ML20148B307

Contributes Issues to NRC Deliberations on Licensing Consideration of Listed Facility.Deteriorating Attitude of Top Mgt & Competence of Personnel in Final Stages of Const Discussed

ML20148B307
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	01/27/1988
From:	Greenberg J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20148B286	List: ML20148B281 ML20148B307
References
NUDOCS 8803210436
Download: ML20148B307 (16)

Text

,

. . \

W , . .

/

, 2000 Crystal Springs Rd. #911 San Bruno, CA 94066 January 27, 1988 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

I read with great interest a recent article in a trade journal concerning your hold up of licensing consideration for the South Texas Nuclear Project.

Since I worked on that project at one time, I might have a few things to contribute to your deliberations.

The high point of the project probably occurred at the "topping off" ceremony for the Unit I Reactor Building, in the summer of 1983. At that time, Ebasco, the prime con-tractor on the project, and Bechtel, the engineer, had a close and cooperative working'rel&tionship, which resulted in great accomplishment. For instance, the Unit II turbine building was about 51 weeks ahead of schedule. There few visible quality or safety problems. The technical problems that cropped up were quickly and efficiently dealt with.

The major partner in the enterprise, Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P), had nothing but praise for the personnel working on the job, and publicly expressed that praise at the aforementioned topping off ceremony. HL&P's comments were echoed by the minority partners and by Ebasco and Bechtel executives who were there.

Then things started to deteriorate. It began with a visible change in the attitude of top management. They changed from a "can do", a "lers-get-the-job-done", "let's built a qual-ity product" attitude to a "let's-see-who-we-can-blame-oth-er-than-ourselves" attitude.

Ebasco and Bechtel engineers and supervisors were aware of the pressures under which the managers were operating:

There was an ongoing-lawsuit with Brown and Root. One mi-nority partner was actively secking a buyer for his share; costs were going out of sight, and HL&P and its owner, Houston Industries, were facing an enormous cash flow prob-lem. The upshot of these pressures was that management no longer seemed to want the plant to get built; instead, they seemed to be looking for an excuse for the inevitable fail-ure. They were looking for someone to blame.

They finally hit on something. It was very neat, given the political atmosphere of the area and of the period. They grandly announced that they were engaged in a massive prog-ram to eliminate drugs from the project. Not just SOME h$k ADO K h6 A 100---003515

-n, - -

- 1

~

drugs, mind you, but ALL drugs. First, they "trained" the personnel about the evils of drugs. Then they started circ-ulating threatening memos telling people about all the things that would happen to them if they were caught with drugs. The they started searching people's briefcases and lunch pails, and even deployed "drug-sniffing" guard dogs to intimidate personnel.

The situation continued to deteriorate until at last, by 1935, Houston Lighting & Power actually claimed that signi-ficant numbers of personnel working on the project were drug addicts and alcoholics and demanded that they urinate into bottles to prove that they were not! This insult and the accompanying abusive demand was contained in a memo to all plant personnel written by one of HL&P's vice-presi-dents. This obscene, disgusting, offensive policy was di-rected not just against HL&P personnel but also against Ebasco and Bechtel people on the iob, against exempt em-ployees and craft alike. (When'the U.S. secretary of state, George Schultz, was confronted with a similar abusive de-mand, the promptly threatened to resign.)

The outcome was, of course, predictable: The best left first. The most articulate, ;ntelligent, experienced people at the South Texas Project simply accepted offers elsewhere and departed.

That left the "drug addicts and alcoholics" to complete construction of the nuclear plant. In a word, since 1985, the South Texas Nuclear Project has been engineered and constructed by persons who have felt it necessary to urin-are into bottles and to have their bodily fluids examined by hostile strangers in order to keep their jobs! The drug-testing program was known locally on the job as the "piss-test", and some people showed up to work wearing tee shirts bearing the legend "I pissed an'd passed!" Some of the peo-ple remaining on the jobs tried to rationalize the insult by mouthing the various slogans against drugs convenient 1v provided by HL&D. It.is quite probable that other personnel were and are strongly motivated to sabotage the project any way they can. Such sabotage can be made virtually undetect-able, especially since the "best and brightest" are long gone. For instance, certain inexperienced persons might argue "If an inch of weld on a joint is good, then two in-ches of weld must be better." Pretty soon they're cooking the hell out of key structural joints, and no one knows that they are actually weakening these joints! From such things come the Chernobles of the world!

