ML20133C023
| ML20133C023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Davis Besse |
| Issue date: | 02/13/1980 |
| From: | Tambling T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Heishman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132B273 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8510070202 | |
| Download: ML20133C023 (5) | |
Text
p uay -
. &f[ '
'of UNITED STATES
[
s-, '
- j-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.g.
's REGION lil C,
799 ROOSEVELT ROAD
'g,
,e GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137 February 13, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. F. Heishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch FROM:
T. N. Tambling, Acting Chief, Projects Section 2-2
SUBJECT:
A STATUS UPDATE OF DAVIS-BESSE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT CONTROLS AND PLANT OPERATION j
Per your request I have updated the status of the ten areas Toledo j
Edison Company outlined in their program to improve their management i
control and plant operation. The status and our comments are based 1
l upon information from the management meetings, inspections, and obser-vations by myself and L. Reyes. The ten areas and status is attached.
k
\\
\\. 0.e---\\ c: _6 k(
~
1
}
T. N. Tambling, Acting Chief
{
Projects Section 2-2 Attachments: As stated j
l J
\\
I l
4 717 D
PDM i
CORRES J
1
a.
ATTACRMENT I:
1.
Staffing Original goals:
\\
Initial Effort.
To fill 12 positions in Power Engineer To fill 22 positions at Plant.
Future and continuing effort.
Inhouse review on future manning requirements and organization structures.
Status:
At the plant level there has been a net loss through people leaving the company or transfers to other parts of the company.
This appears to be true for licensed operators.
Comment:
Of the 10 areas this is probably the most critical one. Although a direct relationship can not be established between equipment problems and the available manpower, we feel that the long hours required of plant personnel may have a contribution.
2.
Procedures Original goals:
At plant level establish a group to centralize preparation and maintenance of procedures.
Engage a consultant to review plant procedures to establish uniformity and general upgrading of procedure.
Ftatus:
Effort in this area appears to be minimal.
Our perception is that the lack of manpower has contributed t'o this.
3.
Management Controls Original goals:
Immediate:
Promotion of Mr. Crouse to Assistant Vice President, Energy Supply to concentrate his efforts in the Nuclear Station.
.~.
1 1
j 3.
Management Controls (con't) i I
Mr. Johnson to hold meetings with all plant personnel to discuss current problem areas.
i i.
Current and Future:
\\
Conc!nue to interface with other nuclear generating stations i
to review their organization and controls.
Reevaluation,of personnel policies, including selection and evaluation of new personnel, a development program for manager and promotion practices.
Status:
Company organization restructured December 1, 1979. All nuclear station activities put under one vice president.
Interfacing with other nuclear station has been a continuing effort.
Reevaluation of perscnnel policies completed implementation j
in progress.
4.
Training i
1 1
Original goals:
+
Implementation of a board training program of all plant staff directed toward improving job-related skills.
4 l
Evaluate the need for a plant simulator for operator training.
1 I
Status:
j Implementation in progress. Training department staff increased i,
Additional simulator time added to requalification training.
j Specialized training courses have and are being given.
I Comment:
I j
Currently' training of licensed operators has been effected by manpower shortages for plant operations (i.e. requires operators operationstrainingtobegiven{ overtime).
i I
4 1
l
5.
LER's 3 Original goals:
Setup a special investigation group to review LER's with special emphasis on personnel errors and repetitive equip-ment problems.
?
Hold monthly meetings with plant staff to discuss signigicant LER's.
Status:
Special investigation group established to review LER's and reviews being' implemented.
Comment:
Although the LER review committee is contributing to the identi-fication of problem areas, the corrective action identified by the committee is not being implemented in a timely fashion.
i 6.
Maintenance Original goals:
Develop a computer-program to track maintenance and preventative maintenance acitvities.
[-
Status:
Contractor hired on working on software.
A contract has also let to an outside contractor to provide onsite management and skilled crafts to supplement the maintenance and modification activities.
7.
Surveillance Testing Original goal:
Implement a specialized computer program to assist operators in identifying and tracking Technical Specifications action state-
=ents, requirements on special surveillance testing requirements.
Status:
A purchase order issued for computer software. To be implemented by April 1980.
~.
i,
)
-v-8.
FCR's 5 Original goals; Initiate a review system to improve the tracking, pre-planning of procurement and scheduling of wgrk.
