ML20155C060

Discusses Investigation of Activities at Plant from 871001-880707 & Forwards Synopsis of 861231 Event

ML20155C060
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	10/04/1988
From:	Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Edleman M TOLEDO EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8810070224
Download: ML20155C060 (6)

Text

4 DC.5

. . pus:vy kg dNITED ST ATES NUCLF. AR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION i

f WASHINGTON, D, C. 20$$$

g l

\, * * * * * / '

OCT 1 yyg

+

Docket No. 50-346 Toledo Edison Company .

ATTN: Mr. Murray R. Edleman President Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 Gentlemen:

This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. J. N. Kalkman of the Imc Office of Investigations. Region III Field Office and Messrs. M. J. Farber and R. P. Landsman of the NRC Region III Office from October 1, 1987 through July 7, 1988, regarding certain activities at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station authorized by facility Operating. License No. NPF-3. A copy of the synopsis is enclosed for the issues associated with the December 31, 1986 incident.

One issue addressed during that investigation concerned the activities i

occurring in the Davis Besse Station Control Room on Decenter 31, 1986 and January 1,1987. Our investigation disclosed that fir. J. Williams, your former Senior Vice President, directed Mr. L. Storz, your Plant Manager, at approximately 8:30 p.m. on Decer.ber 31, 1986, to report to the site due to schedule delays in the plant startup occurring that evening. Your Plant Manager reported to the Davis Besse Station at approxinately 10:30 p.m. on Decerter 31, 1986.

While we concluded that the Plant Manager had consumed alcoholic beverages shortly before reporting to the Davis Besse Station, we did not conclude that the Plant itanager was intoxicated. However, the Plant Panager did not follow the Toledo Edison Company Policy on the Use of Drugs and Alcohol which required that employees not consume alcohol imediately prior to reporting for work.

In addition, the Plant Manager has testified that he neither advised his

. supervisor of his alcohol consumption nor considered the effects his alcohol l censumption may have had on his judgment prior to rcporting for work. ,

Our investigation also disclosed that shortly prior to being recalled to the Davis Besse Station, the Plant Manager contacted the Assistant Plant Manager for Operations and directed hin to accompany the Plant Panager to the site. The Assistant Plant Manager for Operations, who was assigned as Duty Operations Manager, on call, refused to report to work and resigned his position.

Upon arrival at the site, the Plant Manager reported to the control room. Our interviews of the personnel In the control room that evening revealed that the Plant Manager conducted several discussions in the control room area in a loud i and distracting :anner. Post of the personnel in the control room were distracted by the Plant Manager's behavior.

1 i

0810070224 G81004 i PDR ADOCK 05000346 l1 I O PDC

_ _ T6ll

, _'b . _ _ _ _

OCT 4 1988 Toledo Edison Company ,

In retrospect, the Plant Panager should have given due consideration to"the potential effects of alcohol consumption on his visit to the site. We are concerned with the disruptive demeanor that he exhibited in the control room on the evening of December 31, 1986. By copy of this letter we hereby notify the Plant Manager of our admonition for his performance.

Of perhaps greater importance is the need for the maintenance of proper control roo;n decorum to ensure continued safe operation of nuclear facilities. This can only be achieved through the effective implementation of proceduro which  !

cicarly delineate the licensee's expectations with respect to the desired contel I room environment. Additionally, the senior official on shift must have the authority and responsibility for implementation of those procedures, and have the support from upper levels of utility management for any actions taken in that regard. While procedures may not be able to be written to cover every case, the NRC can reasonably expect that proper actions will be taken to maintain control l room decorum if ultimate responsibility is clearly assigned, On January. 29, 1987, we had requested the President of the Toledo Edison Company 4

to investigate the allegation that the Plant Manager reported for work shortly after consuming alcohol and was a distraction to some personnel through his i behavior in the Control Room. In our letter dated March 30, 1987, we accepted r the report of your investigation submitted on February 19, 1987 by Mr. D. Shelton, !

Vice President, Nuclear. Your conclusion from that investigation was that the f

Plant Manager was not a distraction in the Control Room.

After review of the investigation into these matters by the NRC Office of Investigation, we now believe that while your report did describe the sccpe of the investigation, it should have been broader. Specifically, you should have '

interviewed control room personnel who had an opportunity to interface with or observe the Plant Managvr. We acknowledge that our own efforts to understand the '

scope of your review and to resolve the matter could have been better. Nonethe-

, less, in the future, we expect more thorough investigations of matters we

! forward to you.