The best the NRC can hope for, in terms of plant safety, if it is planning to license the South Texas Nuclear Project,

.me

is that the latter stages of the project was built by per-sons of indeterminate competence, but whose urine was free from certain substances at a certain time.

Frankly, gentlemen, unless there has been a massive change in the attitudes and policies of the management at the South Texas Project, I suggest that the NRC would be out of its collective mind to even contemplate licensing the South Texas Project at this time. The people managing the con-struction of the project are simply not qualified to build a nuclear power plant!

Sincerely, I

l - -

A i -

i Jerry Greenberg, PE e e 9

e A

i S

• -, ,a

E h

P

• ~

sA. .OU5.p

~

V

s. .-. cp .

1 /,< pu v l 6. $. O a., t' O 'A 0 e '.  !? ,,,i:EF.EBPt! -

Y

'l l ..

^ 38JAN S,

~. v. -

.h _

/ r Si dLr Cid"iR " H di_

13as '

+- n ..L.,

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

)

, , , ~ . . ~ . _ , , , - , . .,-.,~,,..m.... ,,__.,.__._,,y._ . , -

, r- s . - -. -.

I

. MAR 161989

. Mr. J:rry Gresnbarg 2000 Crystal Springs Road #911 San Bruno, California 94066

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

Thank you for your letter on January 27, 1988 in which you comunicated ycur impressiors about the management of construction at the South Texas Project.

The two issues you raise are that (1) raragement of the fitness-for-duty program caused considerable dissathfaction among the workers and (2) the competence#? the workers who participated in the final construction stages may be questionable.

The NRC is sensitive to the difficulties raised by irplementation of a fitness-for-duty program. We recognize the potential adverse effects on workers' morale and that it is important for such a program to be administered in such a way as to protect the rights of individuals. However, we support utility effort: to ensure that oersonnel involved in the construction of safety related structures, systems and components be free of the influence of illegal drugs.

The NRC staff has also examined your letter to determine whether you provided information regarding any deficiencies in structures, systems or corponents.

Although you allude to such potential deficiencies to illustrete ycur argument, you did not provide sufficient detail t) suggest that the natter ycu refer to is anything more than a hypothetical illustration. Hence, the staff has deter-nined that no safety-related matter is raised by your letter on which action can be taken.

On the matter of competence of personnel, we would like to assure you that the NHC staff does observe the licensee's activities for any systematic breakdown in regard to competence. Inspection staff at the site and at the regional office observe construction activities and provide their assessment in periodic reviews of the licensee's performance. The subject of integrity and conpetence of the South Texas Project's raragenent was also examined in adjudicatory hearings. In addition, for many categories of work, for exarple, welding, specific regulations exist which require certificatien of proper corpetence for both the craft and quality '.F 901 personnel. The staff has found that the ,

Seuth Texas Project meets the applicable regulations and that the conttruction at Unit I has been accomplished in e setisfactory manner.

Sincerely,

$~ a jif Thomas E. Murley, Director

' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l DISTRIBUTION l Docket File NRC PDR w/cy of-incoming Local PDR w/cy of incoming EDO f 003519 EDO Reading T. Murley/J. Sniezek l

, F. Miraglia PD4 Reading D. Crutchfield DR4A/J. Collins OGC-Bethesda GPA/CA i SECY V. Stello D.Possburg,PPAS(E00#003519)

P. Shea P. Kadambi w/cy of incoming w/cy of inconing J. Calvo . P. Noonan PD4 Grean Ticket File R. Bra <iy, PMAS T. Rehm R. Martin

• See previous concurrences:

PDd/LA* PD4/PM* PMAS* PD4/D* Tech. Ed.* OGC*

l l PNoonan Pradambi:sr JCalvo LChandler l 03/04/88 03/04/88 0 88 03/09/88 03/09/88 03/10/88 DRSP:D* ADP*

DCrutchfield FMiranlia' /

03/11/8C 03/11/88 [#d3/ } 8

, weg a

g y _ kg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 :j W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555

\...../

Mr. Jerry Greenberg 2000 Crystal Springs Road #911 San Bruno, California 94066

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

Thank you for your letter on January 27, 1988 in which you comunicated your 1rpressions about the raragement of construction at the South Texas Project.

