ML20245E025
| ML20245E025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/29/1988 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245D526 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR8924, RULE-PR-50 AC73-2-07, AC73-2-41, AC73-2-7, NUDOCS 8811010451 | |
| Download: ML20245E025 (1) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _
PDIR SEP 2 0 1939 I
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
i Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
FINAL RUI.E - LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTIONS The captioned rule has been modified in accordance with the coments submitted by the Comission in a memorandum to you from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary, dated August 4, 1988. These modifications required, in the opinion of the Office of the General Counsel, that a backfit analysis be submitted with the rule. The analysis is enclosed with this package. The Offices of Adminis-tration and Resources Management and Nuclear Reactor Regulation concur in the modifications and analysis. The Office of the General Council has no legal objection to the modifications or analysis.
The Office of the General Counsel raised tne question of Comission review of the backfit analysis since it was not part of the original package it approved.
Since all of the Comission's coments were incorporated and the backfit analysis does not raise new issues or diminish the importance of proceeding with this rule, I do not feel it is necessary to resubmit this package for further Comission review.
Origihal signed by Thomas E. Kurlcy Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosure: (WITS-870199)
Central File FMiraglia PTSB RF ED0 RF PMAS RF DMossburg (WITS-870199)
G;BarberfMRR; W.SchwinkfNRR F.Hebdon, NRR C. Thomas, NRR
T.Murley, NRR M.Bridgers, EDO (WITS-870199) l lFC. :*GAIS/PTSB :*C/GAIS/PTSB:*C/PTSB/PMAS:*0GC
- AC/RPB/ ARM :*D/PMAS/NRR :DD/NRR
' LAME.:GBarber:nkh :WSchwink
- CThomas
- KCyr
- JPhillips
- FGillespie :JSniezek 1 E 9/14/88
- 9/14/88
- 9/14/88
- 9/19/
.:9/26/88 w S/26/88
- 9/ /88
p m.
f j'
/
LAME :Thurley
[
yf l
LATE :
88
'1
.s.
[7590-01]
(*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Licensee Announcements of Inspectors J
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
i
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is amending its regulations to l
. ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on nuclear power reactor sites is not widely communicated or broadcast to ifcensee and contractor personnel without the expressed request to do so by the inspector. This change will allow the NRC inspectors, badged at the facility, to observe ongoing activities as they are being performed without advanced notification of the inspection to licensee and contractor personnel. There 1s a need for this change because of the possible altering of attention and performance levels of a licensee and/
or its contractors when the licensee is aware of NRC surveillance. Past occur-l
~
i rences where site and/or contractor personnel have been notified of NRC's presence on site have heightened concern in this area.
i (t
l EFFECTIVE DATE:
l l
I FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Barber, Office of Nuclear Reactor 1
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone (301)492-1234.
- Jg
~W f'
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1.
BACKGROUND By clarifying the meaning and intent of 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3), this final rule should ensure that NRC inspectors will be granted immediate and unannounced access to licensee facilities so as to provide the inspector with unfettered access equivalent to that provided a regular plant employee following proper identification and compliance with applicable access control procedures. This rule provides that no access control measures or other means may be employed by the licensee or its contractors to intentionally give notice to other persons of the arrival and presence of a NRC inspector at a facility, unless the licensee is specifically requested to do so by the NRC inspector. There have been instances in the past at several facilities that compromised the ability of properly badged NRC inspectors to inspect and access, on an unannounced basis, activities related to the license or construction permit when licensee employees or contractor employees informed others at the facility of the presence of the NRC inspectors. This change to 10 CFR 50.70 is to clarify that NRC inspectors, badged at the facility, have imediate, unescorted access to ongoing activities as these activities are being performed without advanced notification of the inspection. This is especially important during non-normal business hours when operating personnel might assume NRC inspectors would not be on site.
II.
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTS On March 18, 1988, the Comission published in the Federal Register (53 FR 8924) a notice of proposed rulemaking on " Licensee Announcement of Inspectors." The Commission invited the public to comment on the proposed l
) ]
,. r rule and received six letters of coment by April 18,1988(thespecified r, losing date for public coments). After April 18, 1988, 26. additional letters of comments were received. All 32 letters of coments were considered in NRC's review of this final rule. The coments are discussed below.
i Coment:
A majority of the comenters believed the rule was unnecessary and characterized it as being too broad and vague. They asserted that it: was redundant with current regulations; would lead to unfair and impractical enforcement; be impossible to implement; inhibit inspector assistance by plant personnel; limit the ability of facility management to perform their safety functions; promote lying among the facility staff; require formal training and recordkeeping; and, indicates a distrust of licensees.
NRC Response:
NRC does not agree with the coments, but to ensure that the intent of the rule is clear and focused, adds the following clarification of the rule. The intent of this rule is to prevent site and contractor personnel from wide-spread dissemination or broadcasting the presence of an NRC inspector. Broadcasting, as used here, is defined as unsolicited one-way communications.
Implementing or enforcing this rule should be no more difficult than implementing or enforcing any rule that involves personnel performance.
Adopting this rul-e does not indicate a predisposition on the part of the NRC that licensees are not acting properly.
It is human nature for an individual l
to be more conscious of his or her performance when the individual realizes he or she is being observed. The NRC insuction program evaluates licensee performance on the basis of a sampling of its activities.
It is criticai that the sampling portion of the licensee's activities that are relied upon for this evaluation be representative of its overall activities. Therefore, the rule is more prophylactic than proscriptive, although it does carry enforcement sanctions should it be violated.
Recognizing the possibility of inadvertent communication of an inspector's presence, the NRC expects to reserve enforce-ment action for significant intentional violations of the rule. An honest response by an employee to an innocent inquiry that he/she just saw an NRC inspector is not within the proscriptive perimeter of the rule. Therefore, an employee would not be required to lie, in response to a question, about the presence of an NRC inspector. Based on this discussion, formalized training will not be necessary, and NRC Form 3 need not be modified to reflect this requirement.
The NRC does not agree that this rule will prevent management from perfdrming its safety functions.
It should be noted, the rule does not aff2ct software security systems which monitor the presence of persons in certain areas. Such systems should provide the licensee with needed information on space occupancy in the case of an emergency or evacuation.
For those licensees who have these systems in place, or will put them in place, the rule does not affect such systems.
If a licensee were, however, to design or modify these systems (or usethem)forthepurposeofmonitoringtheNRCinspector'smovementsinorder to alert other plant personnel of the inspector's whereabouts, those actions would violate the rule.
ll-5 In sum, the licensee is prohibited from taking affirmative action which would i
compromise the NRC inspector's mission of gaining unfettered access to the plant and its various areas of interest to the inspector.
Comment:
Some commenters expressed a concern that the rule could raise Constitutional questions under the First and Fourth Amendments.
NRC Response:
As discussed above, the purpose of the rule is to enhance the credibility of the inspection process.
Inspections are specifically authorized under section 1610 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(o).
The regulation is narrowly drawn to achieve a legitimate governmental interest (effective NRC inspections) without infringing on an individual's right to express ideas and opinions on a7y subject. Thus, the regulation does not impermissively intrude upon freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The regulation does not raise any significant Fourth Amendment consider-ations. The Atomic Energy Act creates a pervasive regulatory scheme that puts licensees on clear notice that they will be subject to inspection, and the granting of a license is conditioned on consent to reasonable inspections.
Thus, NRC inspections of licensees' premises, activities and records do not require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission vs Radiation Technology, Inc., 519 F. Supp. 1266, 1288-91 (D.N.J.
1..
1981): Union Electric Co. (Callaway Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-527, 9 NRC 126, 139-41 (1979). The new regulation is a reasonable exercise of the Commission's inspection authority.
Inspectors will continue to identify themselves and comply with other reasonable access control measures and, as always, inspec-tions will be conducted for purposes authorized under the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act. The regulation does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
COMMENT:
A number of commenters suggested that the rule be implemented only by written request of the NRC inspector.
NRC RESPONSE:
NRC rejects the suggestion.
With this suggested modification, the rule would only apply to those individuals who had been given notice of the NRC inspector's presence on site.
If implemented, this suggestion would defeat the intent of the rule.
Environmental Impact:
Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this change is the type of action described in l
categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore neither an environmental
- +
,7, impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this i
final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement The final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).. Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0011.
Regulatory Analysis This final rule will have no significant impact on state and local governments and geographical regions.
It may have a significant impact on health, safety, and the environment, but only in the sense of preventing adverse impacts on health, safety, and the environment through more effective inspections. The rule will make it clear that NRC inspectors are to have a realistic picture of the actual conditions at a site during the inspection process and, therefore, be better able to identify potentially dangerous conditions and/or practices for corrective action and to ensure that licensees comply with laws, regulations, and orders administered by the NRC. This constitutes the regulatory analysis for this final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule applies only
-to licensees authorized to construct or operate nuclear power reactors,'who are not small business entities within the meaning of the act or implementing regulations. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis has not been prepared..
l Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does apply to this final rule. The backfit analysis for announcement of inspectors rule in accordance with each of the factors specified in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii)
(c) is as follows:
(1) This rule provides that no means may be employed by the licensee or its contractors to intentionally give notice to other persons of the arrival and presence of a NRC inspector at a facility, unless the licensee is specifically requested to do so by the NRC inspector.
(2) The licensee will have to communicate the requirements of this rule to its personnel and to contractor personnel working at its site.
(3) The purpose of this rule is to enhance the credibility of the inspection process. By requiring that the presence of NRC inspectors (either resident or off site) is not announced, the NRC, public and licensees will have more confidence that the activities inspectors are witnessing are representative of licensee performance. Ensuring that NRC inspectors are witnessing representa-tive licensee performance could substantially increase the likelihood that NRC
,g, inspectors will discover unsafe or.potentially unsafe practices, bring about corrective' actions arid thereby lower the risk of accidents occurring which could lead to the accidental off-site release of radioactive material.
It is not possible, without before and after data, to quantitatively evaluate the benefits of implementing this rule.
Still, a recent significant enforce-ment action concerning licensee employee's inattention to duty demonstrates the premise advanced in the above paragraph.
In this enforcement action, over 30 licensee personnel, both management and staff were cited for inattention to duty. The primary concern was sleeping on watch.
It is not difficult to envision accidents that could occur because of this type of licensee performance.
Coupling inattention to duty with equipment failure adds a new dimension to the risk of accidents occurring which could lead to the off-site release of radio-active material.
In the enforcement action mentioned above, had the licensee announced the presences of the NRC inspector, the inattention to duty would have gone unnoticed.
It should be noted that the licensee facility where this incident occurred did, on one past occasion, announce the presence of NRC inspectors.
(4) Not appropriate. There is no radiological exposure of facility employees resulting from the rule's implementation.
(5) Very minor costs are associated with the rule's implementation. There are no training requirements or record keeping requirements associated with this rule. The only cost to the licensee would be communicating this rule to its employees and contracts.
~.
39 _
l I
(6) Not appropriate. There are no potential safety impact of changes in plant or. operational complexity associated with this rule.
(7) No; appropriate.
There is no resource burden on the NRC from the imple-mentation of this rule.
l (8) Not appropriate. There is no potential impact of differences in facility
-type,' design or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed backfit.-
(9) The proposed backfit is final.
Conclusion Based on the above analysis, the Commission concludes that there'is a substan-tial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from this backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for facilities are justified in view of this increased protection.
List Of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
- l For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs.201,asamended. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 8546).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat.
853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a, and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C.
4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C 2234). Section 50.103 also l
l
12 -
issuedundersec.108,68 Stat.939,asamended(42U.S.C.2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
9 For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
i 5950.10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a) are issued j
undersec.161(b),68 Stat.948,asamended(42U.S.C.2201(b));il50.10(b)and-(c),and50.54areissuedundersec. 161(1), 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C.2201(1));and6650.9,50.55(e),50.59(b),50.70,50.71,50.72,50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(o)).
2.
In 950.70, paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows:
650.70 Inspections.
(b)*
(4) The licensee or construction permit holder (nuclear power reactor only) shall ensure that the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector, who has been properly authorized facility access as described in paragraph (b)(3) of 1
(
this. section, is not announced or otherwise communicated by its employees or
-contractors to other persons at the facility unless specifically requested by the NRC inspector.
L.
Dated at'Rockville, MD, this [
. dry of For the Nuclear Regulatory Connission.
/
Sd Ad Pfs#~
V f ' / //
VictordtelleA.
Executive Director for Operations l
_ _z__
Approval For' Publication The Commission delegated to the ED0 (10 CFR 1.31(a)(3) the authority to
' develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551 (4))
subject to the limitations in NRC Manual Chapter 0103, Organization and Functions, Office of the Executive Director for Operations, paragraphs
.0213, 038, 039, and 0310.
The enclosed rule, entitled " Licensee Announcements of Inspectors," will add additional requirements to 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3). Specifically, the rule makes it clear that it is not acceptable to widely communicate or broadcast the presence of an NRC inspector at a nuclear power reactor
. facility.
.This final rule does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8, or 9 Subpart C concerning matters of policy.
I, therefore, find that this rule is within the scope of.my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it.
[
/0//3h?
fA Date
/
VictorStelpo, Executiv ir tor for Operatio l
i 1
t L
DAILY. STAFF NOTES.
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Final Rule Signed by ED0 On
,1988, the Executive Director for Operations approved a final rule that amends 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." This amendment will allow NRC inspectors to perform their duties without their site presences being l
widely communicated or broadcasted to licensee or contractor personnel.
This action should add confidence to the assertion that the portion of licensee's activities observed by NRC inspectors is representative of the majority of its activities.
This notice informs the Commission that..in accordance with the rulemaking authority delegated to the EDO, the ED0 has signed this final rule and proposes to forward it on to the Office of Administration and Resources Management for transmittal to the Office of Federal Register for publication, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
I 1
I 3
c.
i Document Name:
RIJLE FORWARDING MEM0 l
I Requestor's ID:
MCCANN Author's Name:
G. Barber /Bobbi Document Coments:
Memo from Murley to Stello forwarding Rule Lic. Announ. 9/88 I
i
(
Document Name:
RULE C0VMISSIONER COMMENTS Requestor's ID:
MCCANN Author's Name:
Barber /Bobbi Document Comments:
Rule /Lic Ann of Insp w/0GC & dup for Commissioner comments
{
~
1 l
l l
1 i
6 J
DOCKET NUMBG gr 10 POSED ROLE -
'~W f/c.73 -2_
(53 F IL Wh exxm:
PTR UWhC p
110SivFMCyg1;37 l
Knoxville, Tenn. 379 E
\\
2 Ap 1988 Secretary
[h ipg[
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission BRANCH Vashington, D.C.
20555 Atta: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir:
In the March 18, 1988 Federal Register (53FR8924) you invited comments concerning your proposed rule about licensee announcements of inspectors at the licensee's plants.
I disagree with your proposed rule for the following three reasons.
First: There already exists too much of the "us-against-them" antagonism between the NRC and the licensees; they act as enemies, not as two groups with (supposedly) very similar purposes.
Prohibiting the licensees from telling each other what is going on will exacerbate the problem.
The main result will be a challenge for the licensee employees (as normal individuals, not as corporate policy) to develope new ways to circumvent the NRC " spies".
If the purpose is to produce electrical power economically and safely. for the benefit of the public, increasing the adversarial feelings is the wrong way to got Second: The safety, both of the plant and of the NRC inspector, would be jeopardized.
NRC inspectors are not noted for their ability to heed
" keep out" signs; keeping plant personnel (Operations, Maintenance, Test, etc.) from knowing the whereabouts of all. people in the plant could result in the real danger of the " spy" walking into a dangerous
{
area (moving machinery, radiography activity, etc. ) Similarly, the j
inspector's unannounced (and, presumably, unexpected) entrance into the control room, or any other area in which people are concentrating on their work, would improve neither efficiency nor plant or personnel safety---including the safety of the inspec,t_or!,
y ? ' *m,,- y -
um u,.m, a s..~e
~-
knowledge of constitutional law will raise the gh (}on'itka,'.hter Third: Although a bit out of my field, I hoQoh "% w I
-lpfh.t,h'ellegality of this_ attempt at censorship.
