ML20212N013

Advises That Dept of Labor Proper Agency for Handling Job Termination Complaint,Per 840419 Telcon & . Requests Any Addl Info Re of Specific Design or Const Deficiences Related to Alcohol & Drug Situation

ML20212N013
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/04/1984
From:	Gallo R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20212M723	List: ML20212M721 ML20212M833 ML20212M895 ML20212M947 ML20212N013
References
NUDOCS 8701300316
Download: ML20212N013 (1)

Text

_ _ _.

1 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-86-1281 LOGGING DATE: Dec 10 86 ACTION OFFICE: EDO AUTHOR: E.J. Markey AFFILIATION: U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 4

LETTER DATE: Dec 8 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Seabrook

SUBJECT:

NRC's investigation of allegations of drug and alchol problems at seabrook ACTION: Signature of Chm & Comm Review DISTRIBUTION: RF, Cars, Sacy, OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:

DATE DUE: Dec 10 86

,~

SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

Ee:'d Off ED0 hse l > ~ ll - S lo i

Ti; :, _ /.f 0 #

r i

1 i

l I

i 87013 0316 840 j

i PDR E.0 R5tG %D t h uthP

i *

, ,,ou, o.,,cTOI ,,o ,

c.,u.m c, - aa= =aa 87 Y A., LG omo "l'0"c.1"L U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES llc*M:1".L"o',g j E", .' E[1l0 M','T,#.'*.w'Eo",. SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION i

EZ'.',5".7.%ll*.o,. 8"*"*'

AND POWER gg,,gu. memo ^" OF THE u c . .,o , COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC 20515 December 8, 1986 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

l Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman

. I have received the Commission's letter of November 24, 1986, signed by Acting Chairman Asselstine, which responded to my letter of October 28, 1986. My letter requested that the NRC investigate allegations of alcohol and drug abuse during the construction of I the plant.

According to the Commission's letter, the NRC conducted an inspection of Seabrook f rom November 3 to 14,1986, and "the NRC j will determine if additional actions are necessary."

I am frankly upset by the cavalier attitude towards alcohol and drug abuse that the Commission's letter reflects. It is apparent that your current " investigation" as well as past

- " investigations" of alcohol and drug abuse allegations have been little more than window dressing.

Let me first focus on the Commission's recent " investigation" of drug and alcohol abuse. The commission states the. "NRC staf f's review indicates that alleged extent of drug and alcohol abuse at 1 Seabrook is not substantially different from other nuclear construction sites throughout the country with comprehensive drug and alcohol abuse programs." This statement is indeed

! frightening, since the alleced extent of drug and alcohol abuse 2

has been as high as half of the workforce.

i

^

However, what is disturbing is the lack of any investigation of the issue. According to attachments to the Commission's 1etter, " Initial indications are that the drug and alcohol allegations are too broad to permit an evaluation of specific safety impact during the construction of Seabrook." It appears that the staff, therefore, did no further investigation.

Among the actions it appears the staff failed to do was to seek out workers to discuss work conditions, to review incident reports of drug and alcohol use, or to review personnel actions related to drug and alcohol violations. In fact, there is no

record of any effort to get a clear picture of the situation.

M $ ~

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

Page 2 December 8, 1986 Instead, it appears that the Commission Staff, having read several anonymous affidavits provided to the Employee's Legal l Project, determined that the allegations were not specific, and chose not to conduct an investigation. I find it ironic that the ,

staff was willing to spend $245,000 on a study to consider a '

reduction in the Emergency Planning Zone for a Seabrook, but has devoted virtually no effort to reviewing these serious allegations of alcohol and drug abuse.

Actually, the lack of effort is not surprising in light of previous " investigations" documented in your letter. Let me discuss two examples. In one case, the NRC received an anonymous letter on December 7, 1982, relating to drug abuse (See Attachment 1). According to a memo to the file by A.C. Cerne, Senior Resident Inspector, " Based upon the lack of specific details and lack of any allegation of improper work, the SRI recommends no further NRC inspection and investigative effort." In other words, there was no investigation of the allegations in the letter. (See Attachment 2)

In another case, an employee alleged that he was terminated because he brought evidence of alcohol and drug abuse to the attention of project management and proper authorities (See Attachment 3). Once again, staff did nothing to investigate allegations. Instead, the employee was sent a letter by Robert M.

