ML20214P853

Responds to Re Allegations Concerning Drug & Alcohol Abuse at Facility.Names & Case Studies of Alleged Violators Forwarded Under Separate Cover.No Instances of Adverse Impact on Safety or Quality of Const Substantiated

ML20214P853
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/24/1986
From:	Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
Shared Package
ML20214P856	List: ML20214P853 ML20214P872
References
NUDOCS 8612040402
Download: ML20214P853 (13)

Text

iP-

.1

1. UNITED STATES ef o Y

!" o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

{ 3 $

%*...*j CHAIRMAN November 24, 1986 The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Comn.erce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This responds to your letter dated October 28, 1986 regarding recent allegations received by the Subcommittee concerning drug and alcohol abuse at the Seabrook construction site. As requested, we are providing answers to the questions forwarded -

by the Subcommittee. It would be helpful if you would provide the NRC with the specific allegations you received so we may conduct a review in parallel with the Subcommittee's investigative efforts. You also requested the identities of alleged violators. So as not to unnecessarily reveal the identities of these individuals, their names and the associated case studies are being forwarded under separate cover.

Recently NRC Region I received a number of allegations relating to Seabrook from the Employee's Legal Project of Amesbury, Massachusetts. These allegations related to certain construction and quality activities and included allegations of drug and alcohol abuse. To evaluate the potential impact of these on safety-related systems at Seabrook, NRC Region I conducted a special team inspection at Seabrook from November 3-14, 1986. Based on the results of this inspection, the NRC will determine if additional actions are necessary.

The NRC staff's review indicates that the alleged extent of drug and alcohol abuse at Seabrook is not substantially different from other nuclear construction sites throughout the country with comprehensive drug and alcohol abuse programs. Special programs employed at Seabrook such as the use of drug-detecting dogs, random searches of vehicles and packages, and the use of undercover agents are considered to provida a substantial deterrent to drug and alcohol abuse. At the same time, the implementation of such special programs probably results in the identification of a greater number of cases of abuse at sites with such programs than these identified at sites not having such programs, althouah the NRC does not have detailed data for comparison.

l 8612040402 861124 PDR Abou; c600644 U PDR.

I 4

w The responses to your Subcommittee's questions address the alleged drug and alcohol problems identified to the NRC during the construction of Seabrook. Based on the NRC staff's assessment of these cases, no instances of adverse impact on safety or quality of plant construction have been substantiated.

Sincerely, y/{ /

e'bamesK.Asselstine Acting Chairman

Enclosure:

As Stated ,

cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead l

l

l l

l y

I ATTACHMENT RESPONSE TO SUBCOMMITTE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER INOUIRY OF OCTOBER 28, 1986 QUESTION 1: What information has the NRC received, either directly or through NRC Region I, resident inspectors, the applicant, or employees, related to the on- or offsite use of illegal drugs and alcohol by construction workers, quality assurance personnel, or other em-

.ployees during the construction of the Seabrook nuclear power plant?

ANSWER:

The information received by the NRC related to the on- or offsite use of illegal drugs during the construction of the Seabrook nuclear power plant is described on a case basis in the chronology provided in response to question number 2.

QUESTION 2: Please provide a chronology of all reports or allegations received by the NRC of drug or alcohol use by any Seabrook site workers since the issuance of the construction permit. This chronology should include the date and source of the report, the identity and position of the alleged violator, a brief description of the allegations against the violator, and a brief description of the action taken by the NRC and the applicant. [The Subcommittee will protect the identity.oftheviolators.]

ANSWER:

Nine cases of drug or alcohol related allegations were reported to the NRC during the construction of Seabrook. A chronology of those cases is provided below, with the requested information.

l Case 1: Drug Indictments of Seabrook Construction Workers l

l Date: January 11, 1980

Source

Dayton Duncan (Office of Governor Gallen of New Hampshire) l l Identity and Positicn i of Alleged Violators: Laborer Carpenter Laborer Laborer I Carpenter

4 lV 2

Laborer

' Carpenter Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer Laborer

Description:

An undercover drug investigation initiated by the licensee culminated in the arrest of twelve workers for drug trafficking believed to have taken place, in all but one sale, in the site parking lot as employees departed work.

