ML20082H097
| ML20082H097 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1995 |
| From: | Stewart W ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR7592, RULE-PR-MISC 60FR7592-00016, 60FR7592-16, NUDOCS 9504140164 | |
| Download: ML20082H097 (6) | |
Text
_.
x
..,7
/>Q _
00CKElED US!!RC Arizona Public Service Company-PHOENIX, art 2ONA 85072 3999 -
gg
[
P O. BOX 53999 a
102-03312-WLS/AKK/ACR 0fflCE i; 2 SERVih' '
wwAM L STEWART erfRETA 00CXEIN.G
'""0Tsl0"*'*
April 10,1995 A NCH
- Mr. John C. Hoyle _
Office of the Secretary DOCKET NUMBERmm ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch PROPOSED Ell.E rR me --
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001.
L
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
l
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1,2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 l
Comments on Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry.
to Raise Safety Concerns without Fear of Retallation; Draft Policy Statement. 60 Federal Reaister 7592 (Februarv 8.1995)
On February 8,1995, the NRC published the draft policy statement referenced above '
in the Federal Register and requested comments. In the attachment to this letter, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) hereby submits comments on the draft policy statement. APS strongly believes that employees in the nuclear industry must feel-free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation. APS also believes that all parties, the NRC, licensees, contractors, and employees, have rights as well as responsibilities in the area of raising safety concerns and that any policy statement issued by the NRC must clearly address those rights and responsibilities.
APS also endorses the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on behalf of the industry.
Sincerely, s
WLS/AKK/ACR/dpr h
Attachment l'
I cc:
W. H. Rasin, NEl 950414016'4 950410 PDR PR HISC 60FR7592 PDR pO.
fl..
y ATTACHMENT ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE NRC DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING FREEDOM OF EMPLOYEES IN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY TO RAISE SAFETY CONCERNS WITHOUT FEAR OF RETALIATION t
W 6
3 ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY COMMENTS General APS endorses the comments submitted by the industry through NEl. APS believes that it is important to clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of the NRC, licensees, contractors, and employees with regard to raising safety concerns. As stated by the NRC in the draft policy statement, NRC licensees have the pinnt.y responsibility for the safe operation of their plants, and the NRC is responsible for ovw::ing licensee compliance with all applicable NRC regulations. Additionally, the draft policy statement makes clear that employees with potential safety concems should report those concems directly to the licenses for resolution. However, this approach does not affect the rights or protections of an employee who chooses to report concerns directly to the NRC.
APS agrees with NEl that the NRC's pronouncement in this regard significantly furthers the goal of protecting the public health and safety. However, as discussed by NEl, the industry is concerned that the draft policy statement seems to be an attempt at imposing regulations or requirements on licensees without going through the rulemaking process; that the draft policy statement seems to be addressing a perceived problem rather than an actual one; that the draft policy statement seems too prescriptive in some areas; and that some of the standards set forth in the policy statement are vague. These concerns should be remedied by the NRC prior to issuing a final policy statement.
In addition, APS is concerned with the general theme of the policy statement that seems to place additional burdens for ensuring that industry employees feel free to raise concerns almost entirely on licensees and their contractors. APS acknowledges i
that licensees and their contractors are primarily responsible for ensuring that employees feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation, and for ensuring that any concerns are property addressed after they have been raised.
However, APS is concerned that a number of points discussed by the NRC in the draft policy statement will, in essence, have the effect of regulatory requirements because they will become the standard the NRC uses in judging licensee actions in this area.
APS also has specific comments concerning the draft policy statement which are not necessarily included in the comments submitted by NEl. The specific comments are as follows:
1 of 4
N.
Specific Comments Scope of the Policy Statement - The scope of the draft policy statement is unclear and appears to be too broad by including any concern raised by an employee at a i
nuclear plant without requiring at least some nexus to safety. For example, footnote 1 of the draft policy. statement states:.
' Throughout this notice,- the terms " concerns," "a safety' problem," or " safety concerns" refer to concerns associated with issues within the Commission's jurisdiction, whether or not a violation of NRC requirements is involved.
~
Additionally, footnote 3 states:
- In developing these programs, it is important for reactor licensees to be able to capture all concerns, not just concerns related to " safety related" activities covered by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. For example, concerns relating to environmental, safeguards, and radiation protection issues should also be -
captured.
