ML20247A920

Forwards Addl Info Re Status of Allegations of Misconduct by Manager at Plant on 861231,per

ML20247A920
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	09/01/1988
From:	Bradburne J NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
References
CCS, NUDOCS 8903290228
Download: ML20247A920 (21)

Text

_ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _

l-( /

.q September 1, 1988 The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce

~'linTIG~dTiiles House of Representatives '

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

c Chairman Zech's August 2,1988 letter provided the Commission's response to your letter of June 14, 1988 regarding allegations of misconduct by a manager at the Davis _Besse plant on December 31, 1986. In responsa to Question 2 (b) of your above referenced letter, I am enclosing additional information regarding the status of those allegations.

Nsedocumentshavenotbeenpubliclydisclosed;therefore,werequest that their confidentiality be preserved through restricting access and use to the Members and Staff of the Subcommittee.

Please contact me if you have any further questions on this material.

Sincerely, John C. Bradburne, Director Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: The Honorable Carlos J. Moorhead e

8903290228 R80901 Ccsi E % e8F8 & ggg % . FULLTEXT ASCil SCAN ,,

/

(See pervious concurr7nce)

DFC :GPA/CA

GPA/CA p

l::..__________:.___________:__________.:_________...:.__________

NAME :MCallahan/ jim JBradb rpe.  :  :  :  : :

...__:..____......:._____.. .U..:._..._______:.........___:__..........:___.........:.....__....

DATE :9/1/88  : 9/2/88i  :  :  :  :  :

v

• s, 4

i September 1, 1988 i l

1 The. Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommitteeson Energy and Power .

Committee on Energy and Commerce .)

United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

q Chairman 'Zech's August 2,1988. letter provided the Commission's response. l to your request of June 14, 1988. I am inclosing additional'information l as referenced in response-2.b. of the August 2, 1988 response. ,

These documents have not been publicly disclosed; there' fore, we request that you preserve its confidentiality through restricting' access and.use to the' l Members and Staff of'the Subcommittee.

Please contact me if you have any further questions on this material.

Sincerely, John C. Bradburne, Director 1 Congressional Affairs 1 Office of Governmental and 1 Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: The Honorabic Carlos J. Moorhead l OFC :00A  : 0CA  :  :  :  :

........:.. .... 4..'....:....__......._:..___..__...__:_______.......:.____..........__ ..____... .i NAME : M Calla'han/jh :JBradburne  :  :  :  :

DATE :9/ / /88 :9/ /88  :  :  :  :

4

-e ,

• ^ ei M >.

. s i

l September 1, 1988 The Honorable Ph'ilip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy.and. Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. -20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Chairman Zech's August 2, 1988 letter provided the Commission's response-to your request of June 14,x1988. I am inclosing additional information-as referenced in response 2.b. of the August 2, 1988. response.

These documents have not been publicly disclosed; therefore, we request that you preserve its confidentiality through restricting access and use to the Members ar.d Staff of the Subcommittee.

Please contact me if you have any further questions on this material.

Sincerely, John C. Bradburne, Director-Congressional Affairs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs

Enclosures:

As stated cc: The Honorable Carlos J. Moorhead 1

l l

0FC :0CA :0CA  :  :

.......:........y..'....:..............:...._____....:.....__....................__:._.__.......

N AME. :MCallahan/jh :JBradburne  :  :  :

DATE :9/ / /88 :9/ /88  :  :  :

a--____-____________. - - ._-

~ . _ - . - _ - - - - .

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONGRESSMAN SHARP SYNOPSIS l

Since March 1986, NRC Region III has been dealing with a series of allegations regarding the operation and management of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Each of these allegations consists of a number of concerns regarding various aspects of plant operation and all are linked by the comon concern that employees who identify deficiencies in Toledo Edison programs, voice, opinions contrary to the company position, or raise safety concerns are subjected to harassment, intimidation, and adverse job actions.

These allegations have come to be classified as a " chilling effect."

In dispositioning these allegations, the following were considered:

• Of the three primary targets of the allegations only one, the current Plant Manager, remains in the same capacity. The other two persons (the former Senior Vice President and the fonner Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance)nolongerworkforDavis-Besse. The Plant Manager has been the subject of controversy primarily from the licensed operators who were at Davis-Besse prior to June 9, 1985. His supervisory techniques have been reviewed by Toledo Edison senior management and he has been provided with training and an improvement program in management style.