The two issues you raise ore that (1) management of the fitness-for-duty program caused considerable dissatisfaction among the workers and (?) the competence of the workers who participated in tha final construction stages may be questionable.

The NRC is sensitive to the difficulties raised by implementation of a fitness-for-duty program. We recognize the potential adverse effects on workers' morale and that it is irportant for such a progren to be administered in such a way as to protect the rights of individuals. However, we support utility efforts to ensure that personnel involved in the construction of safety related structures, systems and components be free of the influence of illegal drugs.

The NRC staff has also examined your letter to determine whether you provided information regarding any deficiencies in structures, syst3ms or components.

Although you allude to such potential deficiencies to illustrate your argument, you did not provide sufficient detail to suggest that the natter you refer to is anything more than a hypothetical illustration. Hence, the staff has deter-mined that no safety-related matter is raised by your letter on which action can be taken.

On the matter of competence of personr.el, we would like to assure you that the NRC staff does observe the licensee's activities for any systematic breakdown in regard to competence. Inspection staff at the site and at the regional office observe construction activities and provide their assessment in periodic reviews of tha licensee's performance. The subject of integrity and competence of the South Texas Project's management was also exanined in adjudicatory hearings. In addition, for many categories of work, for example, welding, specific regulations exist which require certification of proper competence for both the craft and quality control personnel. The staff has fotnd that the South Texas Project meets the applicable regulations and that the construction at Unit 1 has been accomplished in a satisfactory manner.

Sincerely, w'

Thomas E. Mur , nirar r Office of Nuclear Reactor Ra piation

MQ

'o,, UNITED STATES

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /

$ -l wAssiwoToN. D. C. 20655

 : (f.

. Wl ;,?lp

.* . m

\ f

..... w L , gy j FDO PRINCIFAL CORRESPONLENCF CONTROL FROM: DitF: 03/11/88 EDO CONTROLt 003519 DOC DT 01/27/88 JERRY GREENBERO FINAL. RFPLY:

SAN BRUNO. CA TO:

NRC FOR SIGNATURE OF ** GREEN ** SFCY NQt s

MURLEY DESC: ROUTING:

CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT REHM RMARTIN DATE: 02/24/88 ASSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT Mllr '.EY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

NRR RECEIVED: FEBRUARY 24, 1988 ACIION: DRSP:CRITICHFIELD NRR ROUTING: MURLEY/SNIEZEK MIRAGLIA pprm MARTIN reisvd GILLESPIE M3SSBURG

. DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE gy _

jmmt 9.19 W -

~ __

s, 2000 Crystal Springs Rd. #911 San Bruno, CA 94066 January 27, 1988 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

I read with great interest a recent article in a trade journal concerning your hold up of licensing c;nsideration for the South Texas Nuclear Project.

Since I worked on that project at one time, I might have a l

few things to contribute to your deliberations.

The high point of the project probably at the in occurredBuilding, I Reactor "topping off" ceremony forthat the Unittime, Ebasco, the prime con-the summer of 1983. At and Bechtel, the engineer, had a tractor on the project, close and cooperative working relationship, For instance, the which Unit IIresulted turbine in great accomplishment.51 weeks ahead of schedule. There few building was about visible quality or safety problems. The technical problems that cropped up were quickly end efficiently dealt with.

The major partner in the enterprise, Houston Lighting and I Power (HL&P), had nothing but praise for the personnel working on the job, and publicly expressed that praice at i were echoed by the minority partners and by.Ebasco andt

- Bechtel executives who were there.

It began with a visible Then things started to deteriorate. They changed from change in the attitude of top management. '

aity product" "can do", a "lets-get-the-job-done", "let's built a qual-attitud l er-than-ourselves" attitude.

Ebasco and Bechtel engineers and supervisors were aware of the pressures under which the managers were operating One mi-There was an ongoing lawsuit with Brown and Root.nority p costs were going out of tight, and HL&P and its owner, Houston Industries, were facing an enormous cash flow prob- no lem. The upshot of these pressures was that management the plant to get built; instead, they longer seemed to wantseemed to be looking for an excuse for the inevitable fa ure. They were looking for someone to blame.

