ML20205C298

Requests Rept Re Results of Util Reviews of Plant Manager Actions & Behavior on 861231 & Evaluation of Procedures in Place for Ensuring Proper Maint of Control Room Decorum, within 30 Days

ML20205C298
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	10/04/1988
From:	Davis A NRC
To:	TOLEDO EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20205C289	List: ML20205C283 ML20205C298 ML20205C313
References
NUDOCS 8810260441
Download: ML20205C298 (5)

Text

_ _ _ - _ _ - - - _ _ _ _

, s. .

' ~*

[ o g-a UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

I wAsamotoN, o. c. 20ssa g ./ - ,

b..... CCT 4 15ag Docket No. 50-346' Toledo Edison Company ATTil: itr. Murray R. Edleman President  ;

Edison Plaza 300 Madison Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43652 Gentlemen:

This refers to the investigation conducted by Mr. J. N. Kalbnan of the liRC Office of Investigations, Region !!! Field Office and Messrs. M. J. Farber and R. B. Landsman of the NRC Region !!! Office frcm 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 occurring in the Davis Besse Station Control Room on December 31, 1986 and January 1,1937. 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 December 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 approximately 10:30 p.m. on December 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 flanager was intoxicated. However, the Plant Manager did not follow the Toledo' Edison Company Folicy on the Use of Drugs and Alcohol which required  ;

that employtes not consume alcohol imediately prior to reporting for work. ,

In addittori, the Plant Manager has testified that he neither advised his i supervisor of his alcohol consumption nor consicered the effects his alcohol i consumption may have had on his judgment prior to reporting for work. l 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 him to accompany the Plant l'anager to the site. The Assistant Plant Manager for Operstions, who was assigned as Duty Operaticns 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 i Flant lianager conducted several discussions in the control room area in a loud ,

and distracting manner. Most of the personnel in the control room were distracted by the plant Manager's behavior.

89.10260441 681005 PDR COMMS NRCC CnRRESPONDENCE PDC

__ _ _ _ _ _ . . ___ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ~ - - . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

OCT 4 1388 Toledo Edison Company In retrospect, the Plant Fanager 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, 1966. By copy of this letter we hereby notify the Plant Itanager of our admonition for his performance.

Of perhaps greater importance is the need for the maintenance of proper centrul room decorum to ensure continued safe operation of nuclear facilities. This can only be achieved through the effective implementation of procedures which clearly delineate the licensee's expectations with respect to the desired control room environment. Additionally, the senior official on shift must have the authority and responsibility for implementation of those procedures, and have the support trom 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 room decorum if ultimate responsibility is clearly assigned.

On January 29, 1987, we had requested the President of the Toledo Edison Company '

to investigate the allegation that the Plant flanager reported for work shortly after consuming alcohol and was a distraction to some personnel through his  !

behavior in the Control Room. In Our letter dated Harch 30, 1987, we accepted 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 Plant Manager was not a distracticn 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 scope 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 Manager. 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 Company will review the Plant lianager's actions and behavior that evening and evaluate the adequacy of the procedures in place for ensuring proper maintenance of Control Room >

decorum. We also expect that Toledo Edison Company will ruiew the consistency of application of those procedures to all plant staff and iranagement. This i consistency review should 'nclude discussions with sufficient Control Room personnel and other personnel you deem appropriate to assure that these procedures r dre being properly implemented. In addition, you should reemphasize to the Operations Shift Supervisors their responsibility and authority for assuring corrpliance with those procedures by all nersonnel.  ;

We request that, within thirty (30) days, Toledo Edison Cortpany submit to NRC Region !!! a report of the results of those reviews and a description of l corrective actions taken or planned. Specifically, identify changes or additions to your current procedures which will ensure those metters do not recur.

Inaccordancewith10CFR2.790oftheCsnission'sregulations,acopyof this letter and your response to this letter will be piated in the NRC Public Document Rocn.

.- ---_v --

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

OCT 4 1388 Toledo Ed,ison Company The response directed by this letter is nat subject to the clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget a. required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-115.

We will gladly discuss any questions you have regarding this matter.

Sincerely, b$ w A. Bert Davis Regional Administrator

Enclosure:

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

Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, Region !!!

Harold W. Kohn, Ohio EPA James W. Harris, State of Ohio Robert M. Quillin, Ohio Department of Health State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission t

e t

i 3-.

a

,. SYNOPSIS s  !

P 4

4 In January 1987, the NRC received an allegation relating to the Divis-Besse l

Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse), specifically that on December 31, 198L,  :

the Plant Manager violated the Fitness for Duty Program by accessing the site

• - in an alcohol-impaired condition and proceded to become a distraction to the "

reactor operators and others in the control room that evening.  !

On January 29, 1987, theRegionIII(R!!!)Administratorrequestedthat  !

. Toledo Edison Company (TEDCo) investigate the allegation and submit their findings to the NRC. On February 19, 1987 TEDCo complied with that request l with a written report assuring the NRC that their investigation had exonerated j the Plant Manager of an concluded that he was,in y violation fact, not of a their Fitnesstofor distraction Duty Program anyone and in the control  ;

i room that evening. Based upon the licensee's report, the NRC closed the Davis-Besse allegation.

l In July 1987, the NRC received new infomation alleging that the Davis Besse 1  !

Plant Manager was not only alcohol-impaired while at the site on New Year's t i

Eve 1986, but that he also directed reactor operator activities while in the

, control room. {

, (

i On October 1,1987, the NRC Office of Investigations (01) initiated an investigation 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 Consnission authorized the itivestigation under the NRC Fitness for Duty Policy Statement and its authority t'o assure that any individual who has access to a nuclear power facility does not compremise i

! public health and safety as a result of that individual's incompetence or 4

impaired judgement. '

j This investigation has developed evidence indicating that on New Year's Eve  :

j 1986, the Davis-Besse Plant Manager did access the site af ter having consumed i a quantity of alcohol, which in his opinion, was of an insufficient quantity to cause him to question his fitness for duty. That O! 'inding partially 4

corroborated the TEDCo internal investigation finding of the Plant Manager's  ;

fitness for duty. This 01 investigation, however, developed evidence, in i j

part, contrary to e.he TEDCo finding that while onsite New Year's Eve 1986, the  !

Plant Manager d41 p hibit behavior which was distracting and disruptive to the control room personnel. This investigation did not, however, corroborate the  !

l allegation that the Plant Manager directed reactor operator activities on the (

l evening in question.  !

l' Because of the disparity between the TEDCr investigation report to the NRC [

and the 01 finding relating to the Plant A. nager's distracting behavior in the ~

3 control room. 0! investigated further to detemine whether TEDCo management '

willfully misrepresented the facts relevant to that aspect of their report i l

to the NRC.

i

(  !

t l

hit No. 3-87-017 1

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

This investigation has developed evidence indicating that the Davis-Besse Vice President Nuclear, who personally ccnducted 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 reteived a written statement frum 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 Lnsubstantiated.

.o T.l f

.a 9

Case No. 3-87-017 2

.