Action: -

Licensee: Employment of the subject employees was terminated. Licensee under-cover investigation revealed drug trafficking on site, but not evidence of actual drug use on site.

NRC: An inquiry in the drug indictments was conducted by Region I and documented in Inspection Report 50-443/80-01. An NRC investigator reviewed the licensee undercover operation and reported that the undercover agent did not observe any poor or unsafe construction work. An NRC inspector reviewed the type of work performed by the subject individuals and found no unsupervised, direct safety-related assignments, and no specific problems with work performance.

Case 2: Anonymous Drug Concerns Date: December 7, 1982 Source: Anonymous letter provided by Mr. J. Singleton, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) Field QA Manager at Seabrook Identity and Position of Alleged Violators: Nonspecific statement " welders, QA people, craftsmen."

Identities unknown.

Description:

Anonymous letter to Mr. Singleton alleged non-specific marijuana use by employees in their cars in parking lot.

Action:

Licensee: The licensee indicated to the NRC the following action was continu-ing to address these types of concerns:

(1) A drug dog was being used on site 2 to 3 times per week.

(2) Two undercover agents were currently employed at the site.

l l

k[

3 (3) Approximately 38 employee terminations for drug possession had been made during the past three months.

NRC: The senior resident inspector confirmed licensee actions through contacts with the licensee manager in charge of the drug investiga-tions.

Case 3: Alleged Drug Abuse by NDE Technician Date: May 23, 1983 Source: Anonymous allegation to the Pullman-Higgins Resident Manager which was communicated to the NRC by Mr. G. Mcdonald, Construction QA Manager, YAEC.

Identity and Position -

of Alleged Violator: Pullman-Higgins NDE Technician (Level III)

Description:

Anonymous allegation that the subject NDE technician was a cocaine user and dealer.

Action:

Licensee: Th'e licensee conducted an investigation into this allegation in-cluding interviews with the subject NDE technician, the State police, and the FBI. Their investigation revealed no factual basis for the allegation. The subject individual resigned his position as of June 10, 1983 due to a situation unrelated to this allegation.

NRC: NRC investigator met with Construction QA Manager and Pullman-Higgins Resident Manager to discuss allegation. Follow-up of lic-ensee investigation was documented in Region I allegation close-out

' memorandum dated December 7, 1983.

Case 4: Licensee Request for Assistance in Arbitration Case for Terminated Employee Date: Early June, 1983 Source: Mr. T. Sherry of YAEC contacted the Seabrook Senior Resident Inspector and a PSNH lawyer contacted the NRC Pegion I Counsel by letter.

Identity and Position of Alleged Violator: Identity and position unknown.

Description:

The licensee terminated a worker for alleged possession of marijuana at Seabrook Station. The worker appealed termination.through his union and an arbitrator ruled that he would be reinstated.

p 4

Action:

Licensee: The licensee requested assistance from the NRC to appeal the arbi-trator's ruling. The licensee indicated that the subject worker would not be rehired regardless of the results of any additional appeals.

'NRC: Region I, after reviewing licensee request for assistance, deter-mined that NRC involvment in the legal actions was not warranted.

Case 5: Allegation of Shoddy Workmanship caused by Alcohol and Drug Use at Seabrook.

Date: April 19,1984 _

Source: A Region I inspector was contacted in the Regio..oi office by telephone by a former Perini Power employee.

Identity and Position of Alleged Violator: Not specified.

Description:

Alleger filed grievance against Perini for his discharge claiming he was terminated for whistle blowing on general alcohol and drug use at Seabrook.

Action:

Licensee: NRC contacted the licensee drug and alcohol investigator regarding the stated concerns and was informed that the alleger was a reformed alcohol and drug abuser who during the past two years had made numerous accusations concerning alcohol and drug use, none of which were substantiated.

NRC: Region I referred the alleger to the Department of Labor for com-plaint of discrimination for " whistle blowing." Region I requested specific examples of shoddy workmanship from alleger, but none were received. Region I contacted licensee management to discuss this case, as described above.