• Many of the occurrences cannot be verified due to lack of witnesses or the clouding of memories.

• Harassment is a subjective matter. Some allegers considered pressure to perform better and being held accountable for one's actions under threat of loss of a job as harassment. These policies were a significant part of the management style of the Senior Vice President, the Plant Manager, and the Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance.

• At the time of the original " chilling effect" allegation there was a clear conflict in progress between the new management and those individuals, both management and labor, who were at Davis-Besse prior to June 9, 1985.

• Toledo Edison employees went on strike in May through June 1986, and senior management at Davis-Besse took a "hard line" with regard to the strike. The policies they adopted during and after the strike appeared to have antagonized many union personnel.

• None of the individuals interviewed during the initial review of these allegations knew of a safety concern which had not been reported or of anyone who knew of a concern and did not report it.

• Since the receipt of the first " chilling effect" allegation on March 24, 1986, safety concerns have been reported routinely through the utility's normal deficiency reporting system. Region !!! has monitored these actions and is not aware of any significant safety concern which has gone unreported.

• Much of what has been alleged as a " chilling effect" is intangible and subjective. Therefore, Region III concentrated its effortsIt to ensure appears to that plant and worker performance were not affected. Interviews Region III that the basic issue is a labor / management problem.

of allegers by Region III have not identified any safety concerns which have gone unreported or unresolved for fear of retribution by management.

l l

l

m ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CONGRESSMAN SHARP INTRODUCTION These allegations at Davis-Besse are in reference to a series of concerns related to the perceived policies and programs instituted by Toledo Edison management since mid-1985.

At the time of the allegations, the new management (which had been brought in by Toledo Edison Company in mid 1985) was attempting to make plant improvem and to change the work culture as a result of NRC concerns steming fro June 9, 1985 loss of feedwater event.

significant employees.

changes to the Davis-Besse operation and met resis i i

for their actions, are not atypical of programs and policies at other nuclearThe l industry facilities, "t were a departure from past Davis-Besse practice. The l situation was further oacerbated by a company-wide strike in mid 1986.

allegations discussed here were received in the 1986 time frame and primarily i deal with management policies as they relate to the operations and maintenance j departments at Davis-Besse.

The plant was shutdown from June 1985 to December 1986 for major improvements It restarted in December 1986, and ran without any major problems until March 4 1988, when it was shutdown for a scheduled refueling and for additional planned l modifications. During this time period, the NRC concentrated its efforts to l ascertain that the improvements, modifications, and post modification testing were safely.

done properly and to assure that the plant was being run The NRC inspected ,

of the plant and its operation showed significant improvement.the 50-346/88013 them were substantial (this was documented in Inspection Report No.None of the which was provided in our earlier response).information or any spec of the plant. Plant personnel interviewed stated categorically that regardless of any disagreements they might have with plant management, they would do whatever was necessary to run the plant properly and to protect the health and safety of the public.

With this introduction and background, the responses which follow deal with the individual concerns contained in allegation files RIII-86-A-00 RIII-86-A-0184. The concerns of additional information on the status of these allegations.

RIII-86-A-0051 of the,first alleger.

are identified by number, e.g., 1-9 indicates the nint Instrumentation and Control (I&C) technicians. The concerns are grouped, where possible, according to their focus (e.g., morale, quality of work, etc.).

m Region III infonned the Office of Investigations Region III Field OfficeOI:RIII (01:RIII) of the substance of each allegation as it wiis received.

concluded that an investigation was not warranted based on the information from the alleger. The NRC assessment of these allegations resulted in no matters warranting referral to 01:RIII for investigation.

A. Concerns With Morale

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 i

1-9. Management styles and practices have caused " tension and infighting among employees" and worker morale "was wo,rse than ever." "No teamwork exists" and "everyone was out for himself because of too many management changes."

1 1-12. All of the plant telephones were equipped with recording devices to prevent misuse and this was affecting morale.

3-1. Contrary to the results of an NRC inspection which Toledo Edison posted, worker morale was not acceptable; worker morale was very low because of the intimidating policies-of the Plant Manager and the Senior Vice President.

