ML23151A455

PR-050 - 53FR08924 - Licensee Announcements of Inspectors

ML23151A455
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/18/1988
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
References
53FR08924, PR-050
Download: ML23151A455 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:DOCUMENT DATE: TITLE: CASE

REFERENCE:

KEYWORD: ADAMS Template: SECY-067 03/18/1988 PR-050 - 53FR08924 - LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS PR-050 53FR08924 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

DOCKET NO, 50 (53FR8924 ) DATE DOCKETED 04/04/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/19/88 04/20/88 04/20/88 04/20/88 04/22/88 04/22/88 04/22/88 04/22/88 04/22/88 04/22/88 DATE OF DOCUMENT 04/02/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/1:S/88 04/15/88 04/15/88 04/15/88 04/15/88 04/15/88 04/13/88 04/14/88 04/1:5/88 04/15/88 04/14/88 04/18/88 04/14/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/14/88 04/18/88 In the Matter of LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT COMMENT OF VICTOR O, CHRISTENSEN (

1)

COMMENT OF COMBUSTION ENGINEERING (A, E, SCHERER, DIRECTOR, LICENSING) (

2)..-

COMMENT OF CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (L, I. LOFLIN, MANAGER, NRS) (

3)....-

COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT & RESOURCES COUNCIL (JOE F, COLVIN) (

4) --

COMMENT OF FOURTEEN UTILITIES (JAY E, SILBERG, P, C,) (

5) V COMMENT OF EIGHT UTILITIES (J, B, REYNOLDS) (

6) i..-

COMMENT OF LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT (R, F, BURSKI> ( 7 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ( DONALD W, EDWARDS I (

8)....,,

COMMENT OF CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (KENNETH W, BERRY> (

9).._,,,

COMMENT OF WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION (0, C. HINTZ) ( 101 \\/ COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERSY,INC (SUSAN L, HIATT) (

11) V" COMMENT OF CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P,C, (TROY B, CONNOR, JR,) (

12) _,.,...

COMMENT OF WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (C. W, FAY) ( 131........- COMMENT OF DUKE POWER COMPANY (HAL B, TUCKER>

19) ~

COMMENT OF GEORGE S, THOMAS (

14) ~

COMMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (H, W, KEISER> (

15) ~

COMMENT OF LESTER A, SLABACK, JR, (

16) i.--

COMMENT OF BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC (JOSEPH A, TIERNAN) ( 17 I o;.c COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY (HENRY BLISS) ( 181 Y""' COMMENT OF NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY (JOHN C. BRONSI 20)~ COMMENT OF WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM (G, C, SORENSEN) (

21) v/'

COMMENT OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (W, F, CONWAY I (

22) v""

COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (L, T, GUCWA) 231

DOCKET NO, 50 (53FR8924 DATE DOCKETED 04/22/88 04/25/88 04/25/88 04/20/88 04/20/88 DATE OF DOCUMENT 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/18/88 04/08/88 04/20/88 TITLE OR DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT COMMENT OF NORTHEAST UTILITIES (E, J, MROCZKA le C, F, SEARS) ( 24)~ COMMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY (DAN, A, NAUMAN) (

25) _.......

COMMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &c GAS COMPANY ( B. A I PRESTON) ( 2ol COMMENT OF MARVIN I, LEWIS ( 2 7) Y""'" COMMENT OF ALABAMA POWER COMPANY (R, P, MCDONALD) ( 28)--

. Ml!MBER p 5 ;"i PROrO~E.D RULE -~- ~ 3 F (Z_ 'f:? f 3 '!) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM! SS ION [7590-01] 10 CFR Part 50 Licensee Announcements of Inspectors AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to ensure that the presence of NRC inspectors on nuclear power reactor sites is not widely communicated or broadcast to licensee 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 is 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-rences where site and/or contractor personnel have been notified of NRC's presence on site have heightened concern in this area. EFFECTIVE DATE : FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Barber, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

20555, Telephone (301) 492-1234.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. 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 irrmediate 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 _ r:ule prQvides 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 inunediate, 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 CoDlllission 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 rule and received six letters of comment by April 18, 1988 (the specified closing date for public co11111ents). After April 18, 1988, 26 additional letters of comments were received. All 32 letters of connents were considered in NRC's review of this final rule. The co1m1ents are discussed below. Comment: A majority of the conm,enters believed the rule was unnecessary and characteriz~d it as being too_ bro~d and_ vague. They a_sserted tha~ 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 comments, 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 corrmunications. Implementing or enforcing this rule should be no more difficult than implementing or enforcing any rule that involves personnel performance. Adopting this rule does not indicate a predisposition on the part of the NRC that licensees are not acting properly. It is human nature for an individual to be more conscious of his or her performance when the individual realizes he or she is being observed. The NRC inspection program evaluates licensee performance on the basis of a sampling of its activities. It is critical 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 co11111Unication 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 performing its safety functions. It should be noted, the rule does not affect 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 use them) for the purpose of monitoring the NRC inspector's movements in order to alert other plant personnel of the inspector's whereabouts, those actions would violate the rule. In sum, the licensee is prohibited from taking affirmative action which would compromise the NRC inspector's mission of gaining unfettered access to the plant and its various areas of interest to the inspector. Comment: Some coomenters 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(0). 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 any 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. 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 detennined that this change is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22{c){2). Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this 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 impa*cts on health, safety, and the environment through more effecti~e 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 Convnission 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. 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 factlity 1 unless the licensee is specifically requested to do so by the NRC inspector. {2) The licensee will have to contrTllnicate 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 1. 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 inspectors will discover unsafe or potentially unsafe practices, bring about corrective actions and 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 perfonnance. 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 corrmunicating this rule to its employees and contractors. (6) Not appropriate. There is no potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity associated with this rule. (7) Not appropriate. There is no resource burden on the NRC from the imple-mentation of this rule. (8) Not appropriate. There is no potential impact of differences in facility type, design or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed backf1t. (9) The proposed backfit is final. Conclusion Based on the above analysis, the Corranission concludes that there is a substan-tial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the corrmon 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. 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 OF 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)i secs. 201, as amended, 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 issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); §§50.lO(a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a) are issued under sec. 161(b), 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); §§50.lO(b) and (c), and 50.54 are issued under sec. 16l(i), 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and §§50.9, 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(0)).

2.

In §50.70, paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows: §50.70 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 this section, is not announced or otherwise corrmunicated by its employees or contractors to other persons at the facility unless specifically requested by the NRC inspector. Dated at Rockville, MD, this For the Nuclear Regulatory Corranission. Executive Director for Operations

RD 5, Box 169, Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 (802) 257-5271 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission Washington, O.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

°BB HAY 19 p 4 :so May 13, 1988

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 effective 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 professiona-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: "ClWledgec::I by card.............:..~

• tJ. §. rlUCLfAil HGUt A f CRY CCMMISSIOB OOCKHINt.Z & 5ERVtCE S£Cf ION OHICE OF fH~ S!~IUT A"Y OF TH£ CGiMMl!SION Add' I (-,piol ll.o;.>te>duwJ Special Di,trihutl¢,, flJ tf1t----:~

---*- *--*- -~---

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION 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 to licensee and contractor personnel." While this is obviously desirable, access to the site is currently provided wi thin 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. 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 deficiences 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. DDB/dm Very truly yours, David D. Bauer Assistant to the Vice President and Manager of Operations

TRTR DOCXET NUMBER p S~ --~~ @ P1WrOSED RULE 3J L5'J ~YL ~-;...Lf_). Secretary NATIONAL ORGAND!MJDN OF TEST~ RESEARCH AND TRAl ~ffiG REACTOR~ "13 HAY -9 PS :14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Chairman : Arthur G. Johnson Oregon State University Chairman Elect: Marcus H. Voth Penn State University May 5, 1988

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 deadline; however, TRTR'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 Oregon 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 summary 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 regulations for presumably the same reason. RADIATION CENTER OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY CORVALLIS, OREGON 97331 503-7 54-2344 Aelmowle~ged JUL o 1 19 8 y C ~ * * * *......,.,., ** ***** ***

--.~. .._,~ __,..,,.,,,.>!:,10~ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SE~RETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docu:nent Stali:.I ics Postmark Date Copies R-:,cc,,ed Add' I CopiP.s Reproduced 2-Special Distribution f;J;.-tJS ~---~---- 1

USNRC May 5, 1988 TRTR appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments for the Commission'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. AGJ/ef/9-043 cc: Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region V Director, Oregon Department of Energy

Document No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1513 May 5, 1988 Secretary of the Commission OOlK[ i EC.' U NHC "88 MAY -9 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ashington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE -so -e (S"-3 F'f\\ i91't) TOLEDO EDISON PS :11 A Centerior' Energy Company DONALD C. SHELTON Vice President-Nuclear [419) 249-2300

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 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 would hinder the relationship the industry has worked hard to achieve with the NRC. Therefore, TED endorses the comments made by Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge. f2 GH:tlt cc: DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector A. B. Davis, Regional Administrator JUL O 1 1988 Ack owl dgcd

• y ca rd.........