I realize that mic of, today' p government works on the principle that might maketi'rlir,ht;1ut I don't,
believe that trying to prohibit free speech is acceptableg 7., A Overall, at least until it is shown that3he present rules rendit in#*'
unsafe practices, this additional attack ~cin~thi few rkmaining ' rig,ht's' #di I
the licensee is totally unjustified.
~~
'4
~
U t.
...t Yours truly,
~
Victor O. Christensen
-f
~ '
kdTd #2 DOCKET NUMBER no
.T mq e
ft.
PROPOSED RULE m
[ O F R-V92 '-/),
%Wt1 CCIRBUSTION ENGINEERING
'88 WR 1 $2 April 18,1988 g g q-(.l[p y.
LD-88-027 i,
BRANCH Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Rulemaking on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors
Dear Sir:
Combustion Engineering is pleased to provided comments on the proposed rule on " Licensee Announcements of Inspectors", published in the Federal Register on March 18,1988 (53 FR 8924).
Overall, Combustion Engineering concurs with the premise of the proposed rule that NRC inspectors should be granted immediate and unannounced access (i.e., access equivalent to that provided regular plant employees) to licensed facilities following proper identification and compliance with applicable access control procedures.
Our general reaction to this proposed rule, however, is that; (1) the need for this rule is not well defined, (2) there is a question of enforceability, and (3) it may result in the' compromise of site security measures at nuclear facilities.
To address each of these concerns, the Enclosure offers specific comments and suggestions for modifying the proposed rule.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Mr. D. L. Sibiga of my staff at (203) 285-5216.
Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
am A.1.# cherer S
Director Nuclear Licensing
Enclosure:
A t. Stated gp Sh AES:ss Power Systems 1000 Prospect Hill Road (203) 688 1911 Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Post Office Box 500 Telex: 99297
'O Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500
l4 Enclosure to LD-88-027 p
Page 1 of 3 Comments on Proposed Rulemaking on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Item No. Parastraph Comment 1
General As stated at the beginning of the Supplemental Information Section, the intent of the proposed rule is;
"...to ensure that NRC inspectors be granted immediate and unannounced access to licensed facilities (i.e.,
unfettered access equivalent to access provided rescular plant employees)... "
(emphasis added).
Combustion Engineering supports the stated purpose.
Unfortunately, however, we believe that the proposed
. rule, as
- written, is unenforceable (or at least impractical)' and-conflicts with some reasonable security measures that exist at nuclear plants.
Notwithstanding these concerns and our question on the' need for this rule (See Comment No.
4),
Combustion Engineering believes that the proposed rule can be modified to address our concerns while still satisfying the stated purpose.
Combustion Engineering's specific comments and suggested changes are provided below.
2 Summary The first sentence in the Summary states that;
"... Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced or otherwise communicated to licensee and contractor personnel... "
(emphasis added).
Combustion Engineering believes that this could create an enforceability problem and could also run counter to some reasonable security practices at nuclear sites.
In the first
- instance, a
casual conversation between two workers wherein one indicates the " presence" of an inspector could be grounds for the finding of a violation of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule thus seems unenforceable and impractical.
Secondly, a number of utilities have security
(
r o
Enclosure i
to LD-88-027 Page 2 of 3 Item No. Paragraph Comment procedures that require data entry into a
computer log, with readout in the control room, for all personnel accessing the site.
This practice would also seem to be in violation of the proposed rule in that entering the name on a computer log that was visible to control room operators could be construed as an
" announcement" of NRC presence.
To address those concerns while still satisfying the basis for the proposed rule, Combustion Engineering offers the following suggested revision to the first sentence of the Summary:
"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to ensure that no formal or informal procedures exist with the sole purpose of announcing the arrival of NRC inspectors to licensee and contractor personnel without the expressed request to do so by the inspector."
The suggested revision accomplishes two things.
First, it substitutes the word " arrival" for the word " presence".
The intent here is to address the impracticality of silencing workers from subsequently mentioning an inspector's presence by limiting the scope of the rule to a prohibition against announcing the " arrival" of the inspector (i.e., at the plant access gate or control point.)
Secondly, the words
"...no formal or informal procedures exist with the sole purpose of..."
were added to indicate that the licensee is not allowed to have an established system designed specifically to announce the arrival of the NRC inspector. Basically, this means that the licensee must treat the NRC inspectors in exactly the same way that he handles the normal on-shift employee.
As a result, if a licensee feels that site security concerns warrant the logging in of all individuals passing a control point, then the licensee should be allowed to log in the NRC inspector, even if it means that others may become aware of the inspector's presence. The key here again is that the licensee should be allowed to treat the NRC inspector as he would any on-shift employee.
b r.
'f:
Enclosure-v.-p to LD-88-027 f '3 Page 3 of 3
. Item No.. parastraph Qmment 3
Supplementary It is suggested that the second sentence in Information this Section be modified for the same reasons noted in Comment No.
- 2.. The suggested j
rewording is as follows:
"...The NRC proposes that -no access control measures may be employed by the. licensee or its contractors with '
the express purpose. of intentionally. giving notice to other persons..."'
~
4 Supplementary The third sentence makes only brief refer-Information ence to instances in the past where the ability of properly badged NRC inspectors to inspect has been compromised.
As such, the need for the. proposed rule. is not at all clear.
Further, even if the changes noted herein are incorporated, there is a concern that the incidents may not support the need for proposed rule.
5 50.70(b)(4)
Consistent with the previous Comments, it is l
suggested that the proposed wording to 10 CFR 50.70(b)(4) be revised as follows:
"The ' licensee or construction permit holder shall ensure that ' no access control measures are employed with the express purpose of announcing.the arrival of an NRC inspector, who has been properly authorized facility access as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, to other persons at the facility unless specifically requested by the NRC inspector."
l I
(
- _ - - _ _/IC.S~2-__,
h! /-
DOCKETNUMBER g g~l%3 9 POSED RULE -
Ui3 F K 192'{}
CNAL
.s Carolina Power & U Jht Company p
lY APR 18 1988
'88 APR 21 NO 8 l
g igl h % 8f-095
- p. t.M Mr. S. 3. Chilk Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Docketing & Service Branch PROPOSED RULE ON LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INSPECTORS
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change to 10CFR50 concerning licensee announcements of NRC inspectors. This proposed rule would amend NRC regulations to ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced or communicated to licensee and contractor personnel without the expressed request to do so by the inspector.
Although CP&L understands the NRC's concerns relating to the possible altering of attention and performance level of licensees and/or contractors due to awareness of NRC surveillance, we do not agree that this rule is the appropriate way to address these concerns. Several problems exist with the proposed rule:
1.
The secrecy requirements relating to unannounced NRC inspections will directly conflict with long established security practices and procedures intended to ensure safe, efficient plant operation. As a result of this rule, significant modifications to security access control procedures would be necessary in order to limit knowledge of the on-site presence of an inspector to only those who initia!!y granted entry to the inspector.
2.
The ability of plant personnel to account for all individuals on-site at any given time will be jeopardized by the rule. This will erode plant management's ability to discharge its responsibility to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of all individuals on-site are not in jeopardy.
3.
Enforceability of the rule is questionable. Under this rule, many situations could arise which could be interpreted by the NRC as violat. ions of the rule, although they may actually be a result of ambiguities arising from conflicts between the requirements of the rule and those of normal plant operations.
4.
The current ability of plant personnel to provide additional resources to NRC inspectors in the interest of aiding and expediting inspections would be precluded by the rule.
If the NRC does proceed to adopt the rule, CP&L recommends that the rule be changed to require NRC personnel performing inspections under the rule to provide a written notification at the time of entry to plant personnel requiring that the presence of the
..k m rey iievm street. p. o. Box issi. n i.,gn. N. c. 2no2
+
- Mr. S. 'J. Chilk
' NLS-88-095 / Page 2 inspector not be announced for a sr ecified time period. This will enable plant personnel to continue to follow normal operating practices and procedures, unless specifically required not to do so per NRC notification. This provision would serve to decrease uncertainties relating to application of the rule and minimize the problems associated with training plant and contractor personnel regarding rule implementation.
Detailed comments further explaining the above concerns are being filed by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC). Carolina Power & Light Company affirms its endorsement of NUMARC's comments.
Should you have any questions with regard to our comments, please contact Mr. Jim Presley at (919) 836-6132.
Yours very truly, Om m
Manager Nuclear Licensing ction e
JCP/che (54083HE) cc:
Mr. George Barber (NRC)
Public Document Room (NRC) l l
9
__m---
m_
.l______..__
. _ ~ - _ _ __
8C% A FPR l
DOCKET NUMBER g _.g y
F )?0 SED RULE
'-V Lf3 Fll F#0 vfj f '%
C
,5 a ---
. ;/
4 v 4 NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 7
Q 1776 Eve Street. N W e 5ste 300 Wasnngton. DC 2000c 256
,,, g
-l
,J (202) 67212B0 3,
- M.C
- 3
',c d j
Execuwe
., Presdent &
April 18, 1988 Chef Operotng oncer y
j 1
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk i
/
Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch Re:
Revision of 10 CFR 50 to Include Licensee Announcements of Inspectors, 53 FR 8924 March 18. 1968) - proposed Rule
Dear Mr. Chilk:
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. ("NUMARC") in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC") request for comments in the above-captioned rulemaking.
NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues, and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry.
Every utility responsible for constructing or operating I commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC.
In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect-engineering firms and all of the cajor nuclear steam supply system vendors.
We recognize the NRC's desire and intent to conduct unannounced inspections at nuclear power plant sites to assure that its inspections can ascertain, to the extent possible, the conditions and practices that would exist if the presence of the NRC inspectors were not known.
We agree that properly badged NRC inspectors should be granted unfettered access equivalent to the access provided regular plant employees.
However, we are concerned about the ramifications of the proposed rule because it establishes requirements for utilities that are contrary to the general, and appropriate, practices of the nuclear utility industry.
The nuclear utility industry has long-established practices at its facilities that have been implemented to ensure safe and reliable operation.
A key element of those practices is to ensure that personnel within the plant are properly authorized for access AnA have a need to conduct business within n
the site. This is particularly true during off-hours, nights and weekends when less than the normal complement of personnel are on site.
In that regard, most utilities have requirements in place for security personnel and others to notify the senior manager on site or the Control Room of non-shift orQhh 1
1
, 5 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 18, 1988 Page Two non-utility personnel who request access or enter a nuclear plant after normal working hours.
In many cases, utilities require shift supervisors to authorize any non-shift or non-utility personnel access to the plant, even though the individual is properly badged for access.
In addition, most utilities train employees to question or challenge unfamiliar personnel they see in the plant as to their business and purpose and to notify plant management or the Control Room of the presence of any unfamiliar personnel in the plant.
The purpose of these practices is to provide, through this vigilance, an additional degree of security to alert responsible plant personnel to any unusual circumstances.
The requirements of the proposed rule are in conflict with these prudent practices.
As drafted, these requirements may also cause actions normally taken by licensees in the conduct of performing routine work or in following their administrative procedures to be construed by an NRC inspector as a violation of the rule.
There are many situations that frequently occur, if the rule is approved as proposed, that could be construed by the NRC as violations to this rule, that, in fact, would only be the result of a conflict between the NRC's requirements and normal plant operations.
For example, if a guard or other plant employee observes an NRC inspector on-site and during subsequent discussions with his/her supervisor or a co-worker mentions that he/she has just seen an NRC inspector on site, that informal conversation could be, but should not be, construed to have been in violation of the NRC regulation.
Similarly, a guard or plant employee who observes an NRC inspector in the plant, and who has a responsibility under plant procedures or practices to notify the Control Room of unfamiliar individuals in the plant, may find himself or herself in confiict either with plant procedures or in violation of the NRC's regulation.
Further, computer printouts showing access to the plant and to the vital areas is available to operators in some Control Rooms; such a printout could show the inspector's presence in the plant without an intentional communication of the presence having taken place.
Thus, the enforceability of the rule as drafted causes great concern.
We believe the rule is unnecessary. While we agree that NRC inspectors should have unfettered access te any facility for which they are properly authorized, and we understand the NRC's desire to observe on-going plant activities without altering attention and performance levels of a licensee caused by advance notification of the NRC inspector's presence, we do not agree that this rule of generic application is the best, or even an appropriate, way to address and resolve the NRC's concern.
The type of good practices that the proposed rule is in direct conflict with should be encouraged, rather than eviscerated.
However, if the NRC does proceed to adopt a rule, notwithstanding these concerns, the following modifications to the proposed rule as noticed are recommended:
I, 4
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 18, 1988 Page Two non-utility personnel who request access or enter a nuclear plant after normal working hours.
In many cases, utilities require shift supervisors to authorize l
any non-shift or non-utility personnel access to the plant, even though the i
individual is properly badged for access.
In addition, most utilities train i
employees to question or challenge unfamiliar personnel they see in the plant as to their business and purpose and to notify plant management or the Control Room of the presence of any unfamiliar personnel in the plant. The purpose j
of these practices is to provide, through this vigilance, an additional degree i
l of security to alert responsible plant personnel to any unusual circumstances.
The requirements of the proposed rule are in conflict with these prudent practices. As drafted, these requirements may also cause actions normally taken by licensees in the conduct of performing routine work or in following their administrative procedures to be construed by an NRC inspector as a violation of the rule. There are many situations that frequently occur, if the rule is approved as proposed, that could be construed by the NRC as violations to this rule, that, in fact, would only be the result of a conflict between the NRC's requirements and normal plant operations.
For example, if a guard or other plant employee observes an NRC inspector on-site and during subsequent discussions with his/her supervisor or a co-worker mentions that he/she has just seen an NRC inspector on site, that informal conversation could be, but should not be, construed to have been in violation of the NRC regulation. Similarly, a guard or plant employee who observes an NRC inspector in the plant, and who has a responsibility under plant procedures or practices to notify the Control Room of unfamiliar individuals in the plant, may find himself or herself in conflict either with plant procedures or in violation of the NRC's regulation.
Further, computer printouts showing access to the plant and to the vital areas is available to operators in some Control Rooms; such a printout could show the inspector's presence in the plant without an intentional communication of the presence having taken place. Thus, the enforceability of the rule as drafted causes great concern.
We believe the rule is unnecessary. While we agree that NRC inspectors should have unfettered access to any facility for which they are properly authorized, and we understand the NRC's desire to observe on-going plant activities without altering attention and performance levels of a licensee caused by advance notification of the NRC inspector's presence, we do not agree that this rule of generic application is the best, or even an appropriate, way to address and resolve the NRC's concern.
The type of good practices that the proposed rule is in direct conflict with should be encouraged, rather than eviscerated.
However, if the NRC does proceed to adopt a rule, notwithstanding these concerns, the following modifications to the proposed rule as noticed are recommended:
j 1
1 i
G4
-Q
)
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 18, 1988 Page Three l
1.
ihe rule should be modified to provide that each licensee should ensure that access control measures are not employed, or a general announcement made, for the purpose of announcing the arrival of an NRC inspector on site if the licensee is specifically requested by the NRC inspector not to announce the NRC inspector's presence.
The request should be provided by the NRC inspector in writing to preclude a guard or other employee from being placed in a situation of violating plant procedures while attempting to comply with the request of the NRC inspector.
In this manner, plant personnel could continue to follow the utility's normal practices unless the NRC inspector'specifically requested, in writing, that they not do so..
2.
Clarification should be provided as to the length of time or the circumstances to which the rule applies after the NRC inspector enters the facility. Once the NRC inspector arrives at the inspection location, it is unreasonable to assume that his/her presence will not be noticed by utility or contractor personnel at that location and be communicated further. To require non-recognition of an NRC inspector's presence may preclude normal required communications between plant personnel.
It should be made clear that a violation of the rule will occur only if-the announcement of the NRC inspector's presence interferes with or compromises the inspection, or if communication about the NRC inspector's presence is made with that intent.
3.
To allow for the proper training of personnel, including plant, guard force personnel and contractors on this rule, clarification should be provided regarding what constitutes ' acceptable actions by personnel to or in the presence of an NRC inspector.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and would be pleased to discuss our comments-and concerns further with appropriate NRC staff personnel.
Sincerely, Yt h h L----:-
oe F. Colvin JFC:cb l
P 9R ;"
DOCKET NUMBER
, {.
