ML20247A352: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML20247A352
| number = ML20247A352
| issue date = 08/02/1988
| issue date = 08/02/1988
| title = Zech Response to Sharp Subcommittee on Energy & Commerce Question 1(d) Posed in 880614 Ltr
| title = Zech Response to Sharp Subcommittee on Energy & Commerce Question 1(d) Posed in
| author name = Zech L
| author name = Zech L
| author affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
| author affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Line 11: Line 11:
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = SHARP-880802, NUDOCS 8903290103
| document report number = SHARP-880802, NUDOCS 8903290103
| title reference date = 06-14-1988
| package number = ML20247A310
| package number = ML20247A310
| document type = CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE (QUESTIONS & ANSWERS), TEXT-BIBLIOGRAPHIC & CATALOGS & INDEXES
| document type = CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE (QUESTIONS & ANSWERS), TEXT-BIBLIOGRAPHIC & CATALOGS & INDEXES

Latest revision as of 19:24, 16 March 2021

Zech Response to Sharp Subcommittee on Energy & Commerce Question 1(d) Posed in
ML20247A352
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 08/02/1988
From: Zech L
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To: Sharp P
HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
Shared Package
ML20247A310 List:
References
SHARP-880802, NUDOCS 8903290103
Download: ML20247A352 (1)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

3',

1 l

CUEST10f, l'.lld) Who conducteo the licersee's investigation? What.did he  ;,

or she do? What was the result of the investigation?

Please provide all relevant documentation.

l ANSWER l

The licensee's investigatico was' conducted by Mr. Donald C. Shelton, Vice President, Nuclear. The results of the investigation are described in detail in Enclosure (1)(d)-1. As stated in the enclosure, the licensee substantiated e

th aliegation that the plant manager was ensite shortly after drinking alcoht1 but did r.ct substantiate that the plant manager's behavior was a l 1

distracticr in the control room. The report also concluded that the plant tranager was " fully. fit for duty" ano no disciplinary action was recommended.

Allrelevantdocumentationisenclosed(SeeEnclosure(1)(d)-2, Documents Nos. 1-1 thrcugh 1-53).

I l

l

)

^

sVos2V0103 es'oB02 PDR COMMS NACC CORRESPONDENCE PDR L