Gallo of the NRC telling him that the Department of Labor was the proper agency for handling the job termination complaint, and that he had "not provided us with information suggesting any programmatic or hardware deficiencies." The letter continued, "If ,

you are aware of any specific design or construction deficiencies, please provide that additional information at your earliest convenience." (See Attachment 4). In other words, the Staff was saying, "We don't care about drug and alcohol abuse on the job, unless you provide us details on specific design or construction deficiencies."

The only action of the staff on this matter was to contact the utility. The staff was told by the utility that "the alleger is a reformed alcohol and drug abuser who during the past two years has made numerous accusations concerning drug and alcohol use to the utility, none of which has been substantiated." The staff apparently took the utility's word for it, and recommended "no further action" (See Attachment 5).

These examples indicate an attitude of indifference by the Commission and staff towards alcohol and drug abuse at nuclear power plants. Allegers were told that their concerns about alcohol and drugs were unimportant unless backed up by " specific design or construction deficiencies." The utility was asked to investigate itself, and not surprisingly returned with potentially slanderous, self-serving stories. It is little wonder that employees are reluctant to relate such allegations to the Commission.

---

vnn,- - - , - - - - . - ~ ~ - - .m,--~v wwe me. re-, ,w~w-ese,.--s .www- = s--

The Hon 3rtble Lands W. Zech, Jr.

Page 3 December 8,1986 The attachments to the Commission's letter also raise other questions concerning possible discrepancies in statements made to the Commission in March,1983, and statements made to the Subcommittee. For example, PSNH told the NRC that "approximately 52 contractor employees" had been terminated for drug or alcohol use. However, in a letter to the Subcommittee, dated November 14, 1986, PSNH stated that 117 employees were terminated through 1983 for drug or alcohol abuse, suggesting that either 65 employees were terminated in the last 9 months of 1983, or the utility misinformed the NRC.

The NRC also asked the utility in March, 1983, "Have you had any legal problems with any detection method?" The utility responded, "None with regard to the dogs." However, in its letter to the Subcommittee, the utility stated, "The project was notified by law enforcement officials that prosecution would not be instituted because of evidentiary problems," and enclosed a letter from the Seabrook police chief, dated February 15, 1983, expressing legal concerns with the use of dogs.

The Commission has apparently treated allegations of alcohol and drug abuse, both past and present, with institutional blinders. It has told informants that without examples of specific construction deficiencies, it will not investigate the charges.

The problem with the Commission's approach is twofold.

First, allegations of widespread substance abuse suggest an environment that may have created construction deficiencies. It

. is not for the informant to prove such deficiencies with particularity. It is the for the Commission to investigate, particularly since it relies so heavily upon a paper trail of quality inspections, which may be suspect.

By forcing allegers to bear the almost impossible burden of proving, expecially after construction has been substantially completed, nexus between specific instances of drug or alcohol abuse and deficient construction, the Commission turns the Atomic Energy Act on its head. Conf ronted with allegations of rampant drug or alcohol abuse, it is the NRC's responsibility to find that such alleged abuse does not preclude the NRC f rom making the requisite licensing findings. That requires real investigation.

Second, the allegations of alcohol and drug abuse raise serious concerns about the quality of manaaement. Such allegations, if true, suggest that management has created a poor environment for workers that would permit such activities.

Questions arise over their ability to manage a project as sensitive as a nuclear power plant.

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

The Honorable LEndo W. Zach, Jr. I j Page 4

December 8,1986 A January 10, 1984 memo by Thomas Murley, NRC Region I Administrator, states "In all but one case the utilities stated that they did not want NRC to implement regulations to deal-with '

drugs, alcohol, or fitness for duty. Regulation in this area was

viewed as unnecessary and detrimental to morale." The Commission 4

appears to have bought this line, because it chose not to issue the regulations, at the request of industry.

j I view the problem quite differently. Regulations concerning drug and alcohol use and fitness for duty are needed to protect the public health and safety. They are not detrimental to morale.

i To the contrary, a workplace where management f ails to take proper j steps to limit abuse is detrimental to morale. According to i

employees interviewed by Subcommittee staff, morale was low at i Seabrook due to a variety of management practices, including a

lack of concern over drug and alcohol use.