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43652

t 'l.)ClEAR REG!Jl ~ l ORY COMMI SS CJOCKHING t,. SE~VICE SECTION OF"l(E OF TH: SECRET J.6.Y, OF rnE COMMISSION ,n11 Dal., S-- ~--eK =:.....:~'-------

a. (,;.,.~e:* )j I

' I C~*t1i t~ "'".)*,tN:ed ~ ci I 0islril:-ulion _&_-'-1-"'-t>_;:;;.S+-.we.::,:..:r....::::b;.;;e..;.r_

D':~i(ET NUMBER PR ~

• 'r~ED RULE
• iKJJil l 5 J f-t'L ~i:J.LO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE 37401 SN 157B Lookout Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: MAYO 5 1988 OOCKETEC* USNHC

• ss MY -6 P3 :59 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 Register (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 operations (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 organi zation and between licensee employees and NRC inspectors. Commun ications 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 l icensee's performance of its job and appropriate interactions with NRC, for example, in relaying messages or information to or from an inspector.

3.

Work impediment. In general, announc i ng 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 conti nue unless the NRC inspector specifically requested that his presence be announced to others. f,,,c JUL O 1 1988 d..*** * ** * ******* An Equal Opportunity Employer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4.

Enforcement difficulties. Enforcement of this rule would be difficult. As written, the rule prohibits appropriate and necessary communications as 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 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 uni ntended 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. cc: See page 3 Very truly yours, R.

ridley, irector Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission cc:

Mr. George Barber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. K. P. Barr, Acting Assistant Director for Inspection Programs 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 Wh ite Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Bellefonte Res ident Inspector Bellefonte Nuclear Plant P.O. Box 2000 Hollywood, Alabama 35752 Browns Ferry Res ident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuc lear Plant Route 12, P.O. 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 MAY U 5 1988

Detroit Edison B. Ralph Sylvia Group Vice President 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 (313) 586-4150 DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR - S' 0 (SJ r=~itt2.4/-) 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 April 22. 1988 NRC-88-0114

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. ~u o.. rnaa . ********~ '

J. S. NUCLEAR P.(Gllt A TORY COMMISSIO~ OOCKD!t-!'.; ~ H~VtCf. SECTION OFfl(E OF lHf. SECRETAAY Of THt CCMMISSION D~t..a--.t Statistics ?o,*rnark Date L[- ~_'-_ -_Y_? ____ _ Co;**t:s Rec~,, I 5pcci) Dislribution

USNRC April 22, 1988 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, cc: A. B, Davis R, c. Knop T. R, Quay

w. G. Rogers

DOCKET NUMBER _ SD PROPOSED RULE ( S.l F~ 11124) C10CK[ i EC* L.,NRC Southern California Edison Company M. 0. MEDFORD MANAGER OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND LICENSING Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary P. 0. BOX 800 2244 WALNU T GROVE AVEN U E ROSEMEAD, CALIFORN IA 91 770 Apri 1 27, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Proposed Rule

• as APR 29 A10 :53 TELEPHONE (81 8) 302* 1 749 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 such communication a day (or a week for a prolonged inspection) after his arrival? Additionally, the proposed rule does not specify what level of communication by employees of an NRC inspector on site constitutes a violation. Does incidental communication, for example, a discussion between two employees where the presence of an inspector on site is mentioned and no 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 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.

~ '1/ e 'ii f c, a, "d ~ / _v

• v I

Mr. Samuel April 27, 1988 Should you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me. Very truly yours, cc: J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator, NRC Region V F. R. Huey, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 1, 2 and 3

Alabama Power Company 600 North 18th Street Post Office Box 2641 Bi rm i ng ham, Alabama 35291-0400 Telephone 205 250-1835 R. P. McDonald Senior Vice President Docket Nos. 50- 348 50- 364 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission April U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vashington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

• aa DOCKET NUMBER PR -5 tJ PROPOSED RULE V

DOGKETEP {_5} F (l, ~;L USNRC ~ *- APR 26 P4 :06 Alabama Power the southern electric system Re: Comments on Proposed Rule to Prohibit Licensee Announcement of Presence of NRC Inspector (53 Fed. Reg. 8924 (March 18, 1988)) 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 would 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 intendedto 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. Vhile 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 as proposed would be either effective or enforceable. Nor do we 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. 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 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 deem necessary. Consequently, it would seem that ensuring unannounced access for other NRC inspectors is not absolutely crucial. MAY 2 6 1988 Aeknowledged by card......... *........

J. S. NUCLEAR ~F.(';ULAfb~V COMM!!) 1Vl'i DOCl<FTING & Srn',1CE SECTION OfflCE OF THE SECRET ARY OF TIIE CCMMISSION Dccu:nenl Statistics

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apri l 20, 1988 Page 2 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, we 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 s tatus 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 r equested by an inspector previous to an inspection would 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, would 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 how 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(~, 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.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 20, 1988 Page 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ye 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, we feel that the proposed rule would 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. R. P. McDonald RPM/BDM:dst:TS1-V8.20 cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. Y. H. Bradford

..r Secr e tar y oY the Commission l..181\\!kl: l,\\tash :i. rH.J ton, l>,, L. 1.7'0 !:1!::1~:i OOCKET NUMBER PR - (!~~ )SP) RULE --*, 11 [5) f /2 H:I-~0

• as APR 26 A 7 :57 l***'i e:**ass~ c:1 cc Pp {;

t~I, 1 *;;;. .L E.'t t er E:1s-, rny c o11,mE'*,, t:s on F*'r o p osE~d F*:u J e, l...icen!::-<:.?f? ~H'w1c;.unc em1;;~nts 01: .[ n r::.; pF.*'C:: t :i c,n£,,, My comment s ar e s ho r t a nd to t he p oi n t. lhe Nkl: has a dm i t ted that the so - caJJed una nnounced ins p e ctions are largely a Yar c e, j are _i::H1nou.,.-1c f?d: 11 i ntf?nt:i.ona lly cJ:i.vF.i not :i.CE'." Sf::-'e F**aq e f::><:t;::~~) F* I-< ted 18 March 1~88. 'fher e

i. £.:; no t hing

i. *,*, th:i.s n..1 l f"-' chanc_J f." h1hich 1,"1ould chang E?

previous practice. Unly an imme diate dismi s s a l might stop s ome loyal u t :i.J :i.ty m,:ini:'l<]<-?HH?nt from c.dE,)rtin9 thl'2:i.r slt'?f?ping c::omr--ack,!S:,. That is what the rule needs ~ imme diate dismissal ~or any licensee employe e att e mpt i ng to alert his sle~ping brethr e n. How about adding that pena l t y to the rule*? ~

• u 1i~ submit~ed,

Marvin/.~ ~ 80 1 Roosevelt 8 l vd.#62 Phila., PA 191 ~2 ,:.... fJ... (:I !:i * ~cknowledged by card. ~~:..:~_:!a___

0. S. NUCLEAR "RWUr..6-l !h' COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF ICE OF THE SECRET AltY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics

,ostmark Date Copies Rocei ved / - ------ Add' I Copios Reproduced ~ Special Distribution fl.;[,,~ {)(At::b:,t,lr' I

• **~

C PS~G Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Nuclear Department 'BB APR 25 P 6 :04 April 18, 1988 NLR-N88062 OFFIC!:. o, ;;

• i.;, J 11'\\1*,.'

OOCKET1Nr; Ct Sftlv !Cf. BR~NC~ 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).