~
PR000 SED RULE O. 5 b T,
~
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTs & TROWBRIDGE ' csut Hel)!
1 A PARTNERswer 6NCLUotNG PRorgsssoNAL CompoMATIONs f"
2300 N $TREET, N. W.
j,'
trLearcAsLE WASHINGTON. D. C. 20037 vinoswiA orrect oe-rees tswAwtAw wswl iso ann cuan o e tcLepwows pos) roo-vooo
- )***
,,,, co,,,,.
pos) ri.3 37eo & az3 37s a
J/.Y E. SILBERG, P.C.
'#~
April 18, 1988 G
APR18 mags $
gi I
A g_'f S
Secretary 0.^
X
' '(M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission y
Washington, D.C.
20555 L
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Res Proposed Rule - Licensee Announcements Pf. Inspectors,. 53 Fed Reg... 89;!4 Gentlemen:
On March 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule which would-require that a licensee or construction permittee ensure that its employees and contractors do not announce or otherwise communi-cate to other persons the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector at the reactor site unicss specifically requested to-do so by that inspector.
53 Fed. Reg. 8924 (1988).
The Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule claims that this new prohibition is needed because of instances where the ability of NRC inspectors to carry out unannounced l
inspections was compromised by employees who informed others at the facility of the inspectors' presence.
On behalf of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, The Cleveland Electric. Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Georgia Power Company, GPU Nuclear Corporation,. Indiana &
Michigan Electric Company, Louisiana Power & Light Company, Northern States Power Company, Pennsylvania Power 6. Light Company, The Toledo Edison Company,-Union Electric Company, and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (operating agent of
. Kansas Gas and Electric Company, Kansas City Power & Light Company, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.), all of whom hold operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, we are.
pleased to provide the following comments.
tirs_
4,GQJL(f)f c
-_-._.____..____._____..__..___m..
o l
i SH AW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNE R5M'P INCWQiN 3 PROMS $10NAL CORPOR A7 SONS Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1988 I
Page 2 We strongly oppose the proposed rule as written.
It is overly broad, unworkable, centrary to other NRC regulatory requirements, and generally bad policy.
The Commission has also failed to adequately describe the need for any new regulatory requirement.
The proposed rule should therefore be withdrawn.
There can be no question that properly badged NRC inspectors should have the same degree of access in the nuclear power plant that regular plant employees have.
Such unfettered access does not, however, require that NRC impose on plant employees the regulatory muzzle contemplated by the proposed rule.
NRC must first better define the circumstances which led to the commission's belief that a new rule is needed.
Only then can it propose an appropriate, carefully focused response to the problem.
In its current form, the proposed rule prohibits any licensee employee or any employee of any contractor from informing any other person at the facility that an NRC inspector has arrived or is present at the facility.
This prohibition would apply in all cases except where the NRC inspector had specifically requested that his arrival or presence be announced.
As written, the rule would create the following types of unreasonable results:
An NRC inspector from the Regional Office arrives on site and is cleared for access by security personnel.
The NRC resident inspector calls the security personnel and asks whether the Regional inspector has arrived.
The security officer will violate the proposed rule if he truthfully answers.
If he does not, he could even be charged with a material false statement.
An NRC inspector at the site during the course of an unannounced inspection asks a plant employee to provide a particular piece of information.
The employee, in seeking to retrieve the information from other individuals is asked why the information is needed.
The requesting employee would violate the rule by truthfully responding.
1
_-__--_____-__________a
s.
SH AW. PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWB RIDG E A PARTNCRSMlp INCLUDING pmOFESSsCNAL COR*CmATicNS Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1988 Page 3 Senior station management, as part of its general. plant oversight, broadly inquires of plant personnel on activities in the plant (or even specifically asks if any NRC personnel are on-site).
The proposed rule would require the plant personnel to lier otherwise the proposed rule would be violated.
Security computers at power reactors generally keep track of those individuals within the plant at any given time.
NRC inspectors would typically be included.
Access to this information by anyone other than the security officer granting access to the inspector would violate the rule.
To " ensure" that this information was.not accessed by anyone else, the licensee would undoubtedly have to reprogram the computer system.
i Another example of the proposed rule's unworkability is its requirement that the licensee " ensure" that the prohibited communications do not take place.
A requirement for absolute perfection in an area which is totally unsuited for such levels of behavior is unreasonable.
How, for example, can a licensee guarantee that employees for a contractor will not mention to someone else at the facility that he saw an NRC inspector?
No reasonable training program could possibly produce the kind of abnormal interpersonal behavior that the proposed rule contemplates.
Wholly apart from these unreasonable results which the proposed rule would cause, the prohibition is bad management.
Senior site management is responsible for the safe operation of the facility.
It is inappropriate that they be kept in the dark as to any matters involving the plant.
If the NRC were to believe that senior site management were interfering with NRC l
inspection functions, the ramifications should be severe enough j
without the need for any new rules.
The prohibition is also inconsistent with the licensees' safety responsibilities.
For example, in the event of an accident, the licensee must be able to establish accountability for all individuals who are on-site.
See, NUREG-0654, Rev. 1,
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," Planning Standard J.1, at 59.
1
L.
r 1
SHAw, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE c-A DARTNER5p*ip 8NCLLtDsNG PROFE9 & DNAL CORPORATIONS Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1988 Page 4 And the proposed rule is inconsistent with human nature.
To expect that individuals will not talk with one another about events and individuals that they may have seen is totally unreasonable.
Finally, the proposed rule is a further step towards unnecessary adversarialism in the relationship between the regulators and the regulatees.
If the proposed rule is indeed a response to a significant problem,.the NRC's first step should be to better explain the nature of the problem and the factual situations in which it has arisen.
Once that information has been shared with interested parties, it will'be possible to comment more meaningfully on the suggested corrective actions.
In the absence of that information, and without conceding that any new regulations are needed, we would offer the following suggestions to modify the rule as proposed:
1.
The prohibition on announcement or communica-tion should only extend to a deliberate announcement or other communication throughout the plant or a significant part thereof that an unannounced NRC inspector has arrived, or is present, i.e.,
an intentional effort to defeat the purpose of an unannounced inspection.
2.
The prohibition applies to an individual only if he or she has received from the NRC inspector an affirmative, unambiguous statement that the inspector's arrival or presence is not to be announced or communicated.
3.
The prohibition should not extend to one-on-one, individual conversations.
I.'..
.+
SH AW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE e
& MRTNER$Nef INCLUDqkG PRQFES$10NAL COR*0nAvioNE Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1988 Page 5 4.
The. prohibition should be limited in time, so that the prohibition does not extend for unreasonable lengths of time.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments.
Very truly yours, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 663-8000 By:-
d t.,
T m 1
"" ~ cr L
L 1.
p-u ;*
g.ry-z, fpf -7 i <..
ggET NUMBER g - 6 []
/
l:
FBR0P'OlfibEE h-s (53 F(L F91H)
~$, W" P. O. BOX 60340 h 47 LOUISI AN A / 317 BARONNE STREET (504)595-3100 POWER & LIGHT NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160
+
E0'NSE
$k[g:...,,,,
BRsh4O'VIct April 15, 1988 W3P88-0985 A4.0.5 NQA Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Doc sting and Service Branch Washingtor., D.C.
20555
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3 Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 Proposed Rule Regarding Announcement of NRC Inspectors at Power Reactor Facilities
Dear Sir:
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the recently published NRC proposed rule in the Federal Register (53FR8924), dated March 18, 1988, which prohibits announcing or otherwise communicating that a badged NRC inspector is present at a power reactor facility.
As a general matter of prudent and appropriate policy in the nuclear utility industry, senior facility management should have the right and responsibility to know who is on site at any given time.
This policy is a key factor in senior facility management performing their responsibilities regarding personnel access control and management control of the plant.
This proposed rule is contrary to that policy.
There is the potential for " Catch 22" situations placed on licensee employees.
For example, situations can occur where information may be requested by an inspector from a licensee employee who may have to gather the information from others.
If the licensee employee is questioned regarding the need for the information or has to justify the need for the information, he is faced with the options of either lying or telling the truth, of which both could have negative impacts.
l qfyQ68W NS20776 "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER"
~4 i
Ia Page 2 W3P88-0985 April 15,1988 There is also the potential for plant security system impacts from this proposed rule.
Upon entry logging of.an NRC inspector into the plant security computer, personnel with access to that computer would have know-ledge of his presence. To remedy this situation, significant modifications to the security system could be required which may not be in the best interest of overall plant security and safety.
There appears to be no control over the conduct of the unannounced inspec-tions which leads to concern that such inspections could become the norm in industry. When an inspector observes activities in solo, confusion and incorrect conclusions could arise because of potential lack of familiarity with procedures and potential lack of detailed plant knowledge.
Experience has generally shown that optimum inspection efficiency (of which NRC and licensee management control and coordination, organization, and interpreta-tion are all factors) occurs when an inspector makes an entrance announcing his intentions and is then accompanied by a knowledgeable licensee represen-tative to provide explanations and clarifications regarding activities being observed. Also, it is not clear in the proposed rule how exits from.
. unannounced inspections would be conducted.
The recognition of badged NRC inspectors that frequent the facility by facility employees presents a problem.
It would be difficult to control and prevent communications between facility employees regarding the presence of NRC inspectors at the site once recognition occurs.
For the reasons expressed above, LP&L is not in favor of the' proposed rule and feels that its implementation can lead to numerous instances of inadver-tent violation. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and would be available to further discuss our comments at your convenience.
Yours very truly, s
.F. Burski Acting Manager Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs RFB/RWP/tsy cc:
E. L. Blake, W.M. Stevenson, J. A. Calvo, D. L. Wigginton, R.D. Martin, NRC Resident Inspector's Office (W3)
NS20776
c
' DOCKET NUMBER ga p
PROPOSED RU!.E roseono"* <arri er2-esco 2.
y g rm i,oneo-m g;
Y YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY 1
erC 88-xs crqas;os4
.m aiu.
1571 Worcester Road. Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 I yj9
'88 APRf A10:20 m
April 15, 1988 F'!Ci Of H L.. a, 00CKEitNu 1 M vt,r, BR A NtM United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Secretary of'the Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
proposed Rule on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors (53FR8924)
Dear Sir:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject proposed rule on licensee announcement of NRC inspectors. YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook.
The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) is submitting detailed comments on the subject proposed rule. YAEC, which is a member of NUMARC, supports those comments.
In addition, we would like to contribute the following.
It is the very nature of nuclear operations and its relation to public safety that cause nuclear power plant workers to attend to their duties in a manner that is both professional 'and commensurate with their position's importance to safety.
It has been our experience that when such a performance level is not attained, it is the exception, not the rule. The incident, which may have served as the impetus for this proposed rulemaking, also appears to be an exception to the rule, and should not be considered as at all representative. We suggest that the proposed rulemaking is, in fact, a regulatory overreaction that will adversely affect all plants in the future.
l The rule as draf ted would require changes to f acility access programs that would result in an overall increase in plant vulnerability to the
" insider threat." As a result of licensee initiative and NRC requirements and policy, licensees have developed thorough security plans and. administrative procedures to address this concern.
For example licensee employees with, unescorted access are subject to FBI criminal history checks and stringent 24-hour access requirements, psychological testing, rigorous plant-specific training, drug and alcohol testing, and behavioral monitoring.
h
=
\\,
\\
1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 15, 1988 Secretary of the Commission page 2 An NRC inspector, by comparison, generally is not subjected to this same level of screening.
Even drug and alcohol testing has only very recently been imposed on NRC employees. This rule would exacerbate the dif ference further.
That is, the rule as draf ted would preclude security from reporting to the site manager the presence of an inspector during off-normal hours - something that is routinely done for plant employees as another layer of protection against the " insider." Even the reporting to the appropriate licensee i
officials of any unusual or unacceptable behavior on the part of an NRC inspector would amount to announcement of the inspector's presence, and thus, potentially constitute a violation.
We do not believe that such enforcement action was the intent of the Commission, nor do we believe that the Commission intended to negatively impact industrial safety. This proposed rule could have that effect.
It is the licensee's fundamental responsibility to provide for the personal welfare of all individuals given access to the site. This includes NRC inspectors.
Without awareness that an individual is alone inside the facility, key personnel cannot react to a need for assistance that could arise as a result of an accidental injury should one occur.
l Finally, we urge the Commission to take another careful look at the basis for this proposed rulemaking. We have serious doubts that the issue at hand is really one of enhancing performance or attentiveness levels based on knowledge of an inspector's presence. We suggest that the issue is really related to management philosophy and control.
Rulemaking is inappropriate for addressing such an issue. Adequate resources and tools exist for identifying and correcting the type of incidents referred to in the proposed rule.
In conclusion, we oppose further rulemaking on the subject of inspection announcements.
Such rulemaking is inappropriate as it would increase the
" insider threat," decrease the inspector's personal safety, and create the potential for unintentional violations of a federal regulation.
If the Commission feels compelled to proceed with this proposed rulemaking, we urge the Commission, as NUMARC has done, to better focur its concerns.
As a minimum, the NRC inspector should be assigned the responsibility for ensuring, on a case-specific basis, that licensee or contractor employees who are likely to be part of an ensuing inspection are not notified of the inspector's presence, by requesting in writing, that facility personnel not be notified.
Very truly yours, Donald W. Edwards Director of Industry Affairs JMG/22.719
PROPOSED NM.E g=g()
C0CKET NUMBER A
ConsumBIS
$%7 W F T2. P M M P0wer Kenneth W Beny powsmus
'88 APR 19 R2:24 m,,,,,,
"""~i" niKHisAN'E PROGRES5 184s w e.rn.ii no.a. a. cit.on, ui 4s201. (si7) 7sa.igyyQ hk c.n.r.i onic..;
BRANCH April 15, 1988 Secretary of the Commission.
U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE -
" LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF' INSPECTORS" Consumers power Company is pleased to offer the following comments on the
-proposed changes to 10CFR Part 50 titled " Licensee Announcements of Inspectors" as published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1988 (53 FR 8924).
Consumers Power Company agrees that properly authorized NRC employees should not be impeded in their access to licensed facilities. However, we believe that the proposed 10CFR 50.70(b)(4) is overly restrictive. We do not believe that the announcement of the fact that an NRC inspector is on-site in any way impedes the inspector's access to the site nor does it compromise his ability to perform a through inspection in the area of interest. The statement that the presence of an NRC inspector may not be " announced or otherwise communi-cated" without specific authorization of the inspector inhibits the ability of plant management to preplan and announce inspections, even in those cases where the NRC has provided advanced notice of the inspection to the licensee; as the currently written, aggressive enforcement of the rule could result in a viola-tion even for non-verbal communications between, licensee employees.
Further, the regulatory analysis of the propo' sed rule _ implies that licensees, their employees, and contractors do not routinely' comply with the regulations of the NRC and that the announcement of an NRC inspector results in dangerous conditions, practices, and violations of NRC regulations being hidden from the inspector. This is not the case at our Palisades or Big Rock Point Plants nor l.
do we believe that this is the case at any other nuclear power plant. While the announcement of an NRC inspector on-site does alert company employees to l
the inspectors presence, it does not slow the indpector's access to the site nor does it impede the progress of his inspection.
e @d&
M sggesa%9 e
F.
.c, 2
6*
As stated above, Consumers Power. Company agrees that properly authorized NRC employees should have unimpeded access to any area of a licensed facility equivalent to that accorded to a regular plant employee. We believe, however, that the proposed rule can be revised to ensure that the intent of the proposed I
rule, ie, unfettered access to a licensed facility, is maintained while remov-ing the blanket prohibition on announcement or communication of the inspector's presence. The suggested wording for 10CFR 50.70(b)(4) appears below.
(4) The licensee or construction permit holder shall ensure that the an NRC inspector, who has been properly authorized facility access as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this
.section, is not impeded by its employees or contractors in his access to the facility or to any area of the facility where he may properly go.
When specifically requested by the inspector, his presence on-site shall not be publicly communicated or announced to licensee employees or contractors.
