioned whether ur noti should be allowed on site based on alleged appointments with a psychiatrist."

FINDINGS The er.ployee, by _ own voluntary admission, has been seeing _ private ,

psychiatrist since _ . _ course of treatment commenced as a result I participation in the Company Employee Assistance Program (EAP). This oft participation was at the urging of supervisor, " ,

Early in 1988, a' who worked ~

for' expressed concern _ i regad ing erratic behavior to .

f , the _ concluded thatl ~~ After interviewing lneeded additional help and strongly advisedf to utilize the Company EAP, which ]

did. '

- I

!!0 C" S 464eH

h *.

,, , Docket No. 50-346 _

a

. Licens? No. NPF-3 )

.~ 'serici No. 1-837

. Page 3 i

i i

l Rames of parties and certain other Identifying I details have been removed In order to prevent a clearly unwarranted Invasion of the personal f p'rivacy of the Individuals involved.

l I

In order to ensure' current Fitners-for-Duty, the MMPI was again administered to ~ ~ during the course of this investigation. The results were analyzed by the Company's professional consultants, Behavior Analysts and Consultants (BAC).

The BAC psychologists in consultation withf , personal psychiatrist, recommended that ~' _ continue unescorted access but also recommended that continue individual treatment with _ personal psychiatrist and be reevaluated in.30 days (MMPI and clinical interview).

CONCLUSION The allegation that _. . has been seeing a psychiatrist is substantiated. However, the Davis-Besse Unescorted Access Program does not iar an individual from the protected area because is being treated by a psychiatrist. Rather access is denied if the individual cannot successfully complete a psychological assessment, thereby posing a potential security threat.

ALLEGATION #2

^

may be chemically dependent on drugs or alcohol based on ~~Drratic behavior (significant mood changes)."

FINDINGS, During an interviev vithI _, the Company investigator questionedI regardirg alcohol use. By' own admission,f has been a " social" j drinker. also admits that ,may have been drinking more than normal i before~~]beganseeing -

~

personal psychiatrist in 1 also stated to the investigator that did not consider a " problem" drinker and has stopped consuming alcohol entirely since starting treatment for .

H' +

1

==

1 1

. . - Dockat No. 50-346 Lic nsa No. NPF-3 ,

Rwes of parties and cartain othar Id::ntifying details have been recoved in ordar to prev;ht Serici N). 1-837 p g, 4 a clearly unwarranted invasion of the persons'i privacy of the individuals involved. ,

It is noteworthy that, according to' psychiatrist, initial HMPI indicates that he is not of the personality normally found to be associated ~

l with substance abuse.

l INo med1 Cal evloence was Iound indicating that' ~ ' - - prior use of alcohol indicates a dependence on it.

.l. was administered a drug test in 1986 The results of this test revealed no chemical dependency. puring did volunteer to be tested for drug j the course of the investigation _ ion with I

' abuse. However, based on consultat psychiatrist and the

" results of the 1986 and 1988 MMPI tests the investigator determined that additional drug testing was not necessary.

I i

i During interviews with co-workers, it was determined that many people

, observed Significant mood changes and lack of ability to concentrate.

i

_psychi F rist has stated that both of these observations are symptoms of

~ ~ for which has been diagnosed.

CONCLUSION

~

The allegation that mal eb chemically dependent on drugs or alcohol is not substantiated. However, use of alcoNol and a prescription medication and observed erratic behavior are substantiated.

ALLEGATION #3

~

has reported to work several times " smelling like a gin mill."

FINDINGS Interviews were conducted with and _

f All indicated a personal knowledge of j being on site smening ot alcohol.

_ admitted to bei_ng on site smelling of alcohol on one or two oc-casions after After being confronted3 out b reporting to work with alcohol on breath,~, also stated that had been required to contact other ~ l people to respond to call- situations because had "had a drinF or t'vo" and felt unfit to respond.

CONCLUSION Toledo Edison's investigation substantiates that _ ..

~

has reported to work on several occasions smelling of alcohol.

mm m , xm m

I

, ,,. ..Dockat No. 50-346

~

- [N 18 mrmes f parties and certain other Idsntifyint i Page 5 details have been removed in order to prevent I

! a clearly unwarranted invas ton of the personsi privacy of the Individuals involved.

1 h ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED 1

1 1 )' "A determination of whether you consider these allegations substantiated."

t

Response

1 See conclusions under specific allegations.

4

2) "A determination of the individual's Fitness-for-Duty."