They finally hit on something. It was very neat, given the political atmosphere of the area and of the period. Theythey were just SOME grandly announced thatram to eliminate drugs from the project. Not 1E0---003515

drugs, mind you, but ALL drugs. First, they "trained" the personnel about the evils of drugs. Then they started cire-ulating threatening memos telling people about all the things that would happen to them if they were caught with drugs. The they started searching people's briefcases and lunch pails, and even deployed "drug-sniffing" guard dogs to intimidate personnel.

The situation continued to deteriorate untit at last, by 1985, Houston Lighting & Power actually claimed that s'gni-ficant numbers of personnel working on the project wers drug addicts and alcoholics and demanded that they urin,'tc into bottles to prove that they were not! This insult and the accompanying abusive demand was contained in a memo to all plant personnel written by one of HL&P's vice-presi-dents. This obscene, disgusting, offensive policy was di-rected not just against HL&P personnel but also against Ebasco and Bechtel people on the job, against exempt em-ployees and craft alike. (When'the U.S. secretary of state, George Schultz, was confronted with a similar abusive de-mand, the promptly threatened to resign.)

The outcome was, of course, predictable: The best left first. The most articulate, intelligent, experienced people at the South Texas Project simply accepted offers elsewhere and departed.

That left the "drug addicts and alcoholics" to complete construction of the nuclear plant. In a word, since 1985, the South Texas Nuclear Project has been engineered and constructed by persons who have felt it necessary to urin-ate into bottles and to have their bodily fluids examined The drug-by hostile strangers in order to keep their jobs!

testing program was known locally on the job as the "pis -

test", and some people showed up to work wearing tee shirts bearing the legend "I pissed an'd passed!" Some of the peo-l ple remaining on the ' jobs tried to rationalize the insult by mouth-.ng the various slogans against drugs conveniently i

provided by HL&P. It.is quite probable that other personnel

[ were and are strongly motivated to sabotage the project any l

way they can. Such sabotage can be made virtually undetect-able, especially since the "best and brightest" are long gone. For instance, certain inexperienced persons might J is good, then two in-argue "If an inch of weld on a jointPretty soon they're cooking 4 ches of weld must be better."

the hell out of key structural joints, and no oneFrom knows such that they are actually weakening these joints!

thin.gs come the Chernobles of tha world!

The best the NRC cen hope for, in terms of plant safety, if it is planning tr li.anse the South Texas Nuclear Project,

t 2

l 4

l 3

is that the latter stages of the project was built by per- i sons of indeterminate competence, but whose urine was free l from certain substances at a certain time.

Frankly, gentlemen, unless there has been a massive at change the '

in the attitudes and policies of the managementthe NRC would be out of I suggest that ,

i; '

South Texas. Project,itc collective mind to even contemplate licensing the So Texas Project at this time. The people managing the con-struction of the project are simply not qualified to build a nuclear power plant!

1

(

Sincerely,,

. l i

~

j l

' Jerry Greenberg, PE

', b i s i I l' .

j <. +

1 N

r . .

. F 5

e l

• l Y

t i

I l -

f l t

i r

f

Mr. Jerry Grennterg NAR 161988 2000 Crystal Springs Road #911 San Bruno, California 94066

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

Thank you for your letter on January 27, 1988 in which you comunicated ycur impressions about the management of construction at the South Texas Project.

The two issues you raise are that (1) raragement of the fitness-for-duty program caused considerable dissatisfaction among the wnrkers and (2) the conpetence of the workers who participated in the finel construction stages may be questionable.

The NRC is sensitive to the difficulties raised by irplementation of a fitness-for-duty program. We recognize the potential adverse effects on workers' morale and that it is important for such a program to be administered in such a way a: to protect the rights of individuals. However, we support utility efforts to ensuu that personnel involved in the construction of safety related structures, systems and components be free of the influence of illegal drugs.

The NRC staff hes also examined your letter to determine whether you provided irformation regarding any deficiencies in structures, systems or cor.ponents.

Although you allude to such potential deficiencies to illustrate your argument, you did not provide sufficient detail to suggest that the natter you refer to is anything more than a hypothetical illustration. Hence, the staff has deter-nined that no safety-related matter is raised by your 'etter on which action can be taken.

On the matter of competence of personnel, we would like to assure you that the NRC staff does observe the licensec's activities for any systematic breakdown in regard to competence. Inspection staff at the site and at the regional office observe censtruction activities and provide their assessment in periodic reviews of the licensee's perform:nce. The subject of integrity and conpetence of the South Texas Project's ranagement was also exanined in adjudicatory hearings. In addition, for many categories cf work, for exarple, welding, specific regulations exist which require certification of proper corpctence for both the craft and quality control personnel. The staff has found that the South Texas Project meets the applicable regulations and that the construction at Unit I has teen accomplished in e satisfactory manner.