1 Our nation is developing a heightened awareness of drug and i alcohol abuse and its implications. It is time for the Commission to recognize its own responsibilities. It can begin by announcing a new policy that will encourage people to come forward with e allegations with the assurance that they will be aggressively I investigated. The Commission should not approach its task through the narrow blinders of investigating only allegations that are

tied to specific construction deficiencies. Nor should it ,

approach the task as punitive towards workers. It should view the problem as a f ailure shared by management, that can lead to severe safety implications.

f-j The NRC can begin to restore confidence in its willingness to investigate these matters by conducting a thorough investigation i at Seabrook. We have found that with little effort, employees have been forthcoming when they believe allegations will be investigated and not swept under the rug.

i The NRC should review incident reports to get a sense of what the security force was detecting. Most importantly, the NRC l should review whether management has been handling the matter properly. The Subcommittee has so far been refused access to incident reports. The utility has refused to answer questions as /

to whether drugs found onsite were ever illegally destroyed l onsite, rather than turned over to police. Until these fundamental issues, relating both to the safety of the plant construction and the integrity of the project management are

! resolved, it is imperative that the Commission stay the determination of whether to issue a low-power license to the l plant.

l 1

l l

l

Th9 Honorable Lcndo W. Zech, Jr.

Page 5 December 8, 1986 We would appreciate a briefing f rom the Commission concerning its " investigation" at Seabrook of alcohol and drug abuse, since you provided no documentation of any investigation. Please also inform the Subcommittee by December 12, 1986, what steps you intend to take to resolve these issues, allegations, and discrepancies discussed above prior to any action on a low-power license.

Sincerely, Edward J. Markey(W Chairman Enclosures (as stated) o l

l l

' ~ ~

U Attadmnt 1 ,

k /6 #

- I I

T.__weaM_.bke _Eo__poid__ou.f-

-Alt-.S khn T*

_ sme_& %, A h6 is__.o.C__cencevn % we. .

__xaIo=.__my_jok' a+~

S: _&oog tw4 cmh4 w.e.ekiev.s -

ejyd- J _it h fv.tisA, wk.o.S.hJ . . . . . _ . . .

h.U bM_e.m- s <

____ble Ly a pvoMmo., + 6 _)%.b y ,.. . . . . . . .

pre v adhk bo_ ,tyle n b . .a b A d b _. M V% oy-e -

3

_W_%'d W D.V .'d. M _E %

N t"$A I. ~.rr . .

b19_b k'; sde P. -

b3 hi e$ - s 2_bm_

Neue u)_f.a t ~2.

b . . . . g :_ .g ,~s. ir r a ! b_ b e. y_t'*

b d._ y O-rp Vc.Ne w tdIh 4a.47... . .....c .. xwe.m.a,y. .:. .. . . .

' ""~

b NM' ib5

• O D jl 'ibs d d T cd. w.

b ' M. . ,.e .

d M ez .~ .. ..gy=-- -b.1[. . . v.dn'- e. . . .,........ '

.S ..

cdv.aw[mtocl , .. . . ,,. . w c. 3 >u. w3.s -

e W

"gt,f,,,-...,v.kekpb".,."v*

^

C W Mi

' .. ~'

b_% $_ _ _tt%

1 C_tS.k . ~;- W.y .r.u.w,,-

.2.- s, ac- .

.g.a.T.%,

s . 1p.JR.d. 2 .,.

w as. ,. v._,.

_.., .-Lei,h'_,,_.lb.t h.ht_si~#tu 1 -*;Q _ d

, ~ < .c . . . :.~; t;,_%u. ,;,

T .yy:. ww-r:w.m n.;-7.. R . .,_.- . . .

ts ko . , .

. . .>... U~.s. ==1;Iy'

. . w. .,, , .,13.

,w -

acx~ .

. xn-f .

.n-.,.,- . .....

___J.e - h. _s. -

nuw. k...y.= .N 7m' yp%c.ne_mo_h.v_m.

~

_o ..

/M e_.___pfay_k E ..

, . . _: ~ . .. -

w e.lA m. ,M

.. p:licua.Ch._% -:: . . .s.. . .. W ...

'm..uq.s.. . #_ p .: .= '/.:

u.,i.hk__ecamv .,..., . .

i

'_C' E 9.e 6 oa ef" M,uA ' p__L1= ~ _.c =. A.vc.9y_3=.A T' cl..A iF. . . . . : .s . L. J A @ ,... ,.% G w .M.s.