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 facilities.. " 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. The Energy People MAY 2 6 1988 ~cknowledged by card..*......_...__,...~ 95-2168 (50M) 12-85

J. S. NUCI.EAR REGLILAlORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF HIE SECRETARY Of lHt COMMISSION Document Statistics Postm¥k D"te ~//1-0 IJ--Y Copies Recci ved L *--....------ Add' I Copies Reproduced Special Distribution /l.I. r.x~--........ -

I Mr. Samuel J. Chilk 2 April 18, 1988

4)

It is not clear as to how the NRC would expect to implement enforcement action under the proposed rule. It would be inappropriate to cite a facility for unauthorized notifications which originate outside of the work place. Similarly, enforcement action against a facility without identification of the source of the unauthorized notification would also be inappropriate. If there are any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, ~~/~~ B. A. Preston ~ Manager - Licensing and Regulation

DOCKET NUMBER PR -4 r) South Carolina Electrlc & Gas Company PRf)PQS[D IW.\\-t... ?r.~m~a ~ ~ --........,~ P.O. Box 88 Vice President SCE&G A SC/11111 Cooipany Jenkinsville, SC 29065 t 5 3 r-If? ~ uclear f P.e~&t~ ns [, (803) 345-4041 L ,.._ <jf' J '),, // u~ 1 ~ \\ r-Apri l 18, 1988 .-,N

• aa I\\PR 25 A 9 :40 Mr. Samue l J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, 0. C.

20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50/395 Operating License No. NPF-12 Proposed Rule Licensee Announcements of Inspectors 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 inspection area, and a general lack of potentially useful and timesaving assistance. In actuality, an inspector 1s surveillance can potentially be 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 1s arrival to essential personnel should not alter the overall attention and performance level of the Li censee. 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 1s 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 1s 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. MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card...................... ~....,..

.J S. NUCLtAR REGULAlORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document S1atist 1cs Postmark Date 1/ bff-v __ _ Copies Received 1-Add' I Copies Reproduced -r ---- Special Distribution }'l;:J;rJS &t:Le }- ';I .,I

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 18, 1988 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, AMM/DAN:lcd 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. NSRC RTS (PR 88005) NPCF File (811.02)

NORntEAST UTILITIES ((II] 'Ml (0f'liNlC1 1C..,~ 1..'Gl-11.t.,O POWfRCOMPAN Y W[STE RN t..H,SSACHU5[ TTS ELE CTRIC COMPANY .,.Ol Y01([ WATER POWER COV PANY f'liQ l:ll,..EAS l Ul lLlllfS S[R\\'IC [ CQMPA.NY NQRTH[ ASl NUCLE AR [N[RGY COMPANY ~~5~61ENou:~[f PR -- 5 0 C~ 3 F-rL ~?-'1} DOCKET EC' U')NRC General Offices

• Selden Street. Berl in, Connecticut P.O. BOX 270
• aa APR 22 AlO '57 HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 (203) 665-5000 OFFICE lf :~
• I./',;*

OOCK[ilNli & )[ 1, Vl f. f BRANC~ April 18, 1988 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 812891 Re: 10CFRSO. 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, (1) 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. CYAPCO 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 to entry. This practice was briefly discussed with NRC Staff personnel in the (1) See 53FR8924 MAY 2 6 1988 '-Cknowledged by card...******* -....,........,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CoRlllission 812891/Page 2 Apri 1 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. Sta ff personnel stated that if security personnel nonnally 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 norma 1 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 personne 1 observe an NRC inspector in the pl ant 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, CYAPCO 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 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 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.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Convnission Bl2891/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. CYAPCO and NNECO appreciate the opportunity to convnent 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 E. J. Mroczka Senior Vice President 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 Convnission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20666

Georgia Power Company 333 Piedmont Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 526-6526 Mailing Address: Post Office Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 L. T. Gucwa Manager Nuclear Safety and Licensing DOCKET NUMBER PR -, o PROPOSED RULE Cf} f-rl f-CJ:i-1)

• aa APR 22 A10 :24 Georgia Power the southern etectnc system SL-4502 0942U X7GJ17-C220 April 18, 1988 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C.

20555 Gentlemen: COMMENTS ON NRC PROPOSED REVISION TO 10 CFR 50 "LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INSPECTORS" The following comments are submitted in response to the March 18, 1988, Federal Register 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). We 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 prohi bi ti on on communi cati ans to the contra 1 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 licensee 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. MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card..****.**.,.........,....

J. S. NUCLEAR REGULAlORY COMMISSIQ DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT ION OFF ICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date Copies Recei vcd Add' I Ccpi~s Reproduced -2, Special Distribution }d~ - ----/l- ~- -.--~-t-'

Georgia Power, \\ 700775 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apri 1 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 pl ant for accountability reasons in the event of a radio l ogi cal 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 l O 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 urges the 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, L. T. Gucwa MJB/ju c: Georgia Power Company Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr., Vice President - Plant Hatch Mr. P. D. Rice, Vice President and Vogtle Project Director Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr., General Manager - Plant Vogtle GO-NORMS 0942U

P. 0. BOX 14000, JUNO BEACH, FL 33408-0420 April 14, 1988

• as APR 22 A10 :23 L-88-182 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 Acknowfed~ed by card ~~y 2 6 1988

• • o-r..,,............_.._...,

an FPL Group company

.,, ;,,,,..,._~c,... i< l<EGULAIORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 1as:l_]t-__ Copies Received / - ----- Add' I Copies Raproduced 2.. Special Distribution lZ"""fl;T~,,....

ATTACHMENT 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.

3.

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. 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. The proposed change also raises other questions: Will this stifle normal communications between plant and/or corporate personnel? What is the necessity of this covertness for all 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.

DOC~ET NUMBER PR -s cl_ f1SED RULE ~, C 5 J Ffl M'-LfJ WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEMJ0L~~1T_..Ef ~')r1 L P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington Way
• Richland, Washington 99352 April 18, 1988 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

PROPOSED RULE LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS

• as APR 22 A10 :21 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 \\'lho 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 ambiguous, 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. MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card..* n..-*

• n n, 011*,-

J, s Poslmark Da !.-. 1/ / /&'//}-')-______ Copies Rece, vc j 1 ----- Add' I Cc,pic-s Rcµroduced

L Special Distribution ~

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 port able 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, G. C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs

123 "v1ain St*eet Write P a rs, !\\Jew York 10601 914 681 6240 ,. New York PoW£r APR 22 A10 :20 ., Authority Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 DOCKET NUMBER PR -5" O PROPOSED RULE J l ( S-) ~ Yl 'r1 '1-'1J April 18, 1988 IPN-88-010 JPN-88-015 John C. Brons Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation Comments on NRC Proposed Rule on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors

Dear Sir:

Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 53, page 8924, proposed rule, entitled, "Licensee Announcements of Inspectors," dated March 18, 1988. 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 has 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 cond..ict 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 of 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 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 MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card................,..... a*

\\J. S. NUCLc,I\\R RtGULAlORY COMMl5~10N DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Dccument Statistics Postmark Date Lf by J __ J?:__._}: ~ --- Copics Received / Add' I Copies Reproduced J_ Special Distribution ~ -}25_ ---"'-=-J}..,.--g_,;ft __,,... r 7 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 a responsibility under plant procedures or practices to notify the Control Room of unfamiliar 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 ongoing plant activities without advance notification of the NRC inspector's presence is understandable, and the current access practices 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 the 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. cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 7 5 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Off ice of the Resident Inspector 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 Sincerely yours, ohn C. Brons xecutive Vice President uclear Generation

Mr. Harvey Abelson Project Directorate 1-1 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 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B2 Washington, D. HAL B. TUCKER V I CE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR P R O D UCTION April 14, 1988 DUKE POWER COMPANY P.O. BOX 33189 CHARLOTTE, N.G. 28242 he Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

NRC Proposed Rule

Dear Sir:

Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Duke Power Company Comments OOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSE RULE

• di C. OCrii: f[(.