, Sincerely,

' a. v or

- -- . . .;; A q Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation DISTRIBL' TION Docket File NRC PDR w/cy of incoming Local PDP. w/cy of incoming EDO # 003519 EDO Readino T. Murley/J. Sniezek F. Miraglia PD4 Reading D. Crutchfield DR4A/J. Collins OGC-Bethesda GPA/CA SECY V. Stello D.Possburg,PPAS(ED0#003519)

P. Shea P. Kadanbi w/cy of incoming w/cy of incoming J. C61vo . P. Noonan PD4 Green Ticket File R. Brady, PMAS T. Rehm R. Martin

• See previous concurrences:

PDd/LA* PD4/PM* PMAS* PD4/D* Tech. Ed.* OGC*

PNoonan Fradambi:sr JCalvo LChandler 03/04/88 03/04/88 0 88 03/09/88 03/09/88 03/10/88 DRSP:D* ADP*

DCrutchfield FMiraglia 03/11/88 03/11/88 d3/ ][ )"

88

.  %, UNITED STATES

$ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D :j WASHINGTON, D C. 20555

\...../

Mr. Jerry Greenberg 2000 Crystal Springs Road #911 San Bruno, California 94066

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

Thank you for your letter on January 27, 1988 in which you comunicated your irpressions about the raragement of construction at the South Texas Project.

The two issues you raise ere that (1) management of the fitness-for-duty program caused considerable dissatisfaction among the workers and (?) the competence of the workers who participated in the final construction stages may be questionable.

The NRC is sensitive to the difficulties raised by implementation of a fitness-for-duty program. We recognize the potential adverse effects on workers' morale and that it is irportant for such a progren to be administered in such a way as to protect the rights of individuals. However, we support utility efforts to ensure that personnel involved in the construction of safety related structures, systems and components be free of the influence of illegal drugs.

The NRC staff has also examined your letter to datermine whether you provided infonnation regarding any deficiencies in structures, systems or components.

Although you allude to such potential deficiencies to illustrate your argument, you did not provide sufficient detail to sugoest that the natter you refer to is anything more than a hypothetical illustration. Hence, the staff has deter-mined that no safety-related matter is raised by your letter on which ection can be taken.

On the matter of competence of personnel, we would like to assure you that the NRC staff does observe the licensee's activities for any systenatic breakdown in regard to competence. Inspection staff at the site and at the regional office observe construction activities and provide their assessment in periodic reviews of the licensee's performance. The subject of integrity and competence of the South Texas Project's management was also examined in adjudicatory hearings. In addition, for many categories of work, for exampin, welding, specific regulations exist which require certification of proper competence for both the traft and quality control personnel. The staff has found that the South Texas Project meets the applicable regulations and that the construction at Unit I has been accomplished in a satisfactory manner.

Sincerely, Thomas E. Mur [ nirac r Office of Nucipar Reactor Regulation 1

DHQ

/  %, UNITED STATES

/

! g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ 8 wAsHawoTow. p. c. nosss .hn

~ d,, s b ; ' /-

k' EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCF CONTROL FROM: DitF: 03/11/88 EDO CONTROL: 007519 DOC DT: 01/27/88 JERRY GREENBERO FINA). RFPLY:

SAN BRUNO. CA TO:

NRC .

FOR SIONATURE OF ** GREEN ** SFCY NO:

. . i

~

MURLEY DESC: ROUTING:

CONCERNING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT REHM RMARTIN DATE: 02/24/88 ASSIONED TO: NRR CONTACT: MilRLEY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

NRR RECEIVED: FEBRUARY 24, 1988 ACTION: DRSP:CRU'NHFIELD NRR ROUTING: MURLEY/SNIEZE.K MIRAGLIA MARTIN GILLESPIE "3ssa "

. DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE BY _N 1 /N /

2000 Crystal Springs Rd. #911 San Bruno, CA 94066 4 January 27, 1988 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasbington, D.C.

Gentlemen:

I read with great interest a recent article in a trade journal concerning your hold up of licensing consideration for the South Texas Nuclear Project.

project at one time, I might have a Since I worked on that few things to contribute to your deliberations.