=a F a

.ll b F f clo +LT k. .

.s M( Y. .. m

-NN

bisW sEv_aQtl% ov_h_l .e._bM 'hk'e IS M w .1 ,.

-L _v_im s

.du.f__bo_.0; s M s,o. % u E e,____c Ir.e_

SlLf . .ay- ' ' '

A ._ m i_k____t4 .'I3 c h

_. a_p , e .

. t_ctu_ , -

l.3s.N_.d .

t

. i.

a i _ .

I

• I "* ,

c-i

.. .. ;p. .T:{ *,... .. .. .

.... ;j. .

[*%

iV c.

Attachment 2 UfdlTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

b. REGIOfJ l l'0k.gk,[I NhA $31 PARK AVENUE MING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19406

% a'.'d p

..+g December 10,1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: File THRU: R. M. Gallo, Chief, RPSIA.DPRP E. G. Greenman, Chief, RPB1, DPRP FROM: A. C. Cerne, Sr. Resident Inspector, Seabrook

SUBJECT:

ANONYMOUS DRUG CONCERNS On December 7,1982, Mr. J. Singleton (YAEC Field QA Manager at Seabrook) showed the SRI a copy of an anonymous letter (attached) expressing concerns over drug use (eg: apparentlymarijuana)atSeabrook. Mr. Singleton informed the SRI that certain actions were being taken by PSNH construction management personnel and that these actions were being handled confidentially.

As background information, NRC inspection report 443 & 444/80-01 documents preliminary inquiries in early 1980 by Mr. Cerne and a Region I investigator into indictments at Seabrook which were the culmination of an undercover drug investigation initiated by the licensee. A copy of this IR was sent to the office of the Governor of New Hampshire on March 11,1980(see attachment 2)~. More recently, as part of an FOIA request (82-524) from the Assistant Attorney General from New Hampshire, documents were requested which " relate to an assessment, evaluation or review of the adverse effect of alcohol and drug use within the work force at the Seabrook facility on the quality of design and construction".

The SRI discussed the attached letter and concerns with R. K. Christopher, OIPFO. Based upon the lack of specific details and lack of any allegation of improper work, the SRI recomends no further NRC inspection and inves-tigative effort. However, based upon the precedent set by the earlier NRC inquiry and recent F0IA interest, the SRI deems it important for regional management to decide any future course of action with an understanding that the State of N.H. is an intervenor in the Seabrook licensing proceedings and that concern over drug use at Seabrook has the potential to become once

again a highly visible and public issue.

Antone C. Cerne ,

SRI, Seabrook 2 attachments: as stated cc: R. K. Christopher, Ir.vestigator, OIPF0

n-

5- Attachment 3 April 18, 1984 1 .

• Mr. Joseph Moriarty .

Business Agent -

) Construction & General Laborers Union Local 976

+ Portsmouth, N.H. 03801

Dear Mr. Moriarty; ,

f I wish to file a grievance against Perini Power Constructors Inc., for unlawfully discharging me on April, 17, 1984, for Project Rule #6, and also breech of contract that guaranteed me six months of steady employment with no lay-offs; I only worked three months i

on this contract before I was terminated.

The reason Joe McGonagle terminated me on April 17, 1984, was because I made contact with the Vice-president of the Public Service Company of N.H. , William Derrickson, who is in c.harge of the Seabrook Project. I saw Mr. Derrickson for the first time, March 19, 1984, at '

I the legislative a Public officeCommission Utilities building in Concord, meetingN.H.that

,d on the Seabrookas I was attending focuse Nuclear Power Plant and Public Services ability to pay for the project.

At intermission, March 19, 1984, I introduced myself to Mr. Derrickson 1 and told him I was a laborer working for Perini and that-I was trying to crack down on the drug & alcohol abuse at the job site, i

Mr. Derrickson was.very interested on what I was doing to crack down

! on the problem and he asked me to contact him at the site at any time, and'he gave me his extension phone #4400 at the Seabrook Nuclear l

- Power Plant or to contact him at the Public Service Company of j N.R. office, as he said he was most . interested in helping me deal with the issue. He wanted me to set up a meeting with him so he could go over it in great detail. .

Last week, I finally got hold of Mr. Derrickson on the ph'one, and he scheduled an appointment for Tuesday, April 17,1984 at 5 :00P.M.