)~ (! ~ ~'1:J.. Lo U:,NHC N>R \\9 p5:24 Off !Ct Of Si *~Ht iAF. '( OOCKfi ING Sf. Vltf. BRANCl-l TELEPHONE (704) 373-4Ml In the Federal Register (53FR8924) dated 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 inconspicuous during their inspections. ensure that all site personnel will say inspector on site attired in NRC marked groups/agencies would like to be However, we feel it is impossible to nothing to anyone about seeing an NRC 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 facil i ties" r eferenced in another manner without putting this burden on the total nuclear industry. Very truly yours, Hal B. Tucker DM/ 11029/ sbn MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card

• * * * ****........... 1 J C

.J.. COCKEl ING & <;E:1-tV1CE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stat isl ics Po,rmark Dale '-/ / ~:( ! f-¥' =----- Copies Received / Add' I Copies Reproduced 2.. Special Distribution 1ft.,ZiJ.fJ- -=-tA-i'--=h.(. - a,-

e Commonwealth Edison OCKET NUMBER - ra_ One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 1POSE.D RULE Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 (. 5 'I. r-n OJII LI l Chicago, Illinois 60690 - 0767 .../ ,..._ T"'f :J.,::-1..,1 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 April 14, 1988

Subject:

Proposed Rule to Prohibit Licensee Announcement of Presence of NRC Inspector (53 Fed. Reg. 8924, March 18, 1988)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

00(,K[: EQ USNRC

• aa APR 22 AlO :19 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 consequences of failing to observe the rule. But more importantly, Edison is disappointed 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 meaningful inspections, in particular unannounced inspections. We believe this 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 inspections are to be unannounced unless otherwise stated explicitly, raises a question of consistency with the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches. This proposal is distressing as 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 wholeheartedly 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 inspections is to undermine the public's confidence in nuclear power. MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card..* 0

J. S. NUCltAR REGULATO~Y COMMISSION OOCKET ING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Docu:--;e:,t Stati5tics Postmark Ddte ~/ / /._Y( Ji,, ___ _ Copic-s Rcr.<eiv:?.: )_ Add' I Ccpi~,s Ro:;r:,,Jw*od 2... Special Di s:ri,::!:;i.1 Jt.;£. "f,,_if;* /J~~t-' 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 should be proposed consistent with constitutional limitations. Sincerely, ~~ Nuclear Licensing Manager WM/rf/4521K

JOSEPH A. TIERNAN V ICE P R ESIDENT NUC L EAR EN ERG Y BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC

• aa APR 22 AlO :18 CHARLES CENTER* P. 0. BOX 1475
• BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 QfF !C£ l '

L I L c\\l OOCK[1 I~, "- Sf i, \\'If.! BRANL,>-l April 18, 1988

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:

SUBJECT:

Gentlemen: Document Control Desk 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 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. This 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. 11 MAY 2 6

• a A.cknowtedged by card.** -.r..............!!J!....,,

pf: .j_S,, t-L\\JClt/.R ~EGlllAl~Y COMMI !ION 00'.:KH G & SERVICE SECTION Of,CE OF ntE SECRET ARY / OF THE COMMISSION Dc,,.,"'l<"'t Stntiltics

,ostmar., D,1

e 4 /J rl f Y

Document Control Desk April 18, 1988 Page 2 We recommend against this type of regulatory initiative. If imposed, however, at least three changes are recommended:

1.

The rule should only be in effect for a specified duration after arrival. This duration should be on the order of two hours.

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 is to be conducted 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. JAT/DLS/dlm 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 Very truly yours, h1;;;-:

0/f y~tfl,/4--

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899 DOCKET NUMBER PR ~OPOSED RULE (__ s J Ffl y-DJ3--'i) April 14, 1988 Secretary ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch USNRG Washington, DC

Dear Sir :

20555 '88 DOlKEf[f.* !J JNi1C APR 20 PS :57 The following are comments on the proposed revision to 10 GFR 50. 70 (FR 8924, 18 Ma rch 1988) forbidding rumors relating the presence o f a NRG insp ec tor. This proposal represents a naivete that has seldom been exceeded in the annals of NRG regulation. If the intent is to forbid a company policy of "belling" the NRG inspector then the proposal should be so phrased. But 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 NRG still consid e rs this rule to be necessary I propose that:

1.

An appropriate prohibition statement be added to the NRG Form 3, and

2.

Adequate posting of the NRG Form 3 fully satisfi~s the emplo y ee notification r e quirement, and

3.

In the absence of proof of institutional approval or encouragement only the individual violating this rule can be subject to enforcement action. MAY 2 6 1988 ~cknowledged by card................,-

.-'ostmark D('ltc Copi~s Re~~, ~ed

• I I. G

_..,,\\IS 10

,.. y SION Add' I Copios Reproduced 2..

Special Distribution JtifJ~I ikv:h<.(-

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, ~~-~&w Supervisory Health Physicist Occupational Health and Safety Division

• All DOCKET NUMBER PR -SO
• 1~0SED RULE Pf t (53 Ffl ~D Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 00tK[ff '.:

Two North Ninth Street* Allentown, PA 18101-1179

• 215/770-5151 USNFC Harold W. Keiser Senior Vice President-Nuclear 215/770-4194 APR 1 5 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Attn.: Docketing and Service Branch SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION CO:t1MENTS ON PROPOSED RULE LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS PLA-3019 FILES R41-2/Al7-ll

Dear Mr. Chilk:

• aa APR 21) AlO :19 Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388 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 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. PP&L appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Very truly yours, H. 9£:U-wi Sr. Vice President - Nuclear Attachment cc: NRC Document Control Desk (original) NRC Region I Mr. F. I. Young, NRG Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. M. C. Thadani, NRC Project Manager MAY 2 6 1988 ~cknowledged by card...**.******* *--- 15

, 1 ~~" '.:u,vh Uvl..\\d 11',G & !:>tRVICE SECTION Off:G CF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Docu:ne*it Stat isl i cs Postmark Date ~I! 5.../J-Y_ ___ _ Copies Rer.ei *,r:.1 J Add' I Copies Rcoro-Juccd z ------ Special Distributi~n fJ,i'J~ ~

DETAILED COMMENTS 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 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 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 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 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.

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. o The rule should not apply to resident inspectors. The presence of the residents can be assumed by all employees. o The specific problems identified above must be addressed so that the rule 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 after 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 problems. 2 -

taHI Public service of New Hampshire New Hampshire Yankee Division Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary DOCKET"NUMB£R PR _ 5 o PROPOSED RULE L 5 3 F tl 'irl :i-Lf) NYN-88051 George S. Thomas Vtcell&~!l&iJr\\ifr-iuctear Production U'.,NfiC ]8 APR 20 AlO :1 0 OFF!Cf. _;,. ~.;-,... ('. ! ~., I April 15, 1988 OOCK[ ilNG,T ';Erl \\'!Cf. BR.6.NCH United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule; Licensee Announcement of Inspectors

Dear Sir:

The New Hampshire Yankee (NHY) Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regar ding 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 Company (YAEC), from whom NHY contracts certain support services, is providing comments on this proposed rule. NHY concurs with and supports the YAEC comments. NHY recognizes the NRG concern regarding this issue; however, we do not agr ee that the proposed rule is the appropriate method to address and resolve t his matter. Very truly yours, --4c 5 }x3:._ George S. Thomas MAY 2 6 1988 "cknowtedged by card.............. _....... P.O. Box 300. Seabrook, NH 03874. Telephone (603) 474-9574

JS. Nu.:. 1t<1." ;{~CUtAIORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics "ostmark Date ~/ /J5.. / ti!_ __ _ Copies Rec'!:i ve:i / Add' I Copi,Js Reproduced Special Di st ribution fl I YJ t fJ_ £

0 Wisconsin Electr,c Powrn coMPANY 231 W. MICHIGAN, PO BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 VPNPD-88-221 NRC-88-038 April 13, 1988 Secretary U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20555 OOCK[TEt: 'JSNRC Attention: Docket ing and Service Branch Gentlemen: LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENT OF INSPECTORS (414) 221-2345 J) 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 request to do so by the inspector. We have reviewed this notice and as the owner and operator of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant are very concerned with several aspects and imp lications 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. We urge that this proposed rule be withdrawn, particularly since inobtrusive and unwarned inspection is possible within existing procedures and current regulations. As a general p r incip le, senior f acility management personnel have not only the right but also the responsibility to know who is on si t e at any given t ime. I t is t he practice a t our plant that whenever an unexpected non-shift person arr i ves 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-intende nt of the visitor's presence. There are several practical considerations which make this a p r udent pract ice. 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 p lant encompasses a large area with the potential for significant i ndustrial hazards. If a person is injured and the facil i ty management are unaware that the person is on site, the consequence of the injury could be worsened by the time delay before the injury is discovered. Obviously, the normal process of announcement provides an additional degree of MAY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card..******.,...................

