ML20154C940
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8805180384 | |
| Download: ML20154C940 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000443/1986052
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - ._
j?
UNITED STATES
p ';j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
g
J
REGION I
y
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
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
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
'
_ _ _ . _ .
.
_ . _
_ _ . . _ _ _ - . , _ _ - , . .
. . - , _ .
.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ - _
. - - .
.
. .
.
.
'
'
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
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
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
Seabrook.
Include in this answer, a chronologv of the relevant
notifications / communications
made
and
indicate
to
whom
the
4
notifications / communications were provided.
. _ _
- _ .
_
.
.
..
.
"" *;l= :L,e-lll r'"
tov as. wun
-
,,,,,,,,. ...
,,....c..u...n,
,,.....e
v...
' " 3_'. 'f, ',* ", ,* ",' ' C0ligrt$$ 0f tllc E 11itcb 6tatc$
" * ' .0L. 'i . i . n*OIT,'
. . .
" ' 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.
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
independent, comprehensive, and thorough investigation will answer
the question of whether or not the plant's construction has been
compromised.
Sincerely,
Edward J.
Markey
Member of Congres s
'
4
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
.
.
.
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
4.
On rebruary 25, 1988 I was told for the first time that
'
approximately 100 grams of cocaine, with an estimated street value
of $10,000, had been found inside the protected area at Seabrook
within a three-day period in June, 1986.
I was never informed of
these cocaine discoveries during the time I served at the site.
5.
In December,1985, Peter McKinnon and I found marijuana
'
ot the on-site f acilities of Pittsburgh Testing Laboratories, the
company charged with inspection and quality assurance testing of
the concrete poured at seabrook.
I was aware that Peter McKinnon
had previously found evidence of drug and alcohol use at their
f acilities, even though I had not personally been involved in
.
I
J
hWM
.
O
_
"$%0
_
_ _ .
_ _ _ _ .
.
__ _
.____ _____ . _ _ _ . - - - _ - . _ _ _ . , , _ _ _
__ __
_
_
. _ , .
. _ .
.
g o*3 3 0 e e
'r.0.
.
_2
t
ihose discoveries.
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
'
(NRC) would be informed of this action.
However, I am not aware
whether the NRC was ever informed of the f act that Pittsburgh
i
Testing Laboratories had been discharged f rom the site because of
the discovery of marijuana at their facilities.
[m
e
x
sl J03R"76 HELL
~
Dated:
ffS. 2& NN
_
Personally appeared before me this __ .2d,
day of j z/ .
1988, 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:f W:h!I cf Wh It b3.
c-ut!v [gt.x 4rd E lill
..
._
_.
.
-.
. _ .