Status:
An existing computer tracking system was modified.
Comment:
Of the 10 areas this one appears to be second most critical one.
Some progress has been made, but not too apparent.
The delays in the implementation of FCR's is a ese cause in the re-petition of some LER's.
9.
Communication i
Original goals:
Consultant to evaluate the lines of communications and methods of personnel motivations.
Status:
Consultant has been to site to interview personnel, but results are not known.
~
10.
Nuclear Service Group Original goals:
Establish a nuclear service group to report directly to the vice president to handle support activities at the plant (Bulletins, audits, FCR's, outage planning, training, nuclear fuel etc.).
b ra ro 5 :
Position of Nuclear Services Group director filled September 1, 1979.
Training and reliability group have been transferred from the plant to the Nuclear Service Group.
ur
[/p ** ***eq'q, s
UNITED STATES 7.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
REGION lli e3 7es noostvsLT moAo g
[
assu sLLv =.sto s oss eo m oo..*
FEB 16 580 Docket No. 50-346 Toledo Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Richard P. Crouse Vice President - Nuclear Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OR 43652 Gentlemen:
The confires the arrangement made between you and members of your staff j
and Mr. L. A. Reyes of this office, that a meeting will be held between l
Toledo Edison Company and NRC representatives at the Region III office, Glen Ellyn, Illinois on February 29, 1980 at 10:45 a.m., CST. The pur-1 pose of this meeting is three fold:
(1) to discuss schedules, milestones and accomplishments of your program to improve and promote better manage-l ment control and operations for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, I
(2) to discuss results of a recent security inspection and (3) to infore m
you of new changes in the enforcement policies.
4 We appreciate the opportunity to discuss these satters with you.
]
Stacerely, j
hY An-JamesG.Kep;p[er Director cc: Mr. T. D. Murray, Station Superintendent Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PDR NSIC TIC Marold W. Kohn, Power Siting Coensission Melen W. Evans, State of Ohio
' 80 03190147 p
.p N ' v._ %ava meAc %deu,
%\\c6 o 13(s,c m to Coe S'a*o
(-\\s bedos opsedou d %d s %sst Sido-we. wet w
ytey c.e oc.c.a th o' beet h (oss ok gualib.B ope catsy461 so.v.ws
- b. gd\\l$ woest.
W h:It s,o mt o4 W st mea w ba)
% W c % b ec -Ch.\\6 rnoc w %&3posGu deth.t d
n t', b. W s sbu\\6 lea e3t h you %t fk torr 9
.G (pos. hk-s/c o see x b s y er % A w % ',.J.,
b eta.scos g'uta by N.swun Pos \\tav',3 m s u ncovs W Yt le obvJoos Yhd %
'ecobbws mt (4 ist.W e.
ccm -
s DV 6 h t etvcC k Ob V s ou.
pack b So\\ud Oke NS
\\j Tbt so % % $ rswd b doe <_.Topmsdr b% loss of pos.My e oEhor %i tam b eteso ** A. \\> h b \\ % tt o s q.
Yob.dsn to untetest. A hp po.IG jo
\\'etstb'ss6ivibuals M b % Gs sea %s % % bd heb Dp&s
%gd a w.di$ u hk yos d wh?ck tk Nhc of o o r to aps. c%b 6(sc.ussth A %) cuch a test,'gs,'ss 9eoyw a va\\ih.9 r % % peoam anJ %s 6det 3
a 9 coq wh pos Ave tsponst..
v Simet%s w@y cowcc ~s di ht% egedor.s, we
%_\\ % rre& hT6 %h. p%. b Q.,0 's o a Iact A % Co %% m 3
4 % s % sst -b k t% %
O b )to tos~i_Ge.tuNh % watA A p %eoM %dfha b.R eu cs Sv 4 y d b ow.
u 6 'sss a s h't A d 6 7 $ s.
Tt
%) N's p tob\\cm et e e c4 am hedee rtgout q % wets'$ e kh L
%bt 6bmey \\'7,Viso o.4 opeoxiwddy I'.oo 9M.
_F^
1 0 j
' ' Q u 3' Gewbdos my k codt by ca n ) % Co & ol h.
% hoK buaxb to tred 3 whhy oy smtmhf h
VSS
%t ior blo t?
l i
4
[
f 8",si'-U49
?
