ML20148G607
| ML20148G607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1988 |
| From: | Davis A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8801260553 | |
| Download: ML20148G607 (2) | |
Text
&0 e
,s
}:
JAN 2 21988 MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations,~ 0ffice of the Executive Director for Operations FROM:
A. Bert Davis, Regional AGninistrator, Region III
SUBJECT:
ORAFT RESPONSE TO SENATOR LEVIN (EDO CONTROL N0. 002961)
On-July 17, 1987, a letter was sent from the E00 to Senator Carl Levin which included an NRC commitment to provide Senator Levin a copy of the NRR Director's Decision regarding a 10 CFR 2.206 petition filed by GAP on May 7, 1987. The petition dealt with the adequacy of the Fermi 2 SAFETEAM program. The final decision was issued on December 8, 1987. The attached draft supplemental response to Senator Levin is forwarded for review and ED0 signature. Should you need additional background information, please call Ed Greenman of my staff at (FTS 388-5518).
JJtL' Regional Administrator
Attachment:
As st6ted I
R I R
R I RI I fI Pelke/bs Gregr' man Nodelius Bersy Pappriello D is llnM I/W 7
I
) 7 'k 1J4 h$
DO 41
'M p
PDR l i,
- s 1
i
.+.
x DRAFT:
The Honorable Carl Levin.
United States' Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator' Levin:
I am pleased to further respond to your May 28, 1987, letter in which you requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) review matters discussed in a Safe' Energy Coalition of Michigan (SECOM) letter dated February 15, 1987.
My' letter to you dated July 17, 1987,' stated that a copy
_a of the NRC's decision regarding these matters would be provided to you when final.
A copy of our response to the Government Accountability Project including the Director's Decision and Federal Register Notice is enclosed.
The Director's Decision denied the Petitioner's request for action' pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206..
4 I trust this information has. been responsive to your request.
If we can be of any further help, please let us know.
Sincerely, Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Ltr to B. Garde fm T. Murley, dtd 12/8/87 a.
e -
[
o UNITED STATES l' 3.c#(I g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- /
sv DEC 0g G87 Ms. Billie P. Garde, Director GAP Midwest Office Mr. Richard E. Condit, Staff Attorney Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200 Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Ms. Garde and Mr. Condit:
i This letter is in response to your Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 dated May 7, 1987, on behalf of the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Congregation regarding the i
Fermi-2 facility., which requests that the NRC institute a proceeding to modify, suspend, or revoke the license issued to the Detroit Edison Company (the licensee) as appropriate and that the:
NRC take possession of all SAFETEAM files and review the allegations for all potential safety-related deficiencies, and make these concerns public; NRC require that all SAFETEAM allegations are processed by the utility in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; and NRC require that all utility employees are fully informed about the SAFETEAM program before they make a choice between submitting information to the SAFETEAM or to the NRC.
)
4 Your Petition asserts as the basis for the relief requested (1) that workers 1
who turned over allegations to the SAFETEAM were harassed, fired, or otherwise
{
discriminated against.; (2) that the Office of Investigations (OI) did not analyze the safety significance of the investigative shortcomings of the SAFETEAM program.;
l (3) that the SAFETEAM program was not being properly implemented and was ineffective; (4) that SAFETEAM interviewers are inadequately trained; (5) that deficiencies reported to the SAFETEAM are not recorded on nonconformance reports 1
and are not evaluated by the site quality assurance / quality control staff; and (6) that there is no quality check or accountability for the SAFETEAM program.
10 The NRC has reviewed the Petition in light of these assertions, and the results of that review are contained in the enclosed "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206," D0-87-19, which concludes that (1) the Petitioner has not provided any information as to the effectiveness of the SAFETEAM program that has not already been documented in NRC inspection reports or in the 01 SAFETEAM review; (2) although programmatic weaknesses were noted, the NRC inspectors have found that b
%DM
Bille P. Garde Richard.E. Condit cc:
Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Mr. Ronald C. Callen Group Vice President Adv. Planning Review Section Nuclear Operations Michigan Public Service Commission Detroit. Edison Company 6545 Mercantile Way 6400 North Dixie Highway P. O. Box 30221 Newport, Michigan 48166 Lansing, Michigan Mr. Harry H. Voigt, Esq.
Regional Administrator, Region III LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1333 New Hampshire Avanue, N.W.