The wording proposed above ensures that an NRC inspector will have access to all portions of the licensed facility. It removes the blanket prohibition against announcements of the inspector's presence, yet provides the inspector with.the option of requiring that his presence not be announced if he feels such an announcement would compromime his ability to perform the inspection.
i Mb Kenneth W Berry i
OC0488-0006A-NLO3
b ro
~~
.A
,oN NRC 18-54' WPSC (414) 433-1599
\\
. ' TELECOPIER(414)433-1297 EASYLINK 62991993 00thEiEi
' WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION thWC 600 North Adams e P O. Box 19002 e Green Bay, WI 543o7-9002
'88 APR 19 Pl2:25 DOCKET NUMBER g 4 d PROPOSED RULE p u, u m.,, e
{ p J f-12. IT1*/)
00CKElgtQy!'VM1 April 15, 1988 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kcwaunee Nuclear Power Plant 53 FR 8924, Announcement of Inspectors
.We have reviewed the subject proposed rule and the draft NUMARC comments to it dated April 11, 1988. WPSC endorses the NUMARC comments as supplemented below.
We are seriously concerned about the health and well-being of any individual admitted to the site with minimal or no familiarity with the site or plant con-ditions. Changing plant conditions require that personnel consult with various plant departments in order to avoid the hazards of an industrial facility. WPSC could be held liable for injury to an NRC inspector without first having an opportunity for prevention by advising the individual of known hazards.
A second item of concern stems directly from the proposed wording of the rule.
The rule states that the licensee shall " ensure" that the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector is not announced or otherwise communicated by its employees to other persons at the facility unless specifically requested to do so. This wording is overly broad and vague and represents an impossible task for the licensee.
It is far more reasonable to require a licensee to develop procedures to prohibit intentional notication of the target of the inspection by the site security group for a specified period of time when requested to do so by the inspector in writing.
Thirdly, there is no limit with regard to when NRC could use this audit tech-nique. We view this method as radical and as such should be reserved for situationswheretheNRChasreasonable~suspicionsthatitsregulationsthat have a direct impact on public health and safety are being intentionally l
violated.
A
4 Secretary of the Commission April 15c 1988 i
Page 2 Lastly, the nuclear industry has made a concerted effort to maintain a good working relationship with the NRC by maintaining a free and candid dialog through individual licensees, NUMARC, INP0 & other groups formed to resolve spe-cific issues.
This rule, if promulgated, will tend to introduce an element of
- unintended antagonism in NRC/ Licensee relationships.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
& $)W D. C. Hintz Vice President - Nuclear Power DWS/jms cc - Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC US NRC, Region III US NRC Document Control Desk 1
l L
~_
N DOCKET NUMBER PR g h2 PROPOSED RULE
.. n 39 n2g8
(_ g 3 FK v1.m)
April 15, 1988
~ L.
IARY
- OCKE, WICE COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. ( ' 0 Ch'E ' )
ON PROPOSED RULE, 10 CFR 50. LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS (53 FED REC 8924. MARCH 18, 1988)
The NRC is considering on omendment to its regulations which I
would prohibst licensees'from announcing the presence or on NRC inspector or the plant site, unless specifico11y requested by the inspector.
OCRE supports this revision.
It oppears to be necessory in light or incidents mentioned in the Federal Register notice in which the ability or inspectors to ossess licensee activities was compromised due to licensee announcement or communication or the inspector's presence. The conduct or licensed activities may Well be 01tered i f those performing such octivities know they are being observed by on NRC inspector.
This rule should ensure that inspectors Will get on occurote picture or licensee operations.
The rule should be enocked without deloy.
Respectru11y submitted, W
A w
suson L.
Hiott CCRE Representative 9075 Munson Road Mentor. OH 44060 (216) 255-3158
, wc a..
n a r.
. $ m.,
b C,se i b
'.,.I If A.el '.,' s I.* ~,'4 s']
\\ %'i. e,
it ti k.s r.f l FI 61?,)!.s.*M U )
'.! D t ai e%; te o s.
~
- *e.3 1ss.csuu4
- 8 T*
! Jap: O)
- n. ' cic;,aq.3 3 l 'g,4 P ) da' r.I' ', 't O
..d we-en we e
a e.
e es, we+ -eg wees ag
-me n
ll hh f 3_
DOCKET NUMBER rd0 POSED RULE g,.g-
<n
(
L AW OPPICES
- n K[Il~.'
CONNER 8c WETTERH5N(N[E.C.
D
',,/
l P
17 4 7 P E N N S Y LVA N I A AV E N U E N. W.
- l WA S ilI N G TO N D. C.,2 O O pj %
{
Tsov n. cowwEN. J R.
xA=x o. wErrEnnAnN ROJEBT N.RADER WILS N NICHOLS 5"f "^,""f "'c" " ""
April 15, lgQ,C-p.1tl spH C ABLE ADDN ESS: ATOMLAW Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Proposal to Add New 10 C.F.R. 550.70 (b) (4),
53 Fed. Reg. 8925 (March 18, 1988)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(" Commission" or "NRC") has proposed the adoption of a new rule as 10 C.F.R.
S50.70 (b) (4) to ensure that NRC inspections are not compromised by licensee or contractor employees who inform others at the facility of the arrival or presence of NRC inspectors.
The Commission has invited the submission of comments by April 18, 1988.
53 Fed. Reg. 8924 IMarch 18, 1988).
The ' necessity "that NRC inspectors be granted inmediate and unannounced access to licensed facilities, follow-ing proper identification and compliance with applicable access and control procedures" is not unreasonable.
It is also understood that inspections could be hindered if licensee or contractor personnel at the site " intentionally give notice to other persons of the arrival and presence of
[an]
NRC inspector at a facility," where the inspector wishes his presence to remain unknown.
On the other hand, we believe that the rule as drafted, if literally applied, would create impracticalities in the everyday relationship between NRC inspectors (particularly the resident inspector) and site personnel.
There are many times when a licensee or contractor's employees are trying to locate an inspector to follow up on some previously discussed matter, to discuss a new concern, relay informa-tion from someone outside the plant, or for any other number j
of legitimate reasons.
Applied literally, the rule would prohibit one employee noting to another the presence of the resident inspector.
[
gj
]
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk
'(
April 15, 1988 Page 2 i
)
The major vice of the proposed rule, however, is its j
overbreadth, which would make it impossible to enforce.
It I
would also be grossly unfair to licensees to hold them i
accountable for innocent statements over which management has no control.
In our view, the proposed rule simply does not come to grips with the practical problem of trying to control the actions of hundreds of individuals at the site.
Prohibiting the announcement or communicating the arrival of inspectors by the personnel at the security access points is a reasonable requirement.
- However, no licensee could successfully prevent word of mouth communication by on-site employees, particularly temporary contractor employees.
We propose that the rule should read as follows:
(b) ***
(4)
The licensee or construction permit holder shall ensure that the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector, who has been properly authorized facility access as described in paragraph (b) (3) of this section, is not announced (i) by any member of the physical security organization to any other person at the facility unless specifically requested to do so by the NRC inspector, or (ii) by any facility personnel to any other person at the f acility with the intent to change the nature of activities or level of alertness because of the inspector's arrival.
Sincerely,m 4
Troy B.
Conner, Jr.
sdd 1
1i_____________
~
d Tp2,4 -
DOCKET NUMBER PR -5o PROPOSED RULE f
Ul
(_5 3 F if. 5 9,2N) vic4GWhuei or Proovetion George s. Thomas nNN Public Service of New Hampshire
'88 APR 20 A10:10 N:;w Harnps. hire Yankee Division NYN-88051 0FHC!
9 u.'L April 15, 1988 00CKEliNL i. SE'MCf.
BRANCH-Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attentions Docketing and Service Branch 1
Subject:
Proposed Rule; Licensee Announcement of Inspectors
Dear Sir:
The New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) Division of Public Service Company of l
New Hampshire (PSNH) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regarding 10 CFR 50.70 published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53, on March 18, 1988 (53 FR 8924).
PSNH is the agent and representative of the Joint Owners of Seabrook Station.
The Nuclear Management and Resource Council (NUMARC) is submitting detailed comments regarding this proposed rulemaking. NHY is a member of NUMARC and supports those comments. Additionally, Yankee Atomic Electric I
Company (YAEC), from whom NHY contracts certain support services, is providing j
comments on this proposed rule. NHY concurs with and supports the YAEC
- comments, j
i NHY recognizes the NRC concern regarding this issue; however, we do not l
agree that the proposed rule is the appropriate method to address and resolve l
this matter.
l t
Very truly yours, i
l
--&yc $
George S. Thomas l
I I
1 P.O. Box 300. Seabrook, NH 03874. Telephone (603) 474-9574 j
}hW].N
^
c_
a 1
e Q %h I e A.
MN
- ^ DOCKET NUMBER 1
PROPOSED RULE n
"E
@ Pennsylvania Power & Light CompanyOLK[aLU L
Two North Ninth Street e Allentown, PA 18101 1179 e 215/770-5151 USNi' C 6
as a 20 An s6 Harold W. Keiser Senior Vice President Nuclear
,,s,...
rgg>f((g";/{/,j 215/770-4194 BRANCH APR I 51988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn.: Docketing and-Service Branch SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE j
LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS Docket Nos. 50-387 i
. FILES R41-2/A17-11 and 50-388 i
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Pennsylvania Power and Light provides the enclosed comments on a proposed rule involving licensee announcements of inspectors (53FR8924). We understand NRC's concerns which the proposed rule attempts to address, but we do not believe that NRC fully appreciates the impacts of this proposed rule as written.
I strongly encourage the Commission to abandon this rulemaking. If a rule is f
deemed necessary, it should be expanded to provide a number of qualifications.
The accompar.ying statements of consideration will need to address all of the specific concerns provided in our detailed comments.
PP&L appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Very truly yours, f~ m a
i H. W. Kdiser Sr. Vice President - Nuclear
,; p., -
\\
<<.:'2 w vr-N '=
T =
~!';.
Attachmeat
'm 'i: '. u a p 3
2 cc: NRC Document Control Desk (original)
NRC Region I e i. cJ 3
Mr. F. 1. Young, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. M. C. Thadani, NRC Project Manager I
=
=
t DETAILED COMMENTS I
As written, the proposed regulation would prohibit any form of announcement or communication as to the arrival or presence of an NRC inspector. The only exception would be where the inspector specifically requested that his arrival or presence be made known.
The proposed rule would inhibit station management in its responsibilities:
i 1.
It has been a long-standing practice at Susquehanna for Security to notify the Plant Superintendent, Shift Supervisor, Compliance group and others upon the arrival of manager-level or higher personnel not stationed at the facility, visiting VIPS, and NRC personnel other than the resident inspectors. The reason for these notifications is not to change the way we conduct business, but to keep responsible station management personnel i
abreast of activities at the facility. These individuals have a variety of actions to take to support an NRC inspection. These' activities include arranging entrance and exit meetings, ensuring appropriate personnel attendance, and ensuring appropriate support for the inspector so that the inspection can proceed smoothly. These activities are appropriate ones but would be difficult to accomplish without violating the rule as proposed. Even if the consent of the inspector has been obtained to perform these functions, there is a high risk of misunderstanding which could lead to violations.
2.
The proposed rule would inhibit resolution of NRC concerns. Once a concern has been raised, the responsible employee may need to interface with any number of other employees to resolve the concern. He will also be obligated to inform his supervisor who may need to inform management, operations, compliance or others depending on the concern. To accomplish all this while protecting the presence of an inspector from disclosure may not be feasible and is not reasonable. Again, even if the consent of the inspector has been obtained to perform these functions, there is_ a high risk of misunderstanding which could lead to violations.
3.
The proposed rule would require empicyees to lie to each other.
If questioned about the presence of an inspector, the employee would be required to deny his presence. No regulations should require our employees to mislead each other.
4.
The rule conflicts with other requirements. When an inspector enters the protected area, his presence is detected by the security computer. This information is accessible and represents a form of communication. Even the absence of the inspector's key card from its storage slot can communicate his presence to security personnel. In the event of a site evacuation, the inspector's name would be included on the list of personnel for accountability. This is necessary for his own safety.
The above examples represent only a sampling of our concerns. As a result, we strongly suggest that the proposed rule as written is unworkable and that compliance is not reasonable or possible. Therefore, the proposed rule should be abandoned.
p...-
1
,.g If NRC feels that some level of secrecy is necessary, and that the rule must be issued, then we. recommend the following:
o NRC should consider restricting only general announcements..
Communications between individuals should be exempted.
l l
o The rule should not apply to resident inspectors. The presence of the residents can be assumed by all employees.
The. specific problems identified above must be' addressed-so'that.the rule o
does not unnecessarily inhibit or impact activities at the facility or conflict with other requirements.
o The rule should be applicable only during off-hours.
If an NRC. inspector-
.j feels secrecy is needed, he should arrive after normal' working hours.-
l The rule should not restrict communication of his presence during normal.
hours the following day.
l l
In summary, we understand and sympathize with the problem NRC is trying to l
solve. However, the proposed rule is a poor solution because it creates too
{
many other problems.
t i
l i
4 l
l i
1 i
o[
,,, o, l
,I UNITED CTATEG DEPARTMENT OF COMM2RCE N tirnalCuracu of Ctandreda b
\\,*>
j/
Geithersburg, Maryland 20899 COLE ill i /
W C
/C
..g DOCKET NUMBER DD J d 10 POSED RULE m 18 APR 20 P5 57
~
ls3FIE N Y y. m,..,.
f0CKfNGT WVICI April 14, 1988 3 RANCH Secretary ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch USNRC Washington, DC 20555
Dear Sir:
The following are comments on the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.70 (FR 8924, 18' March 1988) forbidding rumors relating the presence of a NRC inspector.
This proposal represents a naivete that has seldom been exceeded in the annals of NRC regulation.
If the intent is to forbid a company policy of " belling" the NRC inspector then the proposal should be so phrased.
B*
the futility of trying to prevent individuals from calling friends in other portions of the facility by threatening to punish the organization is such that this proposed rule is a waste of the paper it takes to print it.
The military has assembled a large body of experience in the futility of trying to prevent rumors.
If enacted, this will then be an item on which the staff will have to be " educated".
The organization will have to maintain training records of such education as a defensive measure to avoid or ameliorate citations and fines.
Such legalistic administrative items detract from the true radiation safety topics of the training program by serving as distractors.
If the NRC still considers this rule to be necessary I propose that:
1.
An appropriate prohibition statement be adde'dito.' the.LNRC] cil 1 Fora;3; and 2.
Adequate posting of the NRC Form 3 fully satisfi.es the employee notification requirement, and 3.
In the absence of proof of institutional ap' proval or encouragement only t.he individual violating this rule can be subject to enforcement action.
i
'd o
i
- e 1
I 4
9, 4
l i
While the summary indicated the proposal will only apply to power reactor sites, the proposed rule does not have that restriction.
Since part 50 applies to other types of facilities besides power reactors, the rule is not consistent with the summary statement which will have mislead all the non-power reactor facilities covered by 10 CFR 50.
If the rule is not appropriately amended these facilities should be given an opportunity to comment.
Sincerely, n.
Lester A.
Slaback, J Supervisory Health Physicist Occupational Health and Safety Division 1
1 l
l I
l L
[
pegni lWS % -fd._NO D *-2.
fyE m
A *yYiM)
~
r1 t
B ALTIMORE r q R "~-
GAS AND
~1.n H M ELECTRIC
'88 APR 22 A10:18 CHARLES CENTER R O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 op sE.
- a... o 00CFI}'g;. ji 41 JosepN A.TIERN AN VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR ENERQY April 18, 1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Comments on Proposed Rule, 10 CFR 50.70 Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Gentlemen:
The following comments concern the subject proposed rule which would grant NRC inspectors immediate and unannounced access to licensed facilities, thus avoiding advanced notification of the inspection to licensee personnel.
The intent of the rule is understandable, but the potential for unintentional violation, as the rule is written, is excessive and therefore probably unenforceable.
Such a blanket prohibition against employee intercommunication is extremely unrealistic.
It is impractical to " ensure" that such communications will not occur, thereby creating potential enforcement for circumstances completely outside a licensee's control.
Security personnel are trained to take note of persons who enter the plant that are not employees or contractors, and to inform security supervision of each such occurrence. Jhis rule _will force them to act against an ingrained set of purposeful principles.
Further, the burden of licensees having to maintain a code of silence for its employees does not lend itself easily to the safe and efficient operation of a nuclear power plant.
It is easy to foresee instances where Control Room efficiency, for example, could be compromised by such a prohibition.
