ML20195F959

Order Modifying License NPF-3 Re Allegation Identified from 880504-0902 Insp Concerning Discriminatory Layoff by Former QC Manager of QC Inspector at Plant.Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty Issued

ML20195F959
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	11/21/1988
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	TOLEDO EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20195F948	List: ML20195F944 ML20195F949 ML20195F959
References
EA-88-234, NUDOCS 8811220456
Download: ML20195F959 (6)

Text

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

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

In the Matter of Toledo Edison Company Docket No. 50-346 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station License No. NPF-3 EA 88-234 ORDER H0DIFYING LICENSE I

The Toledo Edison Company (Licensee) is the holder of Operating License No. NPF-3 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC/Comission) on April 22, 1977.  ;

The license authorizes the Licensee to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) in accordance with the conditions specified therein.

i II i

A special NRC safety inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-346/88027(DRP)) )

conducted during the period from May 4 through September 2, 1988, and an NRC [

investigation (Investigation No. 3-88-008) confirmed an allegation regarding the discriminatory layoff by the former Quality Control (QC) Manager at Davis-Besse, Louis R. Wade, of a contract GC Inspector who had raised safety concerns to licensee senior management. Specifically, the NRC concluded that the termioatio.i af the QC Inspector was a discriminatory act in violation of 10 CFR 50.7 and is described in a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of i Civil Penalty being issued this date. The details of the 10 CFR 50.7 violation l are as follows, i

On July 10, 1986, a Potential Conoition Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR) was j written by 6 QC Inspectnr cencerning deficiencies in the installation of an electeical wire splice. Mr. Wade (who at the tire was a CA engineer) was instrurental in having the PCA0R irproperly insalidated instead of processino 8911220456 881121 PDR ADOCK 05000346 0 pdc

2 it in accordance with station procedures which require that PCAQRs be processed through the Shif t Supervisor, the Plant Technical Support Department and the PCAQR Review Board. (Mr. Wade was promoted shortly thereafter to QC Supervisor andthentoQCManagerin1987.) Becaust the QC Inspector was still concerned about the issue and refused to dismiss it, Mr. Wade requested that he formally document and clarify his concerns. The QC Inspector reiterated his safety concerns and the improper way his concerns were handled in a temorandum dated October 10, 1986, and providea copies to the Quality Assurance (QA) Director and the Senior Vice-President, Nuclear. As a result of the QC Inspector's memorandum, the QA Director (Mr. Wade's supervisor) investigated the matter t

and subsequently after several discussions with Mr. Wade, issued a memorandum dated October 29, 1986, to Mr. Wade reprimanding him for his improper handling .

of the QC Inspector's safety concerns.

During the period between late September and early 0:tober 1986, in preparation for an upcoming reduction in contact QC inspector wo"kforce due to the end-of.

outage reduction in worklond, Mr. Wade requested that the lead QC inspectors provide him with a list indicating the layoff sequence for contract QC inspectors.

This QC Inspector's lead considered the QC Inspector to be one of approxinately four or five inspectors who were good performers with rultidisciplinary inspection skills who should not be laid off if possible. There is no question that the QC organization thought highly of the QC Inspector who was cor>'aered a ccrpetent er:d respected irspector. Despite the recoernendation to retain the QC Inspector if possible, Mr. Wade directed thot the QC Insptcto: be laid off.

Therefore, en October 31, 1986, the QC Inspector was laid cff. In addition, the QC lbspector was cne of the first contract (C inspectors to be laid off and he aas the first QC inspector to be laid off from his particular QC section.

b Moreover, within 15 days, the vacancy in that section created by his employment termination was filled by another contract QC inspector.

At the enforcesent conference on September 26, 1988, the licensee inforr.ed the ,

staff that it had removed Mr. Wade's site access on Septerrter 23, 1988, and that it had terminated Mr. Wade's employment effective November 1988. .

I  !

1 r

In addition to the discrimination issue addressed in Section !! above, additional concerns have been identified relative to the performance of Mr. Wade. A second special NRC safety inspection (Inspection Report No. 50-346/88012(DRP)) confirmed -

l other allegations of activities conducted by or under the direction of Mr. Wade, i A Notice of Violation concerning several violations identified during this j inspection was issued en September 22, 1988.  :

e i

IV l.

l t

i

, i Based on the results of the NRC inspection and investigation, the staff has i i

concluded that Mr. Wade intentionally removed the QC Inspector from the Davis- j Pesse facility for raising a safety issue. For almst two years, until t I disclosure by the NRC, the effect of this act had the potential to "chill" the  !

(

I proper actions of others. The corduct of Mr. Wade removing the QC Inspector l who was properly raisirg safety issues cannot be tolerated. The public health i  !

j erd safety requires an effective quality assurance program in order to previde {

l

assurance that licensed activities are properly conducted. Moreover, a basic tenet of the Connission's quality assurance requirements, is that quality control workers rust be free to be able to raise safety concerns without fear i

of retaliation.

The actions of Mr. Wade as described in Section 11 and !!! above, demonstrate that he cannot be relied upon to assure that quality assurance programs are properly conducted and that quality control workers will be permitted end I encouraged to raise safety issues. Therefore, I have determined that I no l longer have reasonable assurance that licensed activities conducted by or under the supervision of Mr. Wade will be conducted in accordance with NRC l

requirements. Accordingly, I have concluded that it is necessary for the NRC ,

to be informed if Mr. Wade is rehired to permit the NRC to determine, at that i

j tise, whether further regulatory action is required.

l

{

V l

i j Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161 b, i, and o, 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR Part 50 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

4 l

License No. NPF-3 is atended adding the following condition:

i The Licensee shall provide the NRC Regional Administrator, RI!!, written notice within one week of Mr. Louis R. Wade's reinvolvement in safety-

! related activities authorized under License No NPF-3. The notice shall l

include a staten,ent from the Licensee as to its basis for concluding that, in light of Mr. Wade's conduct which resulted in his renoval, he will i properly carry cut licensed activities.

The Regional Administrator, Region III, may relax or terminate this condition for good cause shown.

VII The Licensee, Mr. Wade, or any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing within 30 days after issuance of this Order. Any answer to this Order or any request for hearing shall be submitted to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies shall also be sent to the Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement at the same address and to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regien !!I, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois .

60137. If a person other than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shell set forth with particularity the manner in which the retitioner's interest is adversely affected by the Order and should addre,*s the criteria set forthin10CFR2.714(d). Upon the failure of the Licensee, Mr. Wade, or any other person adversely affected by this Order to request a hearing within the specified time, this Order shall be final without further proceedings.

If a hearing is requested, the Comission will issue an order designating the tine and place of any hearing, if a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!0N J

\ M 4N$M. Taylo Deputy Executive Director t j or fRegiona'l Operaticr.s Dated atp Rockville, Maryland thisy day cf Noverrber 1988.

Toledo Edison Company DISTRIBUTION:

PDR SECY CA J. M. Taylor, DEDRO J. Lieberman, OE L. Chandler, OGC T. Murley, NRR R. Perfetti, OE RAO:RIII PAO:RIII SLO:RIII H. Stahulak, Rill Enforcunent Coordinators RI, RII, RIII, RIV, RV B. Hayes, 01 i

S. Connelly, OIA F. Ingram, GP E. Jordan, AE00 Day File EA File DCS

\,1 l T b k{+p OE kth? kCGC

4 A RI!!

g(h D

RPerfetti:drb LChandler ABDavis JC eberman J <Telcr 11/lo/88 11/p /E,8 11/q/88 11/10 /88  ? j/ [738

< b Jd*

.il'1

_. . _ _ _ _ . ._