IR 05000206/1988001

Insp Repts 50-206/88-01,50-361/88-01 & 50-362/88-01 on 880104-08.No Violations Noted.Major Areas Inspected:Drug Testing.Rept Partially Withheld

ML20246D969
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	01/22/1988
From:	NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20245D534	List: IR 05000206/1985006 IR 05000206/1987023 IR 05000206/1988001 IR 05000206/1988014 ML20245D532 ML20246D875 ML20246D885 ML20246D952 ML20246D992 ML20246E092 ML20246E100 ML20246E117 ML20246E135 ML20246E138
References
FOIA-88-490 50-206-88-01, 50-206-88-1, 50-361-88-01, 50-361-88-1, 50-362-88-01, 50-362-88-1, NUDOCS 8907120053
Download: ML20246D969 (3)

Text

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

--

.-

i

, d

.  ?

l l

I A

i i

1

!

I

.I (Closed) 73.71(c) Event Report (87-01-50). Reactor operator failed a {

routine drug tes In accordance with 10 CFR 73.71(c), the licensee i reported that at 1435 hours0.0166 days <br />0.399 hours <br />0.00237 weeks <br />5.460175e-4 months <br />, October 9, 1987, they determined that a )

licensed reactor operator assigned to Units 2/3 had failed a drug tes At the time of determination, the employee was on vacation and not inside the protected area. The employee's unescorted access to protected and vital areas was immediately withdrawn. The employee had been employed by the licensee since June 30, 1980. Upon return to work from vacation on. October 15, 1987, the employee was suspended without pay until October 30, 1987. During this period, the licensee reported that he completed the in patient portion of a licensee-approved drug treatment program, and submitted proof of this I completien. The licensee reported completion of an updated I background investigation, covering the period since the last investigation, with negative result The employee passed a urinalysis drug test administered on October 30, 1987, and is pending a psychological evaluation as the final step of his physical examination. If this employee satisfactorily

. completes his physical examination, conducted in accordance with 10 i CFR 55.25, he will be subject to the licensee's Periodic Drug

~. ,____;=- ~m

- 3 8907120053 890710

-

PDR FOIA M PARRISHSB-490 PDR ,

I

_ _ , _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

.

-

.

,-

.

<

'l l

.

.

.

.

. .

(Closed) Informational Report (10-21-87). Termination of Substance Abuse Technician. On December 21, 1987, the licensee notified Region V of an ongoing investigation by their Corporate Security concerning alleged-improper drug screening operations. During this inspection, as indicated imparagraph 5 of this inspection report, the inspector reviewed the 1Tcensee's investigative efforts pertaining to the alleged forging of " positive" urinalysis test results and the

,_ _

termination of employment of a medical Substance Abuse Technicia .

O a *

. pe e

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - _

-__ --_-..-_ _ __

.*

s . . ..

'

...: .

,

, , .-

. -

. ,' .

, , .

. ..

, Independent Inspection Effort

,

. No violations were identifie , On December.21, 1987, the licensee notified Region V of an ongoing investigation by their Corporate Security concerning alleged improper drug

'

screening operations. The licensee initiated this investigation after receiving information that a medical Sub' stance Abuse Technician working in the licensee's drug screening program had, in some manner, been changing the results of annual urinalysis tests for friends' samples that might otherwise exhibit drug trace ,

Initially, the licensee identified, and demanded urinalysis tests of six

" friends" of the named Substance Abuse Technician. As a result of these-tests, three employees were identified with positive traces of drugs, one employee resigned in lieu of being tested, and the remaining two employees tested negative. In accordance with the licensee's Substance Abuse Program, the licensee employees testing " positive", were immediately denied unescorted access to the protected area, and placed into a drug program and will be evaluated to determine their fitness to return to

.- work.- One individual was a contract employee, and was denied access to the site. None of the persons, involved in this incident were licensed plant operator As part of their investigation, Corporate Security interviewed all persons involved in this incident. No further leads developed as a result of the interviews of the six " friends." During interview, the medical Substance Abuse-Technician denied any wrongdoings, and indicated that the complainant in this matter (his former girl friend), was merely attempting

,

to discredit hi The licensee also demanded a urinalysis test of the Substance Abuse Technician. This test indicated positive traces of drugs. Since his use of illegal substances was a flagrant violation of the trust placed in him, his employment was terminate On January 8,1988, during a telephone conversation between Mr. Ross Scarano, Region V, and Mr. W. Moody, Deputy Site Manager, SONGS, Region V requested that the licensee forward a copy of their completed investigation. Mr. Moody agreed to this request. (50-206/88-01-03)

,

______m_._______m_-_