Response

Based on results provided by the Company's licensed psychologists from BAC, is Fit for Duty relative to unescorted ToledoEdisonconcludesthat]

access.

3) "A desc'ription of the training that individuals at Davis-Besse receive regarding their responsibilities toward Fitness-for-Duty, specifically. j t

a. Vhat employees are instructed to do if they suspect an individual of not being fit for duty.

b. What employees are instructed regarding their own responsibilities for being fit for duty. l

c. Vere these instructions followed in this case.

4

Response

3a) Davis-Besse supervisors and employees are trained and periodically retrained concerning Fitness for Duty.

Specifically employees are instructed to bring concerns of Fitness-for-Duty to the a,ttention of Supervision, Security and/or Access

. Control when they are detected.

3b) Employees are instructed through the Company Policy and Procedures _on i Fitness for Duty what their individual responsibilities are.

demonstra.ted this knowledge on one or more occasions when nad other I_

respond to site needs because ] had been driH Ing and doubtw - own condition.

3c) By admission of those interviewed, the procedures requiring disclosures of prescription medication; reporting instances of Fitness-for-Duty concerns; and reporting to work fit for duty have not been followed.

The individual employees interviewed stated their reason for failing to report the alghol abuse of ~

vas due to fear of reprisal by should learn of their actions.

4) "A summary of your review of the individual's work for the period January 1988 - May 1988."

pa m o von re n.

)' ',. .., Dockat No. 50-346 s

( / Liccnsa No. NPP-3 I

,' ' Serial N3. 1-837

. Page 6

Response

performance evaluations indicated a decline in performance from

~1 586 to 19B8. However, these evaluations all indicated at least acceptable

, levels of performance.

As de.termined through the interview process, concerns existed among l subordinates. _Each person interviewed was questioned about any possible impact involving ~

plant safety. As this would relate to f each person felt it was not.possi_ble that errors would go undetected Those interviewed were 'respons1 die for the technical sign-offs. These same persons, however, stated 1 did adversely impact morale during the time in question. ~

5) "Information on any similar instances which may have occurred involving '

this individual."

Response

During the, interviews, it was determined that various people observed mood changes, lack of ability to concentrate at times and  !

alcohol on his breath on more than one occasion.

One reported observing / complete loss of attention whiche_ attributed to a pre-existing injury from a traffic injury.

This injury could not be substantiated by medical information and['-

declined to comment on this injury. I ' personal psychiatrist has indicated that this inability to concentrate is a symptom of[,__

diagnosed condition {_ __,

6) "A description of any other pertinent information."

Response

Mames of parties and certain other ! ' 9tifying details have been removed in order ;o prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personel privacy of the Individuals involved.

l C. ! a AC.. v ua. A C Olawavs vns. A s.n .Owsn A. 3C 1,7ugg G(( [

m ,m_ , ,, , . .._ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ -- -

n a Gh (h IC sol

.s. Dock t No. 50-346 -

'.' l t'.

• Lic:nra No. NPF-3

,; ,, Serici No. 1-837

, Page 7 l

Races of parties and certain other Identifying details have been removed in order to prevent a cicarly unwarranted invasion of the t privacy of the Individuals _ involved./ personel l,

t .---- ~~~

The' interviewed, recalled being instructed by

~~~~

i statementsoft(mereport_ingtof' ~'])tofalsify

~~~'

felt undue pressure from The stated over time-reporting concerns as a result instructions to falifly statements of time reporting. This instruction came about when became suspicious that time vag___,

being checked on by

~

vas instrue'te3 to tell

'that ynaa Just_Jeft the office regard _less of when ~~ ~

he actually came or left. felt intimidated by' actions and was hesitant to report this situation. ~~

SUMMARY

Based on the foregoing investigation, the Company concludes that ~~ is currently Fit for Duty. The Company cannot, however, conclude that fully Fit for Duty prior te commencing treatment with a psychiatrist. ~f was The statements of co-workers and the admissions of indicate /~~~~

consumption of alcohol prior to reporting for work.

The Company also concludes that the Fitness-for-Duty policy _and procedures were violated byf who failed to properly report condition to superv?sor or DB Security; -

who failed to properly report ~~~'

continued use of prescription medication and who also may have failed to reporY for vork Fit for Duty.

In addition to the proced_ ural noncompliance, the Company concludes that, based on interviews withl there has existed a '

morale problem as a result of' jconouct. ine Company believes, I

however, that this concern has been sub_stantially alleviated since f 4 (

:: z;;. ;;. ;: ;;;;;;;;;; : ; :::r; :.:::

e m ,. , ,e m ~ n i