ML20215H439
| ML20215H439 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/03/1983 |
| From: | Faulkenberry B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Cobb L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215H409 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-827 NUDOCS 8706240103 | |
| Download: ML20215H439 (22) | |
Text
7 t.
- p3 88 C vg f
f o
UNITED STATES
[ '
','g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
REGION V
((
o 1450 MARIA L ANE, $UITE 210
'N.'
WALNUT CREE K, CALIFORNI A 94596 MAY 3 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. I. Cobb, Director Division of Fuel Facilities, Materials and Safeguards FROM:
B. H. Faulkenberry, Deputy Regional Administrator SUBJ ECT:
RESPONSES FROM UTILITIES AND CONTRACTORS CONCERNING DRUG ALLEGATIONS Cra.scts were made with two companies within the Region V area.
One of the companies, the Southern California Edison Company, responded to our telephone call and letter, and their response is being submitted as per your request, as Enclosure 1.
The other company, Allied Nuclear Incorporated, has of this date not responded to our telephone and written request.
Our letter to Allied Nuclear Incorpor' ted a
was submitted on March 25, 1983.
Based upon my telephone conversation with you on May 2,1983, we do not intend to contact Allied Nuclear Incorporated again regarding our original request.
l
%Y+eAle=
B. H. Faulkenberry Deputy Regional Adm1 istrator Enclosure a/s l
8706240103 870619 PDR FOIA PDR HEATH 84-827 l
l l
T5 G-l u.
d V
\\'
SUWARY REFORT SOtKIS - L. A. TIFES ARTICLE OCIDBER 23, 1984 INTRODUCTION On October 23, 1983, The Los Angeles Times printed an article entitled " Wide Drug Use at San Onof re Plant Told." According to the Times, "at least two superintendents, four foremen and as many as one-third of the laborers" were reported to have been involved in drugs or "payof f s", and drug dealing existed j
on-site. The two reporters who wrote the article reportedly interviewed 17 former and current Bechtel employees with respect to alleged drug usage and
" payoffs." The reporters were repeatedly requested to supply Bechtel with the details because no information in support of the allegations was known to Bechtel. The reporters refused to provide facts or incidents which would support the allegations.
Therefore, Bechtel Power Corporation's Los Angeles Power Division management and Southern California Edison's management immediately requested that these allegations be independently investigated.
The investigation began on October 24, 1983, and was completed on December 1, 1983.
During the process, over 250 people were interviewed.
Each interviewee was asked a series of standardized questions covering all allegations as pertained to Bechtel employees contained in the L. A. Times article, reference.
InformMion in !W reccid vas de!eted in 1.
... _,.......; mxo.:1 ci information i
A2, tanptias b FOIA W - D ~l H-j h
The primary focus of Bechtel's investigation was to determine the validity of the allegations.
The difficulty of the investigation was compounded because the article was not clear whether the allegations concerned activities l
involving currently or previously employed personnel.
Therefore, the interviews covered both the substantive nature as well as the chronology of I
any incidents.
The interview population included 100% of the current superintendents and general foremen / foremen and broad sample of laborers covering 100% of some crews and selective sampling of all three areas of work: Maintenance Support Group (MSG); Post Operative Licensing Organization (POLO); and Demineralizer.
In parallel with Bechtel's investigation, the NRC requested assistance of the FBI. Bechtel's investigators discussed the proposed investigation strategy I
and twice met with the FBI Special Agent in charge of their investigation.
The last meeting was held on December 2, 1983, and at that time the FBI was provided with an interim status report and the names of 28 former and current l
employees which were named twice during the 250 interviews.
Twenty-one of the 4
28 employees related to the drug allegations and seven to the pay-off allegations. The 21 drug related employees were:
1 Former Employees Current Employees Electricians 2
Laborers 8
9 l
Painters 1
Mechanical 1
2
F:,
The seven pay-off related employees were:
Former Employees Current Employees 1
1 Laborer Foremen 2
2 Laborers 1
1 f
1 The FBI indicated that it would comence conducting interviews based upon the l
Bechtel provided information.