W ccm e
\\4*
I'
^
Documant Control Dank April 18, 1988 Page 2 We recommend against this type of regulatory initiative.
imposed,-however, at least three changes are recommended:
If 1.
The rule should only be in7effect!for a sipeciified?
~
duration? after arrival.
This duration should be on the" order of twothours?
L 2.
If the inspector wants to conduct an inspection without people being aware of his presence, he should inform each licensee employee or contractor he contacts that the inspection 1s to be conducted I
confidentially in accordance with NRC regulations.
This way the normal inspection, which does not require any secrecy, can be done-with normal processes, otherwise, efforts to accommodate and support inspectors will constantly be hindered by the confusion over whether or not the inspector has specifically requested to 'have his presence communicated.
3.
The rule must clearly reflect that in no instance may the imposition of such a rule interfere with safe operations.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours, C
(84(/A' JAT/DLS/dla t
cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. A. Capra, NRC S. A. McNeil, NRC W. T. Russell, NRC D. C. Trimble, NRC
+'
pqg f3 z
[
Commonw:alth Edison 60CKET NUMBER lT One First National Plaza. Chicago. Illinois
- ' POSED RULE 1
-~
Adtess Reply to: Post Office Box 767
($) M NM Chicago, Illinois 60690 0767 C h i'(*
%HH
'88 APR 22 #0:19 April 14, 1988 O U ict C ?!3 e 't, 00CKEhNS & ii:M y BRANCd Mr Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Proposed Rule to Prohibit Licensra Announcement of Presence of NRC Inspector (53 Fed. Req. 8924, March 16, 1988)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
This provides Commonwealth Edison Company's (" Edison") comments on the subject proposed rule. Edison shares other licensees' concerns that the rule presents significant practical problems of implementation.
Edison also notes that the proposal is incomplete because it does not specify the cons % ences of failing to observe the rule. But more importantly, Edison is i'aappointed that the NRC believes this rule to be necessary.
Currently, NRC inspectors are authorized to conduct unannounced inspections. The effectiveness of these inspections, as a general matter, has never been shown, to be impaired by current licensee practice.
Yet, the implication of this proposal is that licensees have been undermining the NRC's ability to conduct me" '.ngful inspections, in particular unannounced inspections. We believe thn implication is unwarranted.
Licensees have long accepted unannounced inspections as part of the NRC regulatory process.
If, in certain instances, such unannounced inspections have been impaired by employee communications, the proper remedy is a rule designed to deal with those specific problems. A gag rule on licensee employees is unnecessarily broad.
It raises significant legal questions of whether such a rule is a constitutionally permissible governmental restraint on speech. Also, to the extent that this proposal creates a presumption that all i r ections are to 1,e unannounced unless otherwise stated explicitly, rau as a question of consistency with the constitutional guarantee against unten ont11e searches.
This proposal is distressing m a matter of policy. The proposal suggests that licensees can't be trusted to cooperate with the NRC.
- Indeed, the regulatory analysis states that the rule is intended to give the NRC a more realistic picture of actual conditions at plant sites. Such an attitude is inconsistent with the established principle that each licensee has the ultimate responsibility for operating its plant safely and has l
I wholehearted!y accepted that responsibility when it accepted the plant's operating license. To suggest, through a gag rule, that licensees have generally not honored that commitment by not cooperating with NRC 4& Y,
inspections is to undermine the public's confidence in nuclear power.
5, 2"
Ref-
J s.
,1 Therefore, Edison urges the NRC to withdraw this rule as proposed.
If consistent with these comments, the NRC can show that specific restrictions on employee communications are necessary to implement the inspection program, then restrictions which address those specific concerns i
should be proposed consistent with constitutional limitations.
Sincerely, d
Hent Bliss Nuclear Licensing Manager VM/rf/4521K
'TOSED Rul.E C53 F L W ])
Q Pennsylvania Power & Light Company
/
certr:-
Two North Ninth Street e Allentown, PA 18101 1179 e 215/7745151 li
'88 APR 22 A10:19 Harold W. Keiser Senior Vice President-Nuclear Ong c ;l,. :,,
215/7704194 00CK[IlNG 4, ? %irf 5"^"C" APR 151988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn.: Docketing and Service Branch SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS Docket Nos. 50-387 PLA-3019 FILES R41-2/A17-11 and 50-388
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Pennsylvania Power and Light provides the enclosed comments on a proposed rule involving licensee announcernents of inspectors (53FR8924). We understand NRC's concerns which the proposed rule attempts to address, but we do not believe that NRC fully appreciates the impacts of this proposed rule as written.
I strongly encourage the Commission to abandon this rulemaking. If a rule is deemed necessary, it should be expanded to provide a number of qualifications.
The accompanying statements of consideration will need to address all of the specific concerns provided in our detailed comments.
l PP&L appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Very truly yours, f %
H. W. Kdiser Sr. Vice President - Nuclear Attachment cc: NRC Document Control Desk (original)
NRC Region 1 Mr. F. I. Young, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. M. C. Thadani, NRC Project Manager l
l h
g&
3g
1
~
g.
DETAILED CCMMENTS As written, the proposed regulation would prohibit any form of announcement or communication as to the arrival or presence of an NRC inspector. The only exception would be where the inspector specifically requested that his arrival or presence be made known.
The proposed rule would inhibit station management in its responsibilities:
1.
It has been a long-standing practice at Susquehanna for Security to notify the Plant Superintendent, Shift Supervisor, Compliance group and others upon the arrival of manager-level or higher personnel not stationed at the f acility, visiting V1Ps, and NRC personnel other than the resident inspectors. The reason for these notifications is not to change the way we conduct business, but to keep responsible station management personnel abreast of activities at the facility. These individuals have a variety of actions to take to support an NRC inspection. These activities include arranging entrance and exit meetings, ensuring appropriate personnel attendance, and ensuring appropriate support for the inspector so that the inspection can proceed smoothly. These activities are appropriate ones but would be difficult to accomplish without violating the rule as proposed. Even if the consent of the inspector has been obtained to perform these functions, there is a high risk of misunderstanding which could lead to violations.
2.
The proposed rule would inhibit resolution of NRC concerns. Once a concern has been raised, the responsible employee may need to interface with any number of other employees to resolve the concern.
He will also be obligeted to inf orm his supervisor who may need to inform management, operations, compliance or others depending on the concern. To accomplish all this while protecting the presence of an inspector from disclosure may not be feasible and is not reasonable. Again, even if the consent of the inspector has been obtained to perform these functions, there is a high risk of misunderstanding which could lead to violations.
3.
The proposed rule would require employees to lie to each other. If questioned about the presence of an inspector, the employee would be required to deny his presence. No regulations should require our, employees to mislead each other.
4.
The rule conflicts with other requirements. When an inspector enters the This protected area, his presence is detected by the security computer.
information is accessible and represents a form of communication. Even the absence of the inspector's key card from its storage slot can communicate his presence to security personnel. In the event of a site evacuation, the inspector's name would be included on the list of personnel for accountability. This is necessary for his own safety.
As a result, we The above examples represent only a sampling of our concerns.
strongly suggest that the proposed rule as written is unworkable and that compliance is rot reasonable or possible. Therefore, the proposed rule should be abandoned.
\\
=,.
If NRC feels that some level of secrecy is necessar), and that the rule must
+
be issued, then we recommend the following:
o NRC should consider restricting only general announcements.
Communications between individuals should be exempted.
o The rule should not apply to resident inspectors. The presence of the residents can be assumed by all employees, The specific problems identified above must be addressed so that the rule o
does not unnecessarily inhibit or impact activities at the facility or conflict with other requirements.
o The rule should be applicable only during off-hours.
If an NRC inspector feels secrecy is needed, he should arrive af ter normal working hours.
The rule should not restrict communication of his presence during normal hours the following day.
In summary, we understand and sympathize with the problem NRC is trying to solve.
However, the proposed rule is a poor solution because it creates too many other preb'ans.
l l
gd 15 p 00cKtiNUMBERg f[)
p _
1 w.-s~
I l'
. PROPOSED Rul.E tg?
(53FTlfr'12N g
I
- > NewYorkPovgr a 22 mo20 u,. c. am 4# Authority
!"=00' April 18,1988 Of f d "'
00CKfp;g,'.W;J11 i
IPN-88-010 JPN-88-015 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Sub.iect:
Indir-Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Dockei No. 50-286 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Comments on NRC Proposed Rule on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors
Reference:
Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53, page 8924, proposed rule, entitled, " Licensee Announcements of Inspectors," dated March 18, 1988.
Dear Sir.
The New York Power Authority recognizes the NRC's need to conduct unannounced inspections at nuclear power plants, and agrees that properly badged NRC inspectors should be granted unfettered access equivalent to the access provided regular plant employees. We are concerned that the proposed rule includes a requirement that is contrary to the management notification practices of the nuclear utility industry.
The Power Authority nas long-established practices at its facilities that have been implemented to ensure safe and reliable operation. A key element of these practices is to ensure that personnel in the plant are properly authorized for access and have a need to conduct business in the plant. This is particularly true during off-hours (including nights, weekends, and holidays) when less than the normal complement of personnel are on-site. In support cf this practice a requirement exists for security personnel and others to notify the senior manager on-site or the Control Room of non-shift or non-utility personnel who request access or enter the facility after normal working hours. In addition, our personnel are trained to question or challenge unfamiliar personnel about their business and to notify the plant management of the Control Room of the presence of any unfamiliar personnel in the plant. The purpose of these practices is to provide, through vigilance, an additional degree of security to alert responsible plant personnel to any unusual circumstances, as well as providing for the safety of these 2f individuals.
The requirements of the proposed rule contradict these prudent practices. Actions taken by licensees, in the normal conduct of performing work, may be construed by an NRC inspector as a violation of the rule. For example, if a guard or other plant employee observes an NRC inspector on-site and, during later discussions with a supervisor, mentions that an NRC
,, %d'~
0 i
2-inspector is on-site, that conversation could be construed as a violation of the NRC regulation.
Similarly, a guard or plant employee who observes an NRC inspector in the plant, and who has i
a responsibility under plant procedures or practices to notify the Control Room of unfamiliar l
individuals in the plant, may find themselves unable to comply with both plant procedures and the regulation.
The rule is unnecessary, since properly authorized NRC inspectors are afforded unfettered access to NYPA facilities. The NRC's desire to observe oagoing plant activities without adesnce notification of the NRC inspector's presence is understandable, and the current access
,nactices at the Power Authority facilities were developed with this in mind. Authorized NRC inspectors are provided with access without unnecessary delays. In addition, the Resident Inspector provides the NRC with the capability to observe all activities without advanced notification. There is little to be gained by generic application of requirements which are not needed and create direct conflict with customary and generally accepted good practices.
Should the NRC adopt this rule despite the difficulties with compliance and enforcement, the Authority recommends that the proposed rule be changed so that clarification should be provided on the length of time the rule applies after tia NRC inspector enters the facility.
Once the NRC inspector arrives at the inspection location, it is unreasonable to assume that the inspector's presence will not be noticed by utility or contractor personnel at that location and be communicated further. To require that an NRC inspector's presence not be recognized may preclude normal required communications between plant personnel and is a most unreasonable requirement.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. P. Kokolakis or Mr. J. A. Gray, Jr. of my staff.
Sincerely yours, U
w lohn C. Brons xecutive Vice President uclear Generation cc:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 l
Office of the Resident inspector i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, New York 13093 Resident inspector's Office Indian Point 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 377 Buchanan, New York 10511 l
t
i L. o.o,
Mr. Harvey Abelson Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. J.D. Neighbors, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate I-l Division of Reactor Projects-l/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B2 -
Washington, D.C. 20555
DOCKET NUMBER N
T,7 g
~0 SED RULE O ~
m Fe evn)
\\
WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEMQgEI P.O. Box 968
- 3000 George \\\\'ashirtgtors \\\\'ay
- Richland. \\\\'ashirngtors 99352 l
W FE 22 50$
Tact U m..- n '
d e
U0CKETWG A M PV'Cf SR4NCH April 18,1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
PROPOSED RULE LICENSEE ANN 0UNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS The subject proposed rule was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 18, 1988 (53 FR8924).
The Washington Public Power Supply System has reviewed the proposed rule and offers the following comments for your consideration.
While we agree with the intent of this proposed rule, we see problems associated. with its implementation because it is extremely broad and ambiguous.
Background
The proposed rule, as we understand it, is intended to eliminate the situation where an NRC inspector arrives on site for an unannounced inspection and a member of the guard force or other employee, based on either written procedure or unwritten understanding, calls the Control Room or other plant area to " alert" them that an inspector is on the way.
Comment We feel that we can adequately protect against the above type of activity by specific direction to the guard force.
It is much more difficult to prevent an employee who happens to be going through the Badge House at the same time as the inspector from mentioning to his co-workers that he saw an NRC inspector in the Badge House.
While this latter example is not an " announcement", it definitely is "otherwise communicated" to other persons.
Because the rule is extremely broad and a'mbiguous, we are concerned that enforcement, both by the licensee and NRC, will be extremely difficult, and thus tends to create a lack of respect for the regulations.
= ww+
7
),
i
____._.._.________._________..____.___.__.___________________________________.____._.___________________.___o
i
,-1 U.S. NRC Docketing & Service Branch Proposed Rule - Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Page 2 In addition to the potential problems in enforcement which this regulation raises, we are also concerned about the potential impact on personnel safety. The inspector who moves about on a solo basis (without escort or working partner) could be subject to entering hazardous spaces and/or meeting with an accident involving personal injury.
Depending upon the individual's location at the time of this hypothetical incident, there could well be a significant lapse of time until he/she is discovered.
With this potential in mind, it would be appropriate that a lone inspector be equipped with a portable radio for use in calling for help in the event of an emergency.
Over the past few years, the Commission has had its contractors looking at ways to improve regulations and eliminate those with marginal safety impact.
This proposed rule certainly fits that category, and we would encourage the Commission to seek alternative ways to achieve the desired result.
Very truly yours, 4
G. C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs l
g 1-00cm140MBEFI
- e. o. sox iaoco. surso ce rcs. < t 33 l.
i j.g c 1 3 4 CP PROPOSED RULE (S) F C MW ;
9 M-,
r April 14, 1988 L-88-182
[0 il I'
BM HCH Secretary U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.
C.
20555
Reference:
10CFR50.70, Proposed Rule to add Section (b)
(4) to Eliminate Licensee Announcements of Inspectors
Dear Sir:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) presented a proposed rule change in the referenced document to add Section (b)
(4) to require that the arrival and presence of NRC Inspectors is not announced or otherwise communicated by
- Licensee, unless specifically requested by the Inspector.
Comments regarding this proposed change were requested by April 18, 1988, in the Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53, on Friday, March 18, 1988.
Attached are Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) comments on this proposed change, which conclude that implementation of the change would not be in FPL or the NRC's best interests, and would not result in an increase in the overall protection of public health or safety.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and would be pleased to discuss our comments and concerns further with the appropriate NRC staff personnel.
Very truly yours, W.
F. Conw y Acting Group Vice President Nuclear Energy WFC/DRC/cm attachment 9tt*M&W~
\\
l an FPL Group company
_J
t 4
i l
ATTACHMENT
]
i l
1 l
FPL Comments on Proposed Rule Change to 10CFR50.70.
The NRC requested comments on a proposed change to 10CFR50.70 to add a Section (b) (4) to require that the arrival and presence of NRC Inspectors not be announced by the Licensee when the Inspector visits the plant
- site, unless requested by the Inspector.
FPL's comments to this proposed change are as follows:
1.
This practice would not be in compliance with existing FPL nuclear power plant security requirements, which have been approved by the NRC.
2.
The proposed change is too general in nature.
The existing statements do not address specifics, such as applicability to security access and control point personnel or computers.
i This would make it impossible for the utility to provide items such as:
entrance notices and
- meetings, accommodations, offices, conference rooms, notification to the appropriate management personnel, etc.
In addition, schedule conflicts could be unresolvable under the proposed requirement.
3.
The proposed change also raises other cuestions:
Will this stifle normal communications between plant and/or corporate personnel?
What is the necessity of this covertness for all i
inspection activity?
The NRC resident inspectors already visit the site on peak and back shifts.
