ML20195F944

Forwards Notice of Violation & Proposed Impostion of Civil Penalty in Amount of $80,000 & Order Modifying License

ML20195F944
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	11/21/1988
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Edelman M TOLEDO EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20195F948	List: ML20195F944 ML20195F949 ML20195F959
References
EA-88-234, NUDOCS 8811220450
Download: ML20195F944 (4)

Text

. ~bc 5

~

/ .

o p,o g UNITED STATES

!9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

!. /3 i WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 m ese Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 EA 88-234 Toledo Edison Company ATTN: Mr. Murray R. Edelman President Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652

• Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY AND ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE (NRC INSPECTION REPORTS NO. 50-346/88012(DRP)

AND NO. 50-346/88027(DRP))

This refers to the inspections conducted on May 4 through September 2, 1988,.

of your quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) activities at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse), Oak Harbor, Ohio. These inspections concerned an allegation regarding the discriminatory layoff by your former QC Superviser, Mr. Louis R. Wade, of a contract QC Inspector who . ,

had raised safety concerns to your senior management.

These inspections also concerned other allegations of activities conducted l by or under the direction of Mr. Wade which violated NRC requirements. The l results of these inspections were described in the subject inspection repo. .

sent to you on September IP and 22, L88. On September 26, 1988, we held an enforcement conference between Mr. D. C. Shelton and others of your staff and l

Mr. A. B. Davis and others of the N,1C staff during which the violation, its root ceuses and your corrective actions were discussed. The report describing l the results of that enforcement conference and a followup meeting on September 28, 1988 was forwarded to you on September 30, 1988. l In July of 1986, a QC Inspector identified deficiencies in the installation of an electrical wire splice and subsequently initiated a Potential Condition ',

Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR). Mr. Wade was instrumental in having the report improperly invalidated instead of processing it in accordance with station procedures. Despite the invalidation of the PCAQR, the QC Inspector was still concerned about the issue and refused to dismiss it. In an attempt i to resolve this issue. Mr. Wade requested that the QC Inspectur formally j document and clarify his concern. fhe QC Inspector did so in a memorandum '

cated Octcber 10, 1986, and provided copies to Mr. Wade's direct supervisor, '

Lorren 0. Ransett, and the Srior Vice-President, Nuclear, Joe Williams. As a result of this tremorandum, kr. Ramsett investigatec the matter and subsequently, -

af ter several discussions with the QC Inspector and Mr. Wade, issued a nerrorandum dated October 29, 1986, to Mr. k'ade reprinanding hin for his improper handling of the QC Inspector's safety concern, p 8811220450 801121 PDR '\

O ADOCK 05000346 PDC

-gfIk

To[edoEdisonCompany In the meantime, during the period between late September and early October 1986, as a result of an upcoming reduction in force, Mr. Wade requested that the lead QC inspectors provide him with a list indicating the layoff sequence for contract QC inspectors. The QC Inspector who had raised the previous safety concern, had been listed on the app 1! cable layoff priority list as an individual who should be retained, if possible, due to his good work history and diverse capabilities. Despite this recommendation, Mr. Wade directed the layoff of the QC Inspector. As a result, on October 31, 1966, that QC Inspector was laid off. The QC Inspector was one of the first contract QC inspectors to be laid off and he was the first QC inspector to be laid off from his '

particular QC section. Moreover, within 15 days, the vecancy in that section created by his employment termination was filled by another contract QC inspector. The NRC has concluded that the termination of that QC Inspector was a discriminatory act in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 as described in the enclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed imposition of Civil Penalty.

The actions of Mr. Wade could have a significant effect on the willingness of hdividuals to raise safety concerns. An essential element of quality programs is an aggressive, proactive approach to the identification and resolution of safety concerns at an incipient stage to preclude later problems.

To emphasize the need for you: (1) to ensure that your supervisors and raanagers do not take discriminatory actions against employees for bringing forward safety concerns, and (2) to ensure that your employees feel free to brirg safety concerns to managements attention, I have decided to issue the mclosed Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the .

..nount of Eighty Thousand Dollars ($80,000) for the violation described in the  !

enclosed Notice. In accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," 10 CFR Part ?, Appendix C (1988)

. (Enforcement Policy), the violation described in the enclosed Notice has been categorized at a Severity Level 11 based on Supplemert VII of the Enforcement Policy because the action taken by Mr. Wade was considered celiberate and his position was considered above first-line supervision.