Bechtel agreed to take no further action so as not to interfere with the proposed activities of the FBI and the U.S.
Attorney's office.
3
t l
BECHTEL INTERVIEW 0F L.A. TIMES SOURCES Efforts were made to identify and talk to people who reportedly were contacted Bechtel was successful in talking with 9 of the 17 people by the L.A. Times.
interviewed by the reporters.
i As to the following allegations in the article, some specific investigation results are noteworthy:
Results of Interview Allegation One employee who was quoted as
" Prevalent drug use" saying that drug use was
' prevalent' admitted to the interviewer that the only drugs he saw in 13 months on the job were 2 instances of smoking marijuana.
We "were fired for not paying off" Of the four people quoted in the article, one admitted that he was terminated for failure to pass the red badge test; another person quoted was fired for unlawful possession of company property.
The remaining two individuals refused to be interviewed by the Bechtel investigation team.
.The reports talked to 17~
Six of 5e 9 people interviewed people who supported the by the Times told the Bechtel allegations investigators that they could not provide any direct evidence to support any of the j
allegations in the artici; and j
l maintained this is the
)
position they took with the L.A. Times.
The remaining 3 individuals declined to be i
interviewed by the Bechtel investigation team.
j i
One of the people was quoted as The person quoted appeared on "seeing" drugs used cable news network and admitted to using cocaine at the site not merely seeing it used. This individual, who is no longer employed by Bechtel, was employed as a laborer having no responsibility for safety related work.
At least two superintendents...
One superintendent was were... involved in drugs or acknowledged to have used drugs payoffs (in a parking lot) and had been terminated for the practice. Another superintendent denied using or being under the influence of drugs while on the jobsite.
5
l ANALYSIS OF-BECHTEL INVESTIGATION AWARENESS OF SUSPECTED DRUG USAGE I
)
i During the interviews, 250 employees were asked if they knew of any drug on site and during what time period they believed it may have occurred.
Table I compiles the number of positive responses for the latest year that an individual employee was aware of drug usage.
1 Note that a single incident may
{
have been reported by several people, making the number of responses 1
deceptively high.
{
l TA8LE I: AWARENESS OF ORUG USAGE NUMBER OF POSITIVE RESPONSES Time Period _
Supts.
F/ men La borers.
Total 1978 3
10 5
18 1979 12 16 5
33 1980 5
8 3
16 1981 2
13 2
17 1982 9
13 15 37*
1983 0
4 3
7 TOTALS 31 64 33 128*
- 19 responses relate to a known incident in November,1982
, when a former superintendent was alleged to have been smoking marijuana in the parking lot.
6
1 t
p Note Graph A depicts the number of positive responses for each time period.
that 1982 has been adjusted f rom 37 to 19 positive responses since 19 involve a single incident.
40-GRAPH A:
AWARENESS OF ORUG USAGE i
35-30-NO. OF POSITIVE
- Adjusted for 25-RESPONSES 19 of 37 responses 20-involving a single incident 15-10-5-
i I
i I
i i
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 TIME PERIOD OF ORUG USAGE As indicated in Graph A, the greatest awareness of drug usage was in 1979, with about two-thirds occurring during or before 1980.
Less than one-third of the responses indicate any awareness of drug usage since 1980. Also, only seven (7) people indicated that drugs might have been used in 1983 and only four (4) of them indicated drugs might have been used recently.
I l
7
B ALLEGATIONS OF DRUG USAGE t
From a total job population of greater than fourteen thousand (14000)
- individuals over the years, only 50 employees were indicated during the interviews as having an association with drugs. The various categories of employees are as follows:
FORMER EMPLOYEES CURRENT
- EMPLOYEES Unnamed Employees Pipefitters 8
Boilermakers 2
Millwrights 3
Jumpers 3
SUBTOTAL:
16 None Employees Named Once Oper. Engineers 2
Mechanical 4
Laborers 6
Millwrights 1
SUBTOTAL:
6 7
Employees Named Twice or More Electricians 2
Laborers 8
9 Painters 1
Mechanical 1
SUBTOTAL:
11 10 COMBINED SUBTOTALS:
33 17 TOTAL:
50
(* Current: as of 11-12-83) 8
r Ouring the interviews, eleven (11) former and ten (10) current Bechtel employees were identified as possibly having some involvement in drugs.