Is the new requirement not redundant to 10CFR50.70 (b)
(3),
which addresses " Unfettered Access"?
If NRC desires unfettered and unannounced access, should this not be stated to the Resident, who could then facilitate this type of inspection?
4.
We have reviewed and concur with the comments being submitted by NUMARC on this proposed rule.
Based on comments such as the above, FPL requests that this rule change not be made.
e'
DOCKET NUMBER g g g16
~ %(
- Georg a Power Company 333 Piedmont Avenue PROPOSED RULE --
-s y
Atlanta, Georg a 30308
) [ k h%
Telephone 404 526-6526 (i
+
Po t x 4545 A!!anta, Georgia 30302 '
Georgia l'ower 88 APR 22 N0:24 L T. Gucwa the southem e<ectnc sistem Vanager Nuclear Safety and Licensing 7
DOCKEiMi. SEI VICT 2
BRANCH SL-4502 0942U X7GJ17-C220 April 18, 1988 Secretary V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Hashington, D. C.
20555 COMMENTS ON NRC PROPOSED REVISION TO 10 CFR 50
" LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INSPECTORS" Gentlemen:
The following comments are submitted in response to the March 18, 1988, Federal Reaister publication of " Licensee Announcement of Inspectors" (53FR8925).
Georgia Power Company (GPC) would be directly affected by adoption of the proposed regulation as holder of NRC operating licenses for Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2, and Plant Vogtle Unit 1.
In addition, GPC holds a construction permit -for Plant Vogtle Unit 2.
GPC appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed addition of 10 CFR 50.70(b)(4). He believe the proposed rule to be difficult to comply with, vaguely and overbroadly drafted, and redundant to existing Code of Federal Regulations.
GPC understands that in a few specific instances the announcement of an inspector's presence could conceivably cause non-discovery of a violation or perhaps bias the licensee's actions.
However, the proposed rule would be difficult to follow in a reasonable manner.
The proposed rule goes beyond the legitimate interest of the NRC in ensuring that the control room operators or others are not warned of the inspector's presence.
A prohibition on communications to the control room or on announcing the inspector's presence over the public address system would serve NRC's interest without overly restricting communication.
The proposed rule puts the lkensee at risk of violation of the rule in many instances where the communication would have no adverse effect on the ability of NRC to perform
. inspections of normal operating conditions.
Any rule should be narrowly tailored to the NRC's legitimate interest so as to allow licensees and contractors to structure their activities such that the law can be observed without unreasonable risk of violation.
,pcK2 u
- a
o LGeorgiaPower A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1988 Page Two GPC. further submits that given the substantial commercial interests involved, senior facility management should have the right to be informed so long as the mission of those inspectors is not compromised. 'Also, at the operational level, station personnel must be able to determine who is in a plant for accountability reasons in the event-of a radiological event.
The rule as proposed would prohibit such communications.
These communications, which serves important interests of the licensee, would not adversely affect the interest of the NRC and therefore' should not be prohibited.-
Given the phraseology of 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3) as to " unfettered access",
the addition of 10 CFR 50.70(b)(4) appears to be redundant in part to 50.70(b)(3).
GPC believes that the precedent is already codified within 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3). Therefore, the specific prohibition could be issued as an interpretation of 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3).
In summary, GPC views the imposition of a rule in this case as contrary to good regulation.
GPC views the proposed regulation difficult to comply
- with, vague, overbroad, and redundant to existing Code of Federal Regulations.
GPC urgesthe NRC to withdraw. the proposed rulemaking and promulgate a prohibition better tailored to the specific interest to be served.
If you have any questions with regard to these comments, please contact this office at any time.
Sincerely,
&s g m L. T. Gutwa HJB/ju c: Georcia Power ComDany Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President - Plant Hatch 1
Mr. P. D. Rice, Vice President and Vogtle Project Director Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager - Plant Vogtle GO-NORMS 0942U l
l.
1:
DOCKET NUMBER g g) g rz, P9OPOSED g n
St t Ctr line Electric & Gas Comp:ny SCE.4G April 18, 1988
~
j 1
- BB APR 25 A9 20 Mr. Samuei J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission 00 Chi g~ g., 4y' -
CF N i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
Subject:
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50/395 Operating License No. NPF-12 Proposed Rule Licensee Announcements of Inspectors
Dear Mr. Chilk:
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) has reviewed the proposed change to 10CFR50.70 which was published in the March 16, 1988 Federal Register dealing with the announcement of inspectors visiting a power reactor site. The following discussion of the proposed rule is being provided since SCE&G considers the rule to be undesirable from both an NRC and utility perspective.
SCE&G considers the announcement to key management personnel that an inspector has arrived on site to be very beneficial to the accomplishment of the goals of the inspectors.
If management is informed as to the area in which the inspector is interested, contact personnel within the utility organization (or the management themselves) can be designated to provide assistance to the inspector to enable him to more effectively perform an inspection.
If the utility is unaware the inspector is onsite, the inspector is forced to deal with unfamiliar surroundings, lack of indepth knowledge about plant specific procedures and policies, potential inability to contact those individuals best suited for (or even familiar with) his specific l
inspection area, and a general lack of potentially useful and timesaving assistance.
In actuality, an inspector's surveillance can potentially be l
conducted in much greater detail with more thoroughness, provided the Licensee is aware of his existence and can readily provide any necessary assistance.
The announcement of an inspector's arrival to essential personnel should not alter the overall attention and performance level of the Licensee. Adherance to approved procedures and company policies is stressed to all personnel for all shifts, including days, nights, weekends, and holidays regardless of the supervision being provided to the activity. At an inspector's special request to utility management upon arriving on site, further notification of his presense to plant personnel can be postponed to allow for ongoing activities to be observed by the inspector without the observed individual's specific knowledge. However, this specific type request should be handled on an individial basis and not as a formal rule change.
In general, SCE&G contends that the utility management on duty is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the unit and they should, at all times, be aware of visitors (including inspectors) on site.
- %, ~.,
9 pp, c
4 i
Mr.' Samuel J.'Chilk April 18, 1988 1/%. _
Page 2 SCE&G is aware of the NUMARC industry response to the proposed rule and is in agreement with its initiative. The opportunity to comment on this proposed rule is appreciated and the NRC staff is encouraged to reconsider the necessity of this rule change.
If you should have any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours, L
~
- 0. A. Nauman AMM/ DAN: led
-pc:
J. G. Connelly, Jr./0. W. Dixon, Jr./T. C. Nichols, Jr.
E. C. Roberts
.W. A. Williams, Jr.
J. J. Hayes, Jr.
General Managers C. A. Price W. R. Higgins R. M. Campbell, Jr.
NPCF File (811.02) l
_. = _
u,n a s a n,- P %
O PSEG o autt
,,z 1
DOCKE Hancocks Bndge. New Jersey 080$,IjD Public Service Electnc and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Nuclear Department
'M APR 25 P6 :04 0FFict 0-t.1 on' 00CKEiiNG 6 'J4!LI.
BRANCH April 18, 1988 NLR-N88062 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Mr. Chilk:
PROPOSED NRC RULEMAKING ON NOTIFICATION OF INSPECTOR VISITS SALEM AND HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATIONS DOCKET NOS. 50-272/50-311 AND 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) submits the following comments on NRC proposed rulemaking relative to licensee announcement of Inspectors (F.R. 8924 dated March 18, 1988).
t 1)
The existing requirements delineated in 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3) provide the NRC with the required level of access identified in the proposed rulemaking.
The incorporation of the proposed paragraph would simply add a redundant requirement.
2)
Justifying the rulemaking on the basis that, "...there have been incidences in the past at several facilitics.." gives the appearance that all licensees are being penalized for problems which exist at a few problem facilities.
If access problems exist, the NRC should address them on an individual facility basis until such time as it is demonstrated that a generic problem exists.
3)
As written, the proposed rule implies that the NRC would expect each licensee to monitor individual communications to assure that unauthorized notifications are not taking place.
Due to the large number of personnel employed by plant operators and the degree of communication that occurs in the normal routine course of events, implementation of such a requirement would be virtually impossible.
gm&+-
The Energy People a w
- 2iu sw2 e
h
'l l.. f.
- ,1
.es.
1 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk-2 April 18, 1988' l
4)
It is not clear as to how the NRC would expect to
~j implement enforcement action under the proposed ~ rule.
It would be. inappropriate to cite a facility for.
unauthorized notifications which originate outside of i
the work place.
Similarly, enforcement action against i
a facility without identification of the source of the i
unauthorized notification would also be inappropriate.!
i
. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please feel j
free to contact us.
i Sincerely, 5
B. A. Preston Manager - Licensing
.and Regulation I
j I
)
l I
i l
l T.
g 73-W DOCKET NUMBR DD d d*fM
$7 1sq Rul.E ia
($)' f;2749'l)
Q%.y?
'88 APR 26 A7:57 t+iar v i n 1.
Lewis
- /801 Hoosevelt 81vd. Work,IIICE OE M ',n: i At <
v0CMETiNG & EWCF' Phila.. PA 19152 BRANLH Secretaiy of'the Commission LISNHU-Washington, li. U. PObbb
Dear Mi. Seeretaiy,
Please accept this letter as my cossnheurs on Proposed Ritle, Licensee announcements of I rispec t i o ns.
My comments aie short and to the point. ihe NHU has admitted that ' the so -ce] J ed unannounced inspections are largely a farce.
and are announced:" intentionally give notice." See Page 8925 FR dated'18 March 1988.
'there is nothing in this rule change which would change previous practice. Only an immediate dismissal might stop some loyal utili ty manarjement from alerting t he i risl eepi ng Cco'mrades.
That is what the rule needs: immed i a te di smi ssal Yo'F any ^ 1'i'censera employee attempting to alert his sleeping brethren.
11ou about adding that penalty to the rule?
ttn11 submitted, Res H a l V 'l n It:wl5
'/ d O,i RooseVejt til Vd. N 6h Phila., F4 1915d 4 88,,
4.
g 4
8 e
e lt. e Of I n * ( I,
+
e t
- e., e h
-.y e
,a.
4 o
e <
=
v h
[*
{.[
DOCKET NUMBER g %
1Gr' Alabama Power Company h
e 600 North 16th Street.
/ gg k 1
h (y/ g 6
Post Office Box 2fA1 h
uG M.--y Birmingham. Alabama 35291-0400 NS Telephone 205 250-1835 h-
~88 APR 26 P4 :06 AlabamaPower R. P. M c Donald Senior Vice President
""d*" **C M*'"
April 20g19883 Li c.ie 00CK[ilNG CyM.
BRANLn Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 l
l Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Re:
Comments on Proposed Rule to Prohibit Licensee Announcement of Presence of NRC Inspector (53 Fed. Reg. 8924 (March 18, 1988))
j On Friday, March 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
published in the Federal Register a notice inviting public comments on a proposed rule which vould amend its regulations to prohibit licensees and their contractors from intentionally giving notice to employees of the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector at a facility, unless specifically permitted to do so by the inspector.
See 53 Fed. Reg. 8924 (March 18, 1988). This proposed rule is intended to ensure that NRC inspectors are granted immediate and unannounced access to licensed facilities, following proper identification and compliance with applicable access control procedures. The NRC's goal is to make it possible for inspectors to have immediate access to ongoing activities without accompaniment and without advance knowledge by licensee personnel involved in the activity.
Alabama Power Company submits the following comments on the proposed rule.
While we recognize the value to the NRC of unannounced inspections and are supportive of the NRC's goal of improving its ability to conduct such inspections, we do not believe that the rule os proposed would be either effective or enforceable. Nor do ve believe that there is even a need for the proposed rule. The success of the NRC is not embodied in these type operations, but rather in open discussions, observations and findings.
Rather than take the course described in the proposed rule, the NRC should discuss its concerns with the management of utilities with which it is
{
experiencing difficulty in performing inspections.
I 1
I It should be pointed out that unannounced inspections are capable of being carried out at the present time. The NRC maintains resident inspectors at nuclear plant sites, and these inspectors currently have the ability to I
conduct unannounced inspections. Their presence on site is expected and does not give rise to comment by employees. As a result, they are able to travel freely throughout a facility conducting whatever inspections they I
deem necessary. Consequently, it would seem that ensuring unannounced access for other NRC inspectors is not absolutely crucial.
pfg,,.; #e Jf
i
2 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 20,1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 i
The rule as proposed would also create conflicts with the general, and appropriate, practices of the nuclear utility industry.
Standard among the practices designed to ensure safe and reliable operation are long-accepted measures to ensure that individuals are allowed on-site only if they are properly authorized and are engaged in the conduct of appropriate activity.
Underlying these practices is the justification that a utility ought to know, for reasons of both security and good administration, who is on its plant site.
Since the proposed rule conflicts with good practices designed to bolster plant security, ve feel that the NRC's concerns regarding inspections should be resolved in some other way.
The proposed rule would also create problems due to the implication that plant management could not communicate the presence of an NRC inspector to personnel even for legitimate reasons. This would severely detract from management's efforts to communicate the status of ongoing activities, milestones, and significant events to its employees. Thus, the proposed rule would be counterproductive to open dialogue between management and employees.
More importantly from the NRC's point of view, information requested by an inspector previous to an inspection vould have to be gathered without an explanation of purpose.
Station personnel have a responsibility to provide accurate and meaningful information to the NRC, but they cannot fulfill this obligation if they are not informed of the need for the information in advance.
Advising employees of the presence of an NRC inspector on site to conduct a particular investigation encourages employees to be attentive and to cooperate with that inspector.
The rule's enforceability also causes great concern.
10 C.F.R. $50.70(b)
(4), as created, vould read:
The licensee or construction permit holder shall ensure that the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector, who has been properly authorized facility access as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, is not announced or otherwise communicated by its employees or contractors to other persons at the facility unless specifically requested to do so by the NRC inspector.
This regulation is vague in the extreme, and would create enormous enforcement problems. The licensee receives no guidance as to hov it "shall ensure" that no communication is made.
It is unclear what steps, if any, could be taken to effectively regulate such communications. For example, the large number of plant personnel involved in pre-inspection activities ( ge.., HP and security training, badging, NRC entrance meeting participants, licensing personnel) would make enforcement extremely difficult.
Further, NRC inspectors are frequently recognized by plant personnel due to their distinctive hard hats and badges. The proposed rule could be interpreted to prohibit casual comments between employees who notice the presence of inspectors, and to hold the licensee responsible for such casual comments. Therefore, only by maintaining constant surveillance of all employees could a licensee hope to prevent impermissible communications from taking place.
For these reasons, we question how a licensee could implement, or the NRC enforce, such a regulation.
G' Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 20,- 1988 U.,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 Ve believe that the foregoing points demonstrate significant-deficiencies in the proposed rule, and we thus submit that the rulemaking should be terminated.
If the NRC proceeds with the rulemaking, in spite of these points, we recommend the following modifications be made:
1.
The rule should be revised so that the presence of an NRC inspector could be communicated unless the inspector explicitly requests that his presence not be announced. Otherwise, a situation could easily arise in which a majority of the inspections require secrecy, either intentionally or by omission of the inspector. The request should be made in writing in order to protect employees who may be forced to violate plant security procedures by complying with the inspector's request.
2.
If the intent of the rule is to prevent notification only of special inspections or inspections conducted at times other than normal working hours, the rule should be changed to clarify this point.
3.
The proposed rule states that the presence of an NRC inspector should not be communicated to "other persons at the facility."
This statement should be revised to explain whether all other persons at the facility are included in this prohibition, or whether some employees are not included. If some employees may receive notification, the rule should specify who is included in this group.
4.
Clarification should be provided as to the length of time the rule applies after the NRC inspector enters the facility.
In conclusion, ve feel that the proposed rule vould fail to improve the ability of NRC inspectors to conduct unannounced inspections.
Further, the rule would be extremely difficult for licensees to police and for the NRC to enforce. Consequently, in lieu of this rule, alternative methods of attaining the NRC's goal of preventing advance notice of the presence of an inspector should be examined.
Respectfully submit ed, ALABAMA POWER OMPANY N
R. P. Mcdonald l
RPM /BDM: dst:TS1-V8.20 cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. V.11. Bradford
000KET NUMBER DD PROPOS RUI.E rn O M 3-Wl I DUKE POWER GOMPANY P.O. DOX 03180 CHARLOTTE. N.C. 28242 HALB. TUCKER res.zenowe ma emmament
.gg ppR 19 PS :24 (7o4)073-4531 i
April 14, 1988 0FFICt u...x r : i h.