4-2. Pressure, exerted by the Senior Vice President have and caused 95% of the plant workers to want to leave the 4-3. plant. The Vice President's style and policies have

" caused an explosive situation with the pressure on the men" and "if a person is constantly harassed, he'll eventually snap back." Further, "with so much stress, someone will eventually snap and damage the plant" and "with people afraid for their jobs, they'll do anything ,

to protect their job."

4-6. The Senior Vice President ignored the concern of a weld shop worker who sent a letter to him regarding the effect his policies, especially overtime, were having on the worker's marriage. The alleger believed that this was a fonn of harassment since the Vice President ignored the worker's concern.

5-2. Inconsistent management policies have contributed to the poor morale of the workers:

a. The plant did not have a policy concerning the wearing of beards prior to the arrival of the Senior Vice President. Upon his arrival, the Senior Vice President ordered all employees to shave their beards and that the policy was, " shave or get a job."

b. Plant management was inconsistent in the policy on reading materials. At first, all non-work-related materials were banned. This total ban was then 2

r

]

reversed and selected non-work-related reading l j

materials were permitted while other material continued to be banned. The policy is inconsistent j and is a form of censorship.

l

c. Management uses low-level managers as " snitches" to walk around the plant and take notes on employee's i i

activities.

d. Overtime and premium pay were banned since the inception of the continuous maintenance service program.

f.

Witnesses are not allowed at employee meetings with management so that management's recollection of the l

meeting cannot be refuted.

10-1. The wife of a plant employee expressed the concern that morale of Davis-Besse maintenance workers was very low because of inconsistent management practices. Employees were intimidated by management and management retaliated against employees who expressed their beliefs.

3. (From allegation RIII-86-A-0184) The technicians claimed a  !

mechanic was assigned to " watch them" and the mechanic was later surprised to see the technicians were still employed, stating "you're still here?"

Status: No examples were given by the allegers where the safe l operation of the plant was affected. However, Region III l

has been sensitive to this morale issue and through its inspections and resident inspectors has mor.itored plant l

j morale since the issue was first raised. A human factors

' assessment conducted by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in 1987 confirmed earlier Region III findings that the operations staff at Davis-Besse was dissatisfied with management's style and concept of operations. The most recent Systematic Assessment of l Licensee Performance (SALP) report which was issued on L March 21, 1988, noted that staff morale at Davis-Besse remains an NRC concern, and that utility management also is aware of the problem and has taken steps to resolve it.

The licensee has: initiated periodic publications to all plant employees to improve internal comunit.ations and to keep them abreast of site activities; conducted weekly meetings by the Vice President, Nuclear, (who replaced the Senior Vice President about February 1987) with operations shift personne'.; conducted weekly meetings by the Plant Manager with shop stewards, foremer., and supervisors; required backshift and plant tours by directors and managers; and provided special training for the Plant Manager. .The

- 3

7 SALP further states that the resident inspectors have noted improvements in morale and that, there is no evidence that the issue has affected the safe operation of the facility.

These allegations are closed. Licensee management is'.

aware of the problem and has taken steps to rectify it.

There is no indication of an adverse impact on plant safety and the NRC is continuing to monitor the licensee's performance.

B. Concerns With Quality of Maintenance and Maintenance Policies

• Allegation RIII-86-A-.051 0

1-11. Mandatory overtime for maintenance personnel had a negative affect on morale and the quality of work could suffer because of fatigue.

2-5. Worker morale is low because of the stress placed on the workers by the Plant Manager and the Senior Vice President and three maintenance department employees had succumbed to the physical stress of the job.

4-5. Improper policies caused supervisors to send employees out to " hide." As an example, 32 workers were assigned to the instrument shop and there was not enough work for them to do so the workers were told, "go hide, but if you're caught you'll get fired."

l 6-8. Excessive serwork created by the Plant Manager and the

! Senior Vict resident overburdened the foremen and as a result chey sere not aware of what their men were doing in tb field, Also, those managers, " distributed the won .o no one knows what to do."

