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:	SMITH W G INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To:	DAVIS A B 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

IndianaMichiganPowerCompanyCook.NuclearPlantOneCookPlaceBridgman, MI491066164655901lNDIAMANEC8lGANPQWMAEP:NRC:0995DDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnits1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DRP-58andDRP-74IR!.'i~i7y

..GUT".V:

Allegation RIII-89-A-0093 Mr.A.B.Davis,RegionalAdministrator U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission RegionIII799Roosevelt RoadGlenEllyn,IL61037F1LKAttn:Mr.JohnW.N.Hickey,DirectorDivisionofRadiation SafetyandSafeguards

DearMr.Davis:

ThisletterisinresponsetoyourrequestofAug.9,1989,toinvestigate allegation RIII-89-A-0093 whichinvolvesallegeddrugusebyanemployeeattheD.C.CookPlant.Thewrittenresponseiscontained intheattachment tothisletter.Theresponsecontainsnopersonalprivacy,proprietary orsafeguards information andcanbereleasedtothepublicandplacedintheNRCPublicDocumentRoom.Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate andPlantProcedures whichincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoinsureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.

Verytrulyyours,PlantManagerAttachment cc:D.H.Williams, Jr.M.P.AlexichR.C.Callen,LansingG.CharnoffNFEMSectionChief,LansingNRCResidentInspector 8'710020021 890922PDRADOCK05000315PPNUSEP>11%0

ATTACHMENT TOAEP:NRC:0995DFollowing istheresponsetoNRCAllegation AMSRIII-89-A-0093:

ALLEGATION RIII-89-A-0093 Anindividual contacted theNRCRegionIIIofficewithinformation concerning allegeddrugusebyanemployeeattheD.C.CookPlant.Allegation No.1:Thecallerstatedthatanemployeeofacontractor attheCookPlantusedcocaine.Thecallerclaimedtohaveseentheemployee"high"oncocaine.Allegation No.2:Thecallerfurtherstatedthattheemployeewasasupervisor inradiation controlandhasneverbeenrequiredtosubmittoaurinetestfordrugsbecausesupervisory personnel arenotincludedinthedrugtestingprogram.TheNRCrequested thattheCookPlant'sreviewoftheseallegations includeasaminimumthefollowing matters:1.Ifthisindividual worksatD.C.Cook,ishefitforduty?Whatisthebasisforyourdetermination?

RESPONSEAreviewofCookPlant'sAccessAuthorization recordsrevealedthattheemployeenotedintheallegation hasbeenemployedbyanon-sitecontractor from5-16-88topresent.Interviews conducted withthecontractor andIndianaM.chiganPowersupervisory personnel directlyresponsible forobserving theemployee's activities onadailybasisrevealednofitnessfordutyconcerns.

Onesupervisor statedtheemployee's "performance andappearance wereabovereproach".

Anotherexpressed adesirethatallradiation personnel wouldemulatehisworkethicsandperformance.

Aphysicalsearchoftheemployee's personalautomobile wasconducted onsitebysecuritypersonnel including theuseofatraineddrugdog.Thesearchrevealednocontrolled substances orothercontraband items.Employeeattendance recordsfortheemployeeindicated nounusualabsencesortardiness.

0ATTAQiKÃT TOAEP:NRC:0995DALLEGATION RIII-89-A-0093

'Page22.Aresupervisors, companyorcontractors, exemptedfromyourfitnessfordutytestingprogram?Hastheemployeebeentestedfordrugs'ESPONSE Allpersonnel withunescorted accesstoCookPlant'sprotected area,including companyandcontractor supervisors aresubjecttothePlant'sFitnessforDutytestingprogram.Copiesofdrugscreening recordsobtainedfromthecontractor revealedthefollowing:

1.Theemployeesubmitted toapre-employment drugteston5-19-88.Resultsofthetestwerenegative.

2.Theemployeesubmitted toarandomdrugtestinitiated bythecontractor on6-5-89.Resultsofthetestwerenegative.

Inadditiontotheabovetestsfordrugs,theemployeewillingly submitted toadrugtestafterbeinginformedoftheallegation.

Resultsofthetestwerenegative.

SUMMARYAthoroughinvestigation ofthisallegation revealednoreasontoquestiontheemployee's fitnessforduty.Duringthecourseoftheinvestigation, theemployeevolunteered thattheallegation mayhaveresultedfromarecentbreak-upwithagirlfriend,whoremainedupsetwithhim.