IR 05000341/1993005
| ML20035A575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1993 |
| From: | Creed J, Pirtle G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035A570 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-341-93-05, 50-341-93-5, NUDOCS 9303290039 | |
| Download: ML20035A575 (8) | |
Text
-
_ _ _ -
-
-
-
i E
'
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
.
I Report No. 50-341/93005(DR5S)
)
Docket No. 50-341 License No. DPR-43 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company f
2200 Secend Avenue i
Detroit, MI 48226 l
f Facility Name:
Fermi 2 f
Inspection At:
Fermi 2 Site, Newport, Michigan, and NRC Region III
!
Headquarters in Glen Ellyn, Illinois
Inspection Dates: March 2-16, 1993 Type of
- gection
- Reactive, Unannounced, Review of A Fitness-For-Duty Issue
Inspector:
ben d.
L, Oo t %. gs,<g_g g Gary L9 'Pirtle Date
~
!
'
Physical Security Inspector i
Approved By:
9 0v m u.L. O d M W 1 M avl /2 i MZ3 i
'
Jameh R. Creed, Chief F6#
Date Safeguards Section
]
l
Inspection Summarv f
Inspection between March 2-16. 1993 (Report No. 50-341/93005(DRSS))
,
Areas Inspected: Reactive, unannounced review of a fitness-for-duty (rcd)
-
concern involving a senior manager's alleged consumption of alcohol within five hours prior to returning to site to perform management duties.
Results: Our review discovered no evidence to substantiate the concern that a
'
senior manager consumed alcohol at a licensee's award ceremony within five hours prior to returning to the Fermi site to perform management duties.
Based upon interviews with the senior manager involved, two of his supervisors, and another person who talked with the senior manager at the
award ceremony; and interviews with three persons who shared the same table l
with the senior manager at the award ceremony; and interviews with two personnel who observed, conversed with, and accompanied the senior manager for
,
various amounts of time while onsite, we have concluded that the senior
.
!
manager was fit for duty, demonstrated understanding of the subjects discussed, expressed himself in a clear and concise manner, and showed no
indications in speech, conduct, or mannerism that he was not fit for duty.
!
!
!
.
t 9303290039 930319
!
FDR ADOCK 05000341
!
G PDR
.
.
_
_. _. _ _. _
-
.. _.
__
. _..
i
- l
..
I The licensee's training material and procedures pertaining to the five hour
'
abstinence period for alcohol and making determination of fitness for duty for personnel " called in" for work were considered adequate. No violations of NRC
'
requirements were noted.
,
I
,
i
$
!
,
!
i r
$
!
!
!
!
.
b t
!
i
l (
l
l
!
,
!
.
I f
[
t l
f r
!
t t
n
" !
t l-
!
'
,
.
_
. _.,
e
^
REPORT DETAILS 1.
Key Persons Contacted In addition to the key members of the licensee's staff listed below, the inspector interviewed other licensee employees who may have had information pertaining to the fitness-for-duty (FFD) concern being reviewed. The asterisk (*) denotes those present at the telephone Exit Interview conducted on March 16, 1993.
- W. R. Orser, Senior Vice President, Detroit Edison Company (Deco)
D. Gipson, Vice President, Nuclear Operations (DECO)
- R. MeKeon, Plant Manager (DECO)
- P. Fessler, Technical Manager (DECO)
W. Kropp, Senior Resident Inspector, NRC Region III The name and management position of the senior manager identified as allegedly violating the licensee's FFD policy, and the names of some personnel interviewed, are not specified in this inspection report to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. Additionally, for ease of reading and consistency purposes, personnel in this report will be referred to by the male pronoun which may or may not be the case in actuality.
2.
Entrance and Exit Interviews a.
At the beginning of the inspection, Mr. D. Gipson, Vice President, Nuclear Operations, was informed of the purpose of this inspection, its scope, and the areas to be examined.
b.
A telephone Exit Interview was conducted on March 16, 1993, with the personnel identificd in Section I above. A general description of the scope and conduct of the inspection was provided. Briefly listed below are the findings discussed during the Exit Interview. The conclusions of the inspection results are noted in the Report Details.
Personnel present during the telephone Exit Interview were advi=d that our inspection results concluded that there was no evidence disclosed during the inspection that supported information provided to NRC Region III that a senior manager had consumed alcohol within five hours prior to reporting tc duty at the Fermi 2 facility. This conclusion was based upon interview result" with the senior manager involved and eight other personnel who observed and conversed with the senior manager at the licensee's award ceremony on February 12, 1993, or during the senior manager's presence onsite during the night of February 12 and the early morning hours of February 13, 1993.
-
.-
-
,
.
,
'
The personnel present were also advised that their FFD training
and procedures adequately addressed the abstinence period for
'
alcohol prior to reporting for scheduled work, and actions to take to determine the fitness for duty of personnel recalled to the
'
site for duty. All supervisors interviewed were thoroughly aware of the program requirements pertaining to the abstinence period for alcohol and the " call in" procedure.