Status- These concerns appear to be based on the allegers' opinions regarding the potential impact of management's policies and programs on plant maintenance. The allegers did not support their claims with specific instances where plant maintenance was degraded as a result of management's policies. Region III, being aware of the confrontational relationship between labor and management which grew out of reorganization, implementation of new policies, and the strike, has monitored the situation to determine if maintenance was unduly impacted.- Since the time when these concerns were raised, maintenance at Davis-Besse has been routinely monitored by the resident inspectors, reviewed by an Augmented Inspection Team, and evalueted by a Special Maintenance Inspection Team. None of these inspections identified any significant degradation in plant maintenance. To the contrary, significant improvements 1

4

I have been made in the condition of the plant since June 1985. Therefore, although one part of the allegation was that the quality of the work "could" suffer from worker fatigue, our inspections did not note such a decline.

The licensee's overtime policy meets NRC guidelines although two violations have been identified since 1986.

The first one involved excessive overtime by personnel in the instrument and control shop during the compar.y wide strike in 1986 (2 workers exceeding 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> in a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period; 15 workers exceeding 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in a 48 period; and 22 workers exceeding 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7 day period). The other one was 3 senior reactor operators exceeding 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> in a 7 day period in April 1987. Corrective actions have been taken to limit osertime below the

" approved" guidelines.

This allegation is closed.

C. Concern With Intimidating Statements in Memoranda

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 7-1. The alleger presented two memoranda which he believed represented intimidation:

a. The first memorandum contained the phrase, "Second guessing or Monday morning quarterback activities will be strictly limited to an occasional [ sic]

flogging."

b. The second memorandum suggested reassignment of individuals who were causing " gastrointestinal distress" for maintenance planners.

Status: Region III. staff reviewed the subject memoranda and determined that the alleged intimidating statements were an inappropriate attempt at humor on the part of a first line supervisor. Region III staff brought this issue to the attention of plant mana_genent as an example of nonprofessional behavior and the author of the memoranda was reprimanded. This item is closed.

D. Concerns With the Misuse of the Lecurity Scrgening Program

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 1-1. The alleger was unfairly denied a transfer to Davis-Besse because of previous psychological problems.

1-2. The company reneged on a labor settlement and again denied him employment as a result of his discussions with a Region III Public Affairs Officer about security screening.

5

v; -

i l

3 1-7. Toledo Edison is using the plant's security screening l system to punish employees who do not agree with the l Senior Vice President's or Plant Manager's policies. .

a. A maintenance worker's site access was revoked and the worker was entered into the Employee Assistance Program after he wrote a letter to the Senior Vice President,  ;

criticizing the Senior Vice President's management practices.

i

b. A reactor operator wrote a letter to the Plant Manager l criticizing the Senior Vice President's management Allegedly, I practices and renouncing his license. I the Plant Manager concluded the letter constituted a threat to the plant and placed the operator in the Employee Assistance Program within three days i of receipt of the letter.

2-1. This is the same as Item 1-7a.

2-2. The Plant Manager and Senior Vice President were improperly using the security access program to revoke the site access of people who disagreed with their policies.

5-1. This is the same as Item 1-7a.

6-4. This is the same as Item 1-7b.

Some Status: An inspection of these allegations is in process.

field work has been completed and the results are being reviewed by Region III Management.

l E. Concerns with the F4tness for Duty Testing Polte;

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 4-4. The Davis-Besse drug policy is a form of harassment in the way that it is carried out and the policy is " guilty until proven innocent" and "it was embarrassing for someone to watch men urinate."

5-2. The urinalysis program was degrading since the employees were required to urinate in the presence of a witness and the program was implemented as though "you're guilty until proven innocent." Also, the program was not implemented on a random basis. As an example, two unnamed employees were tested four times.

Additionally, the urinalysis was "done wrong" as "the machine was out of calibration for most of the day and l

' (the testing) had to be redone."

6 E-

y

. l 6-9. The company's drug policy was improperly implemented because the policy was "you're guilty until proven innocent."  ;

The Toledo Edison drug policy includes a training program S_ta tus : for all levels of employees, a urinalysis testing program, and an Employee Assistance Program which allows for rehabilitation. Urine sample collection is witnessed to ,

1 assure that the sample comes from the person identified.

The NRC endorses a program which assures the validity of  ;

the sample.

