ML20212A127

From kanterella
Revision as of 23:09, 21 January 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 840419 Telcon W/Borchardt & 840418 Ltr W/Encls Expressing Concerns Re Alcohol & Drug Abuse & Circumstances Surrounding Termination.Details Concerning Specific Design or Const Deficiencies,If Any,Requested
ML20212A127
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/09/1984
From: Gallo R
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20209D110 List:
References
NUDOCS 8703030293
Download: ML20212A127 (1)
v • d • e


Text

.

/ UNITED STATE 5 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION I

{e :I 431 PARK AVENUE KING OF PRUS$1 A, PENNSYLVANIA 19406 MAY 0 9 B84 l 1

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 DOL'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 l that additional information at your earliest convenience. l l

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

Enclosure:

As Stated:

cc:

Department of Labor, Manchester, N.H.

~

93 070226 PDR ThN

'e Attachment 4 MAYg3 m 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 SHOODY WORKMANSHIP: ALLEGER FIRED FOR "8 LOWING THE WHISTLE" On April 19, 1984 a Region Based In:;pector 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 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 i any more information. We have not received any more inforr.iar. ion from the alleger.

Based on previous NRC inspections, the Senior Resident Inspector's evaluation is that the licensee's drug and alcohci 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 cor tacted the PSNH drug and alcohcl 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 tr

. a group, which functions to identify drug and alcohol abuse problems (on charge _ of site so that appropriate actions can be taken. He stated that he is available for further contact if desired.

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

8 Robert M. Gallo, C 1ef Reactor Projects Section 2A, DPRP cc:

i R. Borchardt A. Cerne D. Haverkamp OA-> #

  • Allegation File RI-84-A-0059 (Concurrence Copy) Q [U[) U@w

.a

, 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 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, Secy, OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:-

DATE DUE: Dec 10 86 SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

Ee:'d dif. EG3 D;u __ l > ~ tI - 9 6 y;o _ lf(-O 4 v

a-F P 5

I e

l l

l 4

I 1

}

  • 3 l

1 l

8 jo,, UNITED STATES

\ [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 n j

+n * * * * * ) January 23, 1987 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Edward Markey.

Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Markey:

I am responding to your letter of January 13, 1987, regarding the Seabrook offsite emergency planning litigation now being conducted before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Your letter raises several concerns relating to specific actions of the Licensing Board which may soon be before the Commission for ~

adjudicatory review and decision. As you are aware, ex parte contacts such as those reflected in your letter are even more seriously viewed by the Courts when they appear to have injected the element of Congressional pressure into an agency's adjudication. Unless and until the Commission is presented with an issue by a party to the proceeding or by certification from a Licensing or Appeal Board, we cannot offer more than general comments regarding the matters you have raised.

As a hypothetical matter, there is no question that scheduling can be so onerous as to work a hardship on parties that can in extrene circumstances destroy the element of fairness in adjudicatory proceedings. With this concern in mind, the Commission's order of January 9, 1987 taking review of ALAB-853 on the onsite side of the Seabrook proceeding noted that the

" Licensing Boards may, of course, make any necessary adjustments to their schedules that fairness dictates to accommodate the Commission's expedited briefing schedule."

We are als.o aware that matters of scheduling have become extremely contentious in the Seabrook proceedings. However, various motions were presented to the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board, and it has been our practice to allow these Boards to resolve such matters in the first instance.

Nonetheless, the Office of the General Counsel monitors the progress of all ongoing adjudications and keeps the Commission informed of developments in this regard so that it may decide whether its inherent supervisory authority need be exercised.

Turning now to your concerns with respect to the agency's consideration of the applicant's request for a waiver of the rule requiring a 10-mile EPZ, we can make the following general comments.

0(//vvv7

  1. '1A % LO d u] 7 2ff-

e i

Judge Hoyt's decision not to entertain oral argument on the issue of whether a prima facie showing has been made by the applicant would not, in any circumstances, dispose finally of the hearing request in the event the waiver request is certified to the Commission. The decision on prima facie showing is a threshold decision required by_10 C.F.R. 6 7.758 which must be made in favor of the application if it is to be given any further consideration. It would be improper at present to comment on the correctness of Judge Hoyt's interpretation of the term " prima facie showing." That matter 17, subject to litigation by the parties.)

In any number of circumstances where the Commission has been referred issues that have a significant factual component, the Commission hai appointed special boards to hold hearings, and in some instances to assist in other respects such as making recommended decisions. It is premature for the Commission to decide how it would treat the waiver matter in advance of its ..

having successfully passed the prima facie showing threshold.

In the event that it passes that threshold, the issues will be fully explored before any final. action is taken.

I hope that this letter alleviates, at least to some extent, the concerns that you have about the Seabrook proceeding.