,J -~ ~'CtEAR Rt:GULAlOR'Y COMM.SS.OW OOCKETING & SERVICE SfC1'!0N OfFICE Of THE SECRET ARV. -J ~. lHE. GOMM,SS-1~ Document Stati tics 6stMark Oate L /J Jf f---Y <!opies Received _ / _ _____ Add' I Copie, Reproduced _2 S;,ec:ial Drsrribution {(_ [,--'(L __ t_ /J_ A_k:_W:. _ r

Secretary 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 if the plant management is unaware that the visitor is onsite. 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 restr i cted 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 Resident 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' /t,U ~ I

1)

C. W. Fay Vice President Nuclear Power

TROY B. CONNER, JR. MARK J. WETTERHAHN ROBERT M. RADER N ILS N. NICHOLS BERNHA RD O - B ECHHOEFER OF CO UNSEL 17 4 7 P ENNSYLVAN I A A V ENUE, N. W. W AS HINGTO N, D. C. *aao~R 19 p 1 :56 12021 833-3300 CABLE ADDRESS: AT0MLAW Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: Proposal to Add New 10 C.F.R. §50.70(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. §50. 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 (March 18, 1988). The necessity "that NRC inspectors be granted immediate 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 appli ed, 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 of legitimate reasons. Applied literally, the r ule would prohibit one employee noting to another the presence of the resident inspector.

q / ' ' ,J, !), """*-!..ti.. r-.~t.A. oocm1NG a sa a ornce; o t~ s11c1t 0t n-tE COM/iAI Document Stat i1J ics Postmark Date Irr Copies Received - ---"'----=----- Add' I Copies ReproducN 2. Special Distribution {l_-(' P.5.,I-IJ~

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 15, 1988 Page 2 The major vice of the proposed rule, however, is its overbreadth, which would make it impossible to enforce. It would also be grossly unfair to licensees to hold them 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.

sdd 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 facility with the intent to change the nature of activities or level of alertness because of the inspector's arrival. Sincerely, l)tJaJ(jfu~ r Troy B. Conner, Jr.

April 1:,, 1988

• as APR 19 P12 :28 OFFIC:;

0OCKE't COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBlt ENf:R,G't', INC. ( "oc ** 1t* ) ON PROPOSED RULE, 10 CFR 50, LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS (53 FED REG 8924, MARCH 18, 1988) The NRC is considering an ame"dment to its regulations which woul~ prohibit licensees from onnouncing the presence 0f an NRC inspector at t~e plant sita, unl~ss specific0lly r~quest*d by

• l:he in*;pec*cor.

OCRE supports t~is revision. necessary in light of incidents mentioned in the Federal Register notice in which the ability of insPQctors to assess licensee activities was compromised due to licensee announcement or communication of the inspec t or ' s presenca. ThQ conduct or licensed activities may well be Oltered iF those performing such activities know they are being observed by an NRC inspector. This rule should ensure that ins p ectors will get an accura~e Picture of licensee operations. The r ule should be enc,.c ted *,; i thou t de 1 ay. Respectfull y submitted, SL1san L. Hic1tt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 2.5.5-31.58 l:<!q*1 1-::,**. I ht,.-'< MAY 2 6 1988 -cknowledged by card * **..,.ra*.,.....,.**** a kJ

C J. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date ~ /f-Y Copies Received / _ _ _____ _ Add' I Copies Reproduced 2-Spec:ial Distribution -J2.J:_ 0._~_ 6_ tJ._£_ J,~ t-I *

.... f WPSCl414I433-1598 TELECOPIER 14141433-1297 NRC -*88-54 EASYLINK 62891993 DOl riL iU WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION U'JNRC 600 North Adams* P.O. Box 19002

• Green Bay, WI 54307-9002 DOCKET NUMBER PR -f, d PROPOSED RULE

-/)~ c_ 5' J F-tl-H 1.'-' 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 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant 53 FR 8924, Announcement of Inspectors

• 88 APR 19 P\\2 :25 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 l i censee. 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 situations where the NRC has reasonable su~picions that its regulations that have a direct impact on public health and safety are being intentionally violated. MAY 2 6 198 Acknowledged by card 8

• *............., ssov*u (0

.J. - -....,..,1(.)1 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date ~lj_J j_/._~_J' _ __ _ Copies Received / Add' I Copies Reproduced Z.. Special Distribution fl'j;:--f)- ~=-.-~----- -,, Ill

Secretary of the Commission Apri 1 15, 1988 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, INPO & other groups formed to resolve spe-cific issues. This rule, if promulgated, will tend to introduce an element of unintended antagonism in NRC/Licens~e relationships. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, ~,Y.)~,4-v D. C. Hintz Vice President - Nuclear Power DWS/jms cc - Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC US NRC, Region III US NRC Document Control Desk

consumers Power POWERIN& IIIICBl&AN'S l'RO&RESS

• ea APR 19 P\\2 :24 1

-- 11*~ . ~l .;,L 1/-\\h "f General Offices: 1945 West Parnall Road, Jackson, Ml 49201 * (517) 788-1 I-*" **- 1:,,... *,* t~,;.. (\\/ l('f*. CK£! n l) O<., t.f v Apr il 15, 1988 Secretary of the Commission, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch BRANC~ CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE - "LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS" Kenneth W Berry Director Nuclear Licensing 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 authori zed 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 be.tween. licensee employees. Further, the regulatory analysis of the proposed 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 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 the inspectors presence, it does not slow the inspector's access to the site nor does it impede the progress of his inspection. MAY 2 6 1988 q Acknowledged by card -~ __

• • • • • • • • • • t wiiG?ill,

I' .,Jr U,. dUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO)iil rocr::EfrNG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date '-/ / ~j J f J/ Copies Received / --=------ Add' I Copies Reproduced 2. Special Distribution /2,:[:"_J2_ -&_. __ l!,_A_;;_;e _ }--'

2 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 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 compromise his ability to perform the inspection. Kenneth W Berry OC0488-0006A-NL03

DOCKET NUMBER PR -- ~ () PROPOSED RULE =-=-=------ Telephone (617) 872-8100 O (f 3 Ffl <;-a,J.'-/) TWX 710-380-7619 0 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ~~ ci:~ 2~~ G

• -=-

USNHC ~ ~~ 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 I q tr./* -~1/

• aa APR}f Al0:20 April 15, 1988 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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. The rule as drafted would require changes to facility 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. l~lcnowtedged by card. M~r.-.~,~.~9§9.:

1.1.1VI"\\ .. I!.)N \\RY . '.,MI : r IOt-1 ,,*,,.1 Stalistics ?ost~ar~ D,,_ ~ F;,_,X.e,.{_ _()_~/ I~ /1J.r p.,.,. -~/,q/f~ Copres R(*c.:- " '*, / ./ Add' I Cop,e~ R*~;)roduced 2, ---- 6,.cial Oislribution,o::jj~ a~kr

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Secretary of the Commission April 15, 1988 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 difference further. That is, the rule as drafted 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 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. 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 focus 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. 7/J)}~ Donald W. Edwards Director of Industry Affairs JMG/22.719

7 f!i LOUISIANA/ P O W E R & LI GHT m~ NUMBER PR - 5 o. IRROPOsfb ~~ :_ ,J C5J FfL HJ-'1 317 BARONNE STREET P. o. Bo x 60340 l1B APR 19 A 7 :52 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160 (504) 595-3100 orr,c:....,. MIDDLE SOUTH UTILITIES SYSTEM Doc .._ vr.* ; KtiJNG&° ;;_~1,,,.,* NS20776 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Waterford SES Unit 3 Docket No. 50-382 License No. NPF-38 April 15, 1988 Proposed Rule Regarding Announcement of NRC Inspectors at Power Reactor Facilities

Dear Sir:

W3P88-0985 A4. 05 NQA BR.t..N1_AtuV1cr: 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 11Catch 22 11 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. uAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" MAY 2 6 1988 ~knowledged by card...-..*,.r..........,_,,;*w1te'ii919