Names 1
of an additional.six (6) former employees and seven (7) current were given, but they were mentioned by only one interviewee, and the investigation criteria required that at least two interviews had to indicate names or situations.
This requirement of corroboration by at least two persons was instituted because, people could be identified as involved in drugs in a secondary manner (i.e rumor, someone could have overheard a conversation, etc.).
Of the ten (10) current employees identified as possibly having some involvement in drugs, nine (9) are laborers and one (1) is a None of these individuals performed any safety-related work.
The inherent nature of the laborer's work eliminates the possibility of their involvement in any tasks which could affect the quality or safety of the plant.
The was responsible for l
The
' denied that he used any drugs or was under the influence of'any drugs while on the jobsite.
Of the eleven (11) former employees identified as possibly having some involvement in drugs, eight (8) are laborers, one a painter, one an and one an Even if the allegations were true, none of these individuals performed any safety-related work themselves.
The named were responsible All safety related work performed by, under their direction was independently inspected by Field Engineers as well as Quality Control Engineers in accordance with the Bechtel Quality Program, reference Attachment 2.
9
j in addition to the Project's Quality Program for the construction phase of the I
j project, the Project successfully completed a Project Startup Program, reference Attachment 3.
The Startup Program included a Quality Program covering all startup and testing activities to assure that the facility was built to the required Engineering standards and operates as designed.
f The conclusion drawn as a result of a review of the interviews, and with the
(
J knowledge of the Project's successful Quality and Startup Programs, is that the alleged use of drugs by a very small number of individuals had no effect whatsoever on the quality of the project.. Contrary to the L.A. Times article, there is no evidence of wide drug usage or dealing of drugs on jobsite.
l I
4 l
10
r
. Alt.EGATIONS OF ' PAYOFFS' l
I j
The investigation resulted in obtaining the names of four former employees and
'1
(
three current employees who the interviewees were ' aware' of being involved in iL
. payoffs.
They were:
-a (who was terminated for
- two former laborer foremen (borrowing money)
- one former laborer (collecting money for a foreman)
- two existing laborer foremen (borrowing money)
- a laborer (collecting donations)
ALLEGATIONS OF PAYOFFS Number of Sources of Information Supts F/ men i.aborers Total 1978 3
3 2
8 1
1979 1
3 1980 1
1 1981 1
2 3
4 1982 1
16 13 30 1983 1
5 6
1 i
l l
11
The bulk of the alleged payoffs apparently occurred either approximately six years ago or recently.
As to the eight incidents in 1978, these are consistent with the termination of the who was submitting t.s to the more recent reported incidents, it is probable that they are due to a practice of several current foremen borrowing money from laborers. However, the investigation revealed no instances of laborers providing cocaine or illicit material to foremen as a "payof f.'
Another explanation of the large number (74%) of recent incidents of payoffs may be due to the fact that at least 10 of the 36 interviewees who indicated an
' awareness" in 1982 or 1983 were probably referring to payments they said were made to the union hall or union management as a means of either getting a green card or getting to work at SONGS.
This was a rumor only and no evidence has been currently obtained to support this.
The investigation found that, except for the incident regarding the discussed above, all reported incidents of alleged payoffs concerned laborers, albeit the investigation did not reveal any evidence that a large number of employees are involved.
Inasmuch as the majority of laborers at SONGS are Mexican-Americans or greencard holding Mexicans, the investigation did find evidence that some cultural gif t-giving may be involved, and that, due to these cultural differences, some of the laborers may feel that the sharing of food, or contributing to donations, may place an employee in a favored position with a foreman.
The investigation revealed that there is no evidence that a " pay off" system exists at San Onofre.
12 I
A E
.EU
..s p
3 CONTINUING ACTION $
y.