Sincerely,

&oiv0wk LandoW.(eph,J

! \.

r Congress of the Wnitch 6tates Donge of Representatibes Comandates en energy ant Comunette Bases 2125. Raytr. n Desse @mte We: Mag Wadington. B.C. 20515 January 13, 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

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

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing to request that the Commission exercise its inherent supervisory authority and immediately assume responsibility for the Seabrook offsite emergency planning proceedings (Docket Nos. 50-443-0L; 50-444-00 7 ASLBP 82-471-02-00) now pending before the Atomic Safety end Licensing Board. Those proceedings are degenerating rapidly into a mockery of justice and an aff ront to every fundamental notion of due process of law.

Failure by the Commission to act decisively to prevent the further unraveling of these proceedings likely will invite a harsh judicial rebuka and further diminish the Commission's credibility with the public.

Of greatest and most immediate concern are Judge Hoyt's orders of December 23, 1986 and January 7, 1987, Judge Cotter's  ;

order of December 31, 1986 and the Commission's order of December 1 24, 1986. The net effect of these orders is: (1) the Commonwealth i of Massachusetts and the other intervenors will have approximately )

one month to respond to the mammoth and technically complex petition to reduce the Seabrook emergency planning zone (EPZ) from the regulatorily mandated ten miles to one mile, notwithstanding the f act that the utility has been planning and preparing the petition for years and received the active advice and assistance i of NRC staff in that endeavor for the 16 months preceding its filing; (2) there will be no public hearing, much less an evidentiary hearing, on the petition at the ASLB levels (3) the "prias f acie showing" standard which the utility must meet if the ASLB is to certify the petition for waiver to the Commission has been transformed in a footnote f rom a well understood and very stringent tes_t into a vague, ambiguous and almost meaningless notion that virtually guarantees certification of the issue to the Commission; and (4) several different and in some respects conflicting proceedings concerning of f site emergency planning at Seabrook will be going on concurrently rather than in an orderly progression.

W M W m) FUN rv/w< q [v

i.

The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

January 13, 1987 Page 2 while these rulings are unf air and seriously flawed on their f ace, the background and nature of the utility's petition to waive the 10-mile EPI requirement make these results absolutely i

intolerable. As you know, the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power held a hearing on November 18, 1986 which focused on the then possible petiticn for waiver and in particular the role of the NRC staff in advising the utility for the previous 15 months on how to make the strongest case for waiver if the utility in fact decided to proceed with a petition. At the November 18 hearing, in which NRC officials participated,* and again in a Novembe r 20, 1986 letter to you, I raised most serious questions concerning the propriety of this coaching by the NRC staff and the allocation of financial resources being committed to this effort by the NRC before a petition for waiver had ever been filed. By

- letters of November 25, 1986 and December 2,1986 a majority of

- the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation and the entire New .,

Hampshire Congressional Delegation advised the commission of their opposition to any reduction in the size of the 10-mile EPt.

Notwithstanding my concerns, which I do not believe you have taken sufficiently sericusly based upon your December 8,1986

) letter, NRC staff continued to work with the utility almost right j up to the time the petition was filed. To absolutely nobody's

surprise, the petition adhered f aithfully to the principal i teaching that NRC staff had imparted: emphasize the uniqueness of j Seabrook, especially its containment.

Having had the benefit of almost a year and one half of NRC

staff input, including personal and substantial participation by Mr. Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, and the preliminary results of a $245,000 consulting contract with Brookhaven funded by the NRC, Public Service of New Hampshire filed its petition for waiver of the 10-mile EPE r equi rement. The ASLB has now given the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the intervenors approximately one month to respond with no discovery Such blatant unf airness would shock the I and no public hearing.
conscience of any federal court reviewing NRC's actions in this, matter. The procedural nightmare created by these recent orders is even more egregious than that which prompted the federal court in New York to intercede into the Shoreham ASLB proceeding to

. grant the state and local governments and intervenors more time to prepare their case.

As you recall, I specifically telephoned you to insist upon Mr. Stello's appearance at the hearing and only excused him because of your representation to me that he

! had a serious f amily medical problem which precluded his

! t r av el.

I

o-

, s The sonorable Lando W. sech, Jr.

January 13, 1987 Page 3 Two aspects of Judge Hoyt's January 7,1987 order merit j particular criticism. The order states that the ASLB's decision on whether the petition makes a 3I133 fAsia case for waiver of the i

10-mile EPs regulation will be based on " written pleadings. No oral hearings to supplement written responses are anticipated."