In response to these concerns, we expect that Toledo Edison Cer v any will review the Plant Manager's actions and behavior that evening and evaluate the adequacy  !

of the procedures in place for ensuring proper maintenance of Control Room i decorum. We also expect that Toledo Edison Company will review the consistency of application of those procedures to all plant staff and management. This 7 consistency review should include discussions with sufficient Control Room  ;

personnel and other personnel you daem appropriate to assure that these procedures r dre being properly irplemented. In addition, you should reemphasize to the Operations Shif t Supervisors their responsibility and authority for assuring

. compliance with those prucedures by all personnel.

We request that, within thirty (30) days, Toledo Edison Corrpany submit to NRC Region !!! a repcrt of the results of those reviews and a description of correr.tive actions taken or planned. Specifically, identify changes or additions to your current procedures which will ensure those tvtters do net recur.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Cemission's regulations, a copy of this letter and your r.sponse to thir letter will be placed in the NRC Public Cocument Reen.

OCT 4 1388

,e Toledo Edison Company The response directed by this letter is not subject to the clearance precedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the Paperwork Recuction Act of 1980, PL 96-115.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have regarding this mattee. ,

Sincerely, b$ 4 tw '

A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

As stated cc: L. Storz, Plant Manager i DCD/DCB(RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, Region !!!

Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA James W. Harris, State of Ohio Robert H. Quillin, Ohio Departirent of Health i State of Ohio, Public Utilities Connission

[

I i

e l

I i

t I

i , ,

l . SYN 0PSIS In January 1987, the NRC received an allegation relating to the Divis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse), specifically that on December 31, 1986, the Plant Manager violated the Fitness for Duty Program by accessing the site

- in an alcohol-icpaired condition and proceded to become a distraction to the reactor operators and others in the control room that evening.

On January 29, 1987, the Reg) investigate loledo Edison Company (TEDCo ion III (RI!!) the Admiilistrator allegation requested and submitthat their findings to the NRC. On February 19, 1987 TEDCo complied with that request witn a written report assuring the NRC that their investigation had exonerated the Plant Manager of an concluded that he was,iny violation fact, not of their Fitnesstofor a distraction Duty Program anyone and in toe control room that evening. Based upon the licensee's report, the NRC closed the Davis-Besse t.11egation.

In Jr'v 1987, the NRC received new information alleging that the Davis-Besse Plant (anager was not only alcohol-impaired while at the site on New Year's Eve 1986, but that he also directed reactor operator activities while in the control room.

On October 1, 1987, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) initiated an in estigation relating to an alleged violation of the Davis-Besse Fitness For Duty Program. Although the NRC rules and regulations do not encompass fitness for duty, the NRC Comission authorized the investigation under the NRC Fitness for Duty Po'licy Statement and its authority t'o assure that any individual who has access to a nuclear power facility does not compromise public health and safety as a result of that individual's incompetence or impaired judgement.

This investigation has developed evidance indicating that on New Year's Eve 1986, the Davis-Besse Plant Manager did access the site after having consumed a quantity of alcohol, which in his opinion, was of an insufficient quantity to cause him to question his fitness for duty. That O! finding partially corroberated the TEDCo internal investigation finding of the Plant Manager's fitness for duty. This O! investigation, however, developed evidence, in part, contrary to the TEDCo finding that while onsite New Year's Eve 1986, the Plant Manager did exhibit behavior which was distracting and disruptive to the control room personnel. This investigation did not, however, corroborate the allegation that the Plant Manager directed reactor operator activities on the evening in question.

Because of the disparity between the TEDCo investigation report to the NRC and the 01 finding relating to the Plant Manager's distracting behavior in the control roem, 01 investigated further to determine whether TEDCo management willfully misrepresented the facts relevant to that aspect of their report to the NRC.

Case he. 3-87-017 1

l This investigation has developed evidence indicating that the Davis-Besse Vice President Nuclear, nho personally conducted the internal investigation of the Plant Manager fitness for duty episode, failed to thoroughly investigate the allegation regarding the distracting behavior in the control room. The Vice President Nuclear received a written statement from an eye witness to the events in the control room which confirmed the allegation that the Plant

, Manager may have been, for a period of time, a distraction. Rather than attempting to corroborate that statement by interviewing any of the other eight eye witnesses, the Vice President Nuclear chose to conclude in his letter to the NRC that the allegation was subjective and unsubstantiated.

'! [

t l

l 1

l i

l Case No. 3-87-017 2

. ..g.#p p ,

• ' s, '

• OCT 4.1988 q,- . ..

foledo Edison Compary DISTRIBUTION:

'd PDR LPDR SECY CA JMTaylor, DEOR0 '

AB0 avis, RI!!

JLieberman, OE -

Region !!! Distribution -

TMurley, NRR 0Crutchfield, NRR i

f 4

4 4

+

l I.

i e

i

)

i I

g.,

i 1

l l

i l

4 l

i 1

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