,i op b/'
On December 2,1983, Bechtel provided the FBI with the results of its y
investigation and the conclusions reached f rom over 250 fact-finding The FBI indicated that it would comence interviews beginning interviews.
.with the r.urrent cmployees and that Bechtel should take no further action.
Bechtel will remain in contact with the FBI and request status reports so that t
Sechtel management can take additional action as appropriate.
i
.SCE and Becht41 has expanded the DRUG AND ALC0HOL AWARENESS TRAINING PROGRAM i
i which requires mandatory attendance by all for manual and non-manual supervisory personnel. The purpose of this program is to train supervisory personnel to recognize the various types of drugs and the symptoms which may be evidence 1 by their use.
i In addition, both Bechtel and SCE have established corporate policies which i
i state the following:
"Any empicyee who unlawfully possesses, uses or is under These the influence of drugs during working hours, shall be terminated."
personnel are not subject to rehire.
These rules and the responsibilities of each employee regarding knowledge of any such activities have been reissued by f
Project Management memo to each employee.
(
13
ATTACHMENT 1 BECHTEL INVESTIGATION OVESTIONNAIRE NAME HOW MANY YEARS AT SAN ONOFRE7 PRINCIPLE ASSIGNMENT AT SAN ONOFRE 1.
Did you read about the allegations concerning' San Onofre? Yes or No If yes, what were your impressions?
2.
Do you have any awareness of any drug use on site (past or present?)
If yes, state when and by whom.
3.
Are you aware of any Superintendents; a.
Using drugs?
l b.
Involved in pay-offs?
I c.
Involved in drug cocaine co-op?
4.
Are you aware of any fctsnian; a.
Using drugs?
b.
Involved in payoffs?
5.
Are you aware of any laborer; a.
Using drugs?
b.
Involved in payoffs?
6.
Are you aware of any irregularities in administration of Red Badge tests?
A-1.1 i
i
ATTACHMENT 2 THE BECHTEL QUALITY PROGRAM The BPC Quality Program, in conjunction with the SCE QA Program, insures the proper and safe construction, startup and operation of SONGS 2 & 3.
The program provides for extensive inspection and testing of nuclear safety-related systems and equipment that protect the plant and the public; in-depth auditing of all field activities by BPC QA and its management; and periodic audits and program reviews by the NRC,-SCE, and independent assessment groups.
INSPECTION AND TESTING In accordance with Federal Regulations (10CFR50 APP. B), BPC has established an inspection and testing program that provides independent verifications of all activities affecting quality.
Skilled craf tsmen, under the direct supervision of their foreman and superintendent, assemble, install, and test equipment and components to approved methods and procedures.
Qualified Field Engineers inspect the work and testing using design drawings and documents.
In addition, for nuclear safety-related systems and equipment, Quality Control Engineers perform an independent inspection of the same work and testing. All these activities insure that the equipment is constructed, installed and tested in accordance with industry codes and standards and project design requirements.
i A-2.1
INTERNAL AUDITING AND SURVEILLANCE To insure that all the elements of the Quality Program, especially inspection and testing, are functioning ef fectively, BPC Quality Assurance (QA)~ has implemented a comprehensive system of planned and periodic audits. Certified QA Auditors review Project activities in accordance with prepared checklists l
and schedules.
Audit results are documented, and deficient conditions are reported to Management on Corrective Action Requests (CARS). Corrective action is then followed-up by QA reverification.
Field QA Engineers also perform regular surveillance on project activities to supplement the audit program.
Table I shows the Field QA audit and surveillance history since January, 1979.
TABLE I:
8PC FIELD QA AUDITS AND SURVEILLANCES January,1979 - December,1983 l
Year No. of Aedits No. of Surveillances 1979 196 1781 I
1980 217 1645 1981 190 2166 1982 196 1501 1983 64 500 A-2.2
LAPD QA Hanagement also conducts audits on Project activities to insure that the Quality Program, including Field Quality Assurance, is effective.
Potential problems are reported on CARS for which Field QA initiates adequate Table 11 shows the QA Management Audits on Field corrective measures.