The base value of a civil penalty for a Severity Level !! violation is $80,000. j The escalation and mitigation factors in the Enforcement Policy were evaluated as follcws. Because the hRC identified the violation during the review of an allegation, mitigation of the civil penalty was not considered warranted.

Consideration was given to mitigation of the base civil penalty due to your extensive corrective actions including the en:ployment termination of Mr. Wade and the notification of your staff and management of the seriousness of this natter. However, after considering the earlier notification of this prcblem providM to Mr. .:amsett and Corporate Counsel during the NRC inspection and investigation in July and August 1988 and your lack of initiative to implement ,

correctise actions until late September, nitigation of the base civil penalty is inappropriate. Because your performance in this area has been good, as evidenced by the absence of citations made by the NRC and adverse findir.gs made by the Department of Labor, mitigation is warranted for past good performance, kith regard to prior notice of similar events, there has not bean prior notice which should have caused you to prevent this violatien justifying escalation.

Because there was only one occurrence of this violation during the irspection i period, the civil perialty was not escalated on the basis of nultiple t

1 l

. l

. , j Toledo Edison Company '

occurrences. The duration of the violation was also considered. Specifically, a civil penalty may be increased to reflect the added significance resulting from the durstion of the effects of the violation. In this case, the violation occurred in October 1986 and was not rectified until September 1988. During  ;

that extended period, there was a significant potential of a "chilling effect" on erployees' willingness to bring forward safety concerns. The imact of this  !

violation could have been reduced if ycur management had questioned the circum-stances surrounding the QC Inspector's layoff. Specifically, Mr. Ramsett met ,

with the QC Inspector on his last day at the site and gave him a copy of the cerorandum that criticized Mr. Wade's improper handling of the QC Inspector's i valid safety concern. If Mr. Ramsett had questioned why the same QC Inspector involved in this issue was being laid off, the violation could have been identi-  !

fied sooner, thereby reducing the potential "chilling effect". Escalating the j penalty for duration is warranted. Based on balancing the above considerations, 7 no adjustment to the base civil penalty is warranted.  ;

in addition to the inspection finding regarding the discriminatory action taken by Mr. Wade, our inspections also disclosed concerns regarding his performance. These concerns were addressed in the inspectinn report and Notice of Violation transmitted to you by letter dated September 22, 1988. l Because of these findings, we no longer have confidence that activities I performed by Mr. Wade or under his direction will be conducted in accordance with NRC requirerrents. We understand from our enforcement conference with you that you removed Mr. Wade from his supervisory position in August 1988, .

that yot removed 'is access to your facility in September 1988, and that you i have tuminated his employment effective November 1988. Because of our concern regarding this individual, we are issuing the enclosed Order Modifying License, ,

The Or'ler directs that Toledo Edison Company provide the NRC with notice should j Mr. Wrde be reinvolved in safety-related activities authorized under the j Davis-Besse Operating License.

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  :

ottions you plan to prevent recurrence of the violation described in the l enclosed Notice. You should also respond to the enclosed Order indicating  ;

action taken to comply with its provisions, in your responses, you should describe what involvement Mr. Pamsett had in these ratters, why your QA program did not disclose these problems earlier, and what actions you are taking or have planned regarding the failure to identify and resolve these problems. In addition, you should describe what actions you are taking to determine if any l safety concerns have been identified, but heve not been properly handled as a i result of the potential "c,illing effect" the discrimination violation may have l caused. After reviewing your response to this hotice, including your proposed l corrective actions and the results of future NRC inspections, the NRC will l deterriine whether further NRC enforcement action is necessary to ensure i cortpliance with NRC regulatory requirements. [

In accordance with Section 2.790 of the f&C's "Rules of Fractice," Sart 2, Title 10, Code of federal Rt.gulations, a copy of this letter ard its enclosures L will te i. laced in the f.RC Pub ic Docurent Room. ,

t

Toledo Edison Company The responses directed by this letter and the enclosed Notice are not subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of ttanagement and Budget, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L., No.96-511.

Sincerely, x

s M. Taylor feputy Executive Directo Ja for Regional Operations

Enclosures:

1. Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty

2. Order Modifying License

3. Inspection Report No. 50-346/88012(DRP)

4. Inspection Report No. 50-346/88027(DRP) .

cc w/ enclosures:

L. Wade D. Shelton, .

Vice President-i:uclear L. Storz, Plant Manager DCD/DCB(R!DS)

Licensing Fee Managerent Branch Recident Inspector, RIII Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA James W. Harrie., State of Ohio Robert M. Ouiilin, Ohio Department of Health State of Ohio, Public Utilities temission