ML20154C940

Requests Formal Comments on Six Recommendations Contained in Investigative Rept, Drug & Alcohol Use at Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. Specific Allegations Reviewed & Ref in Insp Repts 50-443/86-52 & 50-443/87-07

ML20154C940
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/18/1988
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Harrison R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO
Shared Package
ML20151W564	List: ML20151W561 ML20151W568 ML20151W628 ML20154C940
References
NUDOCS 8805180384
Download: ML20154C940 (3)

See also: IR 05000443/1986052

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - ._

j? UNITED STATES

g pJ ';j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

y REGION I

• * 47S ALLENDALE AoAD

K NG OF PAU$slA, PENNSYLVANIA 1H00

.....

March 18,1988

Docket No. 50-443

Public Service Company of New Hampshire

ATTN: Mr. Robert J. Harrison

President and Chief Executive Officer

Post Office Box 330

Manchester, New Hampshire 03105

Gentlemen:

As an enclosure to a letter dated January 28, 1908 from Congressman

Edward J. Markey to Chairman Zech, the NRC was provided a copy of an Investiga-

tive Report, entitled "Drug and Alcohol Use at the Scabrook Nuclear Power

Plant." We understand that a copy of this report was provided to you by

separate correspondence from the Congressman. Certain specific allegations,

provided as part of the Investigative Report, have already been Nviewed and

inspected during the conduct of separate NRC activities to investigate allega-

tions raised by the Employee's Legal Project (Reference: Region ! Inspection

Report Nos. 50-443/86-52 and 50-443/87-07). Nevertheless, I feel it is appro-

priate for you to formally provide NRC with your corments on the six recommen-

dations contained in the report.

I therefore request that you provide to me within sixty ays, in accordance

with the routine correspondence requirements for the Seabrook docket, the

information requested in the preceding paragraph. You should also feel free to

elaborate upon any specific issues that you have determined to be particularly

pertinent in your assessment of the conclusions of the Investigative Report.

- Additionally, to establish a clear and concise record on the docket regarding

drug and alcohol abuse issues at Seabrook, you are requasted to provide answers

to the specific questions listed in the enclosure to this letter.

We recognize that the answers to certain of those questions may have been

provided already to Congressmen Markey and Sharp in response to formal

Congressional requests. If you determine that such duplication exists, you may

copy and provide reference to such records, as appropriate.

The information requested in this letter should aid the staff in its continuing

review of activities conducted at the Seabrook Station. Your cooperation with

us in this ef fort is appreciated.

Sincerely,

h T.

William T. Russell

Regional Administrator

8805180384 00042S

PDR COMMS NRCC

CORRESPONDENCE PDR

.

1

.

Public Service Cmpar.y of New f

Hampshire

Enclosure: '

As stated

4

cc w/ enc 1:

E. A. Brown, President and Chief Executise Officer. New Hampshire Yankee

T. C. Feiganbaum, Vice President, Engineering snd Quality Programs

W. J. Hall, Regulatory Services Manager

D. E. Moody, 3tation Manager

P. W. Agnes, Assistant Secretary of Public Safety, Comonwealth of

Massachusetts

Employec's Legal Project

PublicDocumentRoom(PDR)

local Public Document Room (LPOR)

Nuclear Safety Information Center (NSIC)

NRC Resident Inspector

State of New Hampshire

. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Seabrook Hearing Service List

!

!

I i

f

!

!

,

i

1

1

,

i

.

l

'

_ _ _ . _ .

_ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ - . , _ _ - , . . . . - , _ .

'

l

!

' I

ENCLOSURE

The following questions are asked for the purpose of developing a complete

rec ard in each speci,1c subject being addressed. The responses should be

structured not only to aprise the NRC of the specific answer to each question,

but also to provide a dscussion of any pertinent licensee policies and I

positions on these matters.

1. With regard to all drug and alcohol incidents which have been identified

at Seabrook Station since the comencement of construction, what evalua-

tive processes were used to analyze the potential impact of each incident

on plant construction quality? In particular describe any differences

which exist between the evaluation processes, for incidents identified

after 1982, for which records are available, and those applied to inci-

dents identified prior to 1982 for which records are unavailable. Describe

whether documented programs exist for *he technical dispositioning of

.