Activities since January, 1979.
TABLE II: MANAGEMENT AUDITS OF FIELD ACTIVITIES January,1979 - December,1983 Year No. of Audits 1979 1
1980 1
1981 2
1982 2
1983 3
l I
EXTERNAL AUDITS l
The NRC, Southern California Edison (SCE), and independent groups conduct audits and program reviews of BPC's Quality Program to insure adequacy and effectiveness.
Questions and concerns are reported by CARS, audit findings, f
and deficiency notices.
BPC Quality Management then responds with the Table III shows the external appropriate corrective action and follow-up.
audits and reviews performed on the BPC Quality Program since January, 1979.
I A-2.3
TABLE Ill: EXTERNAL AUDITS / PROGRAM REVIEWS OF BPC QUALITY PROGRAM January,1979 - December,1983 Year SCE Audits NRC Audits Independent Audits 1979 73 12 1980 32 9
1 ASME Survey 1981 13 9
1 ANI Audit 1982 17 8
2 ANI Audits 1983 13 3
1 ASME Survey 1 M&QS Audit CONCLUSIONS:
The data in the foregoing tables demonstrates that the 8PC Quality Program at SONGS 2 & 3 is sound.
The frequency and nature of CARS and findings is commensurate with that of other projects, and there are no indications of any drug-related quality problems.
1 A-2.4 j
~
ATTACHMENT 3 STARTUP TESTING AND OPERATlHG EXPERIENCE STARTUP AND TEST PROGRAM
{
{
During prerequisite testing, each circuit and system component is tested to verify that it operates exactly as designed.
Trained Startup Engineers conduct the tests to approved procedures and record the results on test rer.o rd s.
Several levels of supervision then review these test records for proper results.
In addition, Startup Quality Control Engineers witness tests on nuclear safety-related equipment to provide an independent verification of component operation.
Deficient conditions are documented, and timely corrective action is taken.
The equipment is then retested to insure it does indeed function properly.
I When circuit and component testing has been completed, Preoperational and Acceptance Tests are conducted to insure that whole systems function properly with all their components.
Finally, power ascension testing proves that the entire plant, with all its safety-features and back-up systems, operates as designed.
OPERATING EXPERIENCE i
in Unit 2, testing has been successfully completed and the plant has been operating commercially for several months.
Unit 3 is in the final stages of power testing and will soon join its sister unit in producing elettricity for Southern California businesses and homes.
Current operating experience has shown that the Quality and Testing Programs have indeed insured a safe and reliable nuclear generating station.
A-3.1
-- ----- - -----J
ALLESATION ItEP08
,. i s'
- MT30N t
FACILily:
m sesa w A o.s
_ A rue.=o:
--.} - -
- )/ujj l-
%s'koA'
.. u
,, mg,_
p *>oeminuty moucmo rw no
= ao:
sumssnv or smisenz Hale-n>AAh -
C.a / b / A N m
sary b-n% =A
,,a a
~
A d W diA w A DL,o f & W
~J
~
~
Jfn V A
~
~~
~
~f. N E M s k 's
~
f
& b oCf A m % n en'4 & A V
%w L ', m - 2 : - + x & n m.
zi
. o A -.' A ~
w dum) >>
J v&Ls ksy n //
- a.ted.J m 4% A. A Mc -e'k t2 minr we m
L L L 2-J =? w n
&bi 6 L-i +1.
Hc.
s
_, -n.. A ':
k Yn ' =-L
.O N
r 2Y w > +
m A,L '-
i
~2 w o-J ih k d' %1r % EM ae_-
M WW3 7'~
\\
s M n.A
/A d M
wsA Aw DJ
P. 4 14 L & - Ken n i A W.
k m,'L K *w,++
\\
s = A' WLt AG cJ2e4.
r l
u7_
0.5 -f' D'hp/
"" N D'
~~~ "
d N
y 7,i hA s.es.o d2. T# A I M $m Act, exemphons b
(
F0lA. g u #n 7
+2. r Jat:
- l
f ALLE4473CN REPg 9
g
^
'IM
, ~ 'ALLEa4M ONI
- 'h'f FACILITVs he I,
nu.ie:
I
' RFRifW U f 7 ?
jJg g j
.4
^
PHONE :
- CONF 3tIEN13ALITY REO,ESTED YE$
te DO* ND:
Suw44RY OF MTUmit
$]
s A.,
W S W ' M Aw /_~/E.2.k
% c.'L w +=_A
& & L :
44.