J 00CKEMu & Raviti.
BRANCH M e Secretary of the Commission i
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
NRC Proposed Rule Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Duke Power Company Comments
Dear Sir:
In the Federal Register (53FR8924) Jated March 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published for comment a proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50 Section 50.70.
The proposed change adds paragraph (b)(4) to require:
"The licensee or construction permit holder shall ensure that the arrival and presence of an NRC inspector, who has been properly authorized facility access as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, is not announced or otherwise communicated by its employees or contractors to other persons at the facility unless specifically requested to do so by the NRC inspector."
Duke Power realizes that all regulating groups / agencies would like to be inconspicuous during their inspections. However, we feel it is impossible to ensure that all site personnel will say nothing to anyone about seeing an NRC inspector on site attired in NRC marked hard hat and clothing.
Duke Power feels this proposed rule is subjective in nature, difficult and/or impossible to enforce and could hinder exchange of information necessary for mutual assurance of proper plant' performance. We recommend that the proposed rule be rescinded and the intent of the proposed rule be applied to the "several facilities" referenced in another manner without putting this burden on the total nuclear industry.
Very truly yours, 1
s&d g
Hal B. Tucker DM/11029/sbn F
gg6er W -
y, l
~ OCKET NUMBER g,,g) N 1
D PROPOSED RULE -
~
'N
( 53 F A T'129) fO.
a qip
(. iNm.
Southern California Edison Company
'88 APR 29 NO 53
" aa **
2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEME AD. C ALIFORNIA 91770 g
umosnornuN[anenomernmo teIe oYU4, April 27, 1988
.~oter~.mo Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Hashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Proposed Rule The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its regulations regarding inspections as specified in the requirements of 10 CFR 50.70 Inspections. The proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.70 was published in the March 18, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 8924).
The proposed rule, 10 CFR 50.70(b)(4), relates to licensee announcements of inspectors and intends to clarify that NRC access to licensed facilities be equivalent to access provided regular plant employees without accompaniment and without advanced notification of the inspection.
Southern California Edison (SCE) Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. SCE agrees that NRC inspectors should be permitted prompt access to the facility following proper identification, and compliance with applicable access control measures for security, radiological protection and personal safety. However, SCE is concerned, that the proposed rule does not specify what period of time is acceptable before an NRC inspectors presence on site can be communicated (discussed).
Clearly the rule would prohibit intentional communication concerning an inspector's presence on site within the first five minutes of his arrival.
Does the rule preclude l
such communication a day (or a week for a prolonged inspection) after his arrival? Additionally, the proposed rule does not specify what level of I.
communication by employees of an NRC inspector on site constitutes a I
violation. Does incidental communication, for example, a discussion between I
two employees where the presence of an inspector on site is mentioned and no l
further action is taken on that information, violate the proposed rule? These points should be clarified if a rule on this subject is to be invoked.
Comments on the proposed revision to 10 CFR 50.70 have also been submitted by I
the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). SCE endorses the comments submitted by NUMARC and requests the NRC to consider the modifications to the proposed rule suggested by NUMARC.
qwwe0W i
.t y Mr. Samuel J. Chilk-
- April 27, 1988 Should you have'any questions regar' ding this information, please contact me.
Very truly.yours,
$hl.h. f cc:
J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region V-F. R. Huey, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 1,'2 and 3 I
...._._a_
fW:'L'Qi g A
l DOCKET NUMBER S
PROPOSED RULE N - 9
/,
- s. n m s
- u l-o,oup v ce pre o.nt
~
(E3 F A ?9 2 4) g gg - 519F L L
3[Nc[gNnca Edison =00sonnom.Hign..y 9 e-u
\\.
'?
April 22,1988.
NRC-88-0114 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555
Reference:
Fermi 2 NRC Docket No. 50-341 NRC License No. NPF-43
Subject:
Proposed NRC Rule on Unannounced NRC Inspectors Detroit Edison appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 18, 1988.
Detroit Edison believes that the proposed rule is unnecessary and will not serve the purpose envisioned by the NRC. It is important that Management at an operating nuclear power plant know at all times who is on site. The safety concerns associated with having an unannounced inspector inside the plant far outweigh the concerns regarding secrecy on which the proposed rule was based.
Detroit Edison also believes that the rule, as proposed, would be difficult if not impossible to administer. A literal interpretation of the rule would suggest that any person onsite would be prohibited from disclosing the knowledge-that they have regarding an onsite inspector to anyone. As such, the person would be required to lie to anyone requesting this information based on the proposed rule. It is doubtful that such behavior was contemplated when the proposed rule was drafted.
Furthermore, the proposed rule cuts against the NRC's expressed guidance regarding accountability under its emergency planning rules.
The NRC requires accountability within 30 minutes following a call for an assembly and accountability, Under the proposed secrecy rule, which might even require modifications to the security system and computers, the goal of the 30 minute accountability would be in jeopardy. Worse, personnel safety may be in jeopardy.
--- ;M-te il
_ _ _ ~ __.
l
.s USNRC g,
April 22, 1988
)
f NRC-88-0114 Page 2 In summary, Detroit Edison believes that the risks and uncertainties regarding this rule far outweigh any benefits which could be derived if it is implemented.
Sincerely,
.A cc: A. B. Davis R. C. Knop T. R. Quay W. G. Rogers i
I
g
[
y' -
awww TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 00LKEi, 8 h CH ATTANOOGA. TENNESSEE 37401 5N 157B Lookout Place MAY 051988 gf0Cf. 4 5 L :
U.S. Nuclear Regulator) Commission OMgcFm.
ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) - PROPOSED RULE 10 CFR 50.70, LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF NRC INSPECTORS The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is submitting these comments on the referenced rule as noticed in the March 18, 1988 Federal Regtster (53 FR 8924-8925).
TVA recognizes that in order for NRC to perform its necessary functions, NRC inspectors must have the capability, if desired, of observing ongoing activities without advance notification to licensee employees.
However, it is not apparent that this proposed rule, which is written in extremely broad terms, is necessary or appropriate to accomplish this goal.
For example, NRC inspectors with access authorization to TVA plants are not presently required to announce their exact location at any given time and there is no way for TVA employees to predetermine the destination of inspectors.
In addition, a literal interpretation of the proposed rule could have significant, unintended adverse consequences. The following points illustrate some of these potential effects.
1.
Conflicts between NRC regulations and normal plant operatior.s (particularly in the area of security). Any prohibition as a result of the rule needs to take into account the need for personnel accountability on site. Security requirements should not be lessened just to provide ready, unannounced access for NRC inspectors.
2.
Inhibition of necessary and appropriate communication within a licensee's organization and between licensee employees and NRC inspectors.
Communications would likely be inhibited if licensee employees could be held accountable for even an inadvertent disclosure of an inspector's presence.
This could adversely impact both a licensee's performance of its job and appropriate interactions with NRC, for example, in relaying messages or inforn.ation to or from an inspector.
3.
Work impediment. In general, announcing the inspector's presence allows for proper dedication of personnel and other resources. Proper announcement speeds the information gathering process and reduces unnecessary delays in addressing inspector's questions, comments, and concerns.
This rule change would not allow this practice to continue ur.less the NRC inspector specifically requested that his presence be announced to others.
( m. w c-Tj'
' ~ _ ' ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c-4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comminion M 05 W88 4.
Enforcement difficulties.
Enforcement of this rule would be difficult.
As written, the rule prohibits appropriate and necessary communications us well as improperly motivated announcements.
Treating both types of communications as violations would be inappropriate, and trying to distinguish between them will be at best extremely difficult.
The problem identified by the NRC in proposing this rule does not warrant i
adoption of a rule with these types of consequences.
Rather, the industry and NRC should work together to eliminate this concern.
For instance, the NRC could issue a policy statement explaining the situation and the desired solution.
Licensees could then take actions, as necessary, to ensure that the intent of the policy was being met.
In summary, TVA supports full cooperation with NRC and agrees that licensees should not intentionally announce the presence of an NRC inspector in order to prevent NRC from discovering activities which are not being conducted in accordance with applicable requirements.
However, the proposed rule as drafted is not necessary to achieve this goal and could precipitate too many unintended adverse consequences.
If NRC should nonetheless decide that a rule is necessary at this time, at the least it should be rephrased to provide that the presence of an NRC inspector can be announced or otherwise communicated at a facility unless utility management (e.g., the plant manager or the licensing director) is specifically requested not to do so by the NRC inspector. Because communications regarding an NRC inspector's presence are frequently both appropriate and necessary, any rule should also allow for limited, good-faith exceptions.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours, TENNESSEE V LEY AUTHORITY R. oridley, irector Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs cc:
See page 3 I
i l
l l
)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission M 05 W i
l cc: Mr. George Barber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
Mr. K. P. Barr, Acting Assistant Director for Inspection Progranas l
TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street. NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. G. G. Zech, Assistant' Director for Projects TVA Projects Division U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Bellefonte Resident Inspector Bellefonte Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000 Hollywood, Alabama 35752 Browns Ferry Resident Inspector-Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Route 12, F 0. Box 637 Athens, Alabama 35611 Sequoyah Resident Inspector Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 2600 Igou Ferry Road Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37379 Watts Bar Resident Inspector Watts Bar Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 700 Spring City, Tennessee 37381
DOCKET NUMBER nnN PROPOSED RULE rn-50 C 53 FP, Fej a 9 ) D l
cx c iE:.
U4FC TOLEOO EDISON 18 my -9 P8 :11 CFFtCL 0 d ' '.?,#d [
DONALD C. SHELTON
.W 00CKEh 6 4 :f '
va %seucw BRAHL" pteiras2300 Document No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1513
' clay 5, 1988 Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vashington, D. C.
20555 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch
Subject:
Comments on Proposed Rule regarding the presence of NRC inspectors at Nuclear Facilities, Federal Register, 53 FR 8924.
Gentlemen:
Toledo Edison (TED) submits the following comments concerning the Commission's proposed rule on unannounced NRC inspectors, published in the Federal Register j
dated March 18, 1988.
On April 18, 1988, the firm Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge submitted comments on behalf of several utilities, including Toledo Edison. Although, TED agrees that NRC inspectors should have unfettered access to any facilities for which they are properly authorized, TED opposes the proposed rule as written. The adoption of the rule as it is written vould hinder the relationship the industry has worked hard to achieve with the NRC. Therefore, TED endorses the comments made by Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge.
Very tr ly yours, W
t GH: tit cct DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector A. B. Dasis, Regional Administrator esww -
.J THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43S52
DOCXEI flUMBER 7
[~
TRTR
' m e aun Jy 5 cs m ev %y),
a NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF TEST Y
RESEARCH AND TRAINING REACTOR $
73"F g
PD m tmY -9 P8 :14 chairman:
Arthur G. Johnson gf Igj gg Oregon State University B"
Chairman Elect:
Marcus H. Voth Penn State University May 5, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
NRC Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Gentlemen:
As current chairman of the National Organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR), I would like to submit the following comments regarding the NRC proposed rule dealing with licensee announcements of inspectors as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53, March 18, 1988.
I recognize that these comments are being submitted after the April 18,1988 dtadline; however, TPTR's request is rather straightforward and can hopefully be considered while the Commission is still evaluating other comments received in response to the proposed rule. As a point of interest, the proposed rule did not reach me at Orrgon State University until April 11, 1988.
Our comment on the Commission's proposed rule deals primarily with the fact that we would like to ensure that the wording included in the new paragraph (b)(4) of section 50.70 in 10 CFR 50 clearly states that the new requirement applies specifically to power reactors. We recognize from reading the sumary of the proposed rule and other information provided in the Federal Register Notice that it is the Commission's intent that the rule apply to power reactors.
However, the proposed wording for para-graph (b)(4) does not specifically limit the requirement to power reactors.
Since certain other requirements under 10 CFR 50.70 are applicable to both power and non-power reactors, we feel that it would be appropriate and helpful to add the words power reactor to the text of paragraph (b)(4) in order to eliminate any possible confusion regarding applicability of the rule.
This approach is commonly used in other parts of the NRC's l
regulations for presumably the same reason.
l RADIATION CENTER OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY OREGON 97331
'9/
CORVALLIS'754-2344 503-t
- f. * *
!h-USNRC'
-2 tiay 5,1988 TRTR appreciated the opportunity to submit these comments for the Commist. ion's consideration. We regret that our letter is being submitted beyond the close of the comment period, but would like to again express our hope that our views can be considered prior to the issuance of a final rule dealing with this matter. Please let me know if I can provide any further information regarding TRTR's position on this proposed rulemaking.
Yours sincerely, I
L A. d ihnson Chaik AGJ/ef/9-043 cc: Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region V Director, Oregon Department of Energy
yp (DOCKET 'JUMBER- - - - - - - - - - -
~
1 4
.c VROPonD RULE M
'(VERMONT YANKEE 33 pg gg.
' NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION T,fne AV73 RD 5. Box 169, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 9 P4 30 i
OFF'Y" Q g u ;, g~,
00ch
)
0haNW
./
(802)757 5271 May 13, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Proposed Rule on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors (53FR8924)
Fundamentally, we agree that effective regulation requires the NRC to main-tain open plant access. " Unfettered" access, however, must not be construed to imply that pertinent plant information should be withheld from licensed opera-tors.
Our concern is two-fold. Primarily, from a security standpoint (which transcends to public safety), we assert that the ability to readily obtain information concerning the whereabouts and activites of all on-site personnel is essential to an "inside threat" defense.
Secondarily, in consideration of personnel safety, we believe that the shift supervisor must maintain the means for personnel accountability.
Should an inspector become injured while on-site, delays and possible unnecessary exposure may result if plant operators are unaware of his presence.
Further, if the shift supervisor is unable to maintain an awareness of who is on-site, he may be disadvantaged when interpreting plant responses. A per-sonnel induced transient, for example, may be misdiagnosed as an equipment malfunction, this in turn evokes a less effertive operator response.
An ancillary, and perhaps more subtle, concern is that the rule will foster an image of convertness among NRC staff.
Not only will this erode the necessary forthright stature of the Commission, but may diminish the level of professional-lism maintained between utility personnel and NRC staff.
In examining the proposed rule, it is difficult to understand its true objective. As stated in the March 18, 1988 Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53, page 8924:
w./ at e.c e n 5 SM Arvdf vF 4% c t & 9 9 - cq ;
~ 4 p, p.
_ - _ - _ = _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _. _ _ _
s I,
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAM POWER CORPORATION 1
..g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission May 13, 1988 Page 2 "This change will allow the NRC inspectors, badged at the facility to observe ongoing activites as they are being performed without advance noti-fication of the inspection tx) licensee and contractor personnel."
While this is obviously desirable, access to the site is currently provided within 10 CFR 50.70(b)(3) as follows:
"The licensee or construction permit holder shall afford any NRC resident inspector assigned to that site, or other NRC inspectors identified by the Regional Administrator immediate unfettered access, equivalent to access provided require plant employees,...."
Notification of plant management of NRC personnel on-site does nothing to diminish "immediate unfettered access".
If access is immediate, advanced noti-fication is not possible. The desired intent of the proposed change, therefore, has already been met within the existing requirement.
i The Federal Notice of the proposal continues in its description by stating that there is a need for change because:
"...of possible altering of attention and performance levels of a licensee and/or its contractors when the licensee is aware of NRC surveillance."
While this may be a valid concern for a very narrow scope of activities, in the majority of situations licensee performance levels could not change signifi-cantly between the time it would take for an inspector to travel from the main gate to the work site.
Under those limited circumstances where "an element of surprise" is desired to determine performance levels, it is likely that if deficiencies exist, they would be evidenced through other presently available means.
In summary, we do not believe that additional rulemaking in this area is either warranted or beneficial.
In fact, the potentially significant consequen-ces that may result in personnel injury or diminished public safety outweigh the relatively minor enhancements that a rule of this nature would provide.