UNITED STATES
[' " 3, ( E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
" /- r REGION lli kfD k*
799 ROOSEVELT ROAO g
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOls 60137
%..%d tout 311980 Docket No.
50-346 Toledo Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. W. Johnson President and Chief Operating Officer Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 Gentlemen:
This refers to the meeting conducted by me, and others of this office on Februa ry 29, 1980, at NRC Region III offices with you and others of your staff.
The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies the areas discussed during the meeting. As indicated in the report, the primary thrust of the meeting was the immediate resolution of concerns regarding the cur-rent experience levels of the operating shifts at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Station.
Your cooperation was very instrumental in effecting an imme-diate short term resolution to the concerns.
However, for the long term we believe it will require the explicit attention of you and your staff to prevent any future degradation of the plant staff to the point we found it during the weeks of February 18 through 28, 1980.
Our inspec-tion effort will continue in the area of plant staffing and we request that you be prepared to address your plans to meet the December 1979 draft of ANS Standard 3.1 in our next management meeting.
No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during the course of this meeting.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room, except as follows.
If this report contains information that you or your contractors believe to be proprietary, you must apply in writing to this office, within twenty days of your receipt of this letter, to withhold such information from public disclosure.
The application CQ& f,f ( l & Mh Y {s
'9 /LO y
m-
Toledo Edison Company -
IWUt 31960 must include a full statement of the reasons for which the information is considered proprietary, and should be prepared so that proprietary infor-nation identified in the application is contained in an enclosure to the application.
Thank you for your cooperation with us.
If you have any questions re-garding the enclosed report please feel free to call me.
Sincerely, James G. Keppler Director
Enclosure:
IE Inspection Rpt. No. 50-346/80-07 cc w/ enc 1:
Mr. T. Murray, Station Superintendent Central Files Reproduction Unit NRC 20b PDR Local PCR NSIC TIC Howard W. Kohn, Ohio Power Siting Commission Helen W. Evans, State of Ohio RII RIII RIII g\\
\\tM Reyes/ pat Tambling He an 3/24/80 3' 2.s to
U.S. NUCIIAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION III Report No. 50-346/80-07 Docket No. 50-346 Licensee: Toledo Edison Company Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 Facility Name: Davis-Besse 1 Meeting At: Region III Office Meeting Conducted:
Febura ry 29, 1980
- 7. M. T M ;0.
Inspectors:
L. A. Reyes b
23f26483 r
- r. a.w :
T.Ngabing 3[t<4fSo a,
fa ts. -
Approved By:
. Heishman, Chief, Reactor Operations and Nuclear Support Branch Meeting Summary Meeting February 29,1980 (Report No. 50-346/80-07)
Subject of Meeting:
An announced meeting was held with corporate and site management to discuss current operating shift staffing concerns and results of a security inspection. The meeting lasted approximately 3\\
hours and NRC representatives included IE Headquarters and Region III personnel.
Results: The licensee committed to immediate implementation of three short term actions to strengthen the experience level of non-licensed personnel on the five operating shifts until the reactor is shutdown for the scheduled refueling outage.
For the long term the licensee was committed to meet the operating shift staffing requirements of the December 1979 draft of ANS 3.1 Standard prior to returning the reactor to operation from the refueling outage.
An order to modify the licensee was issued on March 5, 1980 to confirm these commitments.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified within the scope of this meeting.
l
%d314GCW Q
DETAILS 1.
Attendees from Toledo Edison Company W. A. Johnson, President and Chief Operating Officer R. P. Crouse, Vice President, Nuclear L. C. Philips, Vice President, Administrative Services T. D. Murray, Station Superintendent M. R. Polk, Director, Industrial Security C. M. Rice, Consultant Attendees from NRC J. G. Keppler, Director, RIII N. C. Moseley, Director, DROI, I&E HQ G. W. Roy, Deputy Director, RIII i
C. E. Norelius, Assistant to the Director, RIII J. Lieberman, ELD, HQ R. F. Heishman, Chief, RO&NS Branch, RIII R. F. Warnick, Chief, Project Section 2-1, RIII T. N. Tambling, Acting Chief, Project Section 2-2, RIII L. A. Reyes, Senior Resident Inspector, RIII J. A. Hind, Chief, Safeguards Branch, RIII J. F. Donahue, Chief, Securtiy & Investigation Section, RIII T. J. Madeda, Security Inspector, RIII
===2.