799 Roosevelt Road Washington, D.L 20036 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 John Flynn, Esq.
Senior Attorney Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Nuclear Facilities and Environmental Monitoring Section Office Division of Radiological Health P. O. Box 30035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Steve Frost Supervisor-Licensing Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Thomas Randazzo Director, Regulatory Affairs Detroit Edison Company Fermi Unit 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Mr. Walt Rogers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office 6450 W. Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 Monroe County Office of Civil Preparedness 963 South Raisinville Monroe, Michigan 48161
Ms. Garde Mr. Condit December 8,1987 safety-related concerns compiled in SAFETEAM files have been appropriately addressed by the licensee with necessary corrective actions taken where warranted; (3) the SAFETEAM program is not required by federal regulations and doe.s not in any way relieve the licensee from complying with the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B criteria as alleged by the Petitioner; and (4) the Petitioner's concerns regarding the SAFETEAM program do not raise a substantial health and safety issue.
In view of these conclusions, the NRC will not modify, suspend, or revoke the license to operate Fermi-2, nor will it initiate any other of the requested actions regarding the SAFETEAM program.
A copy of the Decision will be referred to the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206.
For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice filed with the Office of the Federal Registe, for publication.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Director's Decision, DD-87-19 2.
Federal Register Notice cc w/ enclosures:
See attached 1
I l
l l
l l
l
DD 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REALT0R REGULATION Thomas E. Murley, Dir9ctor In the Matter of Docket No. 50-341 DETROIT EDIS0N COMPANY (10 CFR 2.206)
(Fermi-2)
DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 1.
INTRODUCTION Yhe Government Accountability Project (GAP or the Petitioner) submitted a Petition dated May 7,1987, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, on behalf of the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Congregation, requesting that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) take certain actions with regard to Detroit Edison Company's (licensee) "employee concern" program entitled StFETEAM at Fermi-2 Plant and, as necessary, modify, suspend or revoke the facility's operating license.
The actions GAP has requested the NRC to take with regard to SAFETEAM include (1) taking possession of all the SAFETEAM files, reviewing the safety-related allegations, and making these concerns public; (2) requiring that all SAFETEAM l
allegations be processed by the licensee in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, j
Appendix B; and (3) requiring the licensee to inform all its employees about the SAFETEAM program before the employees chvose to submit information to the l
progran rather than submitting information to the NRC.
I
2 As bases for these requests, GAP asserts that (a) allegations of wrongdoing were identified; that is, workers who turned over allegations to the SAFETEAM were harassed, fired, or otherwise discriminated again t; (b) the Office of Investigations (01) did not analyze the safety significance of the investigative shortcomings of the SAFETEAM program; (c) the SAFETEAM program was not being properly implemented and was ineffective; (d) SAFETEAM interviewers are inadequately trained; (e) deficiencies reported to the SAFETEAM are not recorded on nonconformance reports and are not evaluated by the site quality assurance /
quality control staff; and (f) there is no quality check or accountability for the SAFETEAM program.
2.
BACKGROUND The SAFETEAM program at the Fermi-2 plant was instituted in 1983 and implemented voluntarily by the licensee to assist plant managers in the early identification and investigation of errors or omissions during all phases of plant construction and operation.
The program, in principle, provides an opportunity for site workers to express, in confidence, concerns that may not be recognized or effectivily responded to through normal channels of communication within the licensee's organization.
The program is designed to provide early identification and correction of problems pertaining to public l
safety, industrial safety, and other less significant problems.
The licensee considers the program to be a safety net surrounding the project.
The SAFETEAM program is not required by current NRC regulations and is separate and l
independent from the licensee's programs and controls required to comply with NRC regulatory requirements.
These latter programs are inspected against existing NRC regulatione and license requirements.
l l
l
3 As a result of allegations received by the NRC in 1985 expressing concern with the SAFETEA'1 program, the licensee agreed to complete a review of the SAFETEAM program prior to the Commission's consideration of the issuance of a full power operating license for Fermi-2.
At that time, the SAFETEAM files contained approximately 750 concerns.
Based on discussions held with the NRC, the licensee agreed to sample at least 50 percent of the safety related concerns on file.
The NRC regional inspection staff then reviewed all of the SAFETEAM files with the licensee in order to appropriately classify concerns having potential safety significance.
All of the safety-related concerns were then divided equally between the licensee and the NRC inspectors for subsequent review.
In addition, the NRC randomly reviewed about 20 percent of the safety-related concerns initially reviewed by the licensee.
Further, the 01 independently investigated the SAFETEAM program, at the request of the Region III Regional Administrator, to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the SAFETEAM program and its implementation in the identification, disposition and resolution of both the technical and wrongdoing issues.