Case 6: Press Informed Licensee of Alleged Drug Use by Welder.

Date: February 8, 1985 Source: The NRC Senior Pesident Inspector was verbally informed by S. Sadosky, the Employee Allegation Resolution (EAR) Program Manager.

Identity and Position of Alleged Violator: Welder, t

O V

5

Description:

The licensee EAR program was informed by a reporter (Hampton Union) that the subject worker's girlfriend alleged that he was a drug user.

Action:

Licensee: EAR contact with the worker indicated he had previously used metha-done and valium, but that he was now clean. He agreed to urinalysis and the test results were negative.

NRC: The Senior Resident Inspector reviewed follow-up action with the EAR program manager. The NRC was informed .that subject worker was terminatcd for absenteeism in the Spring 1985.

Case 7: Alleged Narcotics Use/ Sale by Metalweld Employees. ,

Date: October 16, 1985 Source: Region III Investigation and Compliance Specialist, C.Weil, Memorandum to A. Shropshire, Region I Allegation Coordinator l

Identity and Position of Alleged Violators: The individuals were Metalweld, Inc. employees at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant:

Project Manager General Foreman Geneal Foreman General Foreman

Description:

Anonymous caller to NRC Region III alleged that four employees of Metalweld, who had worked at the Perry project, were cocaine and marijuana users and were now employed at Seabrook.

Action:

Licensee: None (licensee was not informed of this allegation).

NRC$ Senior Resident Inspector examined site craft records and found no evidence that the subject employees had been or were then employed at Seabrook. Inspection revealed that the Metalweld coating con-tract, under Northeast-Surfco-Leonard, had been terminated in April 1984. Allegation that the four alleged violators were employed at Seabrook as of October 16, 1985 was not substantiated.

Case 8: Alleged Use of Controlled Substances by Worker.

Date: April 2, 1986 Source: Anonymous phone call to NRC Region I Regional Administrator. f 1

O 6

Identity and Position of Alleged Violator: QC Record Reviewer

Description:

NRC was informed of alleged use and distribution by subject worker at another nuclear site in 1982-84 time frame.

Action:

Licensee: After being contacted by NRC Region I, the licensee reviewed files and found that the subject individual had departed Seabrook on November 8, 1985. He was traced to the Hatch site where he was employed on March 11, 1985 and departed April 2, 1985. Urinalysis conducted at the Hatch site indicated negative results.

NRC: Region I sent a letter to the licensee, dated April 14, 1986, re-questing investigation of alleged drug use by worker. This resulted in the licensee action, as stated above.

Case 9: General Allegations of Drug and Alcohol Use by Seabrook Workers Brought to the Attention of the NRC by the Employee's Legat Project.

Date: September 18, 1986 Source: Employee's Legal Project, Amesbury, Massachusetts.

I Identity and Position of Alleged Violators: Not specified.

~

Description:

Many contacts reported to the Legal Project that on-the-job drug and alcohol abuse was of epidemic proportions. Cocaine was cited as the drug of choice and that people "did it" on the cable trays.

Any kind of drug was alleged to be available at the site. There were no specific allegations that linked the broad allegations of drug and alcohol abuse to any specific safety-related construction or quality activity.

Action:

NRC and Licensee: In a letter dated October 1, 1986, NRC Region I referred 35 Legal Project concerns to Public Service of New Hampshire for evaluation and response. These drug and alcohol allegations were among those items referred. To date, Region I has not received the licensee's response; however, a team of NRC inspectors are reviewing all Legal Project concerns during an on-site inspection conducted November 3 through 14, 1986. Initial indications are that the drug and alcohol allegations are too broad to permit an evaluation of speci-fic safety impact during the construction of Seabrook.

0 7

-The Region I office of the NRC has contacted the Employee's Legal Project on several occasions in an attempt to obtain more detailed information regarding these allegations. In a letter dated Septem-ber 25, 1986, Ms. Sharon Tracy informed Region I that all those who had contacted the Legal Project declined to meet with a representa-tive of the NRC to give any additional information regarding the initial 35 items of concern.