Background===
1 This meeting was the fifth of a series of management meetings re-quested by Region III to discuss the corrective action being taken by Toledo Edison Company to improve their management controls and plant operation and to hold an enforcement conference on the results of a security inspection conducted January 1980. Due to a major concern that developed in the week prior to the meeting as a result of direct questioning of plant personnel only two subjects were discussed. These two items were the training and experience levels of non-licensed operating personnel assigned to the shift crews and the findings of the security inspection. The status of other correc-1 tive actions currently being implemented by the Toledo Edison Com-pany to improve their management controls and plant operations was deferred to the next meeting to be scheduled for April 1980.
3.
Operating Shift Manning A recent evaluation of the licensee's operation showed that despite efforts of the licensee to increase the staffing levels of the plant, it had not reached the desired level. Known turnovers, transfers and operator training had resulted in the use of over-time to maintain the operating shift manning levels.
In February 1980, a letter was sent from the plant reactor operators to the Vice President, Nuclear, expressing concern about the loss of qualified operators and requesting a meeting on February 17, 1980.
While this letter was directed towards correcting the reason _why reactor operators were leaving, it contained an implied concern about the present status.
During the week of February 18, 1980, the Resident Inspector inter-viewed plant operators to determine the extent of the concerns expressed in their letter to the Vice President. Under direct questioning the Resident Inspector was told by one operator that the staffing problems were so significant that the plant was unsafe to operate.
On February 25, 1980, the Director of Region III and the Director, Division of Reactor Operations Inspection, IE interviewed plant operators.
Perceived problems of excessive work hours and inade-quate training were identified during these interviews.
Some of those interviewed, including two senior licensed operators stated that in their view some shifts did not have adequately qualified people to successfully handle an emergency. None of those inter-viewed rated the plant as being any better than marginally safe.
Additional investigation was conducted onsite on February 26 and 27, 1980. These investigations showed that while the licensee meets the staffing requirements of its license, concerns remain regarding the adequacy of training of nonlicensed personnel, the ability to res-pond to emergency conditions, and the overall depth of the staff.
Specifically:
a.
Six of the more experienced equipment operators had been effec-tively removed from regular shift work to train to become licensed operators; b.
Some of the remaining equipment operators have been trained on the equipment only in certain zones.
While this is adequate for routine shift operations, these equipment operators are not trained on all safety related equipment such that they could be relidd upon if needed in other work zones during an emergency.
c.
There was little flexibility to accommodate the loss of staff because of sickness or other work leave.
Such problems result in additional overtime work requirements.
4.
Corrective Action to the Staffing Problems The licensee was asked to address what immediate and long term action they would take to correct the identified operating shift staffing problems.
Based upon the specific concerns, the repre- -....
sentatives of the licensee stated that they would:
a.
Immediately return six experienced and fully qualified equip-ment operators, who have been involved in operator license training, to regular shift work to provide two fully qualified equipment operators for each operating shift. The additional qualified individuals will remain on shift duty until such time as they are relieved from duty by other fully qualified in-dividuals who are appropriately trained and certified by the licensee's training department.
b.
Provide one additional person for each day shift to relieve the shift foreman of nonlicensed administrative responsibilities.
c.
Expedite the on-the-job training schedule for existing equip-ment operators who are not yet fully qualified. This program would be accomplished by personnel from Toledo Edison Company or an.outside contract organization and would continue at least until the refueling outage, d.
Review the requirements for nonlicensed operating personnel contained in the December 1979 draft ANS Standard 3.1 and de-termine the feasibility of meeting these requirements prior to return of the station to operation after the scheduled April 1980 refueling outage.
This corrective action was the subject of an order modifying the license on March 5, 1980.
5.
Security Enforcement Conference The January 1980 security inspection identified nine items of non-compliance. The licensee was informed of Region III concerns about the proper implementation of the security plan. The items of non-compliance with the licensee security plan were discussed.
It was pointed out that these items of noncompliance could have been identi-fied and corrected by the licensee if there were greater attention given to the implementation of the security program by both site and corporate security management. The licensee was informed that an enforcement letter was being processed covering the result of the January 1980 inspection. The letter would request them to take appropriate corrective action. The licensee was also informed that any future failures to properly implement the security program would result in escalated enforcement action. -
.