ML20137L668
| ML20137L668 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1985 |
| From: | Runkle J CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L650 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8509120448 | |
| Download: ML20137L668 (3) | |
Text
.
September 6, 1985 08]ETJD Ju 55 sEP 12 B0:22 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,..%.;xy ~ ? ~
.r, BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Carolina Power & Light Company and
)
Docket No. 50-400 OL North Carolina Eastern Municipal
)
Power Agency
)
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant)
)
1 CONSERVATION COUNCIL'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION WB-3 Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.749, now comes the Conservation Council with its opposition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention WB-3 (Drug Abuse During Construction), dated July 12, 1985. We would urge the Board to deny Applicants' Motion for the following reasons:
1.
The attached affidavit of Ms. Miriello in support of our opposition to Applicants' Motion clearly presents allegations that at least two of the workers who abused drugs during construction at the Harris plant were inspectors and were working on safety-related systems. This makes Applicants' primary argument in its Motion for Sununary Disposition-that reinspection of work done by known drug abusers was not necessary as the normal inspection process would find any deficiencies in construction work done by workers who were abusing drugs--completely untenable when inspectors are themselves abusing drugs.
2.
We adopt the affidavit of Ms. Burch of the NC State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) which was attached to the NC Attorney General's Response 8509120448 850906 PDR ADOCK 05000400 g
to the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition, dated July 31,,1985.
4 j
This affidavit is in direct factual conflict with the various affidavits i
presented by the Applicants and as such, raise genuine issues for the Board to hear regarding the adequacy of Applicants' drug protection programs and cooperation with local law enforcement personnel.
1 3.
In conversations during the last two weeks with Mr. Bryant of the f
Attorney General's Office, Ms. Burch, and Mr. Benoy, Senior Deputy Attorney General, they have expressed to Counsel their desire to stand by the allegations contained in Ms. Burch's affidavit. The agent who conducted the investigation and is presently with the Drug Enforcement Agency in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, will be made available at any hearing of this matter to describe the investigation and his observations of drug abuse at the Harris construction site.
4.
In conversations during the last two weeks with Ms. Janet Carvey on the Wake County Sheriff's Department legal staff, she stated that the Department will not fill out affidavits on either side although will respond 1
to subpoenas to testify at the hearing on their investigation and direct observations. This will provide the Board with the scope of drug abuse at i
the construction site and explain Major Lanier's statement to the newspaper article (attached to Contention WB-3) regarding " widespread" drug abuse.
5.
Our position on drug abuse during construction is that anybody involved with drugs or even not taking a strong position against their use has the improper attitude regarding safety and raises strong questions about his or her fitness for duty. The selective following of the law regarding drug abuse or its outright violation means that the worker simply cannot be trusted to follow other laws. It is reasonable to assume that workers
corrupted through drug abuse and drug sales will find it easier to violate rules and regulations established for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant. This violates the general requirements in 10 CFR 50.40 and Part 50, Appendix A, requiring construction practices from the Applicants which guarantee safety at the plant. The NRC also has pending a rulemaking at this time on requirements for operating licensees with respect to the fitness for duty of personnel with unescorted acces to protected areas. 47 Fed. Reg. 33980 (1982). Allegations of widespread drug abuse have been the subject for investigation by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement and in contentions in various operating licenses.
6.
There are ample material facts and genuine issues to be heard to defeat the motion for summary disposition. All facts alleged by the Applicants to support their motion for summary disposition are directly controverted by the affidavits of Ms. Miriello and Ms. Burch along with the initial newspaper article which provided basis for this contention.
THEREFORE, in light of the above, the Conservation Council urges the Board to deny the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition.
Respectfully submitted, John Runkle Counsel for Conservation Council