The alleger indicated that the testing was improper because on a non-specific date the testing machine was out of calibration. The alleger claims this because the tests "had to be redone." The incident in this allegation was  ;

not reviewed by NRC due to the lack of specific information such as times, dates, and names. However, the NRC would expect retesting to be done if a machine is out of calibration. Also, in reviewing Toledo Edison actions in other Fitness for Duty caset, the NRC found its activities to be both appropriate and comprehensive including retesting if the results are in doubt for any reason.

The alleger concludes that testing was not random because two unnamed employees were tested four times (the names and dates were not provided). The nature of random drug screening selection requires that even though an individual is selected and tested, his/her name remains in the " pool."

Thus, some individuals could be tested multiple times. ,

l If an individual was not returned to the " pool," the individual would be able to use controlled substances without detection after a test. (Due to an arbitrator's decision dated January 22, 1988, random drug testing of Toledo Edison employees was ruled unreasonable and violated the collective bargaining agreement. However, randomtestingofoutsidecontractorscontinues.) This allegation is closed.

F. Concerns With Senior Vice President Actions During the Strike i

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 A woman who identified herself as the wife of a plant employee alleged that the Senior Vice President exhibited unusual behavior as evidenced by: ,

10-4. During the strike the Senior Vice President ran over a fire barrel (barrel of burning wood used by picketers to keep warr0 spreading fire across the pavement.

10-5. The Senior Vice President used his automobile to run down a striker who was slowly walking across the driveway.

7

Status: The alleged incident is an example of a. labor / management confrontation during a strike which did not represent any threat to the physical security or safe operation of the plant. This allegation is closed.

G. Other Concerns

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 1-3. A licensed operator committed suicide. Plant employees have heard of the contents of the suicide note and believe the suicide was caused by the management pressures exerted on Davis-Besse employees.

Status: The circumstances surrounding the death of the licensed-operator were investigated by the appropriate civil authorities. Due to privacy concerns, no further

• information is provided in this response. This allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 1-4 The Plant Manager told the alleger that his site access had been denied because of his " attitude, threats, and contacts with governmental agencies."

1-5. Plant Manager said, "We don't start trouble, if we do something the NRC will investigate this and other areas.

We don't need the hassle from the NRC."

1-6. Senior Vice President told alleger, "No employee has the right to go to the NRC Resident Inspector. No employee has the right to make such contacts. My policy and Toledo Edison policy is no one is allowed to go to the NRC."

10-3. A woman who identified herself as the wife of a plant welder alleged that the wife of another Toledo Edison employee who telephoned the personnel office regarding an unfair labor practice was told that Toledo Edison does not want the NRC involved. Plant workers had been told on many occasions not to contact the NRC.

Status: Allegations 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6 are based upon conversations between the alleger and the members of management referenced.

The NRC interviewed the Plant Manager onsite and asked if he had ever made such statements. He stated that he had not. Due to conflicting statements, thse allegations cannot be substantiated. The Senior Vice President is no longer employed at Davis-Besse.

Allegation 10-3 involves second hand information regarding alleged unfair Toledo Edison Company personnel practices.

8

The NRC does not review personnel practices unless they involve safety issues. The alleger described a conversation

' regarding an unfair labor practice and did not provide information indicating a safety matter was involved.

The Toledo Edison Company complies with NRC requirements regarding the posting of notifications to workers and' access to the NRC. The continuing receipt of cliegations received by Region III indicates employees are not reluctant to talk to the NRC. This allegation is closed.

• A11ecation RIII-86-A-0051 1-8. An unidentified' engineer, who identified a groove.in the shaft of a reactor. coolant pump, was told to ignore the problem by a supervisor and was subsequently transferred from the site to the corporate office.

Status: .The alleger would not furnish the identity of the engineer because he claimed that the engineer was " frightened."

Region III offered the alleger means of contact to maintain anonymity. The alleger claimed he again contacted the engineer, but the engineer would not contact the NRC for fear of retribution.

The shafts of all four reactor coolant pumps were replaced as a result of cracks identified en similarAs-areactor coolant pump shafts at another nuclear facility. result of the allegation the licensee volunteered to do additional examination of the shaft in question but Region III declined because it was believed that the additional radiation exposures obtained by the workers could not be justified to resolve this issue. This allegation is closed.

l

• A11ecation RIII-86-A-0051 1-10. Many Davis-Besse employees know of problems in the plant, but none of them will discuss the problems for fear of losing their jobs. ,

2-3. Workers are afraid to make decisions or to admit mistakes because they fear for their jobs.