I sc the Public Service Company of N.H. office on the 19th floor in ,

l Manchester, N.H. ,

! On Honday, April 16, 1984, I was called into Joe McGonagle's office and Mr. McGonagle questioned me about a couple of phone calls I was making on the Job site. I told him I called Mr. Derrickson, Public Service Company of N.H. and Dick Strome, Director of Civil Defense for the State of New. Hampshire and who works for Governor Sununu.

Mr. McGonagle was intidnidating me and belittling me, because of the actions I took calling these people. He felt I went against my

/ contract by going over his head in the Perini Corp. , but I stated to him and Roy Capra, who is head of the supervisors for Perint Power Constructors Inc. , that I exhausted the chain of command for Perini by coming to him several times since my return back to work on January 16, 1984, for several alcohol and drugI complaints was constantly that was

- gding on in my work area at the pump house. .

frustrated through the acts of the Perini Corp., condoning the alcohol

' in the pump

. - and drug problem at the Seabrook I had no alternative but to go to the Station, especially'new kid on the house area.

block", William Derrickson, who just started working at the site for

~

,-%-, ,- w _ ._ _

..~' -

Public Service Company of N.H. . 'I had Mr. Derrickson's permission to seek his wisdom and possible solutions to minimize this problem, and I also had approval and guidance from covernor Sununu's legal advisor, Steve Merrill, to go ahead and sit down with Mr.

• Derrickson and have this meeting.

Because of this, I feel I did not go against the Project Rule #6, nor did I breech my end of the contract by going to Mr. Derrickson after exhausting the chain of command, from my fore, man on the field, all the way to the project manager, Bill Dileo at Perini Power Constructors.

I honestly feel I was most patient and sincere with the Perini people but they were unwilling to help me in trying to minimize the alcohol and drug problems at Seabrook Station. Consequently, I feel I kept my end of the bargain and Perini failed to. .

I would wish the powers to be to reinstate me at the job site since I did not violate any Project Rules nor my contractual agreement with Perini. I suffered enough physical and mental abuse on the job site since.1 have been back there. I should not have to.take a

• financial set back because of Perini's negligence.and insensitivity,

• to myself, my family, but most of all, Seabrook Station.

Sincerely, 6

cc: Joseph McGonagle, Labor Relations Director for Perini Governor John Sununu Attorney Eugene Vantoan III Secretary Raymond Donovan, U.S. Labor Departmen.t Commissioner Vance Kelly, N.H. Labor Department William Borchardt, Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\

s e

. J. . .'i. .e i .. , .. . . .;;.. .. ..1

,.e..e ..

h,,e.AlIXi.0.,0WtA

,e.... iv C. st.,e : r, N..?2.2te*%.+R'.s.I!uc:.

.,G...e

e. ;ap : . .3R s > . oc A N_nc.jzen

' o.av.s.mt. is .eet C ty 5' ate lir ,

90 rue.A_.R.?.an.c., S e , s poo p, 19,l

i. L i ~ et

,n..:.e...es. b:L e.0. . . . . . .1N 7 4- 9na I -- En.

. .).

f,08 S t.9uc + lc N ~

3 .:. : Ces:'# ca. Dr.:'.ee t**N, Ine naia'oi, an . ,i vow tee.* e..st tr<s o*

u tN. ao.m c. Aa. evrw, o, ..v:,eet eerseg ,o o, en,e.tened py e * =a:. 2 V  %/( __

.a 9 .& waka .erp.Arw xAm  % ru n a ea 4 xa syp,wa . p% .m

..s,w _

. tim & Go 0 . P~hmLa t~o,rA 41_

.- #' dM3 Off (r

on.11% .s& P~hn, , o.,1 ciir4a y v'n of ak.4y% ym.u .kr cr1 s.,-

M ed. JaaAL P w e 'J%,(enn k.,Y a ba% on..b e Bs cdeAl ml J p A~t &ue .syuAA , ~m w ado.,nu .