QUESTION 3: Has Public Service of New Hampshire ever advised NRC that the utility believes there is a drug or alcohol use problem at Seabrook?

'If so, please provide a complete description of each instance when PSNH so apprised the NRC, including but not limited to who communi-cated the information, in what form, where meeting held on the sub- '

ject,etc.

ANSWER:

The following cases already described in the response to question 2 represent situations where Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) advised the NRC of poten-tial drug or alcohol use problems at Seabrook.

Case 2: Anonymous Drug Concerns.

Who Communicated to NRC: Mr. J. Singleton, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC)

How Communicated to NRC: On 12/7/82, Mr. Singleton gave a copy of the letter con-taining the allegations to A. Cerne, NRC Senior Resident Inspector.

Meetings Held: Mr. Cerne, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, met on several occasions with Mr. T. Sherry, YAEC to discuss the status of the licensee's investigation.

Case 3: Alleged Drug Abuse by NDE Technician.

Who Communicated to NRC: Mr. G. Mcdonald, YAEC How Comm;nicated to NRC: On 5/23/83, Mr. Mcdonald made a telephone report to Mr. Cerne.

Meetings Held: R. Matakas, NRC Investigator met with Mr. Mcdonald and Mr.

J. Corcoran on 5/23/83. A follow-up telephone conference call between NRC Region I and Messrs. Mcdonald and Sherry occurred on 5/24/83.

Case 4: Licensee Request for Assistance in Arbitration Case for Terminated Employee Who Communicated to NRC: Mr. T. Sherry, YAEC

-e 3

8 How Connunicated to NRC: Mr. Sherry informed Mr. Cerne, NRC Senior Resident In-spector, during a visit to the Resident Office in early June 1983. This was followed with a letter from PSNH legal to the NRC Region I Counsel.

Meetings Held: None.

Case 6: Press Informed Licensee of Alleged Drug Use by Welder.

Who Communicated to NRC: Mr. S. Sadosky, Employee Allegation Resolution (EAR)

Program Manager.

How Communicated to NRC: Mr. Sadosky informed Mr. Cerne, NRC Senior Resident In-spector, during a visit to the Resident Office on 2/8/85. -

Meetings Held: None - Mr. Cerne, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, made a follow-up call to discuss the status of the licensee's investigation.

QUESTION 4:

Has the Commission advised PSNH that there may exist a drug or alcohol use problem at Seabrook? If so, please provide a complete description of each instance when NRC so apprised the applicant, including, but not limited to who communicated the information, in what form, were meetings held on the subject, etc.

ANSWER:

The following cases already described in the response to question 2 represent situations where the NRC advised Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) of poten-tial drug or alcohol use problems at Seabrook.

Case 5: Allegation of Shoddy Workmanship Caused by Alcohol and Drug Use.

Who Communicated to PSNH: Mr. W. Borchardt, Reactor Engineer, NRC Region I.

How Communicated to PSNH: On 5/5/84, Mr. Borchardt contacted Mr. T. Sherry, YAEC via telephone.

Meetings Held: NRC Region I held an Allegation Panel Meeting on 5/2/84.

Case 8: Alleged Use of Controlled Substances by Worker.

Who Communicated to PSNH: Mr. E. Wenzinger, Branch Chief, NRC Region I How Communicated to PSNH: Mr. Wenzinger informed Mr. E. Brown, PSNH during a l telephone conversation on 4/2/86. This was followed by a letter from NRC Region I to PSNH dated 4/14/86.

Meetings Held: NRC Region I held an Allegation Panel Meeting or /2/86.

9 Case 9: General Allegations of Drug and Alcohol Use by Seabrook Workers Brought to the Attention of the NRC.by the Employee's Legal Project.

Who Comunicated to PSNH: Mr. Cerne, NRC Senior Resident Inspector.