2-6. Workers are afraid to come to the NRC because nothing will '

change . . . " going to the NRC makes you look weak, like you can't do your job."

Status: The allegers did not know of any instances in which nuclear safety was compromised and they did not know of any However, one stated unreported nuclear safety concerns.

that the potential was there because employees were afraid When the to identify their errors for fear of being fired.

concern was raised, Region III staff monitored the results

- 9

".4 e

of various site programs used for deficiency reporting and determined that there was no apparent reduction in the rate of reporting and safety concerns were being reported.The NRC kno Workers are still coming to the NRC.

no significant safety issues which have either not beenAll emp identified nor left unresolved.

stated they would do what isThis necessary,to allegationoperate the is closed.

plant safely and properly.

• A11egation'RIII-86-A-0051 The Senior Vice President's fiscal policies were ruining 2-7.

' Toledo Edison.

Status: The Region III staff has determined that Toledo Edison is committing adequate. resources to the operation of Davis-Besse as evidenced by the plant's performance over the past year and by the company meeting commitments made to the NRC staff and~ Commissioners in several meetings.

Region III notes that Toledo Edison and its holding company Centerior Energy both appear to be financially stable at the present time. No degradation in plant quality or operation can be connected to the former Senior ViceThis alle President's fiscal policies.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051, 4-1. The alleger's physician had treated other Davis-Besse workers besides himself for physical exhaustion resulting from job stress at Davis-Besse.

This issue was discussed with the alleger Thisand he couldisnot allegation Status _:

provide any other specific example. closed since it is n and there has been no indication of any negative impact on plant safety.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 5-1.b The a11eger stated that an apprentice who determined that performing an assigned task would be a procedure The violation was told by his foreman, "do it or it's your job."

apprentice performed the task.

Status _: NRC inspectors separately interviewed the appre 4 his foreman.

and that the apprentice was threatened with the loss of his job. This allegation is closed.

5-1.c The alleger was directed by his foreman to perfom a task in violation of a procedure because required cleanliness checks had not been completed. The foreman was "under i

10

r pressure to get the job done." The alleger stated that he did not perform the task.

Status: Based upon information supplied by the a1'1eger, the NRC-was able.to retrieve a work package which appears to have been the one' used to perfom work on' the specific valves, discussed. Within that work package (which was. completed in December 1985), is a cleanliness check sheet indicating that the cleanliness check had been done. This allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 6-2. The procedure writers refuse to make temporary modifications to the procedures for fear of

' retribution by management.

Status: Two years ago the Davis-Besse management instituted a new policy in which it discouraged the use of temporary modifications to procedures except in emergency situations because such changes were being used indiscriminate 1y a.nd the licensee wanted to better control the process. In lieu of temporary modifications, personr:e1 now issue

" procedure change request" foms. Temporary modifications, now called temporary approvals, can still be used if necessary.

l The Senior Resident Inspector recently interviewed 12 Davis-Besse employees to determine if they would have l l

any' reluctance to make~or to suggest temporary approvals or revisions to procedures (there were 4 maintenance l

personnel; 2 I&C technicians; 2 lead mechanics; 2 reactor operators;)1shiftsupervisor,and1assistantshiftEvery supervisor . indiv afraid or hesitant to make such changes if he believed the procedure was wrong or needed improvement. Some of them also stated that they are not discouraged by.

management from making necessary changes and in fact are encoura'ged to do so.

This allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 Two workers were improperly suspended at the Senior Vice-6-3.

President's direction after having followed an inadequate valve lineup procedure which resulted in a steam generator overpressurization while the plant was shutdown.,

Status: Further discussion with the alleger during the interview revealed that a management review of the event had determined that there was a procedural error and that the workers had i

11

4 been reinstated with full back pay. The procedure was revised to correct the error. This allegation is closed since the error was corrected by the licensee.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 6-5 The Plant Manager proposed disciplinary action for a plant worker for not "saying good morning to the Admiral." (Note:

The Senior Vice President was an admiral retired from the U.S. Navy.)