D0,_1,: .... r crr i:-:: C. E :;_ -.ETARY CF T:1£ COMMISSION Dc.:u"1cnt Stat isl,cs ?ostmark Date ~op1es Reem ved N-A r Add' I Copies Reproduced Special Distribution /l:J;__YJJ~v::. 1

f ~ NS20776 Page 2 W3P88-0985 Apr il 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. RFB/RWP /tsy Yours very truly, . F. Burski Acting Manager Nuclear Safety & Regulatory Affairs cc: E.L. Blake, W.M. Stevenson, J.A. Calvo, D.L. Wigginton, R.D. Martin, NRC Resident Inspector's Office (W3)

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL DOCKET NUMBt~ PR, 5 O JROPOSED RULE ( 5J Fil. M'-'1J LAW OFFICES B ISHOP, COOK, PURC ELL & REYNOLDS 1400 L STREET, N.W. WASHINGTO N, O.C. 20005*35 0 2 (202) 371 -5700 April 18, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch TELEX, 440574 INTLAW UI TELECOPIER, (20 2) 3 7 1*5 950 Re: Comments on Proposed Rule to Prohibi t Licensee Announcement of Presence of NRC Inspector (53 Fed. Reg. 8924 (March 18, 1988))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

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 would 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 facilit i es, 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. On behalf of System Energy Resources, Inc., Washington Public Power Supply System, Alabama Power Company, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Northeast Utilities, Texas Utiliti es Electric Company, Arkansas Power & Light Company, and Duke Power Company, we respectfully submit the following comments on this 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 as proposed would be either effective or enforceable. Nor do we believe that there is even a need for the proposed rule. The success of the NRC is not embodied in covert 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 o f MAY 2 6 1988 .A.cknowledged by caro.. * *... * *.... -~

.J. . NUCLAK RCL,ULA roR COMM/ 5/0N DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFF ICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Docurnont Statisli" A PoJtm~rk 0'9 to H p...;..u( d:e, /,,).Jr_~ Copies Reeei vQd I --- - Add' I Copi1u R produced 1. Special Di st ribution ab 5-J t;~;. J,~,,_

f 2 - utilities with which it is experiencing difficulty in performing inspections. 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 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 deem necessary. Consequently, it would seem that ensuring unannounced access for other NRC inspectors is not absolutely crucial. 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. Most utilities train their security personnel to notify the control room or senior manager on site of non-shift or non-utility personnel who request access to the plant, particularly during off-hours, nights, and weekends when less than the normal complement of personnel are on site. The legitimate and necessary purpose of this practice is to provide an additional degree of security by alerting responsible plant personnel to any unusual circumstances. As the proposed rule is written, any such contact with the control room, even if in accord with plant procedures, would constitute a violation of the NRC's regulations. Since the proposed rule conflicts with good practices designed to bolster plant security, we 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 would 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

3 - 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, would 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 how 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 (~, 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. We 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 upon arrival 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.

4 -

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's owner-controlled area.

5.

Clarification should be provided as to what constitutes acceptable employee behavior. An interim period should also be specified, during which personnel could receive training regarding the rule's requirements before the rule actually becomes effective. In conclusion, we feel that the proposed rule would 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. Respectf

BISHOP, REYNOL'

TELEX/CABLE B9*2693 (SHAWLAW W S H) TELEPHONE (202) 663-6063 JAY E. SILBERG, P.C. Secretary DOCKET NUMBER PR o P~0°0SED RULE ~-----§ __ _ SHAW. PITTMAN. POTTS & TROWBRIDGE ct;) Ffl. r'IJ-L/J A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 230 0 N STREET, N. W. WASH INGTON, 0. C. 20037 April 18, 1988 I f VIRGIN IA OFFICE 1501 FARM C R EDIT DRIVE MCLEAN, V IR GINIA 22102 (703) 790-7900 TELECOPIER (202) 223-3760 6. 223-3761 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: Re: Proposed Rule - Licensee Announcements of Ipspectprs.1c.53, __ Fed ** _Reg *..-8924.. r:;; ~** On March 18, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the r~~g~al. B~gjst~~ 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 unless 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 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 & 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. MAY 2 6 1988 -cknowledged by card. *n*... -......,.....;...._,

J, ~- 1-.u1...Lc', . v~. ...,,,.1 1..v,v,.v-.1 SSIOM OOCKHING & SERVICE SECT ION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistic$ Poslm rk D11te &..A_,_~/ (,1-t_t-~ Copies Received / ------- Add' I Copies ~eproduced L Special Distribution ll/2=--)-~- /J-~--- V-fl l .) ') I C1 r ~" I') '1 = , I -. ') '.',, 'I 1 **

SHAW, P ITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission April 18, 1988 Page 2 We strongly oppose the proposed rule as written. It is overly broad, unworkable, contrary 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.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A PA RTN E R S HIP IN C L UDING P ROFESS IONAL CORPO RATIONS 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 lie; 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. 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 inspection functions, the ramifications should be severe enough 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. S~~, 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.l, at 59.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A PARTNERSH I P INC L UDING PROFESSIONAL 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.

SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE A P A RTNERSH I P INCLU DING P ROFESSIONAL COR PORATIONS 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. JES:dj Very truly yours, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000

Irv LJ ,( NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street. N.W.

• Suite 300
• Washington, DC 20006-2496 (202) 872-1280 JP~ l S,9~<d' Joe F. Colvin Executive Vice President &

Chief Operating Officer Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch April 18, 1988 Re: Revision of 10 CFR 50 to Include Licensee Announcements of Inspectors, 53 FR 8924 (March 18, 1988) - 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 a 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 major 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. ,.,t\\ A key element of those practices is to ensure that personnel within the plant are properly authorized for access and have a need to conduct business within 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 or MAY 2 6 1988 Act<nowledged by card.. ~ .;.::;.,-'i~r.Jirr

1. S. NUClEAP. REGUI.AlORY COMMIS~(GA' DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date _/-1~~

,J. Copies Recci,*ed / Add' I Copies Reproduced 1..-- Special Distribution il::£/J~ -S-1>--,..--a,-

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 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:

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk April 18, 1988 Page Three

1.

The 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, JFC:cb ~+-~l "Joe F. Colvin

CP&L Carolina Power & Light Company APR 18 1988 Mr. S. J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing & Service Branch DOCKET NUMBER PR ~ o 3 ")POSED RULE .

• 0 CS' 3 F fl f'll'-

oocK E: iT~* t I h NPf' 1- / <r 'l.

• aa APR.z1. AlO :18 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, 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 41 1 Fayetteville Street* P. 0. Box 1551

• Raleigh, N. C. 27602 Acknowledged by card.. ~.~.;.~.!~!.,
• A,$. NUCLEAR Ri:Gl:J~F,Q.RY (OMM1S~(CIN

~KETING & SERVICE SKTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Statisfics Postmark Date i ~ / ~ _l..~.J!f ~Jv Copies Received / ~---- Add' I Copies Reproduced 1 ~- - 6 p e c i a I Distribution £+J2J /J;,..,1,-be,,,... ./

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 comments. Should you have any questions with regard to our comments, please contact Mr. Jim Presley at (919) 836-6132. JCP/che (5408JHE) cc: Mr. George Barber (NRC) Public Document Room (NRC) m Manager Nuclear Licensing ',lj

COMBUSTION~ ENGINEERING Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary April 18, 1988 LD-88-027 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).

1.

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. AES:ss

Enclosure:

As Stated Power Systems Combustion Engineering, Inc. Very truly yours, COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. ~ c erer Director Nuclear Licensing 1000 Prospect Hill Road Post Office Box 500 (203) 688-1911 Telex: 99297 Windsor, Connecticut 06095-0500 M AY 2 6 1988 Acknowledged by card....................... ***

iJ. S. NUCLEAR R,GULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT ION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date !j_}/ y/rY' 1 tLJfL-C, 0/J y-'t J,t-/ ff-Copies Received _ _ / Add' I Copies Roproducecl,_ Spei:ial Distribution //T,_o___,;,-...-1&- A--t:~

7 Enclosure to LD-88-027 Page 1 of 3 Comments on Proposed Rulemaking on Licensee Announcements of Inspectors Item No. Paragraph 1 General 2 Summary Comment As stated at the beginning of the Supplemental Information Section, the intent of the proposed rule is; 11 **

• to ensure that NRC inspectors be granted immediate and unannounced access to licensed facilities (i.e.,

unfettered access equivalent to access provided regular 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. 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... 11 (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

I tern No. Paragraph Comment Enclosure to LD-88-027 Page 2 of 3 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.