Both of these footnotes discuss the types of concerns covered by the draft policy statement. However, the language in these footnotes is overly broad and open to interpretation. For instance, footnote 1 states that the term " concerns" refers to issues within the Commission's jurisdiction. What does this mean? Ukewise, footnote 3 states that licensee programs should be able to capture all concerns, not just those
. related to " safety related" activities covered by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The footnote then gives three examples--concerns relating to' environmental, safeguards, and radiation protection issues. Most likely, concerns about environmental, safeguards or radiation protection would relate to nuclear safety. in some way. What-about concerns that clearly have no nexus to nuclear safety (i.e., a wet floor in the i
plant's cafeteria)? Is the NRC contemplating that these types of concerns be covered.
by the policy statement? This needs to be clarified. APS would assert that only those concerns which have some nexus to nuclear safety be covered by the policy statement, and not any and all concerns that an employee at a nuclear plant could possibly raise.
improving Contractors Awareness of Their Responsibilities.The draft policy statement states that it applies to licensees, their contractors, and their subcontractors' (see footnote 2). In fact, te draft policy statement has an entire section devoted to Improving Contractors Awareness of Their Responsibilities. In this section, the NRC reiterates its long standing policy that licensees who use contractors for products or services related to licensed activities are responsible for having their contractors maintain an environment in which contractor employees are free to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. In furtherance of its policy in this area, the NRC's draft 2 of 4 i
m
policy statement contemplates that each licensee is expected to take a number of actions with regard to its contractors. These actions include the following: 1) ensure that each contractor is aware of the regulations against discrimination; 2) ensure that each contractor is aware of its responsibilities to foster an environment for raising concerns; 3) have the ability to oversee contractora efforts to encourage employees to raise concerns and, if warranted, investigate and resolve allegations of discrimination by contractor employees; and 4) ensure that contractor employees and management are informed of the importance of raising safety concerns and how to raise concerns through different channels.
APS believes that parts of this section are in need of clarification. For example, what is meant by the term " contractor?" The activities many contractors perform are service related and not at all related to licensed activities. Examples are cafeteria workers and Janitorial services. There are also occasional specialized service contracts that may last less than a month and have no nuclear safety impact. Since these types of workers do not perform functions related to nuclear safety, it does not make sense to have them covered by the policy statement and require licensees to take the four actions contemplated by the NRC and discussed above, with regard to the contract companies.
Additionally, the NRC's draft policy statement does not distinguish between onsite contractors and offsite contractors who perform work related to licensed activities.
APS has contractors who support activities at Palo Verde but who do not work at the site or even in Arizona. These include firms that provide data services for numerous utilities, that conduct or assist in specific offsite design work for numerous utilities, that do nuclear related research for the industry, that do consulting work (such as members of the offsite safety review committee) and others that address the many needs associated with owning and operating a nuclear plant. The draft policy statement does not address these circumstances and as such, it must be clarified.
The NRC should not be attempting to require licensees to control the work force of these contractor service companies, nor their subcontractors. To do so, as contemplated by the draft policy statement,is overly burdensome. The resource commitment which would be necessary to comply with the policy as drafted would be difficult to imagine and could result in many contractors and subcontractors refusing to provide services. Accordingly, these aspects of the draft policy statement are also in need of clarification.
involvement of Senior Management in Cases of Alleged Discrimination - The draft policy statement contemplates that senior licensee management should get directly involved in cases when an employee alleges retaliation for engaging in protected activities, including reviewing the underlying facts. At PVNGS Senior Management does play an active and direct role in addressing these types of issues. However, by making such a pronouncement in the draft policy statement, it appears that the NRC 3 of 4
r P
is dictating how licensees should conduct themselves with regard to personnel matters. Ucensees should decide when it i. appropriate for senior management to s
get involved in allegations of discrimination, not the NRC.
Responsibility of Employees - The draft policy statement acknowledges that employees in the nuclear industry also have a responsibility for maintaining a quality conscious environment, and as a general principle, the NRC expects employees in the nuclear industry to raise safety concerns directly to licensees, or indirectly to licensees through contractors. In fact, the NRC states that it believes that "all employees have a responsibility to raise concerns to licensees if they identify safety issues so that licensees can address them before an event with safety consequences occurs."
However, the NRC's expectation does not mean that employees cannot come directly to the NRC with concerns. APS agrees with the NRC in this regard and believes that the best way to maintain safety is to ensure that employees feel free to raise safety concerns directly to the licensee without fear of retaliation.
l 4 of 4 i
.. -