December 13, 2002

James Heller, Senior Allegations Coordinator

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

801 Warrenville Road

Lisle, Illinois 60532-4351

Subject: Allegation by Ohio Citizen Action that Davis-Besse employees are required to work unrealistic work schedules, leaving them unfit-for-duty

Dear Mr. Heller,

The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is undergoing massive repairs because of excessive cracking and corrosion of the plant’s reactor. Davis-Besse is owned and licensed by the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FirstEnergy).

Worker fatigue can lead to the unsafe operation of a nuclear power plant. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recognized that fatigue played a role in the accident at Three Mile Island (see attachment). Given the horrifying discovery of a hole on the lid of the reactor at Davis-Besse, the issue of worker fatigue contributing to this event must be explored by the NRC. There is no evidence yet that this has happened.

On May 10, 2002, the NRC issued, “Regulatory Issue Summary 2002-07: Clarification of NRC Requirements applicable to worker fatigue and self-declarations of fitness-for-duty.” This document establishes the NRC’s position that fatigue is a valid reason for an employee to declare they are unfit for duty:

“Section 26.10(a) requires a licensees to “provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel…are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in any way adversely affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties” It is the NRC’s position that this requirement includes impairments caused by worker fatigue. This position is consistent with 26.10(a)(2), which states that “licensee policy should also address other factors that could affect fitness for duty such a mental stress, fatigue, and illness.”’

Clearly the NRC recognizes the seriousness of tired workers in the nuclear power industry. In addition to the NRC’s own statements, I also refer you to a paper published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Overtime and Staffing Problems in the Commercial Nuclear Power Industry.” (March 1999). I have attached a copy.

Ohio Citizen Action is writing to file a formal allegation that FirstEnergy, in an effort to return the plant to service as soon as possible, is holding its employees to an unrealistic work schedule which leaves the employees tired and unfit for duty:

  1. On September 17, 2002, at a Nuclear Regulatory NRC public meeting facilitated by John Grobe, Director of the Region III Division of Reactor Safety, Oak Harbor resident Tom Lenz, reported that Davis-Besse employees were required to work schedules which he believed to be unsafe:

“Mr. LENZ: One other question, you’re talking for the safety of the plant; what about the workers and the hours they’re putting in? I’m friends with quite a few people that work out there, and I know some of them have been on 12 hour shifts or more and six and seven days a week since September 11th of last year. That cannot be a safe working environment to have these people working those kind of hours for that length of time.

“MR. GROBE: I’m not sure what areas your friends work in, but for any work that’s related to safety activities, whether it’s a maintenance work or a guard or an operator, we have restrictions on the number of hours that they can work in a day, the number of hours they can work over several days, the number of hours they can work over a week, and those are specifically designed to ensure that the workers are fresh and not fatigued, and I know the company is also sensitive to that, and I think just recently provided several days off for everybody, but it is a difficult situation for the company, and it’s going to take a lot of work to get out of it, and that’s why they have so many entry workers on site.”

(from meeting transcript, posted at )

Mr. Grobe is correct that the NRC maintains restrictions on the number of hours workers can be required to work. However, the NRC also maintains restrictions preventing nuclear power plant operators from operating a reactor with a hole in it. Since FirstEnergy did not follow the latter rule, there is legitimate concern as to whether or not FirstEnergy is following guidelines regarding an employee’s fitness for duty.

  1. On September 18, 2002, at a Nuclear Regulatory NRC public meeting to discuss FirstEnergy’s planned corrective actions to address the Davis-Besse organizational and human performance problems, the results of a recent survey were presented to the public. Those results include—
  • “Although workers are writing CRs [condition reports] in increasing numbers, they have declining confidence in their ability to approach management with concerns or challenge non-conservative management decisions.” (FirstEnergy presentation slide)
  • “There has been an erosion in worker perception of management’s commitment to encourage, address, and resolve concerns.” (FirstEnergy presentation slide)
  • “Perceived lack of management support of the Ombudsman could lead to erosion of worker confidence in ability of program to adequately address issues.” (FirstEnergy presentation slide)
  • 61% of the workers surveyed do not agree that “management cares more about identification/resolution of nuclear/quality concerns than cost/schedule.” (FirstEnergy presentation slide)

The survey results did not include—

  • if the workers were asked whether they believed their work schedules allowed them adequate time to rest in between shifts,
  • and if they were asked the question, what the responses indicated.
  1. Ohio Citizen Action was notified that a condition report has been filed since March 6, 2002, complaining that workers are required to work schedules that leave them too tired to do their jobs safely. There is at least one additional condition report rumored to have been filed, but our source has not yet witnessed a hard copy of it.

Based on this evidence, we ask the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take the following actions:

  1. Obtain, review, and make public copies of all condition reports filed since September 11, 2001, at the Davis-Besse nuclear power station referencing worker fatigue and fitness-for-duty.
  2. Launch a formal investigation, independent of the current 0350 panel, to determine Davis-Besse workers’ fitness-for-duty, and their ability and freedom to report their fitness-for-duty without fear of reprisal.
  3. Inquire into why Mr. Grobe did not take issue with FirstEnergy about exhaustive work schedules after Mr. Lenz raised the problem.
  4. Establish a procedure in which Davis-Besse workers may notify the NRC that they are unfit-for-duty, without reprisal or fear of reprisal from their employer.
  5. Notify FirstEnergy that Davis-Besse will not be permitted to return to service until this matter has been resolved and a public meeting has been held in Ohio to notify the public of the resolution of this problem.

Please notify me immediately that you have received this allegation and include your schedule for responding to the complaint. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Amy K Ryder

Cleveland Director