. cn .zAe, 4. 4% . p6a CN , MMO/ O M 6 . e ,_ J ,,z G,2 m& ul MLLy D cwac%< 3-p 6) pp . ,.,m Aw:uay si bs os  % s. ~D (c<W,x n p ;> m l bome 9.) 6 d Odvn<al Z D (nau n.:1 OkGnbc.u Otn on 3c)d f,k1 uti ..Lu<A n.s f%d 6%: ,n.c M~v , /o) 4<eae.wl t w sA a.wa y h g ;g 2

.& h M y. n , tu A .p .s.4,~J.s u ja L. 0%3e c.+ QaL{+N~, , ,,,fe,e.

. . ,. n . . . . , . , ,4 . < ,, . . . . n .. . . . . e lx b.uk

..... e.. .,wreo A 6 8 ,w -t- H e t. a n

• ( e + m.wus.xvur e ".

gl ...$ . A% Y .9 f<

7 doeb n o at aL% .Wmoh TA2 JL7J.o cza[ gp/lo, 6 0c cd.

Pl'A/A"F2<M.2d jm 1t.u n a s) Af-d'2 % .&.A u.... x,~.~..

\ .... . .

4d . Ye ./ Y ,

.  ? -

.p ce:

UNITED STATES 8 , c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

eI REGION 1

% S31 PARK AVENUE

%, KING OF PRUSSIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19404 NAY 0 91984 Mr.

Subject:

Drug and Alcohol Use at Seabrook Station This refers to your telephone conversation with Mr. Borchardt of this office on April 19, 1984 and to your letter with enclosures dated April 18, 1984, in which you expressed concerns related to the alcohol and drug situation at Seabrook Station and to the circumstances surrounding your termination.

We have reviewed the information which you have provided to us and have deter-mined that the Department of Labor (DOL) is the proper agency for handling your job termination complaint but that you have not provided us with information suggesting any programmatic or hardware deficiencies. A copy of 00L's " Procedures

' for Handling of Discrimination Complaints Under Federal Employee Protection Statutes" is enclosed for your information. We welcome any specific details which would help us discharge our safety responsibilities to the public. If you are aware of any specific design or construction deficiencies, please provide that additional information at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, kA Robert M. Gallo, Chief Reactor Projects Section 2A, Division of Project and Resident Programs

Enclosure:

As Stated:

cc:

Department of Labor, Manchester, N.H.

I gqBW ~

o

, Attachment 4 MAYt 1 %

Docket No. 50-443 MEMORANDUM FOR: Donald R. Haverkamp, Acting Allegation Office Coordinator FROM: Robert M. Gallo, Chief, Reactor Projects Section 2A, DPRP

SUBJECT:

ALLEGATION RI-84-A-0059 AT SEABROOK 1 - ALCOHOL / DRUG USE HAS CAUSED SH0DDY WORKMANSHIP: ALLEGER FIRED FOR " BLOWING THE WHISTLE" On April 19, 1984 a Region Based Inspector received a phone call and subsequently a letter dated April 18, 1984 from a former Perini Power Constructors employee alleging that alcohol and drug use at Seabrook Station 1

has caused shoddy workmanship. He also alleged that he was fired for blowing the whistle on the alcohol and drug situation.

In our letter to the alleger we referred him to DOL for the possible discrimination issue, and also informed him that he did not provide us with any technical or programmatic concerns. We asked that he contact us if he had any more information. We have not received any more inforr.ia. ion from the alleger.

Based on previous NRC inspections, the Senior Resident Inspector's evaluation is that the licensee's drug and alcohei control program is well implemented and that the numerous levels of QC review adequately ensure proper safety related work. On May 5, 1984, R. Borchardt cortacted the PSNH drug and alcohol investi-gator (Tom Sherry 617-872-8100) to notify the licensee of the allegation and to identify the NRC's concern on the general issue. Mr. Sherry stated that he was aware of this specific allegation and quite familiar with the alleger. According to Mr. Sherry, the alleger is a reformed alcohol and drug abuser who during the past two years has made numerous accusations concerning drug and alcohol use to the utility, none of which have been substantiated. Mr. Sherry is in charge of a group, which functions to identify drug and alcohol abuse problems on site so that appropriate actions can be taken. He stated that he is available for further contact if desired.

l The Division of Project and Resident Programs plans no further action on this allegation and considers the case closed.

8 <

Robert M. Gallo, C ief Reactor Projects Section 2A, DPRP l cc:

R. Borchardt A. Cerne D. Haverkamp Allegation File RI-84-A-0059 (Concurrence Copy)

- - ad pporr ~

-. -_-_ - _ ___.