As a result of these inspections and the OI investigation, certain programmatic weaknesses were identified; however, safety-related concerns were found to have been properly addressed by the licensee.
The results of the NRC inspection findings were documented in NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-341/85029 and 50-341/85037, and were discussed during a subsequent Commission meeting (see Commission Meeting Transcript, July 10, 1985, at pp. 27-34).
SAFETEAM issues were deliberated and no impediments to full power licensing were found by the NRC.
4 3.
DISCUSSION The NRC has reviewed the Petitioner's request that a proceeding be initiated to modify, suspend, or revoke the Fermi-2 license pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 in light of the assertions made in the May 7, 1987, Petition concerning the Fermi-2 SAFETEAM program.
The NRC findings and determinations rclative to each asserted basis follow:
(a) Workers who turned over allegations to the SAFETEAM were harassed, pressured, forced to quit, fired, or otherwise discriminated against:
The Petitioner provides no specific information to suport its claim.
None of the NRC inspections or the 01 evaluation of the SAFETEAM identified any concern regarding discriminatory action against workers because they had turned over allegations to the SAFETEAM.
Notably, the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan (SECOM) was requested by letter dated March 30, 1987, before the 10 CFR 2.206 Petition was filed, to provide specific factual information related to any safety issue.
SECOM has not responded to the NRC request.
(b) 01 did not analyze the safety significance of the investigative shortcomings of the SAFETEAM program:
The Petitioner is correct in that OI did not analyze the safety significance of the discrete inspection matters contained in the SAFETEAM program.
This
(
is not the function of 01.
The purpose of the 01 independent review of 1
l the SAFETEAM program was to evaluate the SAFETEAM process.
01 investigated the SAFETEAM program for overall adequacy and effectiveness; the SAFETEAM program was specifically checked to determine hoy issues of potential safety significance and/or wrongdoing were identified, investigated, and l
ultimately resolved.
It is a matter of record that 01 identified deficiencies in the program.
In a letter to James G. Keppler from Ben B. Hayes dated l
October 4, 1985, 01 determined that:
l
5
... the Fermi Safeteam Program was not staffed or supervised by experienced investigative personnel.
It was also discovered that interviews, in many cases, lacked sufficient information because of this apparent inexperience.
01 bases this conclusion on the fact that the interviews which were reviewed in the investigative files could not provide information concerning basic questions such as who, what, when, where, how or why. The Fermi Safeteam Program, therefore, did not exhibit the characteristics normally attributed to an investigative activity.
Notwithstanding this finding and a similar conclusion reached by the regional inspection staff, the NRC concluded that the technical issues identified in SAFETEAM file cases were satisfactorily resolved and they did not impact public health and safety.
This review is documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/85037 (Paragraphs 4.b., p.7 and 12.e.,
pp. 14-15).
(c) The'SAFETEAM program was not being properly implemented and was ineffective:
The Petitioner reiterates findings contained in NRC Inspection Report No.
50-341/85037 and those resulting from GAP's own interview of site workers who have expressed dissatisfaction with the SAFETEAM process.
However, as stated above, the licensee was informed of the programmatic weaknesses of the SAFETEAM program and has since improved the effectiveness of its voluntary program.
The programmatic weaknesses cited by the Petitioner (at pp. 4-5 of the Petition) are taken from NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/85037 (at p. 15). Although the Petitioner highlights the weaknesses, it fails to acknowledge the follow-on conclusion which states:
Although some flaws were identified...an overall good effort went into the SAFETEAM project.. 0verall the inspectors believe the packages were complete and well documented and the concerns were adequately addressed.
Because the SAFETEAM program is a voluntary program and the special inspections and 01 evaluation identified no safety-related concerns that
6 were not properly' addressed, the NRC considers this issue resolved.
No additional inspection of the-SAFETEAM program has been conducted nor is one contemplated.
(d) SAFETEAM interviewers are inadequately trained:
The Petitioners state (at p. 6 of the Petition):
Another basic problem with the SAFETEAM system results from the inadequate training SAFETEAM interviewers receive in the areas of allegation investigation, and nuclear power plant regulation.
This shortcoming was identified by both the independent OI and the regional inspection staffs from their reviews of the SAFETEAM process.
The 01 evaluation report was especially critical of this shortcoming.
Notwithstanding this shortcoming, the NRC found no impact on public health and safety.
The licensee has improved the overall effectiveness
-of the SAFETEAM program processes.