3.
Concern Review (Closed)
I a.
Concern: NRC Region III received information that a senior manager at the Fermi 2 facility had consumed alcohol within less
than five hours before returning to the Fermi 2 facility to assume management duties. The incident supposedly occurred on the evening of February 12, 1993. The implications of the concern were that the senior manager violated 10 CFR 26.20(a)(1) which prohibits consumption of alcohol within an abstinence period of at least five hours preceding any scheduled working tour, and that he
,
may not have been fit for duty while onsite the evening of
-
February 12 and the early morning hours of February 13, 1993. The
information received by the NRC indicated that the senior manager was onsite from 10:00 p.m. on February 12 to 5:00 a.m. on
February 13, 1993. The alcohol was supposedly consumed by the senior manager while attending the licensee's " Employee of the Year" banquet in Livonia, Michigan.
,
An inspection was initiated on March 2, 1993, to resolve the
!
concern. The inspection review results and conclusions are addressed below.
b.
NRC Review: The review of this concern included interviews with the named senior manager and eight other personnel who conversed with the senior manager either at the award ceremony, during the
<
award banquet, or while the senior manager was onsite. The licensee's FFD procedures, training video, and training handouts were reviewed to determine if they adequately addressed the i
alcohol abstinence period prior to scheduled work, and the fitness-for-duty determination requirements for personnel " called in" for duty. The senior manager's FFD training completion status was reviewed and a card reader history for the senior manager was
,
obtained to determine his movements within the protected area
during the night of February 12 and morning of February 13, 1993.
Supervisor's understanding of the alcohol abstinence period prior to scheduled work and FFD 6etermination procedures for personnel
" called in" for duty were also addressed in most of the interviews.
The interview results disclosed that the licensee held an
" Employee of The Year" award banquet on February 12, 1993, at Iaurel Manor, in Livonia, Michigan, which began about 5:30 p.m.
Due to labor related issues, contract security personnel were available to check personnel entering the parking area to confirm
l
i
,
that they were invited guests to the event. The confirmation
,
consisted primarily of verifying that the individual had aticket
!
for the event. Personnel attending the event then had to drive pass a union picket line to the parking area.
The licensee management had established a coupon system to limit attendees to one alcohol drink from the time of their arrival to
!
the beginning of the award ceremony. Anyone desiring an alcoholic drink had to present the coupon to the bartender at the open bar.
During the presentation ceremony (approximately 6:45 p.m. to l
7:15 p.m.), the bar was closed. During the banquet, the bar was
!
!
open for cash purchases; however, no cocktail waitress service was provided for the tables during the meal, and persons desiring an
alcoholic drink had to go to the bar and purchase the drink (s) for
"
themselves and others at their table.
,
The senior manager arrived at the award ceremony at approximately
6:30 p.m. and left the ceremony at approximately 8:30 p.m. on l
February 12, 1993. Upon arrival, the senior manager greeted i
several employees and had discussions with several other senior managers. He intended to return to the Fermi 2 facility later in
the evening and advised the Vice President of Nuclear Operations and the Senior Vice President of his intentions. He stated
something to the effect that he would be returning to the site and i
would remain in a condition to do so.
His two supervisors understood this to mean that he would not drink any alcoholic
'
beverages while attending the award ceremony. Upon leaving the banquet, he advised each of his two supervisors that he would be returning to the site and specifically stated that he had not i
drunk any alcohol while at the ceremony. Both the Vice President of Nuclear Operations and the Senior Vice President confirmed the
'
senior manager's statement in separate interviews. They both also stated that they detected no odor of alcohol while talking with
the senior manager, and that he was coherent and displayed
mannerisms that they considered typical for the individual.
Neither senior executive considered the senior manager to display any indications that he was not fit for duty to return to the Fermi 2 facility.
!
During an interview, the senior manager denied purchasing any r
alcoholic drink during the award ceremony banquet because he knew he would be returning to the Fermi 2 facility. He did state that he may have drunk one or two soft drinks in a glass while at the
,
banquet. To help resolve this issue, the inspector interviewed the three licensee employees who shared the same table with the
.
senior manager during the banquet. All of the three employees stated that they were aware that the senior manager would be returning to the site later in the evening. None of the employees went to the bar and purchased alcoholic drinks for the senior
,
manager. One of the individuals recalled that he thought that i
everyone at the table drank coffee and water during the meal.
!
Another individual recalled that he believed the senior manager'
j
!
,
._
.
.
-
.
..
'
.
,
l went to the bar and brought back a diet coke for the individual.
l Upon leaving the banquet, the senior manager excused himself and
explained that he would be returning to the Fermi facility. The
!
three employees sharing the table with the senior manager stated
that they did not note anything that would indicate that the
!
manager was not fit for duty.
j Upon leaving the award banquet, the senior manager drove to his
home before returning to the Fermi 2 facility.
Information
provided to the NRC indicated that the senior manager was within j
the protected area of the facility from approximately 10:00 p.m.