'

those incidents identified and provide a detailed bases, either specific

or general, for your determination that construction quality was not

adversely affected.

2. How were specific incidents of drug and alcohol problems evaluated to

determine if a basis existed for reporting these matters pursuant to 10

CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR 21? How were such incidents also evaluated for

reportability as an ASLB Board Notification during the current and pre-

vious licensing processes?

3. What was the reason for the termination of the Pittsburgh Testing Labora-

tory contract at Seabrook Station in March 1986? Explain the chronology

and relation of this termination to subsequent PTL employee grievances and

arbitrator rulings. Discuss any other specific problems that have been

encountereo in attempting to enforce project rules on drug and alcohol use

at Seabrook Station and subsequent actions taken.

4 What objective evidence is available to provide assurance of site concrete

quality, given the allegations raised in regard to suspected drug usage at

the PTL laboratory? Explain in detail the scope of PTL activities at

Seabrook and to what extent the PTL testing functions with regard to

construction quality were checked or deplicated by other independent means

or personnel.

5. On November 24, 1986, in response to a series of questions from

Representative Markey, the NRC reported that it had been apprised by

PSNH and others of nine cases of drug or alcohol related allegations at

Seabrook.

a. Was PSNH aware of the datails of the November 24, 1986 NRC response? {

If so, when did PSNH become aware? If PSNH was aware, what actions I

were taken to infore NRC that many other specific cases of drug / {

alcohol abuse at Seabrook had been investigated by PSNH? )

b. Describe the efforts that were undertaken to assure NRC was provided i

complete and accurate information regarding drug / alcohol abuse at l

Seabrook. Include in this answer, a chronologv of the relevant

4

notifications / communications made and indicate to whom the

notifications / communications were provided.

!

1

. _ _ - _ . _ . .

..

.

-

tov as. wun "" *;l= :L,e-lll r'"

,,,,,,,,. ...

,,....c..u...n,

,,.....e

v...

C0ligrt$$ 0f tllc E 11itcb 6tatc$ " * ' .0L. 'i . i . n*OIT,'i

' ",,3_'. 'f,

,, ,',* ", ,* ",' '

...

" ' u vc0' c" '*  %)0ust Of Erpresentatibes

""Maf. "" Niashington, IDC 20515

'0"c"o "OU*iNel* March 3, 1988

Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman

ll . S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission

1717 H Street N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Chairman Zech:

I have received your letter of March 2, 1988 in response to

the report I released on January 28, 1988 regarding allegations of

drug and alcohol abuse during the construction of the Seabrook

nuclear power plant.

I was deeply trcubled by the lack of any specific reference

whatsoever in your letter to the details of that repott.

Moreover, the Commission's and staff's apparent ignorance about

the report's contents was underscored during your appearance today

before the House Intetior and Insular Affairs Committee,

Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment. Neither you nor the

NRC's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation demonstrated any

awareness of important allegations contained in that report --

for example, that the company reportedly responsible for testing

the concrete at Seabrook was dismissed because of the number of

times drugs and alcohol were found at their on-site facilities.

(See the affidavit of Mr. Peter McKinnon, appended as an

- attachment to the report.)

I include as an attachment to this letter a sworn affidavit I

obtained from the former Assistant Director of Construction at

Seabrook which supports Mr. McKinnon's allegation that the

concrete testing company was dismissed for reasons related to

drugs and alcohol. In addition, this new affidavit indicates that

even though the Assistant Director of Construction believes he

ordinarily would have been informed about drug and alcohol

discoveries on-site, he had been told nothing about the discovery

of $10,000 worth of cocaine inside the protected area in a

three-day period in June 1986. I fail to understand why I should

be able to obtain such information so easily while the NRC remains

in the dark, particularly af ter the Commission and its huge staf f

have had more,than a month to examine my report of January 28th.