(e) Deficiencies reported to the SAFETEAM are not recorded on nonconformance reports and are not evaluated by the site quality assurance / quality control staff:
The Petitioner asserts (at p. 8 of the Petition) that because of deficiencies that exist in the documentation of SAFETEAM reviews, a large number of safety related deficiencies are allowed to exist in the SAFETEAM 1
files without requiring compliance with federal regulations.
Existing federal regulations (i.e., 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B) address the handling and disposition of safety-related deficiencies.
Furthermore, none of the l
special inspections or the 01 evaluation identified deficiencies in the j
licensee's treatment of safety-related issues with respect to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
The NRC inspectors have found l
O 7
(as documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-341/85037, at p. 15) that appropriate action is being taken to resolve safety-related matters brought to the attention of the SAFETEAM by site workers.
(f) There is no quality check or accountability for the SAFETEAM program:
The Petitioner states (at p. 8 of the Petition):
The NRC has provided the SAFETEAM with a mechanism to avoid regulatory accountability for violations of federal requirements.
The program does not even attempt to comply with 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B criteria.
While the NRC encourages programs like SAFETEAM, such programs are voluntary and are not required by NRC regulations.
The requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, have been and are currently adequately implementedbytheFermi-2qualityassuranceprogram.y 4.
CONCLUSION In summary, the asserted concerns regarding the SAFETEAM program have been reviewed by the licensee and the NRC including a review by NRC OI.
These reviews indicate that there is no support for the relief requested in the Petition and that there is an absence of a substantial health and safety issue which would cause the staff to initiate show cause proceedings.
See Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1, CLI-78-7, 7 NRC 429, 433-34 (1978), aff'd sub nom.
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, Inc. U. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363 (D.C. Cir.1979)).
l 21he Petitioner also argues that allegations received by SAFETEAM must be processed in accordance with NRC Manual Chapter 0517 (Petition at 14-17).
l This argument is misplaced.
Manual Chapter 0517 makes clear that the policies l
and procedures set forth therein apply only to allegations "received for l
resolution by NRC offices." See Chapter 0517-01 and Chapter 0517-022.
The i
policies and procedures of this Manual Chapter are internal NRC procedures which are not applicable to allegations received by a licensee through the SAFETEAM program.
8 Accordingly, the Petitioner's request for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 is denied.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,, 4 -
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of December 1987
(7590-01)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Docket No. 50-341 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY FERMI-2 ISSUANCE OF FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has issued a Director's Decision concerning a Petition dated May 7, 1987, filed by the Government Accountability Project (Petitioner) on behalf.of the Safe Energy Coalition of Michigan and the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Congregation.
The Petitioner requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take certain actions with regard to an "employee concern" program of the Detroit Edison Company (Licensee) entitled the SAFETEAM program at the Fermi-2 plant, or alternatively modify, suspend, or revoke the facility's operating license.
The actions the Petitioner requested the NRC to take with regard to the SAFETEAM program include (1) taking possession of all the SAFETEAM files, reviewing the allegations for potential safety-related deficiencies, and making these concerns public; (2) requiring that all SAFETEAM allegations be processed by the Licensee in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B; and (3) requiring that all Licensee employees be fully informed about the SAFETEAM program before they choose to submit information to the SAFETEAM or to the NRC.
As bases for these requests, the Petitioner asserts (1) that workers who turned over allegations to the SAFETEAM were harassed, fired or otherwise discriminated against; (2) that the Office of Investigations (01) did not
~.@_\\ME
2 o
analyze the safety significance of the investigative shortcomings of the SAFETEAM program; (3) that the SAFETEAM program was not being properly implemented and was ineffective; (4) that SAFETEAM interviewers are inade-quately trained; (5) that deficiencies reported to the SAFETEAM are not recorded on nonconformance reports and are.not. evaluated by the site quality assurance / quality control staff; and (6) that there is no quality check or accountability for the SAFETEAM program.
The Director has now determined that the Petitioner's request should be denied for the reasons set forth in the "Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206" (DD-87-19), which is available for inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and at the local Public Document Room for the Fermi-2 plant at the Monroe County Library System, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan 48161.
A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary for Commission review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c).
As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c),
the Decision wilI become the final action of the Commission twenty-five (25) days after issuance unless the Commission on its own motion institutes review of the Decision within that time.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/A l
/
o fi,).
5 o, P ject Manager l
Proje'ct rector III-1 Divisi of Rea or Projects - III, IV, V
& pecial Projects l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 8th day of December 1987 i
l l
!