Item No. Paragraph 3 Supplementary 4 5 Information Supplementary Information 50.70(b)(4) Comment Enclosure to LD-88-027 Page 3 of 3 It is suggested that the second sentence in this Section be modified for the same reasons noted in Comment No.

2.

The suggested 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... 11 The third sentence makes only brief ref er-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. Consistent with the previous Comments, it is 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 1101881 vAJ>R)~ Cl>'t,1-~? Knoxville, Tenn. ~7~2'2 2 Aoril 1988 tJ,- FJC/:. OF 5,::1., ~t TAn f DOCKETING~ S[ V/Cf Secretary U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

BRANC!-i Attn: Docketing and Service Branch 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 go! Second: The safety, both of the plant and of the NRC inspector, would be jeopardized. NRG 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 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 inspector! ~ 4 t J I I .J l t Third: Although a bit out of my field, I hope someone with a ~etter knowledge of constitutional law will raise the ques4ion 'of the legality of this attempt at censorship. I realize that much of today's government works on the principle that might makes right, but I don't believe that trying to prohibit free speech is acceptable. Overall, at least until it is shown that the present rules result in unsafe practices, this additional attack on the few remaining rights of the licensee is totally unjustified. Yours truly, ~~ Victor 0. Christensen ~cknowledged by card..*. ~;.-.:!.~9,!..

r

• rf.'r. EJ5:rtt.t [{ U[.!..rCSv bJ.~Ml~~IOH t>OCKET ING & SERVICf SECT ION SfflC! OF HIE SECR~TAR'f 8r TH~ COMM tSS-fo¥-:f fJ£ctlini~i S~Mmlu P~~1f:W *r~ @Mg ~

L/r:J,-: --* -= _ Copie's-Rele,yf!,J L _:.:...* __.c:.*--"-------* ~cfd' I Copfi{ ~eplftS°u *~ 2... ~~itiaf ffi~1i,'r.ro'ff8JJ Jt;t !'2J~:l~ I I* I.

I I l

i.

I' . 8924 Feder~l Rt>gl~ter /- Vol. 53,.No. -5~ {..Friday, March 18, -1~,/ -Proposed ~ule~ examination shall be $21.16 per hour for base time and $24.68 per hour for overtime including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, as provided for in § 351.14, and $43.80 per hour for. certain laboratory services which are not -covered under the base time, overtime. and/ or holiday costs and which are required to determine the eligibility of an, technical animal fat for certification un -er the regulations in this Part. Such fees shall be charged for the time required to render such serv.ice, including, but not limited to, the time required for the travel of the inspector or inspectors in connection therewith. PART 352-{AMENDED]

8. The authority citation for Part 352 would be revised to read as follows:.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624:. 7 CFR 2.17(8) and (i}, 2.55.

9. Section 352.5(c) would be revised to read as follows:

§ 352.5 Fees and charges. (c) The fees to be charged and 'collected for service under the regulations in this Part shall be at the rate of $21.16 per hour for base time, $24.68 per hour for overtime including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and $43.80 per hour for certain laboratory services which are not covered under the base time, overtime, and/ or holiday costs. Such fees shall cover the costs of the service and shall be charged for the time required to render such service, including, but not limited to, the time required for the travel of the inspector or inspectors in connection therewith during the regularly scheduled administrative workweek. PART 354-{AMENDEDJ

10. The authority citation for Part.354 wo~d be revised to read !JB follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624; 7.CFR 2.17(g) and (!), 2.55. ~' ; *.

• r *'.,...- *,

11. Section 354.101 "[h) and (c) would be revised to read as follows:

1*. § 354.101 0~ a fee basla.- *_:.. 1!1~~ ~. *.' * *

• * *
• I' j.ia! -~l ho\\,\\r.for that part which is not covered under the base time, overtime, and/or holiday costs.

PART 355-(AMENDEDJ

12. The authority citation for Part 355 would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624; 7 CFR 2.17(g) and (I), 2.55 *.

13. Sectiop 355.12 would be revised to read as follows:

§ 355.12 Charge for service. The fees to tie charged and collected by the Administrator shall be $21.16 per hour for base time,. $24.68 per hour for overtime, includ.ing Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and $43.80 per hour for certa"in laboratory services which are not covered under the base time, overtime, an3/br holiday costs. Such fees shall reimburse the Service for the costs or the inspection service furnished. PART 362,-{AMENDED]

14. The authority citation for Part 362 would be revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624; 7 CFR 2.17(8) and (i), 2.55.

15. Section 362.S(c) would be revised to read as follows:

f 362.5 Fees and charges. (c) The fees to.be charged and collected for service under the ' regulations in this Part shall be at the rate of $21.16 per hour for base time, $24.68 per hour for overtime including Saturdays, Sundays, and holi4ays, and $43.80 per hour for certain laboratory .services which are not covered under the base time, overtime, and/ or holiday costs. Such fees shall cover the costs of the services and shall be charged for the time required for the travel of the inspector or inspectors in connection therewith during the regularly scheduled administrative workweek. Program for the cost of.the inspectibn - service furnished on any holiday

", f specified in paragraph (h) of this section: or for more than 8 h(?urs on any.*

day, or more than 40 hours in any administrative worlcweek Sunday through Saturday. Done at Washington, DC. on: March 8, 1988. Ronald J. Prucha, Actins Administrator. Food Safety and Inspection Service. 1 [FR Doc. 88-5968 Piled 3-17-&; 8:45°am] B!LLINO COO£ S41C>-QM-M .;;6. i NUCLEAR REGULATORY.. ;_-:._.*,;*,,:it! COMMISSION -~*,7,; 1:":::':**:'::*;;4_;;:~*- ~

• • _,.:1,~--:~1:(;,_.-r;~ _;_: *--~.. !.

10 CFR Part SO -:.. -1 .;,,,. "fl:.* * **, ;~;:t: Licensee Annour1cements of Inspectors AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its

• regulations to ensure that the presen*ce of NRC inspectors on power reactor sites is not announced or otherwise communicated to licensee 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 is 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 incidences where site and/or contractor personnel have been notifief;l of ~C's presence o_nsite Jta

'e_a PART 381-{AMENDEDJ -,.. ;; r: -i concern in-this a're ,... ;.* ~. *~* :l,., ;

16. The authority citation,

__ DATES::Subiriit *co would be revised to read as _1988. tomments r . ~*.... "'-"--'-"' y,- ~ -Authority; 21 ~LS~C. 463,. ~ ,

• s6 1md (I) 2.55.!- ',.u
• ~~**-*.

... I -"* * ~ :. -~ ~ *~... ~\\ ~--~--~*\\:'. : l,,'! C '17. Sec on.381.38(aJ would be (b) The charges for inspection service ' to rea as follows:

• M _

will be based on the time required to. {_.*.*~*if,**,~.**:.. .. * *:i***

• ,.~ £

~ perform.such services. The houriy rat~.o: § 381.38° Overtime and hollday,ln*~-~ ~~ere., shall be $21.16 for base timeJmd $24.68 service. .Co.mmis. _. for overtime or holiday work. *

• f,, i

. (a}%e"maifagemeiif o..

{c;) Charges for certain laboratory -- ** _ establishm*en(an importer,

• anaJysis or laboratory e,tain1na 6n 'of *~ <,

expor et s

• all 'PBY the Food

.. rabbits under this Part re_late~ a,t; t<:l. ' Insp~ctio. SeiJic~'$24;68~p~r, h6 ee, .~ -. : rpts~ection service shall ~e.~3.'80 per,.*;\\n. Pr!)famte~ployee to reimburse. ,.. i, 6;*..-. 11~* ~ :... _, t' c:/~!i - -- _! ** _ ;=~~ r_,.. ..I f

_ E,camihe commeru~cecei~d;at:.The .P.ublic Document Room~.171..7-H -et.NW.,.Washington..D£ 20555.