,

-

--

-aq,,

-- --

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

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Page 2

March 3, 1988

The Commission's bland assurances which say essentially that

"Seabrook is safe, no matter what" reflect little awareness of the

detailed allegations that have been mtde about drug and alcohol

use during construction, and indicate no effort on the part of the

Commission staff to determine whether such incidents may have

compromised the safety of the plant. For instance, your

assertions that "no new technical issues concerning the

construction of the Seabrook plant have been identified" and that

"the 4dequacy of the plant physical construction has'been verified

through...the licensee's approved and detailed construction and

testing program" (emphasis added) ring particularly hollow in

light of the NRC's ignorance of the allegations regarding the

concrete testing company. If the concrete testing program at

seabrook was compromised by drugs and alcohol, how can the NRC be

certain that essential systems and components are indeed safe?

In addition, I cannot understand why the Commission has not

investigated the issue of whether the licensee failed to comply

with Part 21 of the Commission's regulations in not reporting

either the alleged problem with the concrete testing company or

the discovery of roughly 100 grams of cocaine on-site in June

1986. It also appears to me that the dismissal of the concrete

testing company should raise the most serious questions about the

adequacy of the Quality Assurance and Quality control programs.

Moreover, if you add to this list the other allegations in the

report, the company's attempt to withhold information from

Congress, and the failure to inform the NRC about at least 561

drug and alcohol incidents during 1982-1987 and almost 300

terminations in the same period, I cannot comprehend why the NRC

has not raised the issue of' management competence and integrity.

Is this really the kind of "performance to date (which) indicates

that utility management would operate the plant in a responsible

manner should they be granted a license to do so"?

I hape the Commission will investigate these matters

thoroughly and provide me with a complete report on the outcome of !

those investigations. And I continue to believe that only an I

independent, comprehensive, and thorough investigation will answer

the question of whether or not the plant's construction has been

compromised.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey i

Member of Congres s '

l

4

1

1

.

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, J r .

Page 3

March 3, 1988

cc: The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

The Honorable Philip'R. Sharp,-Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Power

.

.

.

AFFIDAVIT

I, JOHN POWELL, being first duly sworn, depose and say the

following:

1. My name is John Powell.

2. I served as Assistant construction Director for the

seabrook nuclear power plant from March 1984 to September 1986.

3. If a substantial arount of a controlled substance or

alcohol were found on the site, I ordinarily would have been

contacted and would have been informed. l

l

l

l

4. On rebruary 25, 1988 I was told for the first time that '

approximately 100 grams of cocaine, with an estimated street value

of $10,000, had been found inside the protected area at Seabrook

within a three-day period in June, 1986. I was never informed of

these cocaine discoveries during the time I served at the site.

i

In December,1985, Peter McKinnon and I found marijuana

'

5.

ot the on-site f acilities of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, the

company charged with inspection and quality assurance testing of

the concrete poured at seabrook. I was aware that Peter McKinnon

had previously found evidence of drug and alcohol use at their

f acilities, even though I had not personally been involved in

.

I J

hWM .

O

_ _"$%0

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . __ _

.____ _____ . _ _ _ . - - - _ - . _ _ _ . , , _ _ _ _

__ __

. _ , . . _ . .

g o*3 3 0 e e 'r.0. **

.

l

_2

t

ihose discoveries.

l

6. As a consequence of the December 1985 marijuant.

discovery, I

recommended to the Director of construction that  !

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories be discharged, and within a few

days the company was dismissed f rom further work at the site.

1

7. I

had assumed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1

'

(NRC) would be informed of this action. However, I am not aware

i

whether the NRC was ever informed of the f act that Pittsburgh

Testing Laboratories had been discharged f rom the site because of

l

the discovery of marijuana at their facilities. l

I

x [m e

sl J03R"76 HELL

~

Dated: ffS. 2& NN _

1988,

Personally appeared before me this __ .2d, day of j z/ .

JOHN POWELL, who acknowledged the above and foregoing f acts

,

and statement to be true and correct to the best of his belief and

knowledge.

, __

No ry Public/ Justice of the Fetce

My Commission Expires:

N tif

Vy c-ut!vc:f W:h!I

[gt.xcf4rd

WhEItlillb3.

.. ._ _. .

-. . _ .