ML20136F926
| ML20136F926 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1984 |
| From: | Carpenter T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| To: | Jay Collins NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136F925 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-152 NUDOCS 8504160429 | |
| Download: ML20136F926 (2) | |
Text
__
ME A IUTY ROJKT
' S ',n vro for Pohcy 5tudies 1901 Qu2 5treet. N.W. Woshington. D.C. 20009 (202)234 938 i
I June 9, 1984 6
kggg bn i
Mr. John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatgry Comission W
f 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 h-4J 0m Arlington, Texas 76011 I
UL g
Dear Mr. Collins:
I l
It has come to our attention that a number of employees (as many as seventeen) at the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Site have recently been term-inated for alleged involvement with controlled substances, including the sale of narcotics.
According to our sources, it was TUGCO, and not Brown
& Root, that conducted the investigation leading up to the terminations.
Additionally, it has been reported to us that a number of employees were terminated in the past few months because they wouldn't "go along" with one of the " ringleaders", or suppliers of some of the drugs, who were re-portedly persons in fairly high supervisory positions with Brown & Root.
G.A.P. has no information or evidence at this time concerning this matter. However, we do feel it is worthy of investigation by your office for several reasons.
For instance, if job performance in safety-related areas was affected because of drug abuse, obvious repercussions in the safety of the plant could be felt.
Secondly, if employees who refused to go along with illegalities were " purged", morale and work performance could have i
su f fered.
Finally, parallel questions on character and competence of j
the contractor, Brown & Root, could be raised.
Several G.A.P. witnesses have tried to expose the drug-related problems at Comanche Peak in the past both to Brown & Root and to the N.R.C.
Questions concerning how much Brown & Root realized the extent of the problem on site, and when they knew it, could indicate an inability on the part of Brown & Root to control its personnel.
In reference to the above, G. A.P. submits the following questions to your office for your response:
(1) What, if any, information do you have concerning the termination of these workers and the reasons, if any, advanced by the company for their termination?
(2) What, if any, information did the N.R.C. have prior to the terminations?
(3) What steps does the N.R.C. plan to take to ensure that the work per-formance of all those terminated did not adversely affect the safety or quality of the plant?
((
...,g.
[
(4) What actions does the N.R.C. plan to take to ensure that none of the terminations were in violation of the Atomic Energy Act (i.e. a cover for. terminating those engaging in protected activ' ty)?
j (5) Does the N.R.C. plan any Board notification concerning the recent terminations?
I l'.
We note that in similar instances of drug abuse terminations at other nuclear sites under construction, particularly the Midland facility and the Diablo Canyon facility, the N.R.C. has required a 1001 investigation and inspection of the work of those who were terminated (in safety-related k-areas).
Finally, it is G. A.P.'s understanding that the N.R.C. does not
(
concern itself with criminal activity at nuclear projects such as drug L
incidents.
However, when the possibility of drug abuse affecting the safety or quality on a project presents itself, we are confident that the N.R.C.
3 will investigate the incident (s) to the extent it is allowed.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter, and we look k
forward to your response within a reasonable time.
Sincerely,
-6 s w7/)
-y.L Tom Carpenter GAP t
Ernie Ha ley 1
l GAP cc:
Thomas Ippolito, NRC Ben Hayes, Office of Investigations I
- --