'
on February 12, 1993, to approximately 5:00 a.m. on February 13, i
1993. Review of the senior manager's card key printout showed
!
-
that he was within the protected area from 11:13 p.m. on
!
February 12, 1993, to 4:57 a.m. on February 13, 1993.
During this
!
approximately 5 1/2 hour period, the senior manager spent
approximately 21/2 hours in the control room. The reactor
startup was in process during this timeframe.
}
Interviews with the on duty Operations Engineer disclosed that he was aware that the senior manager was coming to the site and that
!
the senior manager stated that he had been at the award ceremony l
but had not drunk any alcohol. The Operations Engineer could not
!
recall if the senior manager had personally advised him by phone
!
prior to arrival or if the engineer he relieved advised him of the information. The Operations Engineer did state during the interview that he was well aware that he may have to make a fitness-for-duty determination involving the senior manager upon i'
his arrival and that he (Operations Engineer) was very sensitive to any odor of alcohol or other indications that may indicate that
'
the senior manager was not fit for duty. The Operations Engineer stated that he spent approximately four hours with the senior (
manager and observed him perform work functions and discuss l
technical issues with him and other plant staff personnel.
In the
'
Operations Engineer's judgement, the senior manager showed no indications of alcohol consumption and was fit for duty while onsite during his shift period on February 12 and 13, 1993. The Operations Engineer stated, in response to a question by the
'
inspector, that he thought he was familiar enough with the senior manager's mannerisms and method of operation that he would be able
,
to detect any significant changes.
'
A system engineer, who spent what he estimated to be approximately I
two hours with the senior manager while he was onsite, was also interviewed. The system engineer estimated that his contact with the senior manager was between 1:30 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on February 13, 1993, and that he observed the senior manager for approximately a two hour period during that time. The system (
engineer stated that he worked in close proximity with the senior i
manager and observed him climb a ladder while working to resolve a
!
technical problem. The system engineer also had discussions of a i
!
!
l
<
f
.
.
.
.
.
-
.,
!
!
i
i
'
technical nature with the senior manager. The system engineer observed no indications that the senior manager was not fit for
duty.
During the review of this concern, the inspector also reviewed the
,
senior manager's FFD training status to confirm that the manager
!
had received the required FFD training. Review of a computer
!
program which summarized training and other data disclosed that
[
the senior manager had received the required FFD initial and
requalification training.
!
[
The inspector also viewed the FFD training video used for' the
,
initial FFD training and the video used for current FFD training.
j The five hour abstinence period for alcohol prior to scheduled i
work, and the need to determine fitness for duty for personnel
!
I
" called in" for duty, were addressed in both video training films.
Review of training handout material for initial FFD training l
(SH-GN-502-0007-001, Revision 0), handout material for current FFD
training (ST-GN-502-0000-001, Revision 10), and the Training
Lesson Plan for initial FFD training (LP-GN-502-0008, Revision 1),
l disclosed that the five hour abstinence period for alcohol and
.
!
requirement to determine fitness for duty for " called in" personnel were contained in cach of the documents.
Section 4.1.2
,
of Procedure FMD AD4, " Fitness For Duty," Revision 9, dated
!
'
July 20, 1992, addresses the five hour abstinence period for
'
alcohol prior to scheduled working tours. Section 6.3 of Procedure FIP-AD4-03, " Overtime and Fitness For Duty Guidelines,"
i Revision 6, dated February 24, 1993, addresses fitness-for-duty determination procedures for employees " called in" for unscheduled
!
work.
q The senior manager and other supervisory personnel interviewed
!
were knowledgeable of the five hour abstinence period for alcohol
!
before scheduled shifts, and the procedures for determining
,
fitness. for duty when an individual is " called in" for work.
l
c.
Conclusion: The inspection results discovered no information to l
not believe the senior manager's statement that he did not consume
,
alcohol while attending an award ceremony on February 12, 1993, i
prior to returning to the Fermi 2 facility. The senior manager
,
displayed no indications of not being fit for duty while on site
!
the night of February 12 and early morning hours of February 13,
!
1993. The senior manager had received the required FFD training l
and was thoroughly familiar with the five hour abstinence period
!
for alcohol prior to scheduled work, and the fitness-for-duty
[
determination procedures for personnel " called in" for work.
i Since there was no information to support the assertion that the l
senior manager had consumed alcohol prior to reporting to the i
Fermi 2 facility, there was no requirement for the senior manager j
to be administered a breath analysis for alcohol. The licensee's
training material and FFD related procedures address the five hour
'
abstinence period for alcohol before scheduled work, and the
!
l
i
!
q
,
[
L
'
.-
!
!
.
>
methods for determining fitness for duty of personnel " called in
a r
for work. No violations of NRC requirements were noted.
l
>
!
!
t i
I
.
!
i
!
.i
$
!
,
!
i
!
i k
.
~i t
!
t r
,
i, I
t
,
F I
s
!
d r
k r
~k
L l
.
I
!
!
f l
,
l
i I
l r
..t i
. -.
.
.
_
-