Ask A ~ A d
WY
~
z;737 to
'at.stc ainJ*
Auf L ' + dn.% & V
%+ Aw# w 4r4y *J E e4 L
Yfe
~
A W,. _ wA rr
% d w a.
He ll 14
&P
& Tk,
,) % >-
er M AhM ~ -
& A;A M
+ % _+ x m D&.."
7 7
!de
. A k.A J Est K w e a l A eL eL. et se <= 6A Sc6 QA.
E "" E'
[
D g
' "h [g s
m-m_
.._m
...m.
I l
r " <, %
[p
'g UNITED SVATES 8
,,. d( ;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
3 t*d E
REGION tf h
,E, l
1450 MARIA LANE SUITE 210
% '%i
,6 WALNUT CHE E K, calif ORNIA 94596 gg 15 d4 Docket Nos. 50-206, 50-361, 50-362 1
Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Attention:
Mr. Kenneth B. Baskin, Vice President Nuclear Engineering, Safety and Licensing Department Gentlemen:
Subject:
NRC Security Inspection - San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3 t
This refers to t' e routine safeguards inspection of your activity at San a
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 authorized under NRC License Nos. DPR-13, NPF-10 and NPF-15 conducted by Mr. D. Schaefer of this office on July 23-27, 1984.
It also refers to the discussion of our inspection findings held by the inspector with Mr. H. Ray and other menbers of his staff on July 27, 1984.
Areas examined during this inspection are descrit$ed in the enclosed inspection report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective
~
examinations of procedures and records, interviews with facility and contract personnel, and observations by the inspector.
\\
Vithin the scope of the inspection, no violations were observed.
l l
In accordance with Section 2.790(d) of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, documentation of the findings of your safeguards and security procedures are exempt from public disclosure; f
therefore, the enclosed report will not be placed in the Public Document Room j
l and will receive limited distribution.
i i
t 1
We have determined that the enclosed inspection report contains Safeguards i
Information and must be protected against unauthorized disclosure in I
accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 73.21.
I
\\
I I
l 4.gQ L. 66-g.:
i
....i ggy 'g u 10 4
.7 Southern California Edison Company s Should you have any questions concerning this letter, we will be glad to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, IV M. D. Schuster, Acting Chief Safeguards and Emergency Preparedness Branch
Enclosure:
Inspection Report Nos.
50-206/84-18 50-361/84-23 i
50-362/84-23 (IE-V-645) cc w/ enc 1:
D. J. Fogarty, Executive Vice President H. B. Ray, Vice President and Site Manager J. G. Haynes, Station Manager (San Clemente)
F. P. Eller, Manager, Station Security, SONGS State of California (w/o enc 1)
M"'i
"'m
-i '
m_._.._
_.2a__
..__a-5
r
.b
.s~
I b.
During this inspection, the licensee Medical Department briefed the inspector in detail on the processing of urinalysis samples.
Since January 1, 1984, all new-hire personnel applying for any position within Southern California Edison (SCE) are required to successfully pass a urinalysis test.
Each new-hire reports to the Medical Department and provide the required urine sample.
Each sample is individually sealed (using medical " evidence" tape) and transported daily to CDL Laboratory in Tarzana California. Written results of each urinalysis are provided to the Medical Department within two days. The licensee is presently staffing a proposal to expand this testing to all new-hire personnel (SCE and contract personnel) and further to conduct an annual urinalysis test of all personnel.
It is proposed that the urinalysis testing will be successfully completed prior to the initial issuance of the security unescorted access photo identification badge and annually thereafter prior to the reissuance of the security badge.
}C m