The high point of the project probably at the in occurredBuilding, I Reactor "topping off" ceremony forthat the Unittime, Ebasco, the prime con-the summer of 1983. At and Bechtel, the engineer, had a tractor on the project,close and For instance, cooperative the working' relationship, which result Unit II turbine in great accomplishment.51 weeks ahead of schedule. There few building was about visible quality or safety problems. The technical problems that cropped up were quickly and efficiently dealt with.

The major partner in the enterprise, Houston Lighting and 3 Power (HL&P), had nothing and but praise for the personnel publicly expressed that praise at working on the job,

' were echoed by the minority partners and by.Ebasco and

- Bechtel executives who were there.

began with a visible Then things started to deteriorate. It They changed from change in the attitude of top management."let's built a qual-a "can do", a "lets-get-the-job-done", attitude to a "let's-see-who-we-can-bla j

ity product" er-than-ourselves" attitude.

l Ebasco and Bechtel engineers and supervisors were aware of the pressures under which the managers were operating:

There was an ongoing lawsuit with Brown and Root. O of sight, and HL&P and its owner, costs were going outHouston Industries, were facing an enormous ne cash flow p lem. The upshot of these pressures was that management the plant to get built; instead, they longer seemed to wantseemed to be looking for an excuse for the inevitable fai ure. They were looking for someone to blame.

They finally hit on something. It was very neat, given the political atmosphere of the area and of the period. Theythey wer grandly announced that Not just SOME ram to eliminate drugs from the project.

ZEO---003bl5

s 1 .

drugs, mind you, but ALL drugs. First, they "trained" the

' personnel abour the evils of drugs. Then they started circ-ulating threatening memos telling people about all the things that would happen to them if they were caught with drugs. The they started searching people's briefcases and lunch pails, and even deployed "drug-sniffing" guard dogs to intimidate personnel.

The situation continued to deteriorate until at last, by 1985, Houston Lighting & Power actually claimed that signi-ficant numbers of personnel working on the project were drug addicts and alcoholics and demanded that they urinate into bottler, to prove that they were not! This insult and the accompanying abusive demand was contained in a memo to all plant personnel written by one of HL&P's vice-presi-dents. This obscene, disgusting, offensive policy was di-rected not just against HL&P personnel but also against Ebasco and Bechtel people on the job, against exempt em-

- ployees and craft alike. (When 'the U.S. secretary of state, s George Schultz, was confronted with a similar abusive de-mand, the promptly threatened to resign.)

The outcome was, of course, predictable: The best left first. The most articulate, intelligent, experienccd people at the South Texas Project simply accepted offers elsewhere and departed.

1 That left the "drug addicts and alcoholics" to complete construction of the nuclear plant. In a word, since 1985, the South Texas Nuclear Project has been engineered and canstructed by persons who have felt it necessary to urin-

' ate into bottles and to have their bodily fluids examined by hostile strangers in order to keep their jobst The drug-

testing program was known locally on the job as the "piss-test", and some people showed up to work wearing tee shirts bearing the legend "I pissed an'd passed!" Some of the peo-l ple remaining on the' jobs tried to rationalize the insult l

by mouthing the various slogans against drugs conveniently provided by HL&P. It.is quite probable that other personnel were and are strongly motivated to sabotage the project any

' way they can. Such sabotage can be made virtually undetect-able, especially since the "best and brightest" are long i l gone. For instance, certain inexperienced persons might argue "If an inch of weld on a joint is good, then two in-ches of weld must be better." Pretty soon they're cooking i the hell out of key structural joints, and no one knows that they are actually weakening these joints! From such things come the Chernobles of the world!

l l

The best the NRC can hope for, in terms of plant safety, if i it is planning to license the South Texas Nuclear Project, l

l l

l

(I is that the latter stages of the project was built by per-sons of indeterminate competence, but whose urine was free from certain substances at a certain time.

Frankly, gentlemen, unless there has been a massive change the in the attitudes and policies of the management atthe NRC would be out of I suggest that South Texas Project,its collective mind to even contemplate licensing the Sou Texas Project at this time. The people managing the con-struction of the project are simply not qualified to build a nuclear power plant!

Sincerely,

/ .

x , ,

Jerry Greenberg, PE e

1 i

ii ,

G e

e