ML20212M833

Ack Receipt of Commission Responding to 861028 Request for Investigation of Allegations of Alcohol & Drug Abuse During Const at Facility.Briefing Re Investigation & Steps to Be Taken to Resolve Issues by 861212

ML20212M833
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	12/08/1986
From:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20212M723	List: ML20212M721 ML20212M833 ML20212M895 ML20212M947 ML20212N013
References
NUDOCS 8701300247
Download: ML20212M833 (6)

Text

4 8MetTV apMTM CoioGatst teQU$t QFFIC 3 apesagg gag g PMont 12023 22k2423 80wAmo 4 esAanty, anASSACMultTTS. C6iAsmuAss f =M e4 OMio

= = r,1 ;i, g ,,,, *g=v;g U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

• • "nr"7w'Fo=

u SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION

{J'{El E'o'EEEu."u'"c"a'fd.'

. o, rug aw, ce u 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.

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 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 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 Seabrook is not substantially different from other nuclear construction sites throughout the country with comprehensive drug

! and alcohol abuse programs." This statement is indeed f right'ening, since the alleced extent of drug and alcohol abuse has been as high as half of the workforce.

However, what is disturbing is the lack of any investigation of the issue. According to attachments to the Commission's letter, " Initial indications are that the drug and alcohol allegations are too broad to permit an evaluation of specific saf ety impact during the construction of Seabrook." It appears that the staf f, theref ore, did no f urther 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.

8701300247 8 -

O gg a

I l

The Honorablo Lcndo W. Zsch, Jr.

Page 2 December 8,1986 Instead, it appears that the Commission Staff, having read several anonymous affidavits provided to the Employee's Legal 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, r$1 sting 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.

Tho Honorable Lcndo w. Esch, 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 exangle, 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 Febcuary 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 af ter construction has been substantially completed, nexus between specific instances of drug or alcohol i abuse and deficient construction, the Commission turns the Atomic I Energy Act on its head. Conf ronted with allegations of rampant j drug or alcohol abuse, it is the NRC's responsibility to find that i such alleged abuse does not preclude the NRC f rom making the j requisite licensing findings. That requires real investigation.

i

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

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

i l

l

l 1  !

Tho Hansrcblo Lcnds W. Zoch, Jr. l

, , Page 4 l 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 I viewed as unnecessary and detrimental to morale." The Commission

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

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.

1 To the contrary, a workplace where management f ails to take proper

. steps to limit abuse is detrimental to morale. According to l 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.

Our nation is developing a heightened awareness of drug and

, alcohol abuse and its implications. It is time for the Commission I to recognize its own responsibilities. It can begin by announcing a new policy that will encourage people to come forward with allegations with the assurance that they will be aggressively ,

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 i problem as a failure shared by management, that can lead to severe

safety implications. ,

The NRC can begin to restore confidence in its willingness to j investigate these matters by conducting a thorough investigation

! at Seabrook. We have f ound that with little ef fort, employees

! have been forthcoming when they believe allegations will be f investigated and not swept under the rug.

l The NRC should review incident reports to get a sense of what i the security force was detecting. Most importantly, the NRC

! should review whether management has been handling the matter I properly. The Subcommittee has so f ar been refused access to .

incident reports. The utility has refused to answer questions as

to whether drugs found onsite were ever illegally destroyed /

onsite, rather than turned over to police. Until these l fundamental issues, relating both to the safety of the plant i

t construction and the integrity of the project management are resolved, it is-imperative that the Commission stay the l determination of whether to issue a low-power license to the l plant.

I

\

Tho Hcnorcblo Lcnds W. Zoch, 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)

Attachment 1 ;L/ . gC 1 6. ' . u O

/

pami.__a u.i-dlc_.SJg. lean _]~_.w al L.hIce _ka /

dLk_15_.of_.c o_escev, hw I-

._same_L ia .o

.__ta..Lun__m.y__jolo d Se..5bcoo{ a.d.cL_.com_sh.v.ky cJs&-D h Fv.t M G A%%& .

. ~ . . - - . . .

w.se.k_hsv_w

1. c 12.leLy a__Pvo.blm o.de _J oM,...,L.u._.,b.su __b&~4 . . . . .., '

$~o____mc___,a(_.h. .....

.N.QG1.b _b uS' .

yH o v-e P/en s$& . .. . .

Few_ysa.vr y_3.u a.imv e W6%. T._s ic[f/AINE Z. I ..

L.; ~> - h cl

. ' i-. 4-G. A .-P - __

4Len e a .. - .x Llul< _.e.p-2 V-_

CA_6pWidIS.I cn. Lb- is ka _>a.w,- . ..w. . m-wm. c. .Y s '

..... - . e :.. . . .. E . .".., " ' . -

"r ~

d ..i - .

,l.,__b_ a Cr.'M, . . . ., .s f*RIA="4ff ..d. z

.-.= ~-, u .

w t1 -. ....,

"&L clv2w a r_,A <E a w .:_. .~. u.: n .p. .. - >

dts.Ne..:

a.:.w ..ya  ;.om o 4by._.._p.e p:l.e. , . ., . . ,,. .

Is_u._.L_ % . v... .. .;;,A__oo M e ,...e m_

w.u+..

. _. n, . . e"'m,w; .

.y- q M .. 1p . ."R,Q. }.s. L@2'tL ._.b.*."*..... * *

..m, e-r:w,,-,.g r. ,. s.. r; .. a, . _.;.,p. .

_.T,g,g* __ ,e , 4 ;.,..

,Ft,*hNa_gI# ' i u 11 - .-

(4).k. o_[ .,,,,=.=*..W.,s.

....... - ~ ,

e. .

ew~ ..~

1.4 k.i su r.. .x: - . ,,.y .. 7 y p;: , ~...

. .... n .

./-hegs.y_.k A _.h .. .. ..

.." % fsii ' a' caw.m E p. u d d .

m

^

v_% e? , . < .. Li';: cx.s.Gh.~. ";

.6

..g...,

u.,1F.h ccnny we.lA d R

1. .# i%q A -p ap*'_.~it

. .L ,' * . . . ,

• • L. ,.

CS 8.1r 5:.,k ' -

• 1 eI {b_a e_

W_ C s.u'. kn O 9.J #

b l r' c1o +LM it ' E.R~.Eh1 d.F EU@ 1

. . . n.,

. c.. .

___ g F .

ili ..

OV .f._ M *~

NR "5 G _h l '

d

• s,a. s e _,,e vx u _1s:e__ L v A.s._ Y uf._bo. p !

%C ^

N > u i_ k ._.!- A E _ p s L . , .

n9.2J, .

aq.

r ~ '

h 3 w _k __O L_ctu .

.J -

9 e

.D g, ,,

• .. , E.,4, j [a , , . . . . . , . . ..

.