How Comunicated to PSNH: Mr. Cerne discussed this case with Mr. S. Sadosky, EAR Program Manager on 9/18/86. The licensee was already aware of the Employee's Legal Project Letter of 9/12/86 to Governor Dukakis, which contained 2 concerns regard-ing drug and alcoilol abuse. NRC Region I requested PSNH to respond to all Legal Project concerns in a letter dated 10/1/86.

Meetings Held: NRC Region I held Allegation Panel Meeting on 9/22/86 regarding all Legal Project concerns. .

QUES TJ N 5: Please provide all documents containing Comission or staff analyses or investigations of the alleged problems of drug and alcohol abuse at Seabrook, including but not limited to internal agency memoranda and reports, correspondence, and notes of all meetings with the applicant, subcontractors, or individual employees concern this subject.

ANSWER:

The documentation associated with the cases described in the answer to question number 2 is attached. The documents are arranged together on a case by case basis.

Also attached is a survey completed by two Region I inspectors in March of 1983 concerning the drug and alcohol program at Seabrook. Similar surveys were com-pleted at all Region I sites, in response to a directive from NRC's Office of Inspection and Enforcement.

QUESTION 6: Has any Seabrook employee impaired by drug or alcohol use ever been suspected of causing or contributing to a problem of significance or potential significance for plant safety? Please describe in l detail the facts of each case and the actions taken by both the t

applicant and the NRC.

ANSWER:

No.

QUESTION 7: How does Seabrook compare with other nuclear power plants in terms of the amount and severity of drug and alcohol use among employees?

Please explain in detail and provide supporting documentation.

e W^

10 ANSWER:'

NRC does not have comprehensive data to compare the amount and severity of drug and alcohol use at Seabrook with other nuclear plants. Furthermore, such data that is available does not indicate that drug and alcohol abuse problems at Seabrook are much different than at other nuclear power plants under construction.

Recognizing that NRC data is not an accurate reflection of alcohol and drug abuse in the nuclear industry (reporting is voluntary and reporting requirements are now part of proposed rulemaking), the data on file shows that there are more contract employees (construction trades, security personnel, etc.) reported abusing drugs than licensee employees by a factor of 6-1 for 1983-85. The fact that the number of contract employees exceeds the number of licensee employees at a typical con-struction site distorts the significance of that factor, however, NRC is of the '

opinion that drug abuse appears to be more likely at construction sites than at operating sites.

It should be noted that there was an apparently similar situation where intervenors contended that drug abuse at the Shearon Harris construction site was widespread and therefore work on safety-related systems was deficient. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board found; 23 NRC 294 (1986); that:

" Drug use at the Shearon Harris construction site has not been " widespread" as alleged in the Intervenor's contention. The Board considered a range of evidence on this questian, including an undercover investigation at the site in late 1984, statistics on tenninations of employees for drug activity (proved or suspectedl, CP&L's multifaceted procram to detect and deter drug use (including urinalysis testing and detection dogs), observations of site employees, and indirect indicators, such as comparative workplace accident rates. Because drug use is illegal and clandestine, it is irpossible to determine with any precision the level of drug use at the site over time or at any particular time. On the basis of the record evidence, we estimate that drug use has ranged at various times from 3 to 4.5% of the work force at the Shearon Harris site.

"CP&L's antidrug program is well conceived and vigorously enforced. This gives us confidence that the actual rate of drug use at the site is no higher than the other evidence indicates. Given the prevalence of drug use in American society today, we do not believe that further antidrug measures could be taken to reduce significantly the rate of drug use at the Harris site.

l short of cost-ineffective and/or Draconian actions.

"There is no evidence that any specific deficient work has been done or that any specific safety concerns exist at the Harris Plant because of drua use.

Furthermore, CP&L's quality assurance program is designed and implemented to detect and correct the kinds of mistakes werkers are likely to make when under the influence of drugt. The Board was particularly concerned that a number

4

'4 -

>11 of quality inspectors had been terminated for proven or suspected drug use.

The work of these inspectors was reinspected on a random basis; it was con-vincingly shown that drug use had not affected their work."

The Shearon Harris program, which exceeds the EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development, is similar in content and irnplemen-tation to the program at Seabrook.

t l

i

- _-._. - _ . _ _