IR 05000254/1994018
| ML20149G640 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1994 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Wallace M COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149G642 | List: |
| References | |
| EA-94-188, NUDOCS 9410240069 | |
| Download: ML20149G640 (5) | |
Text
{.
.
UNITED STATES y(f"%q$%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$
&'(
REGION ill E
O *
801 WARREPMLLE ROAD k,
Q
[
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60632-4351
October 12, 1994
,
EA 94-188 i
Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Michael Vice President, Chief Nuclear Officer Executive Towers West III 1400 Opus Place, Suite 300 Downers Grove, IL 60515
Dear Mr. Wallace:
SUBJECT: QUAD CITIES STATION - UNITS 1 AND 2 NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY - $80,000 (NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-254/265/94018(DRSS))
This refers to the inspection conducted during the period of May 2 through August 29, 1994, at Quad Cities Station, Units 1 and 2.
The purpose of the inspection was to review the circumstances surrounding the Operations Manager reporting to work while under the influence of alcohol. During the inspection, violations of NRC requirements were identified.
The report documenting this inspection was sent to you by letter dated September 7, 1994.
This event was initially discussed in a meeting, held at your request, at the NRC Region III office on May 2,1994. An enforcement conference was held on September 23, 1994, to discuss the violations, their causes, and your corrective actions. The report documenting the conference was sent to you by letter dated October 3,1994.
On April 23, 1994, the Operations Manager voluntarily reported to work after receiving a phone call from the on-duty Shift Engineer concerning a plant transient and entered the protected area at 9:03 p.m. that day. Both the Unit 1 and Unit 2 supervisors independently believed they smelled alcohol on the Operations Manager's breath and independently reported their observations tc the Shift Engineer at about 9:50 p.m.
At 10:30 p.m., the Shift Engineer confronted the Operations Manager with the observations of the two supervisors.
At that time, the Shift Engineer incorrectly concluded that the Operations Manager was not an immediate safety / security problem because he had stated that he only had one beer and exhibited no obvious signs of aberrant behavior. The Shift Engineer partially reviewed the testing-for-cause procedure and concluded that a for-cause test was required but did not recognize that the procedure required testing within one hour.
After consulting the Station Manager by telephone on three occasions, the Shift Engineer escorted the Operations Manager out of the protected area at 1:08 a.m. on April 24, 1994. Between 1:15 and 2:00 a.m., the Operations Manager tested positive for alcohol and his site access was immediately suspended.
The Operations Manager subsequently resigned his employment with Commonwealth Edison.
Section I of the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penal ty (Notice) describes two violations assessed a civil penalty.
The violations involve: (1) failure to suspend the Operations Manager's unescorted access to the protected area after determining that his fitness may be 21b C.1)
o\\
\\
9410240069 941012
PDR ADOCK 05000254 As
'
G PDR
\\
.
-
-
- -
-
__
_
__
Commonwealth Edison Company
questionable; and (2) failure to implement for-cause testing as soon as possible after receiving credible information that the Operations Manager was under the influence of alcohol while unescorted in the protected area.
The root cause of the violations was poor judgement by the Shift Engineer and the failure of management to ensure that its expectations regarding fitness-for-duty are fully understood and properly implemented by all personnel working at the Quad Cities station. The violations are very.significant
,
because your fitness-for-duty program must provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel, particularly management personnel, will perform
their tasks in a reliable and trustworthy manner, free from the influence of any substance which affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties.
The violations represent a failure to take reasonable and timely action when credible information concerning activities within the protected area indicates possible unfitness for duty based on alcohol use.
Therefore, in accordance with the " General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy) 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C, these violations are classified in the aggregate as a Severity Level II problem.