Very truly yours, David D. Bauer Assistant to the Vice President and Manager of Operations DDB/dm e
w N
Carolina Power & Light Company h
APR 18 1988 i
SERIAL: NLS-88-095 i
Mr. S. 3. Chilk I
Secretary of the Commission i
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Docketing & Service Branch PROPOSED RULE ON LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INSPECTORS
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change to 10CFR50 concerning licensee announcements of NRC inspectors. This proposed rule would amend NRC regulations to ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced or communicated to licensee and contractor personnel without the expressed request to do so by the inspector.
Although CP&L understands the NRC's concerns relating to the possible altering of attention and performance level of licensees and/or contractors due to awareness of NRC surveillance, we do not agree that this rule is the appropriate way to address these concerns. Several problems exist with the proposed rule:
1.
The secrecy requirements relating to unannounced NRC inspections will directly conflict with long established security practices and procedures intended to ensure safe, efficient plant operation. As a result of this rule, significant modifications to security access control procedures would be necessary in order to limit knowledge of the on-site presence of an inspector to only those who initially granted entry to the inspector.
2.
The ability of plant personnel to account for all individuals on-site at any given time will be jeopardized by the rule. This will erode plant management's ability to discharge its responsibility to assure that the health, safety, and welfare of all individuals on-site are not in jeopardy.
3.
Enforceability of the rule is questionable. Under this rule, many situations could arise which could be interpreted by the NRC as violations of the rule, 1
although they may actually be a result of ambiguities arising from conflicts between the requirements of the rule and those of normal plant operations.
4.
The current ability of plant personnel to provide additional resources to NRC inspectors in the interest of aiding and expediting inspections would be precluded by the rule.
If the NRC does proceed to adopt the rule, CP&L recommends that the rule be changed to require NRC personnel performing inspections under the rule to provide a writteri notification at the time of entry to plant personnel requiring that the presence of the 411 Fayettevine street e P, o. Box 1551
- Raleigh. N. C. 27602 7
Mr. S. J. Chilk NLS-88-095 / Page 2 inspector not be announced for a specified time period. This will enable plant personnel to continue to follow normal operating practices and procedures, unless specifically required not to do so per NRC notification. This provision would serve to decrease uncertainties relating to application of the rule and minimize the problems associated with training plant and contractor personnel regarding rule implementation.
Detailed comments further explaining the above concerns are being filed by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC). Carolina Power & Light Company affirms its endorsement of NUMARC's cornments.
Should you have any questions with regard to our comments, please contact Mr. Jim' Presley at (919) 836-6132.
Yours very truly, On m
Manager Nuclear Licensing daction
<r 3CP/che (54083HE)
. Mr! George ' Barber (NRC) -[
cc:
P6blic Doc 6 ment Room (NRC) 4 M
~
DOCKET NUMBER pgi.g y Py@ l PROPOSED RULE to -
r_
Lc
%JQ?
( S 3 F I L V Cf y ) ]
'^
l i
j Wisconsin Elecinc powca couesur a n W WU
\\
~
231 W MICHIGAN.P O BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE.Wl53201 (414) 221 2345 0FFIO. f.S 2[,fh.
VPNPD-88-221 00CKE g g NRC-88-038 l
April 13, 1988 Secretary U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:
LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INSPECTORS On March 18, 1988, the NRC published in the Federal Register a proposed rule intended to ensure that the presence of NRC inspec-tors on power reactor sites is not announced or otherwise communi-cated to licensee and contractor personnel without the expressed to do so by the inspector.
We have reviewed this notice request and as the owner and operator of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant are very concerned with several aspects and duplications of this pro-posed rule.
Our comments and concerns are grouped in three areas; safety of the individual, enforceability of the rule, and the questioning of integrity and lack of trust which the rule implies.
this proposed rule be withdrawn, particularly since We urge that unobtrusive and unwarned inspection is possible within existing procedures and current regulations.
senior facility management personnel As a general principle, have not only the right but also the responsibility to know who is on site at any given time.
It is the practice'at our plant that whenever an unexpected non-shift person arrives on site, whether it be a senior company management person, a daytime plant worker during an evening shift, or an NRC inspector, our security personnel will call the control room to notify the shift super-intendent of the visitor's presence.
There are several practical considerations which make this a prudent practice.
The shift superintendent is responsible for all activity on site.
An unannounced visitor could be injured or otherwise incapacitated while on site.
A nuclear power plant encompasses a large area with the potential for significant industrial hazards.
If a person is injured and the facility management are unaware that the person is on site, the consequence of the injury could be worsened Obviously, the by the time delay before the injury is discovered.
normal process of announcement provides an additional degree of
- W fiLb3 ? 5 jf*
4 1 n Secretary L
April 13,-1988 Page 2 security as well as safety.
There may be on-going events occur-ring in the plant, about which the shift superintendent may wish to inform the visitor, such as.a security drill, fire' drill, or an unusual plant condition.
For their own safety, plant visitors should be notified of these situations.
There may be'a need to-contact the visitor, for example to forward a message or telephone call, while he'is on site.
This cannot very well be accomplished L
if-the plant management is unaware that the visitor is onsite.
H Notwithstanding the normal prudent practice, we currently would honor, on-an individual basis, an NRC inspector's request-that the announcement.not be made.
'In the interests of safety, the non-announced period should be restricted to an hour or so.
Our second major concern with this proposed rule is enforce-ability.
It is our opinion that the proposed rule would provide a significant exposure to a violation without adequate means for the licensee to properly protect itself or establish a mechanism to prevent violation of the rule.
In the event.of allegations by an individual, whether a plant or contractor employee or an NRC inspector, concerning violation of the proposed rule, it would be virtually impossible to demonstrate guilt or. innocence.
Often these unresolved allegations have a strong implication of guilt.
This places the plant management in the difficult position of; being defensive without adequate means for establishing protection from unfounded allegations.
The rule'as written would prohibit any plant or contractor employee who observes an NRC inspector at the plant from mentioning that fact to anyone else, including another NRC inspector.
These employees would, in fact, be required by this rule to.be deceptive if they were asked whether they had seen an NRC inspector at the plant.
Even more difficult is the fact that the very existence of the rule is likely to invite deliberate abuse by the occasional individual who - whether from malicious or mischievous intent - is prone to declare "NRC on site" over the plant loudspeaker communi-cations system.
This situation would be virtually unenforceable and unresolvable by either:NRC or Licensee.
As a practical matter, most plant security systems incorporate TV cameras to monitor the site and include computer based security access systems which permit surveillance of all individuals on site, announced, or otherwise.
If this proposed rule is inter-preted in the strictest sense, significant hardware and software modifications to these security systems may be necessary so that only those who initially grant access to the NRC inspector would be able to determine whether the inspector is on site.
Secretary April 13, 1988 Page 3 Our third and final concern with the proposed rule is the impli-cation that unless compliance can be observed by an inspector who himself is unobserved, compliance cannot be assumed.
This impli-cation fosters an adversary relationship between the regulator and the licensee, which is likely to be exacerbated by the enforce-ability difficulties discussed above.
Unfortunately the relation-ship could suffer degradation for the majority of good performing licensees as well as for the few problem licensees.
Frankly, we would note that the overwhelming majority of activi-ties in a nuclear power plant cannot be changed or concealed in the few minutes required for an inspector's entrance.
Accor-dingly, we conclude that the proposal is aimed at surveillance of operator discipline, presumably triggered by recent observations of inappropriate behavior at one or two plants.
Rather than encumbering all licensees with the difficulties of the proposed rule, we believe such cases can be better handled within the existing regulations by specific individual requests for unannounced entry, special arrangements with senior management, and surreptitious observations on the part of the Reside;nt Inspector.
If NRC, despite the difficulties, decides to implement additional regulation in this area, we would suggest that the rule apply only upon specific request by an inspector (preferably in writing to be handed to the security guard), that the time of applicability be reasonably limited, and that clarification of acceptable actions by plant personnel be provided.
We appreciate this opportunity to submit comments.
If you need any further clarification of the points we have raised, please feel free to contact Mr. Clark Meyer at (414)221-2665 or me at (414)221-2811.
Very truly yours, h
d%,,
C. W.
Fay Vice President Nuclear Power
?R0 POSED RULE rn V)1 NORTHEAST UTILITIES (S~3 FllM;1H) ACI5f.
fF centite ceau.i mees saa suai eenin. coaan*ut l
sIeY.In.
s a c
P.O BOX 270 o.e...v.o
. co HA ATF ORD. CONNECTICUT 06141 027>
e..
.% so u.. a cw.
(203) 665-5000
_ ~,.---
88 APR 22 N057 0FFict i'.. i
/-
00CKEicu & e VKI BRANCH April 18, 1988 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 b
B12891 Re:
10CFR50.70 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos.1, 2 and 3 Comments on Proposed Rule (FR Volume 53, No. 53)
Licensee Announcement of Inspectors On March 18, 1988,II) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed to amend its regulations to ensure that the presence cf NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced or communicated to licensee personnel without the expressed request to do so by the NRC inspector.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) respectfully submit the following commenti.
CYAPC0 and NNECO agree with the intent of the proposed rule which we understand is to ensure that unannounced inspections involve a realistic and representative review of ongoing plant activities as they are being performed.
We welcome and endorse this concept,of independent evaluation.
- However,
.though we believe that the rule makes sense conceptually, we perceive that it is unworkable, inappropriate for the majority of circumstances and will likely present an enforcement problem.
At our nuclear plants, certain practices and procedures have been established to carry out our responsibilities for safe and reliable' plant operation.
In particular, we take steps to ensure that personn are properly authorized for access and truly have a need e;l within the, plant to.be on-site','especially during off-normal hours.
For instance, during off-normal hours at the Haddam Neck Plant, all individuals entering the protected area that are not plant employees or security personnel must be authorized by the control room prior to entry. This practice was briefly discussed with NRC Staff personnel in the See53)R8924glP hp (1)
/
c
- o..
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission B12891/Page 2 April 18, 1988 context of the proposed rule.
The Staff indicated that the proposed rule was not intended to change or conflict with current station practices.
Staff personnel stated that if security personnel normally call the control room to authorize all visitors on-site during off-normal hours that this practice could. continue.
However, the proposed rule as currently written does not appear to allow this practice.
Therefore, this could lead to questions of interpretation and possible allegations of non-compliance if current practices continue.
In addition, unfamiliar personnel in the plant may be challenged during off-normal hours as to the purpose of their presence with subsequent notification of the control room staff.
The intent of these practices is to provide additional safeguards during those times when less than the normal complement of staff are at'the plant. The proposed rule clearly appears to be in conflict with these practices and may cause normal prudent actions by licensee personnel in the conduct of routine work to be construed by NRC Staff inspectors as a violation of the proposed regulation.
This could happen if shift personnel observe an NRC. inspector in the plant and by practice or procedure inform the shift supervisor of an " unfamiliar individual" being present on-site.
This could also be the case for security personnel who are obligated to inform their supervision or if security management or control room staff review printouts showing personnel access to the plant or vital areas.
While we support the intent of the proposed rule, we believe that a regulation is not the appropriate vehicle to effect the desired results.
In fact, this proposed rule is in direct conflict with the type of constructive practices that should be encouraged rather than eliminated. While we agree that badged NRC Staff inspectors should be provided unhindered access to power reactor sites and be able to observe typical and ongoing licensee activities without
" inappropriate warning", it is not clear that this proposed rule will achieve that end.
Notwithstanding the above, if the NRC elects to adopt a rule change, CYAPC0 and NNECO propose the following changes:
o The proposed rule should be changed to state that a licensee will ensure that the presence of an NRC inspector on-site is not announced to the plant staff if the inspector specifically requests E9.1. to do so.
This request should be presented in writing to the security access point personnel.
This way security or plant personnel would have written justification for not complying with station practices.
o The proposed rule should also provide clarification for how long the rule applies after the inspector enters the facility.
It is not reasonable to expect that the presence of the inspector can remain " unnoticed" and not be discussed indefinitely.
r- - ~~
4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12891/Page 3 April 18, 1988 Overall, if issued, the proposed rule should be much more explicit to preclude inadvertent violation of NRC regulations.
Such. issues as the type of-discussion, if any at all, that is considered acceptable with respect to the presence of NRC inspectors on-site and the length of time the rule applies should be more clearly defined.
CYAPC0 and NNECO appreciate the opportunity to coment on the proposed rule and trust that this input may be useful in the finalization of the rule.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY b.b.b/
M.
E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President tGAll_
By:
C. F. Sears Vice President cc:
W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 R. L. Ferguson, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20666
w gy
%{L NORTHEAST UTILITIES c.
ome.o seen street. Bernn connecocut es s April 18, 1988 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 B12891 Re:
10CFR50.70 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:
Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Comments on Proposed Rule (FR Volume 53, No. 53)
Licensee Announcement of Insoectors On March 18, 1988,II) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed to amend its regulations to ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced or communicated to licensee personnel without the expressed request to do so by the NRC inspector.
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) respectfully submit the following comments.
CYAPC0 and NNECO agree with the intent of the proposed rule which we understand is to ensure that unannounced inspections involve a realistic and representative review of ongoing plant activities as they are being performed.
We welcome and endorse this concept of independent evaluation.
- However, though we believe that the rule makes sense conceptually, we perceive that it is unworkable, inappropriate for the majority of circumstances and will likely present an enforcement problem.
At our nuclear plants, certain practices and procedures have been established to carry out our responsibilities for safe and reliable plant operation.
In particular, we take steps to ensure that personnel within the plant are properly authorized for access and truly have a need to be on-site, especially during off-normal hours.
For instance, during off-normal hours at the Haddam Neck Plant, all individuals entering the protected area that are not plant employees or security personnel must be authorized by the control room prior i
i to entry. This practice was briefly discussed with NRC Staff personnel in the 1
(1) See 53FR8924
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12891/Page 2 April 18, 1988 context of the proposed rule.
The Staff indicated that the proposed rule was not intended to change or conflict with current station practices.
Staff personnel stated that if security personnel normally call the control room to authorize all visitors on-site during off-normal hours that this practice could continue.
However, the proposed rule as currently written does not appear to allow this practice.
Therefore, this could lead to questions of interpretation and possible allegations of non-compliance if current practices continue.
In addition, unfamiliar personnel in the plant may be challenged during off-normal hours as to the purpose of their presence with subsequent notification of the control room' staff.
The intent of these practices is to provide additional safeguards during those times when less than the normal complement of staff are at the plant. The proposed rule clearly appears to be in conflict with these practices and may cause normal prudent actions by licensee personnel in the conduct of routine work to be construed by NRC Staff inspectors as a violation of the proposed regulation.
This could happen if shift personnel observe an NRC inspector in the plant and by practice or procedure inform the shift supervisor of an " unfamiliar individual" being present on-site.
This could also be the case for security personnel who are obligated to inform their supervision or if security management or control room staff review printouts showing personnel access to the plant or vital areas.
While we support the intent of the proposed rule, we believe that a regulation is not the appropriate vehicle to effect the desired results.
In fact, this proposed rule is in direct conflict with the type of constructive practices that should be encouraged rather than eliminated. While we agree that badged NRC Staff inspectors should be provided unhindered access to power reactor sites and be able to observe typical and ongoing licensee activities without
" inappropriate warning", it is not clear that this proposed rule will achieve that end.
Notwithstanding the above, if the NRC elects to adopt a rule change, CYAPC0 and NNECO propose the following changes:
The proposed rule should be changed to state that a licensee will ensure o
that the presence of an NRC inspector on-site is not announced to the plant staff if the inspector specifically requests not to do so.
This request should be presented in writing to the security access point personnel.
This way security or plant personnel would have written l
justification for not complying with station practices.
I The proposed rule should also provide clarification for how long the rule o
applies after the inspector enters the facility.
It is not reasonable to expect that the presence of the inspector can remain " unnoticed" and not be discussed indefinitely.
l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12891/Page 3 April 18, 1988 Overall, if issued, the proposed rule should be much more explicit to preclude inadvertent violation of NRC regulations.
Such issues as the type of discussion, if any at all, that is considered acceptable with respect to the presence of NRC inspectors on-site and the length of time the rule applies should be more clearly defined.
CYAPC0 and NNECO appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and trust that this input may be useful in the finalization of the rule.
Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY b.b.b W
E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President laVl_
By:
C. F. Sears Vice President cc:
W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Proje d. Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 R. L. Ferguson, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.
20666
<