Status: This allegation is closed because it is not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.

6-6 The Plant Manager proposed disciplinary action against a water treatment plant operator "for showing disrespect to the Admiral " because he did not like the operator's response to a question from the Senior Vice President.

Status: The alleger was not personally involved in the discussion and was supplying secondhand information. The equipment operator in question told the NRC resident inspector that he had not been threatened with disciplinary action as a result of this incident. This allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 6-7. The alleger discussed a 1986 survey by the NRC of plant worker morale. He contended that the Plant Manager gave false information to the plant staff that the NRC had found morale was at an acceptable level. The alleger contended that morale was in fact at its lowest point in years. The Plant Manager told the plant staff that everyone likes the continuous service nmintenance program, when in fact none of the employees do, according to the alleger. (This is a program which provides 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> coverage onsite by maintenance personnel. Prior to instituting this program, maintenance work either had to wait until the next work day, or maintenance personnel would have to be called in and be paid overtime. The workersobjectedtobeing)requiredtoworkrotatingshifts at reduced premium rates. As another example of poor morale, the alleger stated that about 80% of the 37 employees in one department had requested inter-company transfers to get away from the Davis-Besse plant. When the alleger spoke to the Plant Manager about low morale, the Plant Manager's response was "you have a bad negative attitude."

Status: The Plant Manager was asked if he had ever talked to the staff about morale. He stated that he had, and on several occasions told them that the NRC believed morale was improving. Plant employees were unhecoy with the continuous service maintenance program, but were toid they would have 12

to accept it. The workers objected to being required to I work rotating shifts at reduced premium rates. The NRC considers the continuous maintenance program to be acceptable. This allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 6-10. The alleger stated that he did not know of any unreported nuclear safety issues or instances of someone being prevented from speaking to the NRC, and he did not know of anyone who did. However, the elleger continued "if I admit I did something wrong, I'll be out of a job. They (plant management) never look at human factors, they never consider a procedure was bad, only the people were wrong."

The worker further stated that "everyone is fearful of their job" because of management's intimidating policies. The worker also stated, "all of this points to a potential safety violation. Employees feel they have to cover-up their errors to save their jobs."

Status: Ouring the interviews with the alleger, he could not furnish any specific examples of unexpressed safety concerns or of any example of someone covering us to save a job. No examples of cover-ups have been broug1t to the NRC's attention since the allegation was made.

Personnel errors which have occurred at the plant have been dealt with appropriately by licensee management (including written reprimands being placed in personnel files), and the NRC is aware of several personnel errors known by plant management for which the individuals were not fired. This allegation is closed.

A11egjonRIII-86-A-0051 6-11. The alleger was transferred to a coal plant under unusual circumstances after his initial interview with NRC. He suspected that the transfer was motivated by his contact with the NRC. He also stated he was involved with union activities and that may have been the reasons for the transfer. Heindicatedhehadfiledacompljfntwith the National Labor Relations Board.

Status: The alleger had applied for a transfer from Davis-Besse..

Toledo Edison management granted the request and the transfer allegedly bypassed those employees already on the transfer list. The transfer was appealed to the National Labor Relations Board on the basis that the transfer was illegal. The labor arbitrator ruled in favor of the alleger, who is now working at Davis-Besse. The NRC reviewed the arbitrator's decision which stated that "The employer was trying to remove the grievants from the Davis-Besse plant solely because of the hostility they had presented in acting 13

'~

• o as Union stewards while resisting the changes made at the plant." The arbitrator concluded, "Thus, the transfers of the grievants are found to be discrimination against them due to Union activity which, in addition to violating the Agreement, violated the National 1. abor Relations Act."

The NRC concludes that the transfer was based on labor / management disagreements, and this allegation is closed.

• A11ecation RIII-86-A-0051 S-1.d. The Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance said, "if anybody voices their opinion, they'll get time off t60."

8-1. Two contract engineers were threatened.with loss of their jobs by the Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance if e

they continued to find issues and/or weaknesses.

8-2. An engineer working on a Significant Operating Event Report (SOER)onWestinghousemotorsinsafety-related applications determined that it was applicable to l Davis-Besse. The Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance told the engineer that if he ever raised such a concern i J

again that it would cost him his job.