We acknowledge your corrective actions for the violations, which included supplemental training for Quad Cities personnel on all aspects of the fitness-for-duty program, counselling the Shift Engineer, and having the Shift Engineer review the fitness-for-duty policy and lessons-learned from the event with all other shift engineers. Your programmatic and long-term corrective actions included a determination that the fitness-for-duty training program is satisfactory, and your communication of this event in writing to all Nuclear Division employees with emphasis on fitness-for-duty expectations and incorporation of this communication into training. However, your proposed corrective actions at the time of the conference did not include revising the fitness-for-duty procedure to provide additional emphasis that removal from unescorted access and testing within one hour were required when credible information is received that an individual's fitness may be questionable.
To emphasize the need for management expectations regarding fitness-for-duty to be fully understood by all personnel working at the Quad Cities Station, and the need for prompt action when an individual's fitness-for-duty is determined to be questionable, I have been authorized after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforcement, and the Deputy Executive Director for
~
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Regional Operations and Research to issue the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice)
in the amount of $80,000 for the Severity Level II problem. The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level II problem is $80,000. The civil penalty adjustment factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered.
The base civil penalty was not mitigated for identification because, while the licensee identified the event -- a manager under the influence of alcohol --
it failed to identify the violation involving the delay in testing.
Furthermore, the base civil penalty was not mitigated for your corrective actions because you failed to emphasize through procedural revision that for-cause testing cannot be delayed.
No adjustment to the base civil penalty was
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
r.
]
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
made for your performance because even though your performance in the security and fitness-for-duty areas has been good, your overall performance has been poor as reflected by the most recent SALP 11 report and four escalated actions being issued in the last two years.
The other adjustment factors in the Enforcement Policy were considered, and no other adjustment to the base civil penalty was appropriate.
Therefore, no adjustment to the base civil penalty has been deemed appropriate.
You are required to respond to this letter and should follow the instructions specified in the enclosed Notice when preparing your response.
In your response, you should document the specific actions taken and any additional actions you plan to prevent recurrence. After reviewing your response to this Notice, including your proposed corrective actions and the results of future inspections, the NRC will determine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure compliance with NRC regulatory requirements.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR). To the extent possible, your response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information so that it can be placed in the PDR without redaction.
If personal privacy, proprietary, or safeguards information is necessary to provide an acceptable response, then plea 3e provide a bracketed copy of your response that identifies the information that should be protected and a redacted copy of your response that deletes such information.
If you request withholding of such material, you must spec.ifically identify the portions of your response that you seek to have withheld and provide in detail the bases for your claim of withholding (e.g.,,
explain why the disclosure of information will create an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or provide the information required by 10 CFR 2.790(b) to support a request for withholding confidential commercial or financial in formation).
The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law No.96-511.
ince ly, N
John B. Martin Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50-254; 50-265 License Nos. DPR-29; DPR-30 Enclosure:
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty
r-
,
,
Commonwealth Edison Company
cc w/ enclosure:
,
E. Kraft, Site Vice President J. C. Brons, Vice President, Nuclear Support S. Perry, Vice President, BWR Operations G. Campbell, Station Manager N. Chrissotimos, Regulatory Assurance Supervisor D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory Services Manager OC/LFDCB Resident Inspectors LaSalle Dresden, Quad Cities Richard Hubbard Nathan Schloss, Economist Office of the Attorney General Licensing Project Manager, NRR State Liaison Officer Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission S. Shelton, Vice President, Electric Operation, IA-IL Gas & Electric T. O. Martin, RIII IPAS (E-Mail)
_
.
.
Commonwealth Edison Company
DISTRIBUTION POR LPDR SECY CA JTaylor, EDO JMilhoan, DEDR JLieberman, OE LChandler, OGC JGoldberg, OGC WRussell, NRR RZimmerman, NRR LTremper, OC Enforcement Coordinators RI, RII, RIV, WCF0 FIngram, GPA/PA DWilliams, OIG JFitzgerald, 01 EJordan, AE00 OE:EA(2)
RRosano, OE g!!NUDOCstata State of Illinois RA0:RIII SLO:RIII PA0:RIII IMS:RIII