At the Subcommittee's November 18, 1986 hearing, the President of New Hampshire Yankee pledged to the Subcommittee that the utility ,

would request a public hearing on the petition for waiver if such  !

a petition were filed. The applicant's memorandum in support of l the petition does make that request. The intervenors had  !

requested full adjudicatory hearings on the petition. For the ASLB to deny even oral argument in light of the enormous j importance of this issue to the ultimate question of whether or not Seabrook will receive a full power license is unf athomable. .

In other contexts such as the Commission's proposed revisions to I i its Sunshine Act regulations, the Subcommittee Members have -

) repeatedly warned the Commission about the perils of doing its l bisiness in secret. Having no public hearing of any kind at the

, ASLB level on an issue of this magnitude only reinforces the ever j growing public distrust of the entire nuclear licensing process.

No less startlingly disturbing was Judge Boyt's redefinition 1 of the term "gI1EA facig showing" in a footnote on page 3 of her j January 7, 1987 order. Citing absolutely no authority and rejecting another ASLB decision interpreting " prima f acie," Judge Hoyt redefinen EI1EA facie "to mean evidence of a sufficient l nature that would cause reasonable minds to inquire further."

That is no standard at all, much less a burden of proof which must be met as a prerequisite to certification of the issue to the

, Commission. Almost any evidence of anything would "cause 2

reasonable minds to inquire further." Indeed, most anthropologists consider the capacity for imaginative rational inquiry to be what distinguishes hang sapiens from other species If the ASLB believes that to be the standard for judging of life.

the utility's petition, the ASLB should simply dispense with requiring any further response f rom anybody and immediately certify the issue to the Commission.

! The phrase "gI133 f acia showing" or " prima f acie case" is a I commonly understood jurisprudential standard carrying with it a heavy burden which the moving party (here, the utility) must meet.

Black's Law Dictionary defines " prima f acie case" as: "such as  ;

l 4

will suffice until contradicted and overcome by other evidence." '

Normally, " prima f acie" is used in a legal context in which there has been no response yet to the position advocated by one party.

Here, however, the ASLB judgment of whether a prima facie showing i has been made comes af ter all parties have made known their views.

1 3

Therefore, in this anomalous situation the phrase could be 1

I

1 Tho Hon 3rcblo Lcnds W. Zech, Jr.

January 13, 1987 Page 4 reasonably construed to require an ASLB determination that there exists a substantial likelihood that the Commission will grant the waiver. Absent such a finding, the ASLB would be prohibited f rom certifying the petition to the Commission.

Permitting the ASLB to continue to make f arcical rulings which deny due process in the Seabrook proceedings, however, is not in the best interest of any of the parties or that of the Nuclear Regulatory CommiJsion. The time is ripe for the Commission, in the exercise of its inherent supervisory authority, to undertake a management initiative which will restore some measure of f airness and credibility to these proceedings.

Accordingly, I request the Commission constitute a spcial Board to conduct all proceedings associated with the utility's petition to waive the 10-mile EPZ requirement for Seabrook. I ..

also request that the Commission establish a f air and reasonable scS.edule for the orderly and f air conduct of these proceedings, if .uding but not limited to providing for public hearings. In

, cetting such a schedule, the Commission should considers (1) the burden on the parties of participating in concurrent, conflicting proceedings; (2) the need for discovery; and (3) the enormous importance of the petition to reduce the 10-mile emergency planning zone to the ultimate outcome of the Seabrook case and as i a potential precedent with implications for emergency planning

around every nuclear power f acility in the United States.

1 The issues raised here transcend Seabrook. Were the J commission to reduce the emergency planning zone on a site-specific basis, it would represent perhaps the most significant weakening of the NRC's regulatory regime since the

), accident at Three Mile Island. It would be especially ironic in j light of the Chernobyl accident only eight short months ago where even today a zone of 18 miles around the plant remains evacuated.

l It would open the door for every licensee in the country to demonstrate to the NRC why it too shouldn't be allowed a reduced emergency planning zone because of its unique qualities.

If the Commission is to consider the petition at all, it must l

assure itself that it will do so only on the basis of the fullest, most f airly developed record compiled by the ASLB. While it is too late to cure what I believe to be improper NRC staff activity  ;

prior to the utility's filing of the waiver petition, it is not l too late to rectify the deteriorating situation at the ASLB. Fo r l the sake of the Commission's own credibility, I urge you to take the management actions described above.

i

~

1 l

l  ;

  • -* The Hor.orable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

January 13, 1987 ,

Page L

Please provide me with a response to this letter no later than close of business on January 20, 1987.

Sincerely, f

1 /

Edwar J. Markey Member of Congres

.e d

J 4

4 9

- - - , - . _ . - - , , , , _ , . , - - . - - - , , - , - - - . - - , , , . . + - , - - , , - - - . - - - - - - , , , , - - -. - . , , _ . , - , . , - . . . - - . , _ - . , _ , , , - . . . .

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212A127&oldid=3103333"