ML20205N591
| ML20205N591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Glenn J SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N596 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811040216 | |
| Download: ML20205N591 (2) | |
Text
o
[pn R8Q.,p'A T
UNITED STATES P\\
- ?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,, c
{,
i W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555
/2 (D
%,,,, /
October 31, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Glenn Chairman Ccemittee on Governmental Affairs bnited States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am responding to your letter of September 15, 1988, concerning the December 31, 1986 incident at the Davis-Desse plant and our policy for determining whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commisticn (NkC) cr the licensee should investigate such cases.
NRC policy and guidance on determining when allegations should be reviewed by the hRC staff, i n v e s t i g a t e:I by the Office of Investi-pations (0!), or referred to the licensee are contained in NRC Manual Chapter 0517, a copy of which is enclosed.
- Normally, the NRC staff wculd conduct an inspection in response to an allegation involving a violation of NRC requirements.
- However, when the staff believes the licensee is capable of objectively addressing an allegation and when the r#: lease of information about it would not compromise the identity of the alleger, the sta f f nay refer tht-rnatter tc the licensee for review and subse-ouent response to the NPC.
Matters involving wrongdoing are "either investigated by 0! or coordinatec with it before referring the matter to a licensee for investigation.
The resu'ts of follcw-up actions cr. all allegations are assessed by the NRC staff fcr appropriate enforcernent cr cther regulatcry action.
In the Davis-Besse case, the NRC Resident Inspector at the facility cbtained information from control room operators en January 7, 1987, concerning the behavior of the Plant Manager during the time he was on site and in the control recr on Decenber 31, 19P6.
Since no wrongdoing, safety probler, er violations of NRC regulations were identified and the NRC Manual Chapter criteria for referring allegations to the licensee were ret, the a* legation was sent to the President. Toledo Edison Company, for investigation.
The Office of Investigations was consulteo prior to referring the allegation to the utility.
Based on the results of that investigation, NRC Region !!! concluded that no further regulatory action was necessary.
However, upon receipt of addi-ticnal information on July 7 and September 1, 1987, the NRC Resident Inspector at Davis-Besse conducted an inspectinn in late July 1987, and O! began its investigation in October 1987, A
m f U,.
@[ \\Mb1lC 9 4
o 3
2 NRC is reviewing its procedures for referring matters to licensees for investigations as a result of the Davis-Sesse incident.
Our objectives are (1) te clarify the process to ensure i
that the staff conveys to the licensee NRC's expectations re-1 garding the investigation and that the staff understands the scope and adequacy of the licensee's efforts, and (2) to develop procedures to ensure that the staff has appropriately considered the adequacy and results of the licensee's investigation.
With respect to the absence of prescriptive requirements regarding alcohol in the Commission's proposed rule on fitness for duty, the rationale for this position is explained in the text of the i
preposed rule published in the Federal Recister on September 22, 1988 (see pages 36813 and 36814 of the encTBse3 Federal Reatster Notice).
The Commission believes that nuclear power pTant person-nel should not be under the influence of any substance, legal or j
fliegal, which adversely affects their ability to perform their jobs.
j In essence, the proposed rule would require licensees to provide reasonable assurance that their employees are fit to perform their duties.
In its present form, the proposed rule leaves to the discretion of each licensee the specific measures to be used i
for addressing alcohol, legal drugs, and other health problems 1
(such as rental stress and fatigue).
The measures adopted by each licensee would be subject to NRC oversight and enforcement.
However, in publishing the proposed rule the Commission has
)
requested public comment on whether the fitness-for-duty rule should include more specific provisions on abuse of alcohol and on legal drug use.
In particular, comments have been requested on whether a specified level of alcohol in the blood should be established as a regulatory baseline.
Indication of alcohol above l
that level would require appropriate utility action.
This issue will be carefully ccnsidered in preparation of the final rule.
We anticipate comments on all aspects of the rule.
Final resolution 4
of many issues will not occur until the Commission has had an opportunity to review and analyre the public responses to this I
rule.
I l
I hope obr response will be helpful to you.
If you have any 1
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me, Commissioner Curtiss did not participate in this response.
]
Sincerely, (na w.kL Lando V, Zeq,Jr
Enclosures:
As stated 4
cc w/ enclosures:
Senator William V. Roth, Jr.
. ~.
_