• *FURTHER INFORM'ATJON CONTAC~

0 rge Barber. tJ :S-. Nuclear Re&ulatory ' 1J11I1is.sion, Washington, DC-20555 lep~one (3or)_ 492:..1200,. ~ pL.EMENTARY INFO~MATION: This posed ruhr ilt intende<f!tb ensure tlia r insp.eato.rs he. g[,IJllterl,immediate. unannounced, acc.eas; (j;e, unfettered ess equivalent to acce.ss provided ular plant employees)'to licensed ilHies. following proper-identifi.c.ation

• compliance, w.ith,applicaWe.,aciress-trol.pro.oe.durem.'Ol! NR£prop.e.~es.

th na,acc.ess, amrtralime.as11nes*or.-Qdrell eans maY. h.e. empleyed. by, the:fii..eD.Bee. its contractors to _intentionaUY,_giYe npfice to other persons ~ilie-arrivaf rid.gresence,of a.NRG 1ns.p.ector. ala faciJny, unless. the.licensee..is. ipecifically_requested to do so by the NR-C inspector. There have b.eerr

• stances ib the past at seY.e.r.aJfucillties, wbere the al:>ility of properly Badged C inspectors to inSl?&Gl-.and asse.ss-n an unannounced.ba.si~ac.thriti.ea.

-lated' to tlie license. or construction_. rmit was compromised*oy the lfcensee .employees or oontractol"e~loiees*who* formed others at the. fucilily of'the. ¥esence of the NRC inspector.s. The. opo.sed.chang.e to 10 CFR 50.70 is to tif~ that NRC inspectors, badged.at facilicy, haY.e immediate access. to ngoi.ng activities as these. activities are

• }lejng performed without accompaniment and wjthout advanced.
• . noii.fication of the inspection. 'Phis ts
• especially important*during *non-nonn-al business hours when-operating

,pellSonnel might assume NRC inspectors woufd*not be on site. Environment Impact:_ Categorical' Exclusion. . The NRC has.determined tharthis, proposed change*is the type of.action ~escribed1in*.categpricalfexnlusibn 10: ~51.22(t)l'2)~ Therefore neitfier. an e J.ronmental' imP,act statement.non an.. e 11¥)nmental'. assessmen Lhas. be.en. . *;Pared.J,0r*tlu~.grcmosed..ml~~-. 4 -~ ~!,.'. **.., ~.

• ~.

Paper;w.oJ'k Reductlo ActtStatementi -The P.l;OPOsedrule,.clo_e~~o co~afut°~ w or amend'ed.iniol'I[l8.tfan.coll2ction:.;. requirement S~bi,e.c't, toAh.e, Pape~~._*_:* Redt.mti.on--Act*oh880,(,41,U.S.it, 3.501 et* r eq.) Filci.stingreqaixmnentsiwere.,,;;1,..-, a pipv.e<l by.1hi Offloe,of Managemen,;.:. and Bu~ge Bl?P!O:V8 :~-~~1~J..' i!

• '. / 1-L,,..A/',,,.ft*,!!;'f',.-,...,. *. ~u,.....,1'f\\,H*~

r**\\.,*.,*

1t .~.. 0 t I**,... *.:***:*,:;:...,*,.~ . ~-

• ' *.**,*;1-::/~ -~~p:i1 {!t~,'t.11.*,_.;_.. *

. "*~-.,,' ~.i.~:.-.;.1 "'tr.i..:**...c,r... ~: ). Regula to~ Anafys1s This pr.ogased:nule-will.have oo: significantJmp.acton.sta1e*and '.locat gover-runent&. and g~ogr.a-phical, ~gions-.

• It may:ha11Asignificant1 impact on health, safolfo:aruhth.e*env.ironment, but only. in>.

theisen of prev.enting.-ad'IZeJ'S&iinpaots:- on healt&..sa.fecy:_and,the*anvironmant* through:mo~ effecth1e inspeotlons TJ\\-e. intent of, ths-:rulu*i bJ,cfarify.,th 1Wg-inspecltJ131are-tb1na"'e a-ireails-tio picture of the actual.c_ondtt'ions*at~a:sill!1 amfi therefore,. be* better.*a ole-to-identify-potentiaJly.-dangerouS!condltion&-and'/-br practices for corrective action ood'to*

• elll!UE *!hat liCJmtre compli*with.rlaw.s, regulatio.n ' amfl,<U'del'lt mlminis.t.enedi bF the NRC- 'Illiis,con.s!i.tutits the-~

analysi ~n thia,propusBdirulei Regulatory*FleXcitiility*Cbrtl.fication In accordanceiwitli th.e.Regulatocy, Fle:icibililY. Act.,5it.LS,C.. 605_(_b.}, the Commission, certifies_ that this rule:d<1ea. not ha-v.e. a. s.ignifican e.sonomin impact on a substantialruunber of small, entities. The rula-applies,only to: licensees.authorized to construct or operate-nuclear w,wer r.eactors, wl\\o are norsmal!'busfa.ess entities within.the meaning *of the actor implementing regulations. Tt\\erefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis lias not been prepared. Bacldit-~ia. The NRC has determined' that a b~kfit ana~sis, is.not-required* fin, this prop.osedrule: because this amendment: is not within the definition qf backfittingi as: setl out in 1-0 CFR' 50.109(w)t~):

• List of Subjects in to*CFR Part 50.

---

....... 8925 A'.uttiorlty: Secs. 102,: 103; 104. ros. 161. ll!Z.

163, 186,.18!1, 68 !ital, 936. ~3?,.93,8, 9411, 953._ 954, 955, 958, as amendM, sec. 234: 83"Stat. 1244 as am.ended (42 U.S.C. 21.32. 21.3,1_2.l.34.. 2135, 2201, 2.232, 2233, 2236, 2239: 2282): secs. 201, as amended, 202.,206,.88 Stet..1'Z42.. a&; amended. 1244. 1246 {42 u:s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846). Sectiim,50,7.afso,iuued.unden l?ubJ...SSr. 601.,sec. 'I.0...9:f.8.tat..296h(:1Z:U.S.C..5.85.lj. Section 50.10 also issued_undef.SBCs.,Wl..lH!il 68 Stat. 936. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235): sec. 102, Pilb,.h..91!-190 Ba,Statt 8531(il2-U.S.C. 4332). ~tlona;!i<D2Sl,50 3m 50:55i and' 5Q56,alsP,is.sue.d,unde *sen.. Ul5.,68,Sltd:.95.5 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sectio~s 50.33a, 50.558\\,andl Appendi Q*al.ito-istmed--undersec: 102; Pob. h..91!--l!IIX 83tS11lt: 8S3l(112'.111Sl 4332Jt,*

• *Sectlbru5())311andl50 Sllalta,111-sued!undel"Seo:

2':.8&;5.ta 12'5 ~IDSiC:.'SM4} S'ectli:me-50.58, 5Q.'91,.andl30.l92!a1110,illlluedtun-dimllub1 L. 9T-415. 96\\Steti -201S:(Jt22llf1&e 2-ZB9f Section.50:Z~lm. isauedtunder-ae.c* W2. 66: Stat. 939.'{(4'2'U S:G-2.15Z)* Selltinns,50!80-50,81 alsa,iilmttd..underrse.a: 184i,6i.'Sla.c.!JS.as: amanded,( ~H.:S,C::..22511). Secti:om50:103'alllo* iseued.undl!r-sfl(l. 108:,S&Statl 939..as; _ amended!( 2:l,I.S,_<;:. 2188).A1?11eruilx,Y.al11ID issued,umler-se-c *. 187.,811:Stat..955'(~2'1i1.SiC-2237). For the purposes of,se:c. 22.1i 6B Star.91i&.a1t amended.(12-US,<i:.* 22Z3.)* §.§.S0.1D,(9l.. (b}1 and*(c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.M..and.SO.OOt!il are issued under sec.. 161lb), 68.Sla.L948..as. amende.d'(42 u:s.e. 2201(PJJ; {§_ 50.lO(pJ,and [c}. and 50:54'are ills.uerl'undeLSec. llil(j);,68 Stat. 949, as amended'(tttl:S:C:... ~I}); amt § §. 50.9, 50:55{e); 50.W(ri}: 50.70; 50.71, S0.72. 50!79. and 50.78*are.issued'under.se.c. 181(.i:>J, 68'Slat. 950; as*amended!(42 11:S:C. 22011b}).

2. In §-- 50.7.0, paragraph (b)(~) is;ad.ded:

to read as follows: § 50.70 lnspectk>na...}}