8-3. A reactor engineer who identified problems attempted to discuss them at a Station Review Board (SRB) meeting ,

l and was belittled by the Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance to such a point that he left the meeting. l 8-4. At SRB meetings the Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance would belittle comments on errors in maintenance procedures to the extent that people would hesitate to mention errors in procedures brought before the SRB.

Status: The allegers told the resident inspectors that they had no unresolved safety issues or concerns. Their concern.

was with the management style of the Assistant Plant Manager for Maintenance. This Assistant Plant Manager no longer works at the Davis-Besse plant (he resigned to take a positionatanothernuclearfacility). Nevertheless, as was stated in several places in this report, the NRC has monitored plant perfomance and detemined that the plant has been operated safely. Furthermore, as was stated in response to Items 1-10, 2-3, and 2-6, the NRC has monitored various site programs used for deficiency reporting and determined that there is n' apparent reduction in the rate of reporting indicating that if the referenced statements were made they apparently had little effect on the Davis-Besse enployees. No further action will be taken br 14

r

.o

+ i by Region III with. regard to this allegation at Davis-Besse and it is closed. Region.III will, however, inform the Region where the individual is now employed about these alleged past nractices.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 8-6.

The alleger was concerned that he would be terminated within six months if management became aware that he.

was communicating with the NRC.

Status: This allegation will not be pursued because it addresses a " concern" which in fact did not happen (the alleger resigned his position'at Davis-Besse to take a position-atanotherfacility). It is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 9-1. At a talk following the 1986 strike, the Senior Vice l President stated that if anyone raised a concern that in his opinion was not a safety concern that the individual would " hit the bricks," and not be able to get another job in the industry. The alleger believed that statements like this made by senior utility management intimidated opentors.

Status: The Senior Vice President referred to in these allegations no longer works at the Davis-Besse plant. The NRC did not However, j pursue whether the alleged statement was made.the because the objective perfomance criteria of the plant  :

showed that it has opera'.ed safely; plant operators have_ )

told NRC inspectors they would always do what is necessary l to run the plant properly and safely; deficiencies continue to be raised by Davis-Besse employees using the internal deficiency reporting system; and the number of allegations in Region III regarding Davis-Besse continues to be high.

This allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0051 10-2. A woman who identified herself as the wife of a plant welder alleged that the welder suggested a more economical She way to repair cracks on reactor coolant pump shafts.

also alleged that his suggestion was turned down because it would identify other areas of concern and management did not want to identify any other areas.

Status: As was noted in response to Concern 1-8. the reactor coolant pump shafts were replaced by Davis-Besse.

Furthermore, safety concerns and plant deficiencies-continue to be reported as is noted in responses to 15

I several other concerns in this report, and the welder no longer works at Davis-Besse. The allegation is closed.

• Allegation RIII-86-A-0184_

-1.

Three of the four I&C technicians interviewed by the NRC believed they were being laid off as a result of conditions they discovered and reported to Davis-Besse ma steam admission-valve air actuators.

4. The technicians claimed they were falsely accused of damaging a Decay Heat (DH) valve actuator when witnesses earlier had heard mechanics pounding ~on the valve.

5. The technicians claimed that pressure was put on them to complete their work because Toledo Edison would lose 350 million dollars in tax write-offs if the plant was l not on the line by December 31.

6. The I&C Superintendent threatened the allegers with dismiss'al related to the AFW and DH valves.

Status: Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act (Employee Protection) provides for the investigation of employment discrimination allegations by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). -Region III staff infomed the allegers of the need to file a written complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor within 30 days of the alleged discriminatory act.

Region III was informed by the DOL area director thatThis the allegers had not filed a complaint with his office.

allegation was administrative 1y closed in March 1987, because the allegers apparently chose not to avail themselves of the Employee Protection Provision of 10 CFR 50.7 and 29 CFR 24.

In our first response to Congressman Sharp, we erroneously stated we would provide more information on this allegation in this second response. Actually, as The noted above, the safety aspects allegation was closed in March 1987.

of these allegations were reviewed and reported in Inspection Report No. 50-346/88013 dated April 27, 1988.

.1 16 I - - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _