ML23151A559

PRM-050-047 - 52FR01200 - Quality Technology Company: Petition for Rulemaking

ML23151A559
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/12/1987
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PRM-050-047, 52FR01200
Download: ML23151A559 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 01/12/1987 TITLE: / PRM-050-047 - 52FR01200 - QUALITY TECHNOLOGY J COMPANY: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING CASE

REFERENCE:

PRM-050-047 52FR01200 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

PAGE 1 OF 2 STATUS OF RULEMAKING RECORD 1 OF 1 PROPOSED RULE: PRM-050-047 RULE NAME: QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY: PETITION FOR RULEMAKIN G

PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 52FR01200 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 01/12/87 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 34 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 03/13/87 EXTENSION DATE: 05/13/87 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 53FR27701 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 07 /22/88 OTES ON: PETITION CONCERNED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PROGRAM FOR UTILITY ATUS .: EMPLOYEES TO REPORT WRONGDOINGS AND EMPLOYEE CONCERNS. PETITION F RULE: DENIED BY EDO ON 7/11/88 . . FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

PRESS PAGE DOWN OR ENTER TO SEE RULE HISTORY OR STAFF CONTACT PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY PAGE 2 OF 2 HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PRM-050-047 RULE TITLE: QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY: PETITION FOR RULEMAKIN G

PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 01/07/87 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 07 /11/88 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACT!: MICHAEL T. LESAR MAIL STOP: 4000MNBB PHONE: 492-7758 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

PRESS PAGEUP TO SEE STATUS OF RULEMAKING PRESS ESC TO SEE ADDITIONAL RULES OR (S) TO STOP DISPLAY

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-047 (52FR01200)

In the Matter of QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY: PETITION FOR RULEMAKIN G

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

- 11/14/86 10/27/86 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY (THERO) 01/09/87 01/07/87 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING 01/15/87 12/23/86 LTR QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY (THERO) REQUESTING CORRECTION TO PETITION 01/23/87 01/21/87 FEOERAL REGISTER NOTICE - RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING; CORRECTION 02/04/87 02/02/87 COMMENT OF JAMES THERO ( 1) 02/11/87 02/07/87 COMMENT OF ECOLOGY/ALERT (E. NEMETHY) ( 2) 02/27/87 02/26/87 COMMENT OF BISHOP,LIBERMAN,COOK,PURCELL &REYNOLDS (J. MICHAEL MCGARRY, III) ( 3) 03/02/87 02/26/87 COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS ( 4) 03/10/87 03/05/87 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (D. W. EDWARDS) ( 5) 03/13/87 03/10/87 COMMENT OF WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.

(BART D. WITHERS) ( 6) 03/13/87 03/11/87 COMMENT OF UNION ELECTRIC (DONALD F. SCHELL) ( 7) 03/13/87 03/12/87 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON (SHELDON TRUBATCH) ( 8) 03/13/87 03/13/87 COMMENT OF NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P.C.

(ALVIN H. GUTTERMAN) ( 9) 03/13/87 03/11/87 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR AWARENESS NETWORK (ROBERT V. EYE) ( 10) 03/16/87 03/11/87 COMMENT OF THERESA WILSON ( 12) 03/16/87 03/09/87 COMMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (R. L. MITTL) ( 13)

DOCKET NO. PRM-050-047 (52FR01200)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 04/22/87 04/15/87 COMMENT OF SYNDECO, INC. (GEORGE D. STEWART) ( 33) 05/04/87 04/30/87 COMMENT OF UNION OF CONNERNED SCIENTISTS (KENNEDY P. MAIZE) ( 34) 05/13/87 05/13/87 LTR BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS (HORIN)

REVISING COMMENTS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON 3/13/87 AND FIRM NAME CHANGE (SEE COMMENT #11) 05/28/87 05/28/87 LTR BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS SUBMITTING A REPLACEMENT ORIGINAL OF THE COMMENTS FILED ON 5/13/87 (SEE COMMENT #11) 07/11/88 07/11/88 DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SIGNED BY VICTOR STELLO

Copy to Secy-Original sent to the Office of the Federal Register tor publlcaUan ~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-47]

Quality Technology Company; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

• AGENCY:

ACTION:

SUMMARY

Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission

• Denial of petition for rulemaking .

The Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-47) file d by Mr. Owen L. Thero, President of Quality Technology Company. The petition is being denied because (1) the existing regulations provide adequate assurance that safety related concerns are being reported; (2) the proposed add;t ional regulation would not substantially increase the overall protection of the publ ic health and safety; and, (3) the need *for the proposed rule is not otherwise demonstrated by the information provided.

The petitioner requested that NRC require all utilities involved in a nuclear program to (1) report all identified concerns relating to wrongdoing activities to the Office of Investigation and (2) maintain a nationwide employee concern program. Wrongdoing activities are not speci fically defined by the petitioner but are assumed to be criminal-type activities. Examples might include use of drugs or alcohol on the job and the falsification of documents or records. The NRC has carefully considered the issues raised in the petition, and has taken them into account in reaching a decision on the areas which fall within its jurisdiction.

~ 4) I i~t"-,0~

J\J ,_')...., 0

~_,r

~ ~ {'R 'J-??0/

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for ~ulemaking, the public comments received, and the NRC 1 s letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co0111ission, Washington DC 20555, Telephone (301)-492-3795.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Petition II. Basis for Request III. Public Co0111ents on the Petition IV. Staff Action on the Petition V. Reasons for Denial 2

I

The Petition

• In a letter dated October 27, 1986, Mr. Owen L. Thero, President of Quality Technology Company (QTC} filed with the NRC a petition for rulemaking. The petitioner requested that NRC expand the scope of its regulations so that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1)_ r~ort all identified concerns relating to wrongdoing activities to the Office of Investigation, much along the same lines as is required to report nuclear safety-related issues, and (2)

- maintain a nationwide employee concern program incorporating the applicable facets of the Employee Response Team recently conducted at the Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Facility.

Basis for Request The petitioner (QTC) bases the petition on their experience gained from involvement in employee concern programs at several utilities, most recently the TVA Watts Bar Facility. This involvement included the collection, collation

- and investigation of safety concerns. As a result of this experience, the petitioner states it had been in the unique position to observe the program's effectiveness from both the perspective o.f management and the perspective of the employee. The petitioner contends that because of this unique vantage point and experience, they have observed that employees engaged in the construction or operation of a nuclear facility have the most accurate and insightful infonnation about safety related issues. The petitioner claims that several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern programs conducted by QTC at Watts Bar and other facilities that otherwise would not have surfaced.

3 I

QTC believes that without resolution ~f employee identified safety-related concerns, the potential exists for costly hardware failures or potential danger to the employees of nuclear facilities or the general public.

The petitioner further believes that 1:_~e__jisposition of wrongdoing activities by the licensee is not clear and in their experience the licensee has not allowed QTC to investigate reported wrongdoing issues nor have the licensees

- willingly reported such activities to the NRC or to the Department of Justice.

QTC also claims that licensees have no effective corrective action mechanism to investigate or resolve wrongdoing issues; therefore, a corrective action mechanism is needed.

The petitioner concludes that the sheer number of identified concerns along with the very high rate of substantiation (greater than 50%) more than justifies the need for a nationwide employee concern program to be authorized and defined by law.

4

Public Comments on the Petition A notice of filing of the petition for rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1987, (52 FR 1200) and included the full text of the proposal. Interested persons were invited to submit written co1T111ents. The co1T111ent period was subsequently extended 60 days to provide sufficient time for public co1T1111ents. In response to the invitation in the Federal Register soliciting comments on the petition for rulemaking, a total of 34 letters

- were received. These letters came from individuals, law firms, public interest groups, utilities, and other companies that manage nuclear plants. Five col1illents favored the petition and twenty-six co1T111ents were opposed to the petition. One col11TIE!nt requested an extension of the c01T111ent period to allow more time to respond. One co1T111ent favored the thrust of the proposal, but recorrrnended that it be held in abeyance pending Congressional action on some proposed Inspector General bills. The remaining conment by a Congressman favored the first part of the petition (i.e. report all identified concerns related to wrongdoing activities) but could not support the second part (establish an employee concern program) if there were not attendant requirements as to how the program would be operated in order to guarantee its integrity. For the purpose of sunmarizing, this split corrment was considered as a favorable response.

Hence, there were seven corrments (21%) favoring the petition and twenty-six corrrnents (79%) opposed. The seven co11111ents favoring the petition came from two sources. Three comments were. from individual citizens, three from public interest groups and, one from a Congressman. A surmnary of the significant conments in favor of the proposal are highlighted below.

5

A rule promulgated in response to the petition.would:

Provide a safe, confidential means for information to be volunteered by employees with no fear of reprisal.

Be conducive to the identification of personnel who are using drugs or alcohol.

Define wrongdoing activities to include non-nuclear and non-utility business, e.g. drug sales and bookmaking.

Require licensees and holders of construction permits to report allegations of management wrongdoing or evidence bearing on the character and/or suitability of management.

The twenty-six co1T111ents opposed to the petition included twenty-four from utilities or companies that run utilities, one from a company (SYNDECO) that is a subsidiary of Detroit Edison Co. and the remaining corrment was from the Atomic Industrial Forum. A su1T111ary of the significant conunents opposing the petition are highlighted below:

The petition may be motivated by self interest on the part of the petitioner (not considered).

Current regulations are adequate to ensure safety problems are reported.

Utilities' experience with employee concern programs does not support the petitioner's claim that the rate of suhstantiation is greater than 50%.

No evidence was presented to show that public safety would be significantly enhanced as a result of the proposed rule.

Various utilities indicated they were not aware of any industry problems regarding licensee treatment of employee concerns

• 6

Several employee concern programs voluntarily set up by utilities currently exist.

No factual need was provided for the proposed rule.

Mandatory employee concern programs could reduce the effectiveness of industry's voluntary programs by reducing management flexibility and safety related matters could go unreported.

Current utility experience does not justify the imposition of additional regulatory reporting requirements.

One of the public co11111ents raised an issue that was not raised by the petitioner. The issue is: Provide a safe, confidential means for information to be provided by employees with no fear of reprisal. Employees who wish to provide information or who have concerns have two options available to them.

They may discuss the particular concern with their supervisor or plant management.

If they cannot obtain satisfactory resolution or if they do not desire to use this avenue, they can take the concern directly to the NRC. NRC has maintained a policy that allows licensee employees to bring concerns to its attention.

This can be done either verbally or in writing and can be done through the resident inspector, regional personnel, or NRC Headquarters personnel. This option may afford the individual confidentiality.

7

Staff Action on the PetitiQn The proposed petition was published i~ the Federal Register in January 1987. The corrment period was extended (thru mid-May) in order to provide sufficient time for public c0111J1ents. The resumption of action on the petition was delayed for approximately six months because of the NRC reorganization and the subsequent realignment of duties and re_~onsibilities, and the prioritization of ongoing work. Action on the petition resumed in mid-November of 1987.

- Reasons for Denial The NRC has considered the petition, the public comments received, and the current regulatory structure. After consideration of the above, NRC has concluded that the petitioner's request should be denied. The discussion that follows addresses the various allegations contained in the petition and the NRC response to each of these allegations.

1. ALLEGATION Several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern programs that QTC has either conducted or been associated with at several nuclear facilities that otherwise would not have surfaced.

RESPONSE

The main purpose of an employee concern program is to provide a forum in which to resolve employee concerns about the safety of a nuclear plant.

Several utilities have established such programs, on a voluntary basis, some at a considerable expenditure of resources to assure that all employee concerns are investigated and resolved. Many of these programs have continued .

into the operational phases of a plants existence. There is no question

that these programs can and will identify employee concerns. But no evidence was presented that these concerns would not have surfaced through some other mechanism such as: a good quality assurance program, the nonnal employer-employee working relationship; or by reporting to the NRC. Although a large number of speclf_ic concern files from Watts-Bar are in the possession of NRC, the infonnation contained in these files is very cryptic and generally does not contain specific technical detail to support the assertions by the petitioner. Additionally, no specific documentation concerning the rate of substantiation at Watts-Bar or other units has been provided by the petitioner to support the assertions.

2. ALLEGATION Unresolved nuclear safety-related concerns could have surfaced through a series of costly hardware failures and/or potential endangennent of the employees and the general public if allowed to go into operation uncorrected.

RESPONSE

In response to this assertion, one of the corrmenters (an engineering firm) felt strongly that there are very few engineering decisions made that are totally conclusive. Instead, considerable expertise and judgment go into the detennination of most requirements of this type. The corrmenter stated that management makes decisions based on analysis and opinions.

Experience has shown that very few, if any, employee concerns actually require hardware changes and very few of the hardware changes materially improve safety. No documented evidence of any type has been provided by the petitioner to support this assertion.

9

3. ALLEGATION The disposition of wrongdoing activities by licensees fs not clear

• In our experience, the licensee has n~t allowed us to investigate wrongdoing issues reported. Neither have they been willing to report these activities to the NRC or to the Department of Justice. They have no effective corrective action mechanism to investigate or resolve wrongdoing issues. These issues fall into a "black hole."

RESPONSE

In contemplating the addition of new regulations, NRC must ask if the new regulations are required to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety. The next level of questioning is: Will the proposed rule result in enhanced health and safety or an improved plant operation? Finally, what 1s the cost of the new regulation versus the benefits to be derived? This applies to the licensee as well as NRC.

The present regulations set up a rather extensive system of reporting requirements which licensees are required to follow. The regulatory system is designed to provide a framework to ensure that events which are significant to the safe operation of nuclear power plants are reported to NRC so that the appropriate corrective action can be taken. In cases where employee concerns have not been resolved to the employees satisfaction, there are means available for discussing their concerns with.NRC. To date, non-safety-related concerns have essentially been the responsibility of licensee management. If licensee management demonstrates that they are unwilling or unable to handle such concerns, and NRC detennines that these concerns are a problem at more than a few isolated plants, then NRC can consider taking a more direct action. Until then, licensee management 10

should be given the opportunity to address the matter. The petitioner has not provided any factual evidence to show that.a problem exists at any plant as alleged in the proposal.

4. ALLEGATION The sheer numbers of concerns identified along with the very high rate of substantiation {greater than 50%) more_J:han justifies the need for a nationwide employee concern program to be authorized and defined by law.

RESPONSE

The petitioner's assertion appears to be based on experience gained primarily at TVA s Watts Bar Facility.

1 Before considering the implementation of a mandatory program on all nuclear power plants in the United States, a definitive basis should be established to show that such a requirement is in fact needed. As noted in reason #1 on page 9, the petitioner has provided no evidence or specific documentation other than its stated experience at one facility to support its assertion. With respect to experience with substantiation rates, three of the c011111enters stated that their experience does not support a substantiation rate in excess of 50%. In fact, their experience reflects a-substantiation rate which is significantly less than 50%.

The infonnation provided is not sufficient to establish that a problem exists in the 11 industry 11 and that a rulemaking is needed to solve the problem.

In addition to reviewing the assertions of the petitioner and co11111ents from the public, the petition was also examined in light of the existing regulatory structure. Although there are no regulations currently in effect regarding specific reporting of identified concerns related to wrongdoing activities as raised by the petitioner, there are several regulations in effect concerning the reporting of safety-related matters. These regulations are briefly listed below.

10 CFR 21 reporting of defects and noncompli~n~e 10 CFR 50.55(e) requires holders of construction pennits to notify NRC regarding deficiencies in design or construction which could adversely affect safety.

10 CFR 50.7 prohibits licensees from discriminating against employees engaging in certain protected activit~~s including providing information to the Coll1llission regarding violations.

10 CFR 50.72 requires the notification of NRC regarding various classes of emergency and non-emergency events.

10 CFR 50.73 requires the notification of NRC of specifc events reportable via the licensee event report program.

Appendix B to 10 CFR 50, criteria 15 and 16 requires the licensees to document defects and take the appropriate corrective action including defects brought to the attention of the licensee by employees.

10 CFR 70.52 requires the licensee to report on accidental criticality or loss or theft of special nuclear material.

10 CFR 73.71 requires the licensee to report on unaccounted for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, radiological sabotage or other events which significantly threaten safeguards.

In addition to the above regulations, the NRC is presently preparing a proposed rule concerning fitness for duty at nuclear power plants which is expected to be published for public co111T1ent in June or July 1988. The objective of the fitness for duty rule is to provide for the public health and safety by eliminating access to protected areas at nuclear power plants by personnel who are judged to be unfit for duty. Personnel considered unfit for duty are those who are under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause which in any way affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties. Employee assistance programs would be available for rehabilitation.

The regulations cited above have been promulgated by NRC with the intention of identifying deficiencies and non-compl1~nces that either reduce or have the

- potential to reduce the degree of protection afforded to public health and safety or the environment. It is not NRC's intention to receive all employee non-safety-related concerns. The management of the utilities have certain responsibilities relative to employee concerns and as long as the concerns do not affect safety, they should remain the responsibility of utility management.

If the utility management is not responsive or ff there is concern with retaliation, there are adequate alternative means to bring matters of health and safety concern to the NRC for resolution, as discussed in this notice.

It appears that good management practices by the utilities and the existing regulatory structure together provide a reasonable assurance that valid problems identified by employees will be investigated and corrected. In light of the above, no additional action is required at this time.

Because each of the issues raised in the petition have been substantially addressed and resolved, the NRC has denied the petition.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this //

-d day o For the Nuclear Regulatory Co0111ission Executive Director for Operations 13

DO KET NUMBER-~

PETITION RULE PRM 5:J-47 LAW OFFICES

{5~ F~/Z~o/

- t BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLD 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W.

~¥ti WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036-3006 (202) 857-9800 *a7 MAY 28 P3 :2a Off,,. * . I WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL May 28, 1987 OOCK[. Tjt.[ 1 ,. . r ,' 1Te;LEX: 440574 INTLAW UI 3RANC1-< TELECOPIER: (202) 857* 9846 Mr. Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Docket No. PRM-50-47 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Jan. 12, 1987))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This is to inform you that we are submitting a replacement original of the comments filed by us on May 13, 1987. The comments have not been revised in any substantive manner, but have merely been placed under our firm letterhead. Please substitute these comments for those submitted previously. A copy of the replacement comments is enclosed.

Sincerely, Enclosure (comments on Quality Technology petition for rulemaking)

BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON. O.C. 20036*3006 (202) 8!57*9800 Tll:U:X 440!!7A IHTLJ>W UI WRIT!:R'S OIRl!:CT OIAI..

n:J.£COP1!:R (202) 8157*118"'6 May 13, 1987 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Docket No. PRM-50-47 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Jan. 12, 1987))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On Monday, January 12, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") published in the Federal Register a notice inviting public comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company. See 52 Fed. Reg. 1200, 2951 (1987).

4t The petitioner's proposed rule would establish by regulation new requirements that all utilities (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program. On behalf of System Energy Resources, Inc., Northeast Utilitie~, Duke Power Company, Florida Power Corporation, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, T.U. Electric, Southern California Edison Co. and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, we respectfully submit the following comments on this proposal.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 2 I. Discussion Petitioner's proposal states that the existing ~eporting and employee concerns regulations are only "effective to a degree." It is alleged that it is not clear how licensees dispose of "wrongdoing activities" (a term that the petitioner does not define), that they do not willingly report such activities, and that they have no effective corrective action mechanism to investigate or resolve wrongdoing issues. Our position is that the existing regulations are more than adequate to assure that nuclear plants are constructed and operated in a safe manner, and that employee concerns are adequately addressed. Petitioner's proposed regulaiions would not significantly improve plant performance or increase the protection of the public health and safety. Rather, they would inundate the NRC with new data, the processing of which would involve time and resources the NRC does not have to accomplish a task that NRC does not need to perform.

A. Existing Reporting Requirements.

Present regulations set up an extensive system of reporting requirements which requires licensees to notify the NRC of various defects, events, incidents, and instances of noncompliance. The system is designed to provide a framework in which events significant to the operation and safety of nuclear power facilities are presented to the Commission so that appropriate regulatory action can be taken. Examples of selected reporting requirements are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 3 Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §5846) requires that the Commission be notified of defects or instances of noncompliance. Section 206(a) states:

Any individual director, or responsible officer of a firm constructing, owning, operating, or supplying the components of any facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended . . . or pursuant to this chapter, who obtains information reasonably indicating that such facility or activity or basic components supplied to such facility or activity (1) fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order, or license of the Commission relating to substantial safety hazards, or (2) contains a defect which could create a substantial safety hazard, as defined by regulations which the Commission shall promulgate, shall immediately notify the Commission of such failure to comply, or of such defect, unless such person has actual knowledge that the Commission has been adequately informed of such defect or failure to comply.

Section 206(b) provides for criminal sanctions against persons who knowingly and consciously fail to provide the required notice. Section 206(d) grants the Commission authority to "conduct such reasonable inspections and other enforcement activities as needed to insure compliance with the provisions of this section."

The implementing regulations for Se?tion 206 are found in 10 C.F.R. Part 21. Section 21.21 sets forth procedures to be followed in order to comply with Section 206. Subsection

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 4 21.2l(a) requires that appropriate procedures be adopted to provide for evaluation of deviations, and to assure that a director or responsible officer is informed of a reportable situation as defined by Section 206. 10 C.F.R. §21.2l(b) then requires this person (or some other designated person) to notify the Commission when he obtains information reasonably indicating such a defect or failure to comply. The subsection goes on to describe the proper contents and timeliness of such notification.

10 C.F.R. §21.41 states that NRC representatives shall be permitted to inspect the Licensee's records, premises, activities, and basic components as necessary to insure that the purposes of Part 21 are carried out. Licensees are required by

§21.51 to maintain records which are required to assure compliance with the Part 21 regulations.

Holders of nuclear plant construction permits are subject to the reporting requirements found in 10 C.F.R. §50.55(e). The permit holder must notify the NRC:

. .

• of each deficiency found in design and construction, which, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, and which represents:

(i) A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program . . . or (ii) A significant deficiency in final design . . . or (iii) A significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, system, or component . . . or (iv) A significant deviation from performance specifications . . . .

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 5 The section goes on to describe the proper contents of the notification, and set time limits within which deficiencies must be reported. The report must contain sufficient information to permit analysis and evaluation of the deficiency and any corrective actions which may have been taken.

10 C.F.R §S50.72 and 50.73 govern the reporting of various "events" which affect plant operation or pose threats to the safety of plant personnel or the public. Section 50.72 requires that licensees licensed under either S50.2l(b) or §50.22 notify the NRC Operations Center of the declaration of any of the Emergency Classes specified in the licensee's Emergency Plan, or of non-Emergency events described in §50.72(b). If an Emergency Class is declared, the licensee must notify the NRC immediately after informing the appropriate State or local agencies. In no case should the NRC be notified more than one hour after the declaration. Section 50.72(b)(l) lists a series of non-emergency events or conditions which must also be reported to the NRC within one hour. A list of similar, but less serious, events is found in §50.72(b)(2). These must be reported within four hours. These reportable events involve problems in plant operation, actuation of safety features, threats to the safety of plant personnel, etc.

Section 50.73 creates the Licensee Event Report system.

This requires licensees to make detailed reports within thirty days of the listed events. These events are similar to the non-emergency events of §50.72 which must also be immediately

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 6 reported by phone -- i.e., deviations from the plant's Technical Specifications, events which could prevent safety functions, and impermissible releases of radioactivity.

10 C.F.R. Part 20 has several provisions which require licensees to notify the NRC of significant events. Section 20.402 requires licensees to report the theft or loss of nuclear materials. Subsection (a)(l) states:

Each licensee shall report to the Commission by telephone, immediately after it determines that a loss or theft of licensed material has occurred in such quantities and under such circumstances that it appears to the licensee that a substantial hazard may esult to persons in unrestricted areas.

1 In addition to immediate notification, a detailed written report describing the incident must be submitted within thirty days.

Holders of nuclear plant operating licenses must submit this report in accordance with the procedures described in 10 C.F.R.

§50.73.

10 C.F.R. §20.403 requires notification of "incidents."

e Such incidents include the exposure of individuals to radiation, the release of radioactive material, a loss of operation of any facilities affected, or property damage. Notification must be either immediate or within twenty-four hours, depending upon the seriousness of the incident.

!/ Other regulations require immediate notification of the NRC, including 10 C.F.R. §20.205 (discovery of leakage in shipped packages containing nuclear materials) and 10 C.F.R. §73.71 (reports of unaccounted-for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, radiological sabotage, or events which significantly threaten or lessen the effectiveness of safeguards).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 7 10 C.F.R. §20.405 requires written reports within thirty days describing any occurrences of overexposure to radiation or excessive levels and concentrations of radioactivity. Again, holders of nuclear plant operating licenses must report these incidents in accordance with the procedures described in section 50.73. This is in addition to the information required by paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 20.405, which includes: the extent of exposure of individuals to radiation, levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactive material involved, the cause of the exposure, levels, or concentrations, and corrective steps taken or planned.

10 C.F.R. S50.36(c) describes several categories which must be included in the Technical Specifications. Among these are safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, and limiting conditions for operation. If these are exceeded, do not function properly, or are not met, the incident must be reported to the NRC both by immediate notification and by written report. In addition to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§50.36(c), it is standard for licensees to include plant-specific events and conditions in their Tech Specs which must be reported.

B. Existing System for Processing Employees' Concerns~

It is desirable that employees have a means to raise safety-related concerns in an atmosphere conducive to the free flow of information. The existing system is intended to provide employees with such means. Programs implementing the

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 8 regulations cited above and the Quality Assurance Program required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix Bare designed to enable any employee to raise safety concerns with no fear of retribution.

For example, 10 C.F.R. S21.2l(a), which, as mentioned above, requires licensees to notify the NRC of the existence of a defect or instance of noncompliance, requires that procedures are set up to insure that reportable concerns are brought to the attention of management. The section states that:

(a) Each individual, corporation, partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall adopt appropriate procedures to:

(2) Assure that a director or responsible officer is informed if the construction or operation of a facility, or activity, or a basic component supplied for such facility or activity:

(i) Fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order or license of the Commission relating to a substantial safety hazard, or (ii) Contains a defect Appendix B of Part 50 makes each license applicant responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program. Measures must be established under this program to assure that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily. Particularly relevant are Criteria I and XVI. Criterion I states that:

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 9

[t]he persons and organizat~ons performing quality assurance functions. shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. Such persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level such that this required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations, are provided.

Criterion XVI requires that measures be established to correct conditions adverse to quality:

Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

Quality assurance programs at licensed nuclear power plants are designed to insure that all defects, events, incidents, and instances of noncompliance that affect the plant's safety are

.brought to light and resolved. Quality assurance personnel are provided with the authority and organizational freedom to Criterion I defines the quality assurance functions as being "those of (a) assuring that an appropriate quality assurance program is established and effectively executed and (b) verifying, such as by checking, auditing, and inspection, that activities affecting the safety-related functions have been correctly performed."

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 10 adequately carry out these programs. All reportable events and conditions are to be brought to the attention of responsible officers and directors. Also, licensees have systems that permit employees to raise safety concerns, such as QA hotlines (including toll-free numbers), mail-in concern forms with pre-paid envelopes, and on-site offices of independent safety teams.

Beyond all this, it is not uncommon for licensees to voluntarily set up employee concerns programs which are operated by independent contractors.

Should an employee feel that licensee management is not properly examining and/or reporting concerns brought to its attention, this employee may bring his/her concern directly to the NRC. An employee choosing this route is protected by Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. This section, and its implementing regulation, 10 C.F.R. §50.7, protects employees engaged in certain activities from retaliatory discrimination by the employer. Section 50.7(a)(l) describes the protected activities:

(1) The protected activities include but are not limited to:

(i) Providing the Commission information about possible violations of requirements imposed under either of the above statutes [Energy Reorganization Act and Atomic Energy Act];

(ii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; or (iii) Testifying in .any Commission proceeding. 3

}/ According to 10 C.F.R. S50.7(a)(2), these activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee's action.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 11 Section 50.7(e) requires that licensees, permittees, and applicants post Form NRC-3, "Notice to Employees," on its premises where employees can observe it on their way to and from their place of work and be informed of their rights under Sections 210 and 50.7. An employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against may seek a remedy by filing a complaint ~ith the Department of Labor. Possible remedies 4

include reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages. The employer may also have its license denied, revoked, or suspended, be assessed a civil penalty, or be the subject of

. 5 some ot h er en f orcement ac t ion.

C. The Requested Rule Change Would Not Significantly Improve the Existing System The regulations governing reporting requirements and the area of employee concerns are designed to assure'the safety and good performance of nuclear facilities. The existing system provides a high level of assurance that defects, instances of noncompliance, and the various events and incidents described in the regulations will be discovered, investigated, documented, and corrected. The regulations are, for the most part, very clear in describing the types of events and conditions which must be reported, the proper contents of such notification, and the appropriate time frame within which reports should be submitted.

!/ 10 C.F.R. S50.7(b).

2/ 10 C.F.R. §50.7(c).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 12 The system -is not designed to be a conduit between employees and the NRC. Rather, it is designed to provide the Commission with information regarding specified events and conditions which it has determined to be important to safe plant operation. Using this information, the Commission oversees and audits safe operation. It does not manage the plants, however.

This is the job of licensee management, which is responsible for filtering the significant safety data from the trivial in deciding whether a situation must be reported. Should an employee feel that this arrangement is not functioning properly, and that a particular concern should be brought to the Commission's attention, Section 210 provides him/her with a method of bypassing the established internal system. Section 210, record-keeping requirements imposed on licensee management, and the NRC's ability to inspect, audit, and investigate all contribute to the assurance that any possible shortcomings in the rep9rting system do not prevent important information from

- reaching the Commission.

The petitioner requests that the Commission promulgate new regulations which would make employee concerns programs mandatory, and would require utilities to report all employee concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" to the NRC's Office of Investigation. The petition states "(i]t is . . . clear that several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern program(s] QTC conducted,' or

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 13 were associated with, at several facilities that otherwise would not have surfaced." Even assuming this to be true, it can be questioned whether mandating a particular type of program would improve plant performance and safety, or would instead stifle the 'evolution of programs that meet the needs of Licensee management and the NRC. Further, mandating such programs may not be justified when the costs of such programs are considered.

Nor does petitioner show that mandating such programs would improve safety. The proper functioning and adequate safety of nuclear facilities are the NRC's concerns. It is not the NRC's function to examine all employee complaints in the first instance. Nor does the NRC have the resources to do so. The NRC properly looks to licensee management to deal with employee concerns in the first instance and to take appropriate action. 6 For it to ,do otherwise would be to inject itself into areas of management-employee relations which are not its proper domain.

Also, since devising a method of screening the significant e, complaints from the insignificant would be extremely difficult, implementation of petitioner's proposal would also require a ii The NRC often places the responsibility for evaluating information for materiality on the licensee. For example, in its proposed rule to codify the obligations of licensees and applicants for licenses to provide complete and accurate information, the Commission determined that it is the responsibility of licensees to scrutinize information and determine whether it is reportable. While it is the Commission's responsibility to provide guidance on what type of information is deemed to be material and, thus, reportable, the submission of a report would depend on the licensee's recognition of materiality.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 14 huge increase in the resources necessary for the NRC to process employee concerns. Absent additional funding from Congress, these resources would have to be diverted from other important NRC activities in order to accomplish the unnecessary task of evaluating every allegation made by employees. This would be extremely wasteful since, at bottom, the NRC would have a list of safety-significant complaints which the existing reporting system would have provided far more efficiently. Meanwhile, extensive resources would have been expended in investigating complaints which are not related to the safe operation of the facility or, worse, appear at first glance to be significant but are in reality groundless, and motiv~ted by a desire to create problems for licensee management. For example, an employee who was denied a raise might try to intimidate or get revenge on management by claiming that his supervisor harassed him for raising safety concerns. Such a complaint would, according to petitioner's proposal, require NRC investigation.

The Federal government is aware of the problems that would result from overburdening the NRC with every complaint and allegation employees might make. This issue was addressed in its brief in opposition to a motion for certiorari in Kansas Gas

& Electric Co. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied, 106 s.ct. 3311 (1986). The government's concern was to maintain a manageable flow of information, and consequently, to protect the quality assurance program established by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. The brief states in footnote 7:

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 15 This problem is further compounded for the NRC because, were all employees to comalain directly to the NRC about perceive deficiencies, the Commission would be required to diverb its limited resources away from other nuclear safety matters to the investigation and resolution of these complaints * * .

• Thus, if the flow of information through a quality assurance program dries up, substantial strain and disruption could result for the NRC in enforctng nuclear safety requirements and in issuing op rating licenses to nuclear utilities. 7 [Emphasis added.]

Thus, it is evident that properly implemented programs under the present regulations would be a more efficient method of maintaining plant quality than petitioner's proposal would be.

The existing reporting system, while it could perhaps be refined and simplified (the antithesis of what petitioner proposes), is adequate.

Finally, the changes in licensees' organizations which would be required by the proposal would, in all probability, be considered a 11 backfit 11 as defined by 10 C.F.R. §50.109.

Consequently, the Commission would be required to prepare a report, in which it analyzed specific factors, before the backfit could be imposed. A backfit is defined by Section 50.109(a)(l) as:

• .

• the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, 21 Brief for the Federal Respondent in Opposition at 11, Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 s.ct. 3311 (1986) (No. 85-1403).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 16 construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position * . .

The creation of a mandatory employee concerns program and changes in reporting requirements would certainly be a "modification of or addition to" the organization required to operate a facility. If that is the case, Section 50.109(a)(3) allows a backfit to be required only when:

The Commission * . . determines, based on the analysis described in paragraph (c) of this section, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection.

Section 50.109(c) lists factors which are to be considered, as appropriate, in any backfitting analysis. These factors include:

(3) Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental off-site release of radioactive material; (4) Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees; (5) Installation and continuing costs associated with the backfit * . .

(6) The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements; (7) The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed backfit and the availability of such resources.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

.. May 13, 1987

• Page 17 These factors have been discussed above. Petitioner has not shown that plant quality would be significantly improved or that the protection of the public health and safety would be substantially increased as a result of its proposal. Instead, the NRC could be overburdened by employee complaints which would bypass the licensee's management organization, including the quality assurance program, and various reporting requirements which have been established. It is clear that, under this analysis, a backfit should not be allowed. Regardless of whether petitioner's proposal is held to fall within the backfit rule, however, the considerations discussed above would still militate against new regulations implementing the proposal.

II. Conclusion The NRC has established regulations which provide employees with methods of airing grievances and raising concerns.

Employees are protected by law from employer harassment or retaliation should they choose to raise concerns directly with the NRC. Quality regulations also provide assurance that quality workers will not suffer retaliation for reporting safety defects to management. Regulations are also explicit in informing licensees what types of events and conditions must be reported, and what these reports must contain. Record-keeping requirements and the Commission's ability to engage in

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 18 inspections, audits, and investigations protect against any hesitancy on the part of a licensee to properly notify the NRC.

Petitioner's proposal would impose additional burdens on both licensees and the Commission without a corresponding increase in plant quality and protection of the public health and safety. Present regulations are adequate to bring all significant safety concerns to the NRC's attention. Creating a system whereby the expression of a concern by any employee automatically triggers NRC involvement would interject the Commission unnecessarily into the area of employee-management

_relations, where it would become overburdened by claims and allegations, many of which would be spurious or insignificant from the standpoint of safety. Enactment of the petitioner's proposal would thus subject the NRC to substantial administrative costs with little chance of improvement in plant quality. For all of the above reasons, we submit that the petitioner's proposed rule be rejected.

cu&:@..:

REYNOLDS

DOCKET NUMBER *-

PETITION RULE PRM SJ-4?

(~;(, F£ at:$'

LAWOmCES Dullff if r BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS u*;~mc 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, DC. 20036-3006 (202) 857-9800 "87 HAY 13 P4 :28 OFF!:.>. ,f ~--'"'*Ml* y WRITER"S DIRECT DIAL oocKE rIN r..; <TEW *446's&4 INTI.AW u, BRM.iJ:(..EcoP,ER (2021 as7-a84e May 13, 1987 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch I

Re: Docket No. PRM-50-47 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Jan. 12, 1987))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This is to inform you that we are revising the comments originally submitted by us on March 13, 1987. *The revisions consist of adding to the list of licensees participating in the comments, and a minor editorial change. Please also note that our firm has changed its name. A copy of the revised comments is enclosed.

Sincerely, B\~~~L&

REYNOLDS Enclosure (revised comments on Quality Technology petition for rulemaking)

OOGKETED USNRC

~ t1AY 13 P4 :28 May 13, 1987 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Docket No. PRM-50-47 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Jan. 12, 1987))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On Monday, January 12, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") published in the Federal Register a notice inviting public comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company. See 52 Fed. Reg. 1200, 2951 (1987).

The petitioner's proposed rule would establish by regulation new requirements that all utilities (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program. On behalf of System Energy Resources, Inc., Northeast Utilities, Duke Power Company, Florida Power Corporation, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, T.U. Electric, Southern California Edison Co. and Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, we respectfully submit the following comments on this proposal.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 2 I. Discussion Petitioner's proposal states that the existing reporting and employee concerns regulations are only "effective to a degree." It is alleged that it is not clear how licensees dispose of "wrongdoing activities" (a term that the petitioner does not define), that they do not willingly report such activities, and that they have no effective corrective action mechanism ~o investigate or resolve wrongdoing issues. our position is that the existing regulations are more than adequate to assure that nuclear plants are constructed and operated in a safe manner, and that employee concerns are adequately addressed. Petitioner's proposed regulations would not significantly improve plant performance or increase the protection of the public health and safety. Rather, they would inundate the NRC with new data, the processing of which would involve time and resources the NRC does not have to accomplish a task that NRC does not need to perform.

A. Existing Reporting Requirements.

Present regulations set up an extensive system of reporting requirements which requires licensees to notify the NRC of various defects, events, incidents, and instances of noncompliance. The system is designed to provide a framework in which events significant to the operation and safety of nuclear power facilities are presented to the Commission so that appropriate regulatory action can be taken. Examples of selected reporting requirements are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 3 Section 206 of the Energy.Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. {5846-) requires that the Commission be notified of defects or instances of noncompliance. Section 206(a) states:

Any indiviqual director, or responsible officer of a firm constructing, owning, operating, or supplying the components of any facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended . *

• or pursuant to this chapter, who obtains information reasonably indicating that such facility or activity or basic components supplied to such facility or activity (1) fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order, or license of the Commission relating to substantial safety hazards, or (2} contains a defect which could create a substantial safety hazard, as defined by regulations which the Commission shall promulgate, shall immediately notify the Commission of such failure to comply, or of such defect, unless such person has actual knowledge that the Commission has been adequately informed of such defect or failure to comply.

- Section 206(b) provides for criminal sanctions against perso~s who knowingly and consciously fail to provide the required notice. Section 206(d) grants the Commission authority to "conduct such reasonable inspections and other enforcement activities as needed to insure compliance with the provisions of this section."

The implementing regulations for Section 206 are found in 10 C.F.R. Part 21. Section 21.21 sets forth procedures _to be followed in order to comply with Section 206. Subsection

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 4 21.21(a) requires that appropriate procedures be adopted to provide for evaluation of deviations, and to a~sure that a director or responsible officer is informed of a reportable situation as defined by Section 206. 10 C.F.R. {21.21(b) then requires this person (or some other designated person) to notify the Commission when he obtains information reasonably indicating such a defect or failure to comply. The subsection goes on to describe the proper contents and timeliness of such notification.

10 C.F.R. {21.41 states that NRC representatives shall be permitted to inspect the Licensee's records, premises, activities, and basic components as necessary to insure that the purposes of Part 21 are carried out. Licensees are required by

{21.51 to maintain records which are required to assure compliance with the Part 21 regulations.

Holders of nuclear plant construction permits are subject to the reporting requirements found in 10 C.F.R. {50.55(e). The permit holder must notify the NRC:

• .

• of each deficiency found in design and construction, which, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, and which represents:

(i) A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program * . . or (ii) A significant deficiency in final design . . . or (iii) A significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, system, or component . * . or (iv) A significant deviation from performance specifications . . .

• Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 5 The sect~on goes on to describe the proper contents of the notification, and set time limits within which deficiencies must be reported. The report must contain sufficient information to permit analysis and evaluation of the deficiency and any corrective actions which may have been taken.

10 C.F.R ((50.72 and 50.73 govern the reporting of various "events" which affect plant operation or pose threats to the safety of plant personnel or the public. Section 50.72 requires e that licensees licensed under either {50.2l(b) or {50.22 notify the NRC Operations Center of the declaration of any of the Emergency Classes specified in the licensee's Emergency Plan, or of non-Emergency events described in {50.72(b). If an Emergency Class is declared, the licensee must notify the NRC immediately after informing the appropriate State or local agencies. In no case should the NRC be notified more than one hour after the declaration. Section 50.72(b)(l) lists a series of non-emergency events or conditions which must also be reported to e the NRC within one hour. A list of similar, but less serious, events is found in {S0.72(b)(2). These must be reported within four hours. These reportable events involve problems in plant operation, actuation of safety features, threats to the safety of plant personnel, etc.

Section 50.73 creates the Licensee Event Report system.

This requires licensees to make detailed reports within thirty days of the listed events. These events are similar to the non-emergency events of {50.72 which must also be immediately

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 6 reported by phone -- i.e., deviations from the plant's Technical Specifications, events which could prevent safety functions, and impermissible releases of radioactivity.

10 C.F.R. Part 20 has several provisions which require licensees to notify the NRC of significant events. Section 20.402 requires licensees to report the theft or loss of nuclear materials. Subsection (a)(l) states:

Each licensee shall report to the Commission by telephone, immediately after it determines that a loss or theft of licensed material has occurred in such quantities and under such circu~stances that it appears to the licensee that a substantial hazard may fesult to persons in unrestricted areas.

• In addition to immediate notification, a detailed written report describing the incident must be submitted within thirty days.

Holders of nuclear plant operating licenses must submit this report in accordance with the procedures described in 10 C.F.R.

{50.73.

10 C.F.R. {20.403 requires notification of "incidents."

Such incidents include the exposure of individuals to radiation, the release of radioactive material, a loss of operation of any facilities affected, or property damage. Notification must be either immediate or within twenty-four hours, depending upon the seriousness of the incident.

!/ Other regulations require immediate notification of the NRC, including 10 C.F.R. {20.205 (discovery of leakage in shipped packages containing nuclear materials) and 10 C.F.R. {73.71 (reports of unaccounted-for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, radiological sabotage, or (Footnote 1 continued on next page)

• Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 7 10 C.F.R. {20.405 requires written reports within thirty days describing any occurrences of overexposure to radiation or excessive levels and concentrations of radioactivity. Again, holders of nuclear plant operating licenses must report these incidents in accordance with the procedures described in section 50.73. This is in addition to the information required by paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 20.405, which includes: the extent of exposure of individuals to radiation, levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactive material involved, the cause of the exposure, levels, or concentrations, and corrective steps taken or planned.

10 C.F.R. {S0.36(c) describes several categories which must be included in the Technical Specifications. Among these are safety limits, limiting safety system settings, limiting control settings, and limiting conditions for operation. If these are exceeded, do not function properly, or are not met, the incident must be reported to the NRC both by immediate notification and by written report. In addition to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

{50.36(c), it is standard for licensees to include plant-specific events and conditions in their Tech Specs which must be reported.

(Footnote 1 continued from previous page) events yhich significantly threaten or lessen the effectiveness of safeguards).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 8 B. Existing System for Processing Employees' Concerns.

It is desirable that employees have a means to raise safety-related concerns in an atmosphere conducive to the free flow of information. The existing system is intended to provide employees with such means. Programs implementing the regulations cited above and the Quality Assurance Program required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix Bare designed to enable any employee to raise safety concerns with no fear of retribution.

For example, 10 C.F.R. {21.2l(a), which, as mentioned above, requires licensees to notify the NRC of the existence of a defect or instance of noncompliance, requires that procedures are set up to insure that reportable concerns are brought to the attention of management. The section states that:

(a) Each individual, corporation, partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall adopt appropriate procedures to:

(2) Assure that a director or responsible officer is informed if the construction or operation of a facility, or activity, or a basic component supplied for such facility or activity:

(i) Fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order or license of the Commission relating to a substantial safety hazard, or (ii) Contains a defect . .

Appendix B of Part 50 makes each license applicant responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program. Measures must be established under this

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 9 program to assure that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily. Particularly relevant are Criteria I and XVI. Criterion I states that:

[t]he persons and organizat~ons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. Such persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level such that this required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost and schedule when opposed to safety considerations, are provided.

Criterion XVI requires that measures be established to correct conditions adverse to quality:

Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures, malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

Quality assurance programs at licensed nuclear power plants are designed to insure that all defects, events, incidents, and Criterion I defines the quality assurance functions as being "those of (a) assuring that an appropriate

-quality assurance program is established and effectively executed and (b) verifying, such as by checking, auditing, and inspection, that activities affecting the safety-related functions have been correctly performed."

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 10 instances of noncompliance that affect the plant's safety are brought to light and resolved. Quality assurance personnel are provided with the authority and organizational freedom to adequately carry out these programs. All reportable events and conditions are to be brought to the attention of responsible officers and directors. Also, licensees have systems that permit employees to raise safety concerns, such as QA hotlines (including toll-free numbers), mail-in concern forms with pre-

- paid envelopes, and on-site offices of independent safety teams.

Beyond all thisr it is not uncommon for licensees to voluntarily set up employee concerns programs which are operated by independent contractors.

Should an employee feel that licensee management is not properly examining and/or reporting concerns brought to its attention, this employee may bring his/her concern directly to the NRC. An employee choosing this route is protected by Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. This section, and its implementing regulation, 10 C.F.R. {50.7, protects employees engaged in certain activities from retaliatory discrimination by the employer. Section 50.7(a)(1) describes the protected activities:

(1) The protected activities include but are not limited to:

(i) Providing the Commission information about possible violations of requirements imposed under either of the above statutes [Energy Reorganization Act and Atomic Energy Act];

(ii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; or

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 11 (iii) Testifying in any Commission proceeding. 3 Section 50.7(e) requires that licensees, permittees, and applicants post Form NRC-3, "Notice to Employees," on its premises where employees can observe it on their way to and from their place of work and be informed of their rights under Sections 210 and 50.7. An employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against may seek a remedy by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor. Possible remedies

- include reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages.

4 The employer may also have its license denied, revoked, or suspended, be assessed a civil penalty, or be the subject of some o th er en f orcemen t ac t ion. 5 C. The Requested Rule Change Would Not Significantly Improve the Existing System The regulations governing reporting requirements and the area of employee concerns are designed to assure the safety and good performance of nuclear facilities. The existing system provides a high level of assurance that defects, instances of noncompliance, and the various events and incidents described in the regulations will be discovered, investigated, documented, and corrected. The regulations are, for the most part, very According to 10 C.F.R. {50.7(a)(2), these activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee's action.

!/ 10 C.F.R. {50.7(b).

~/ 10 C.F.R. {50.7(c).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 12 clear in describing the types of events and conditions which must be reported, the proper contents of such notification, and the appropriate time frame within which reports should be submitted.

The system is not designed to be a conduit between employees and the NRC. Rather, it is designed to provide the Commission with information regarding specified events and conditions which it has determined to be important to safe plant

- operation. Using this information, the Commission oversees and audits safe operation. It does not manage the plants, however.

This is the job of licensee management, which is responsible for filtering the significant safety data from the trivial in deciding whether a situation must be reported. Should an employee feel that this arrangement is not functioning properly, and that a particular concern should be'brought to the Commission's attention, Section 210 provides him/her with a method of bypassing the established internal system. Section 210, record-keeping requirements imposed on licensee management, and the NRC's ability to inspect, audit, and investigate all contribute to the assurance that any possible shortcomings in the reporting system do not prevent important information from reaching the Commission.

The petitioner requests that the Commission promulgat~ new regulations which would make employee concerns programs mandatory, and would require utilities to report all employee concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" to the NRC's Office

A Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 13 of Investigation. The petition states "[i]t is . . . clear that several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern program[s] QTC conducted, or were associated with, at several facilities that otherwise would not have surfaced." Even assuming this to be true, it can be questioned whether mandating a particular type of program would improve plant performance and safety, or would instead stifle 9 the evolution of programs that meet the needs of Licensee management and the NRC. Further, mandating such programs may not be justified when the casts of such programs are considered.

Nor does petitioner show that mandating such programs would improve safety. The proper functioning and adequate safety of nuclear facilities are the NRC's concerns. It is not the NRC's function to examine all employee complaints in the first instance. Nor does the NRC have the resources to do so. The NRC properly looks to licensee management to deal with employee 6

concerns in the first instance and to take appropriate action.

For it to do otherwise would be to inject itself into areas of management-employee relations which are not its proper domain.

~/ The NRC often places the responsibility for evaluating information for materiality on the licensee. For example, in its proposed rule to codify the obligations of licensees and applicants for licenses to provide complete and accurate information, the Commission determined that it is the responsibility of licensees to scrutinize information and determine whether it is reportable. While it is the Commission's responsibility to provide guidance on what type of information is deemed to be material and, thus, reportable, the submission of a report would depend on the licensee's recognition of materiality.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 14 Also, since devising a method of screening the significant complaints from the insignificant would be extremely difficult, implementation of petitioner's proposal would also require a huge increase in the resources necessary for the NRC to process employee concerns. Absent additional funding from Congress, these resources would have to be diverted from other important NRC activities in order tq accomplish the unnecessary task of evaluating every allegation made by employees. This would be 9 extremely wasteful since, at bottom, the NRC would have a list of safety-significant complaints which the existing reporting system would have provided far more efficiently. Meanwhile, extensive resources would have been expended in investigating complaints which are not related to the safe operation of the facility or, worse, appear at first glance to be significant but are in reality groundless, and motivated by a desire to create problems for licensee management. For example, an employee who was denied a raise might try to intimidate or get revenge on management by claiming that his supervisor harassed him for raising safety concerns. Such a complaint would, according to petitioner's proposal, require NRC investigation.

The Federal government is awa~e of the problems that would result from overburdening the NRC with every complaint and allegation employees might make. This issue was addressed in its brief in opposition to a motion for certiorari in Kansas Gas

& Electric Co. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied, 106 S.Ct. 3311 (1986). The government's concern was to

,., Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 15 maintain a manageable flow of information, and consequently, to protect the quality assurance program established by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. The brief states in footnote 7:

This problem is further compounded for the NRC because, were all employees to comalain directly to the NRC about perceive deficiencies, the Commission would be *required to divert its limited resources away from other nuclear safety matters to the investigation and resolution of these complaints . . * . Thus, if the flow of information through a quality assurance program dries up, substantial strain and disruption could result for the NRC in enforcing nuclear safety requirements and in issuing op~rating licenses to nuclear utilities. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, it is evident that properly implemented programs under the present regulations would be a more efficient method of maintaining plant quality than petitioner's proposal would be.

The existing reporting system, while it could perhaps be refined and simplified (the antithesis of what petitioner proposes), is adequate.

Finally, the changes in licensees' organizations which would be required by the proposal would, in all probability, be considered a "backfit" as defined by 10 C.F.R. {50.109.

Consequently, the Commission would be required to prepare a report, in which it analyzed specific factors, before the backfit could be imposed. A backfit is defined by Section 50.109(a)(l) as:

21 Brief for the Federal Respondent in Opposition at 11, Kansas Gas & Electric co. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 s.ct. 3311 (1986) (No. 85-1403).

L Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 16

. . . the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility1 any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position . . .

The creation of a mandatory employee concerns program and changes in reporting requirements would certainly be a "modification of or addition to" the organization required to operate a facility. If that is the case, Section 50.109(a)(3) allows a backfit to be required only when:

The Commission . .

• determines, based on the analysis described in paragraph (c) of this section, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection.

Section 50.109(c) lists factors which are to be considered, as appropriate, in any backfitting analysis. These factors include:

(3) Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental off-site release of radioactive material; (4) Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees; (5) Installation and continuing costs

• associated with the backfit . . .

(6) The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements;

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 17 (7) The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed backfit and the availability of such resources.

These factors have been discussed above. Petitioner has not shown that plant quality would be significantly improved or that the protection of the public health and safety would be substantially increased as a result of its proposal. Instead, the NRC could be overburdened by employee complaints which would bypass the licensee's management organization, including the quality assurance program, and various reporting requirements which have been established. It is clear that, under this analysis, a backfit should not be allowed. Regardless of whether petitioner's proposal is held to fall within the backfit rule, however, the considerations discussed above would still militate against new regulations implementing the proposal.

II. Conclusion The NRC has established regulations which provide employees with methods of airing grievances and raising concerns.

Employees are protected by law from employer harassment or retaliation should they choose to raise concerns directly with the NRC. Quality regulations also provide assurance that quality workers will not suffer retaliation for reporting safety defects to management. Regulations are also explicit in informing licensees what types of events a~d conditions must be reported, and what these reports must contain. Record-keeping requirements and the Commission's ability to engage in

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1987 Page 18 inspections, audits, and investigations protect against any hesitancy on the part of a licensee to properly notify the NRC.

Petitioner's proposal would impose additional burdens on both licensees and the Commission without a corresponding increase in plant quality and protection of the public health and safety. Present regulations are adequate to bring all significant safety concerns to the NRC's attention. Creating a system whereby the expression of a concern by any employee 9 automatically triggers NRC involvement would interject the Commission unnecessarily into the area of employee-management relations, where it would become overburdened by claims and allegations, many of which would be spurious or insignificant from the standpoint of safety. Enactment of the petitioner's proposal would thus subject the NRC to substantial administrative costs with little chance of improvement in plant quality. For all of the above reasons, we submit that the petitioner's proposed rule be rejected.

Respectfully submitted,

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 1616 P Street, NW S.310

• Washington, DC 20036

• f202) 332-0900 c:,C>

April 30, 1987 g~ ~

x;:=-

!""' s q

-< :x 0 c*-o Cl-

cz - ~ -,)~

l'> C'

~,..,

Z ;._-.. " I

.s::i,. ,*,::

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

• -*~.~ *~ -0 Secretary of the Commission -.J

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U1 Washington DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

PRM-50-47, Quality Technology Co. Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Union of Concerned Scientists believes that the petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (QTC) (Docket No.

PRM 47) may have considerable merit. Clearly, the problem areas the petition addresses are valid, as QTC observed while it was running the employee concerns program for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

As a result of employee concerns raised at TVA, massive quality assurance problems were uncovered. Similar employee concerns were responsible for uncovering major problems at other plants including Wolf Creek, Nine Mile Point 1, Diablo Canyon, and others.

Consequently, we support the general thrust of the QTC petition.

However, we would suggest that the NRC put the rulemaking in abeyance while Congress considers legislation that would accomplish the same goals by different, and we believe stronger, means. We believe the best way to get at such problems as QTC correctly identifies is through an independent inspector general with the power to guarantee anonymity to witnesses.

In this regard, we support passage of legislation such as that proposed by Sen. John Glenn in the Senate and Rep. Sam Gejdenson in the House. Both would establish an inspector general by law.

We believe that a legal foundation is stronger than one established by regulation, particularly in an agency where the Cambridge Office: 26 Church Street

• Cambridge, Massachusetts 02238

• 16171 547-555 A Y O8 1987 Acknowledged bv card .**.***.** r * ** .......-

c .

c.

stm" r'*

opics

• Add'I r

$pecial

office of inspector and auditor has repeatedly demonstrated that it is unwilling or unable to conduct rigorous investigations and protect anonymity.

However, should the efforts of Sen. Glenn and others fall short of passage this year, we believe the issue should be taken up again in the regulatory environment.

Very truly yours, Kennedy P. Maize Senior Energy Analyst cc Senator John Glenn Congressman Sam Gejdenson

DOCKET NUMBE~--- ~

PEJJTION RULE PRM ./J0-41/

(__ j:2, F~ /:l tJ t1 DOCK(TEIJ

~ ~¥NOEeO A Subsidiary of Detroit Edison USNRC "87 I\PR 22 P6 :13 George D. Stewart OFF IC~- or- :t t-il iAk:

Senior Vice President April 15, 1 9JiiiKETlt u (, Scf(J;Cf BRANCH Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn. Docketing and Service Branch

References:

Request for Public Comments (Docket No. PRM 50, 47, 52, Federal Register 200, January 12, 1987)

Subject:

comments on Petition for Rulemaking SYNDECO Inc. welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Quality Technology Company. This petition requests that the Commission require all utilities involved in a nuclear program to (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigations all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing" activities and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

SYNDECO Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Detroit Edison Co., has operated employee concerns programs (SAFETEAM') at four nuclear construction sites. Currently programs are operating at two construction sites and at Fermi 2 which is a licensed plant.

SAFETEAM' is a program designed to give employees an attractive and voluntary opportunity to communicate concerns about safety to management. It is not intended to replace or in any way relieve other organizations of any responsibilities. For example, responsibility for engineering lies with the Engineer of record and the responsibility for the quality of the work and material lies with the QA/QC organization. SAFETEAM' has been described as a giant safety net suspended under all plant functions to further assure that there have been no oversights.

The SAFETEAM' program works b ecau se it observes s tr i ct confidentiality with respect to the people who report concerns.

We have observed people requesting that their concerns be returned to them when they learned that someone internal to the client organization was to investigate those concerns. We have also observed a growth of the established "write in /call in your concern" program by a factor of four when a SAFETEAM' with its independent staff started in ope r ation at a nuclear site.

SYNDECO, Inc. Suite 2300 660 Plaza Drive Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 237-7106

April 15, 1987 Page 2 Mr. Samuel Chilk These two facts say clearly, we believe, that workers are far more willing to voice their concerns when they know that their own identities will be kept confidential from those who have the power to follow up with them in any way and that therefore the converse is true - that to require, or even permit, the transmittal of names of those with concerns to any person or organization in authority will discourage the expression of concerns.

Each SAFETEAM' program has a means to notify the client of problems that require corrective action not initiated prior to or during the term of the investigation and has done so at each site. Only the information is shared, not the identity of the concernee unless authorized by the concernee. The results are safer plants and lower construction or ope ra ting costs.

SAFETEAM' has also invited the NRC Resident Inspector at each of its sites to review the concerns and the results of investigations, although each has responded to the invitation differently.

SAFETEAM' has contacted over 7000 people and has answered over 2100 concerns at Fermi. Of these 2100 concerns, at least 50 % and perhaps as many as 80% were concerns that were found to be based on rumor, hearsay, or poor communication. In January of this year the Government Accountability Project (GAP) participated in a press conference at which they disclosed 28 allegations which they claim came from 49 individuals formerly associated with Fermi. SAFETEAM' investigated each concern and found that most if not all were from one to four years old and all had been addressed and dispositioned in an appropriate manner and time frame. Considering that GAP actively solicits allegations and found only 49 people out of a potential 7000 to come forth with concerns speaks well for the program and the client.

4lt Al l of the concerns identified as wrongdoing at Fermi have been reported to your Office of Investigation since mid-1983. Since mid-1985 the Security Department of the Nuclear Operations Organization at Fermi has had the responsibility for investigating these wrongdoing concerns and we support that portion of the petition.

A requirement for all utilities to maintain a "concerns program" would probably enhance the marketing position of SAFETEAM' and on that basis we support that portion of the proposal. However, unless the confidential nature of the interview can be assured, unless independence from the owner and the contractor can be established, and until a c re dible investigation and response process can be proven, we believe the success of any such program, as proposed, would be limited and therefore we oppose the proposal as weakening the effectiveness of existing effective programs.

GDS/amt

I

. ))O e__

0 87 MAR 31 P4 :35 7590-0~FFI ~'

r "

OOCK E , . 1, v f:

b <AII 1-1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 Docket No. PRM-50-47 Quality Technology Company, Petition for Rulemaking; Extension of Conment Period AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Conmission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking: Extension of corrment period.

SUMMARY

On January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200), the NRC published a notice of receipt for a petition for rulemaking dated October 27, 1986, that was filed by Quality Technology Company. The petition was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-47 on November 14, 1986. The notice of receipt requested that the public submit comments by March 13, 1987. A request for an extension of the corrment period

- indicates that the public needs additional time to coordinate views and prepare conments. The NRC agrees that it takes considerable time to coordinate views of several groups to be included in a single comment, and, further, values the contribution public conments lend to its assessment of a petition for rulemaking.

Therefore, this notice extends for 60 days the original comment period for PRM-50-47 to May 13, 1987.

DATES: Submit co11111ents by May 13, 1987, a 60-day extension of the orig inal co1T111ent period. Co11111ents received after this date will be considered if it is

t practical to do so but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received before this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Secretary of the Cormrission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Convnission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Obtain a copy of the petition by writing to the Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corm1ission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

A copy of the petition and of comments on the petition are available for inspection or copying for a fee at the Publi c Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Juanita F. Beeson, Acting Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone: 301-492-4268, or, Toll Free, 800-368-5642

• Dated at Washington, D.C., this-

.A I;_ day of ____./11~~-k_

~- * -

VI

• _~_t_-~~Ae<..-_ _ , 1987.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

?

n c. Hoyle

. cting Secretary of the Commi ssion

DOCKET NUMBER

~-41 @

, .~r1.c-ie -e PETITION RULE PRM u:;1-mc

/,,t!J-tJ_) ~

TOLEDO

• s1 MR 26 Am :33 EDISON Docket No. 50-346 JOE WILLIAMS, JR.

Senor Vice President-Nuclear License No. NPF-3 (419) 249-2300 (419) 249-5223 Serial No. 1351 March 12, 1987 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Toledo Edison respectfully submits the following comments on the Quality Technology Company Petition for Rulemaking published in the January 12, 1987, Federal Register (52 FR 1200). This petition encourages the Commission to add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program 1) report to the NRC Office of Investiga-tions all employee-identified concerns related to "wrong doing activities",

and 2) establish and maintain an employees concern program.

Toledo Edison strongly supports the use of an Employee Concerns Program and has instituted an Ombudsman Program at Davis-Besse, which addresses these concerns. However, Toledo Edison disagrees with the need for rulemaking on this issue for the following reasons:

1) Undefinable threshhold level for reportability to the NRC.

2) Added cost to both the NRC and the utility. Even using the NRC alleged "greater than 50 percent rate of substantiation"; leaves almost 50 percent unsubstantiated. Multiple reporting of unsub-stantiated concerns to the NRC will consume and waste a significant amount of NRC resources.

3) Plant personnel already have the option of reporting concerns to the NRC if they are not satisfied with management's handling of the problem.

4) Utilities have the obligation to report all safety significant concerns to the NRC regardless of the source.

cc: DB-1 NRC Resident Inspector A. B. Davis, Acting Regional Administrator (2 copies)

THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EDISON PLAZA 300 MADISON AVENUE TOLEDO, OHIO 43652 8703180247 870312 PDR ADOCK 05000346

~ "~ft

DOCKET NU, '18ER PETITION f3ULE PRM fl -41'/ ~

CS'2 Fl /2. t,o"'"J 'r.::i::Y

• 4111 Pennsylvania Power & Light Company Two North Ninth Street

• Allentown, PA 18101

• 215 / 770-5151 DO t KETEJ:

VS HHC

-S7 HAR 25 Pl2 :oa Harold W. Keiser Vice President-Nuclear Operations 215/770-7502 OFFICE Jr" SL,~, t h *.

OOCK EilNG & Sf t v1 r. r.

BR ANCl-l MARO 5 1987 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. PRM-50-47 Docket Nos. 50-387 PLA-2805 FILE R41-2 and 50-388

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company is pleased to provide the following comments on the Petition for Rulemaking submitted by Quality Technology Company (PRM-50-47, 52FR1200).

The petitioner desires that NRC issue regulations to require licensees to establish and maintain employee concerns programs and to report to NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrong-doing activities". PP&L opposes the petition for several reasons.

o A multitude of comprehensive reporting requirements currently exist.

These are focused on notifying NRC of issues, events, or situations which have safety or safeguards significance. The petitioner does not recognize this distinction. If licensees must report all employee concerns, NRC will be deluged with reports and will be unable to focus on those which have the greatest potential to impact public health and safety.

o Even if reporting of employee concerns is limited to concerns related to "wrongdoing", it will be very difficult to define the scope. It is PP&L's position that existing reporting requirements in 10CFR20, 10CFR21, 10CFR50.72/50.73 and 10CFR73 are adequate to ensure that licensees report issues with safety significance or where intentional wrongdoing which impacts safety occurred.

PLA-28O5 FILE R41-2 MAR O5 1981 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk o Licensees are required to post NRC Form 3 which notifies employees of their rights to discuss concerns directly with NRC. However, NRC encourages utilities to provide adequate capabilities within the licensee's own organization to address employee concerns so that direct employee contacts with NRC are not necessary. If concerns are to be also reported to NRC, there will be a tremendous duplication of effort. Clearly, the licensee should be the initial contact for employee concerns so that prompt corrective action can be taken where appropriate. NRC follow-up for each of these concerns would be time consuming, unnecessary and non-productive in the vast majority of cases.

o Where the employee is not satisfied with the corrective action, he is still free to discuss his concerns with NRC. It is clearly in the licensee's best interest for this not to be necessary. For this reason, most if not all licensees have already implemented programs to address employee concerns which go beyond the basic requirements of the regulations.

o Reports should not be made directly to NRC's Office of Investigations. The decision to refer a concern to OI should remain with NRC. OI investigates concerns based on recounnendations which have been screened by the Regions or other NRC offices. This screening is appropriate and necessary to effectively use NRC's limited resources to the best advantage in support of public health and safety.

PP&L appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Petition for Rulemaking.

Very truly yours, H. W. Keiser Vice President - Nuclear Operations cc: NRC Document Control Desk (original)

NRC Region I Mr. L. R. Plisco - NRC Resident Mr. M. C. Thadani - NRC Project Manager

Georgia Power Company 333 Piedmont Avenue DOCKET NUMBER *-:..,_

Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone 404 526-6526 PETITION RULE PRM );6-1//@

Mailing Address: C52 F~ /ll ;r;)

Post Office Box 4545 DOGKETEO &_

At lanta, Georgia 30302 USNRC , ,,

Georgia Power L. T. Gucwa "87 HAR 20 P3 :22 rhe sourhern electnc system Manager Nuclear Safety and Licensing SL-2167 0159U March 16, 1987 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch GEORGIA POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY; FILING OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On January 12, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register and solicited comments regarding a petition for rulemaking dated October 27, 1986, filed by Quality Technology Company. The petition requested that the Commission add regulations which would require all utilities to (1) report to the NRC all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program. Georgia Power Company (GPC), as an NRC 1icensee for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant and the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the petition.

As a preliminary comment, GPC questions two implicit premises upon which the petition is based. First, Quality Technology Company (the petitioner} assumes that since "the disposition of wrongdoing activities by Licensee's is not clear at all, 11 a "blatant disrespect for the law (will) continue" if wrongdoing activities are not subject to a mandatory reporting mechanism. Second, based upon its experience, which apparently has been limited, the petitioner assumes that 11 it is necessary to develop an effective way of obtaining from emp l oyees the information only they may hold" concerning nuclear safety-related issues. GPC believes that both premises are erroneous or inaccurate. In addition, Georgia Power suggests that the NRC's extensive experience with reporting requirements, a 11 eged 11 wrongdoing 11 , and 1icensee initiated qua 1ity assurance features demonstrates the inappropriateness of additional~ costly regulatory requirements which would not provide a significant increase in assuring overall plant safety.

MAR 2 3 1987 Ac~!'ledged by _card . ..... * * * * * * * .-. ~

U,S. NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSIO~

DOCKETING & 5rnv1cE SECTION OHi(f- i:. - "' : *.*r r'T *\RY

( . *!

,o! f~* .3~e,

(-op i** . I Ad -:! '

2 -

~IL)~ u,stt,,,e, _

Georgia Power , \

Secretary of the Commission March 16, 1987 Page Two GPC notes that the specific petition for rulemaking suggests incorporation of "the facets of [the petitioner's] Employee Response Team 11 recently employed at another licensee* s facility. Undoubtedly, one of the 11 facets 11 contemplated by the petitioner is a third-party administration of the proposed mandatory employee concerns programs. Not only does this reflect financial self-interest on the part of the petitioner, but also suggests that the requested requirements were contemplated with little or no consideration for cost-effectiveness, existing or potential alternatives, or the actual degree to which additional assurance of plant safety mi ght be provided. Georgia Power contends that such as narrow view by a petitioner is an inappropriate basis for initiation of a rulemaking proceeding.

Finally, Georgia Power sugge st s that an adverse potential safety impact could result if the requested requirements were proposed. Rather than founding regulatory compliance upon the ability of effective management committed to safety and verification by NRC oversight, the petition contemplates extensive NRC and third-party review and management of day-to-day activities of a licensee. Such an approach conflicts with fundamental concepts, good management, and administrative law. The nuclear industry has demonstrated its abi 1ity and dedication to assure the safety of its employees and the general public. The two proposed requirements imply that a better approach is to place safety-related concerns before an agency and a third-party. Georgia Power suggests that more timely, adequate and thoro ug h resolutions of legitimate safety-re lated concerns are achieved by initiatives and act ions of the licensee's management. The following sections address the two proposals in more deta i 1.

Mandatory Reporting of All eged "Wrongdoing Activities 11

• The petitioner concludes that licensees 11 have no effective corrective action mechanism to investigate or resolve wrongdoing issues". As to this conclusion, the petitioner is wrong. GPC assertively investigates and reso l ves activities which potentia ll y violate regulatory requirements or good utility practices. Reprisals, intimidation or harassment for raising concerns is not tolerated when identified. Resolution of 11 wrongdoing 11 allegations is not limited to narrow corrective action, but can include severe disciplinary action up to and including termination.

GPC encourages employees to inform higher management or, alternatively, the NRC of safety-related concerns. This encouragement goes well beyond the requirements of 10 CFR Part 19. At the same time~ sheer speculation, unfounded allegations, and retaliatory concerns are occasionally identified and appropriately ha ndled. The mandatory reporting of a 11 allegations would hobble the licensee from effectively categorizing and timely resolving potential wrongdoing activities, as well as require a large resource allocation by the NRC wi thout a coD111ensurate increase in safety.

Georgia Power , \

Secretary of the Comnission March 16, 1987 Page Three The petitioner fails to recognize the extensive reporting reQuirements currently applicable to licensees and individuals. These requirements, notab ly 10 CFR Part 21, 50.55(e), 50.72, 50.73, and 73.71, have evolved concurrent with the NRC 1 s regulatory experience so that events, conditions, and incident s of actual or potentia l safety or safeguards significance, timely come to the Comnission's attention.

These requirements are carefully tailored to encompass real concerns and, thereby, effectively allocate the agency's finite~sources. The petitioner also appears unaware of licensees' heightened awareness of, and resulting vigilance to dissuade any form of retaliation, intimidation, or harassment proscribed by 10 CFR 50.7. The NRC enforcement and inspection programs, in addition to the Department of Labor employee complaint procedures, are quite sufficient and effective in addressing these issues.

Mandatory Employee Concerns-Program The petition, it appears, is not clear as to the scope of employee concerns programs. On one hand, the petitioner refers to a "credible nationwide employee concerns program 11 , while on the other hand, the petitioner requests proposed regulations which would require each utility to maintain an employee concerns prog ram. In either event, existing regulatory requirements, complemented by licensee-initiated programs, offer readily-available avenues for emp loyees to freely voice concerns.

First, 10 CFR Part 19 provides for the posting of NRC Form 3 conspicuously and in numerous locat ions at a licensee's facility.

Second, worker training standards require instruct ion of employee responsibility to report promptly to the licensee any condition which may lead to or cause a violatio n of NRC regulations. Third, licensees have developed management and administrative controls, in conformity with 10 CFR Part so; Appendix B, and other requirements, to assure safety of 1icensed facilities. Georgia Power takes these ob 1igations seriously.

As a result, employees are schooled in raising safety-related concerns to imnediate supervisors or upper management, or, if desired, the NRC.

Employees also are informed through this process of legal prohibitions on retaliation and the like. With the se regulatory features and the NRC allegation telephone numbers, reasonab le assurance exists that legitimate safety-related concerns or allegations of 11 wrongdoing 11 can be raised by employees. The petitioner has f ailed to identify any incremental safety-related benefit associated wit h its proposals.

Georgia Power <<\

Secretary of the Co111nission March 16, 1987 Page Four Significantly, although GPC is doubtful as to the merits of the petitioner's proposals, Georgia Power has developed and implemented a formal, proceduralized Quality Concerns Program at its licensed facilities. Our experience indicates that Georgia Power employees and employees of GPC contractors readily use the Program if normal work routines do not resolve their concerns. Of great importance is the acceptance and support of the Program by GPC management. Concerns, which are submitted anonymously, are invest ig ated and resolved professionally and earnestly. The effectiveness of our Program, however, is not sufficient reason to require by regulation the implementation of similar programs. Such programs can only be effective when employees recognize management's attitude and paramount regard for safety. Without that recognition, which cannot be mandat ed by any number of detailed regulations, safety-related and "wrongdoing" concerns will not be raised regardless of afforded opportunities.

Georgia Power appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on Quality Technology Company's petition for rulemaking. If you have any questions in this regard, please contact this office at any time.

Sincerely, a,er4,.

L. T. Gucwa AHD/jhu c: Geor~ia Power Company Mr.

• P. O'Reilly Mr. J. T. Beckham~ Jr.

Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.

GO-NORMS

0 0('"',:-I V"*JI\ ...

"': r*" 1n;:::R

. .Ii. ... ,.'),_

I

• 0 Wisconsin Electr,c Powrn coMPANY 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, WI 53201

'87 HAR 19 P4 :04 (414) 221-2345 OFFICE G SL,_,.;c.i/',i-1 '*

OOC KEilM G &. *;[ fl\/lCI BRANCH VPNPD-87-107 NRC-87-030 March 13, 1987 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

COMMENT ON QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY PETITION FOR RULEMAKING The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested public comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company. The petition, which was docketed on November 14, 1986, requests the Commission to add to its regulations the requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

We believe such regulations would be redundant to existing regulation and are, therefore, unnecessary. We urge that this petition be denied.

Present l y the NRC regulations in 10 CFR 19, "Notices, Instructions, and Reports to Workers; Inspections", at Section 19.16, both permit and encourage any worker or representative of workers who believes that a v i olation of the Act, the regulation in 10 CFR, or license conditions exists or has occurred in license activi ties to request an inspection by giving notice to an NRC office or to any Commission inspector.

Paragraph 19.15(b) states, "During the course of an inspection any worker may bring privately to the attention of the inspectors, either orally or in writing, any past or present condition which he has reason to believe may have contributed to or caused any violation of the Act, the regulations in this Acknowled~ed by card MAR 2 3 1987

• ' t t f f II f t f *

• f

• rn-t"'.11111

I

u. s. NUCLtAR' R c*uLAi"'RY co*M,li\1ss1 OOGKETING !, : "",CE !:. CTIO t OFFIC ~ -- T Or I Po$ltn* rk 0:. " ~(/;__ ~

C-op,<.3 ,. ~ .; I ~-

i~ 2 _

I Add'I C * ,

Speci('II Di *r*, r* *.

Mr. S. J. Chilk March 13, 1986 Page 2 chapter, or license c ondition." Section 19.20 of 10 CFR 19 prohibits an employer from taking any discriminatory action against an employee who engages in such activities as permitted by Part 19. These employee-pr otection provisions are repeated or expanded upon in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, 72, and 150.

In addition to providing these guarantees, the NRC's regulations also require that licensees inform employees of these rights. Each licensee is required to post on its premises at locations sufficient to permit employees on the way to or from work to observe a copy of Form NRC-3, "Notices to Employees", which reiterates those rights of employees to report to the NRC any evidence or allegations of nuclear safety concerns.

In addition to those rights already guaranteed by the Commission's regulations, it has been our observation as an operator of a facility licensed by the NRC that the NRC Resident Inspectors at our facility have encouraged an "open door" policy for all licensee employees. These inspectors are easily accessible, maintain an office on site, and, through daily tours and inspections, engage in frequent conversations with many of our employees.

Beyond those guarantees currently resident in the Commission regulations, we and most other licensees maintain our own programs for initiating examinations and reviews of potential safety concerns. These programs include modification requests, control of non-conformances, corrective action systems, and operating experience reviews. All of these programs include provisions for employees to initiate notifications of safety concerns, as well as mechanisms for formal notifications to the NRC under 10 CFR Part 21 or 10 CFR 50.72 or 50.73 when applicable.

In summary, we maintain the rulemaking called for in this petition is not only unnecessary but also is, indeed, redundant to existing regulations. We believe the basis for this proposal is unfounded and that licensees have in place adequate measures to identify and resolve employee concerns. This patently self-serving petition has no merit and should be rejected.

Very'/truv ours,

.l, C. W. Fay ly Vice President Nuclear Power Copy to NRC Resident Inspector

DOC.~ET I: ~*-~--=~

PET(?.z ii/;:: .jo-¢7@

00lKE. TU USHhC EDISON DRIVE Arom,c POWER comPAnH

• AUGUSTA. MAINE 04336

'87 HAR 19 p3 :56 (207) 623-3521 March 13. 1%¥-1,cE ;;P ~tt-r.t 1,,1

• MN-87-33 DOCKET ING ~ ,ERVlf.f GDW-87-58 8RMICl-l Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washginton, D.C. 20555 Attention: uocketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Quality Technology Company; Petition for Rulemaking -

Employee Concerns Program Gentlemen:

As a NRC licensee, Maine Yankee would like to offer comments concerning the petition for rulemaking which dealt with an employee concerns program.

Maine Yankee believes that the NRC and utility programs which are already in place provide sufficient opportunity for employees to identify and resolve concerns. The recent NRC initiative to increase the resident inspector's visibility at all nuclear power plant sites through video tapes should increase employee awareness of an avenue available for airing concerns. The reporting required by the proposed rule appears to duplicate reporting currently required under 10 CFR 21 and 50.55 (c).

In our opinion. the proposed rule is unnecessary and would not result in any improvement in the protection of public health and safety. We. therefore, recommend that this petition be denied.

Maine Yankee appreciates this opportunity to comment on this petition for rulemaking.

Very truly yours.

MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

_,&,6)/vv~

G.D. Whittier, Manager Nuclear Engineering and Licensing GDW/hbg cc: Mr. Ashok C. Thadani Dr. Thomas R. Murley Mr. Pat Sears Mr. Cornelius F. Holden MAR 2 3 1987 8527L-GDW Acknowledged by card . ** * ****** *~----*~9..-11mt1111*

f r U. S. NUCL EAR R(C 1 ! 'Y'V C0MM ISSIO~

DOCKET I*':: r, c* < ,._:  :.:: : ION omu c, ,

o:= *1. L-Postrnar~ [.

C-o;:* -s

, _J/27_ __ L_ _

Add' I C 2-ISpeci.il c. *r

DOCKET NUMBER l?ETITJON RULE PRM 67J-47t;Jn)

{ ~~ P/2. /_t(lfJ} ~

OOCKE1Er.

U5NHC Telephone (412) 393-6000

'87 HAR 19 P4 :17 Nuclear Group P.O. Box4 Shippingport, PA 15077-0004 OFFICE Ji ~:.~,. t. it,: a rch 11, 1987 DOCKET ING ..... SERVI BRANC~

Secretary of the Commission

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Reference:

Petition for Proposed Rulemaking Federal Register, S2 FR 1200 Gentlemen:

Published in the Federal Register on January 12, 1987 (51 FR 1200) was a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking and request for comments. The petition requests amendment of the regulations to require that all utilities involved in a nuclear program report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee identified "wrong doing activities" and establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

We feel that adequate controls exist to assure quality concerns are properly identified. 10 CFR 19 establishes the requirements for notices, instructions, and reports by licensees to employees participating in licensed activities, and options available to employees in connection with Commission inspections of licensees to ascertain compliance with the regu l ations. The provisions in this section give the employee the opportunity to privately bring to the attention of the NRC inspectors, either orally or in writing any past or present condition he has reason to believe may have contributed to or caused any violation of the regulations.

Existing regulations in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 identify actions to be taken once notified of an activity that is determined to not meet NRC or license requirements.

We feel that adequate controls exist to assure quality concerns are properly identified and therefore believe the petition should be denied.

Very truly yours,

) J.aVice

~

D. Sieber President , Nuclear MAR 2 3 1987 Acknov,ledged by cc: ru . .. . ............ ~

, r:

J. ~ NUCLEAR REGUL fORY COM,.' ., JJ.

DOCKET*"IG e ~rP.\.'IG SECTIO 0 ~, _ 7 . i- **c :Tl':t'G r

Post . r',.

Cor Add I Special D,$!r

123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 914 681.6240 John C. Brons

, . NewVorkPower March 13 .~8 -z.. ~ e )r Vice President

.-, Authori1y IPN-B?-o{ EPI MAR 18 AlQ :3Cl'luclearGeneration JPN-87-0ll 0 FF! C~ J : ~- :. :*.c. l ;, RY DOCKETING tc SEr,'ViC!.

Secretary of the Commission BRANC~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

New York Power Authority Comments On A Petition For Rulemaking, dated October 27, 1986, Filed by Quality Technology Company

Dear Sir:

The NRC requested public comments on a petition for rulemaking, dated October 27, 1986, that was filed by Quality Technology Company. The petition requests that the NRC add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program. This letter provides the Authority's comments to this petition.

The very basis for the proposed rulemaking is rooted in deficient management response to employee concerns. There is no evidence that this alleged management indifference is a generic issue. The proposed regulation would be helpful only in the situation where the licensee management either refused to respond or was incapable of responding to these concerns. In those rare cases all employees currently are advised that they

• have the right to communicate directly to the NRC and that they may remain anonymous if they choose. The proposed regulation, in the majority of cases where management is responsive to these concerns, would hinder the process by bureaucratic delay, confused communication and the introduction of "crank" claims.

Consequently, there would be a reduction of safety at most locations.

Should you or your staff have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. P. Kokolakis or Mr. J. Gray, Jr. of my staff.

Very truly yours, John Qfl__

c. Brons Senior Vice President Nuclear Generation MAR 2 O 1987

~knowledged by card . *** ** ******* .-.-ro-.-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGU!.J...1')RY COMMISSIO~

DOCK:Tt~,G IJ..  !:::::.' 'ICE SECTION o::r1:-- - - T1 r , ,- H/ RY C. ( , . . ,' ::.

Postmer Copies .-

Add ' I r

cc: Joseph D. Neighbors, Sr. Pro j . Mgr.

PWR Project Director ate No. 3 Division of PWR Licensing-A U.S. Nu clear Regulatory Comm i ssion 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesd a, MD 20014 Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point Unit 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 215 Buchanan, NY 10511

UU\.,, LI , ~* ~

DAN GLICKMAN PETITI01 l .RU:...E. PRM .!;;o-41 ~ 2435 RAYBURN BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 205 15 FOURTH DISTRICT-KANSAS c~i;=;e;vtn) (202) 225-62 16 ASSISTANT MAJO TY WHIP U .S. COURT HOUSE Box 403-ROOM 224 COMMITTEES :

WICHITA, KS 67201 (316) 262-8396 AGRICULTURE JUDICIARY 302 WOLCOTT BUILDING CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 201 NORTH MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND HUTCHINSON, KS 67501 GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (316) 669-9011 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WASHINGTON, DC 20515 ,.I SCOTT FLEMING ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT March 13, 1987 PATRICK GARCIA DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR Samuel Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S . Nuclear Regul atory Commission Washington , D. C. 20555

Dear Mr . Chilk :

I write to support , in part , the petition for rulemaking filed by the Quality Technology Company (Docket No . PRM 47) .

That petition requests that the Commission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC ' s Office of Investigation all employee -

indentified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities " and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program .

I support the request for reporting requirements . During my several years of working with the NRC to ensure the safe operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station , I have grown concerned that the lack of reportability requirements for allegations of wrongdoing leave a gap in the Commission ' s regulatory responsibilities . Allegations of falsification of documents, and the harrassment and intimidation of workers and inspectors do have safety implications . Unless these allegations are adequately investigated and resolved , the NRC cannot know how

• pervasive the problem may be or whether patterns can be established which may affect the safe construction and operation of a nuclear plant .

With regard to the second prov1s1on of the rulemaking request , I do believe utility operated and maintained employee concerns programs can be an effective complement to NRC ' s authorities . However , because such programs , if mismanaged , can actually undermine the end goal of assuring that employee concerns are thoroughly investigated , I cannot endorse a requirement for such programs unless there are attendant requirements for how the programs should be operated to guarantee their integrity .

I appreciate the chance to comment on this proposed rulemaking .

ouc,,~l I\Ju,vlBER n /i;;\

- ~,_,.TION RULE PRM ._j()- 47 ~

B A LTI MORE (.ff,!, r-R,, /,f_~d)

GAS AND OOC:KETEO ELECTRIC USNRC "87 MAR 17 AlO :4~

CHARLES CENTER* P. 0 . BOX 1475

• BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 J OS EPH A . TIE RN AN VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR ENERGY March 13, 1987 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 &: 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 &: 50-318 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking by Quality Technology Company (PRM-50-47)

Gentlemen:

The following comments are submitted by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company in response to Federal Register Notice 52 FR 1200, dated January 12, 1987. This notice provided a petition for rulemaking by the Quality Technology Company. The petitioner requested that the Commission amend its regulations to require that all nuclear utilities establish and maintain an employee concerns program, and report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee identified concerns related to wrongdoing activities.

We have reviewed the subject petition and have compared it with present regulations and mechanisms for tracking employee's concerns, and methods to protect the employee from discrimination. Sufficient requirements and mechanisms currently exist which ensure responsible actions by both the licensee and employees to investigate, track, and report all safety concerns. If an employee is discriminated against for reporting safety concerns, the Department of Labor (with assistance from the NRC) will investigate and take action to protect the employee. In addition, the NRC may issue a Notice of Viola-tion, impose a fine, or suspend, modify, or revoke the employer's license.

The proposed rules would result in no significant additional benefit to the public or protection of an employee's rights, and cannot be justified on a cost-benefit basis.

Therefore, we feel the petition by Quality Technology Company should be denied. Our specific comments on_the petition are provided as an Attachment.

MAR 2 O 1987 Acknowledged by cacd ****,.;-.l'J'~.;;;;;.,;;;;i,;;;,.i=i,,ri:iimiW'iil

~GULA TORY COM I G & St:' 'I CE SECTION OfF!G : ~ -.-,~ ,., -- :rt.., Y or: r _ .~,~ !

r., . . . -

..()sfm r'. ~

~o.s

~/;fi I

. ~

V\. ' I C,.'

lpeci I n;,:, L., * /;JJs; ~~

Docketing and Service Branch March 13, 1987 Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding these comments, we would be pleased to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, JAT /LSL/dlm

• Attachment cc: D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire A. C. Thadani, NRC S. A. McNeil, NRC T. E. Murley, NRC T. Foley/D. A. Trimble, NRC

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING BY QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY (PRM-50-47)

The subject petition for rulemaking requests the Commission amend the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 to require all nuclear utilities to -

1. Report all identified concerns relating to wrongdoing activities 1 to the Office of Investigation, much along the same lines as current requirements to report nuclear safety-related issues in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR Part 21, and

2. Maintain an employee concern program incorporating the facets of the Employee Response Team recently conducted at the Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Facility*

• In support of the proposed amendments, the petitioner has submitted the following grounds for petition:

1. Employees of a nuclear facility engaged in its construction and/or operation hold the most accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues.

2. We do not live in a society which voluntarily promotes the free and uninhibited exchange of concerns without the fear, real or imagined, of reprisal against employees who identify the shortcomings of fellow employees or management.

3. Several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrong-doing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern program Quality Technology Company conducted, or were associated with, at several facilities that otherwise would not have surfaced *

• Baltimore Gas and Electric (BG&:E) Company generally agrees with the petitioner that it is important for free and open communications about items of nuclear safety concern.

However, we feel that current NRC regulations and policies adequately reinforce the utility initiatives which provide for these open lines of communication.

lf rhe petitioner does not define "wrongdoing activities" as used in the petition. For our response, we have assumed the same definition used by the Office of Investigation --

willful or deliberate violation of regulations.

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING BY QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY (PRM-.50-47)

Current regulations (10 CFR 19, Notices, Instructions, and Reports to Workers; Inspections) require that a Form NRC-3 (Notice to Employees) be conspicuously posted in a sufficient number of places to permit individuals engaged in licensed activities to observe it on the way to or from work. This form provides the following information:

o The responsibility of the employer to comply with NRC requirements, o The responsibility of each employee to report violations of NRC requirements, to either his employer or the resident inspector, o NRC Regional Office telephone numbers which can be called collect, o Each employees right to protection from discrimination, and o Instructions on how to inform the Department of Labor if the employee feels he has been discriminated against*

Should an employee feel he has been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns, the Department of Labor (with assistance from the NRC) will evaluate the facts. If the allegations are found to be true, effective measures are provided to ensure compensation for damages suffered as a result of the discrimination. In addition, the NRC may issue a Notice of Violation, impose a fine, or suspend, modify, or revoke the employer's license (10 CFR 50, Appendix C, General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions and 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection).

Once notified of a potential wrongdoing or employee concern which affects nuclear reactor safety, plant management would inform the site resident inspector. Should nuclear reactor safety be at issue, the appropriate reports to the NRC would be initiated as presently required by 10 CFR 21, 50.72, and 50.73. In addition, our Plant Operations and Off-Site Safety Review Committees must review any recognized indication that there may be an unanticipated deficiency in some aspect of design or operation of nuclear safety-related structures or components. This review is required by the Administrative Controls Section of our plant Technical Specifications*

As a balanced check against the above, the NRC's resident inspector program provides a trained individual onsite to whom nuclear plant workers can express their concerns. The NRC's internal procedures allow for protection of anonymity. All concerns are pursued, tracked by the NRC Region Office and, in most cases, the resolution documented in an Inspection Report. If it appeared a wrongdoing had occurred, the Office of Investigation would be notified.

At Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), in an effort to heighten the awareness of NRC resident inspectors, a picture of each inspector and his telephone number is posted adjacent to the Form NRC-3. In addition, we are presently working with our resi-dent inspectors to develop a video presentation for Calvert Cliffs' General Orientation Training and annual requalification training. This video would allow the resident inspector to provide additional background concerning the functions of the resident inspector program.

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING BY QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY (PRM-50-47)

In summary, many rules, regulations, and mechanisms currently exist that require respon-sible actions, by both the licensee and employees, to investigate, track, and report safety concerns as well as protect the employee. The NRC resident inspector program provides an additional check of the Licensee's fulfi llment of this responsiblity. The proposed rules would result in no significant additional benefit to the public or protection of the employee's rights, and cannot be justified on a cost-benefit basis. For these reasons, the petition by Quality Technology Company should be denied*

DOCKET NUMBER-", ~

P TIT!l1N RULE PRM ~ . 4 ~

( 52- *Ftt! 12 tJt1=.} - Bechtel Power Corporation Engineers-Constructors Fifty Beale Street San Francisco, California Mail Address: P.O. Box 3965, San Francisco, CA 94119 March 13, 1987 c,O 0...,,

r:>...,, ~

s:::c=:,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission fT'pi Washington, D. C. 20555  ::x,,. c:C>

t.l::J - ( . )

OZ -r,  :::0 u,(:

l> Q :z:::,,;;

z ~-....;~~  ::or, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch ('"; ,.. -J ("") -1 r,,

J: *.,*, -

1r- -a

-::i

Subject:

Petition for Rulemaking on ~~

-, :.r 0

Employee Concern Programs and j::;.

0)

Wrongdoing Activities Federal Register Notice Volume 52, No. 7 Docket No. PRM-50-47 Gentlemen:

The Federal Register notice requested comments on a petition for rulemaking which requests that the NRC add to its regulations require-ments for utility employee concerns programs and reporting of 11 wrong-doi ng activities".

Because very few engineering decisions are totally conclusive, consi d-erable experience and judgement based on a broad understanding of the requirements is necessary. Management must make engi nneri ng decisions based on analyses and a range of opinion. Opposing opinions are inevit-able and expected. Management must bear this responsibility and no type of employee concerns program can substitute for the adequacy of decisions by Project Management. Diverting management attention to the procedural aspects of a regulatory-imposed employee concern program would dilute management attention from resolving many other issues.

We have considerable experience in dealing with employee concerns. While many employees have very valuable insights on safety, relatively few employees have the broad prospective required to decide on safety issues.

We do not support the contention that 11 empl oyees have the most accurate and insightful information about safety-related issues 11

• Experience clearly does not support the contention that 11 a potential exists for a series of costly hardware failures or danger to employees of nuclear facilities or the general public 11 without a regulatory-imposed program for resolution of employee concerns. We do not believe that the 11 sheer11 number of concerns, along with greater than 50% rate of substantiation is justification because few, if any, of the concerns require hardware changes and very few of the hardware changes measurably improve safety.

MAR 2 o 1987 5026 Acknowledged by card . *-. *** *. * * *** *'* * * * * *-

S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOlil DOCKET iNG ;, : , s' 'I'"?: s:CTION

.... '.' y t . r r

~ :

eci I

Bechtel Power Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 13, 1987 Page 2 Many utilities have employee concerns programs, although they are not now required by regulations. Employees are also free to raise issues they feel are important directly with the NRC and this, in fact, is frequently done.

We feel that experience does not justify the imposition of additional 11 regulatory requirements relating to wrongdoing activities or employee 11 concerns and urge that the subject petition for rulemaking be denied.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking *

• Sincerely ,

?./si H Manager, Nuclear Engineering RPS:ch 5028

10 CFR 50 South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Dan A. Nauman P.O. Box 764 Vice President Columbia, SC 29218 Nuclear Operations (803) 748-3513 SCE&G March 13, 1987 00(.;KETEC A-ean,,a,,, 1 US NRC DOCKET N MBER Mr. Samuel J. Chilk PETITION RULE PRM ..ffd-~-'fZ Secretary of the Commission (ff-l Fi(!, /-tdd "87 MAR 17 P2 :36 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 OFF ICE 81 '_ ~* ::. , Ar

• DOCKE TING~. St?VICf.

ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch BRANCH REF: NRC Docket No. PRM-50-47

Subject:

Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Docket No. 50/395 Operating License No. NPF-12 Petition for Rulemaking by Quality Technology Company

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The referenced docket reported via 52FR1200 that a petitioner, Quality Technology Company (QTC), has requested that the NRC require every nuclear utility to report all employee-identified concerns related to 11 Wrongdoing Activities 11 to the NRC.

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) wishes to endorse the views and opinions of the Atomic Industrial Forum on this issue.

Currently SCE&G has in place numerous methods for employees to voice, either openly or discretely, their suggestions and concerns.

Through these Company programs and the application of Title 10CFR, Parts 19, 20, 21, and 50.55, sufficient coverage exists to ensure the safe. efficient operation of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station. SCE&G therefore recommends that the petition for rulemaking be rejected *

• SCE&G appreciates the opportunity to comment on this petition for rulemaking.

If you have any questions on this subject, please contact me at your convenience.

MGC:DAN:bjh AR 2 0 1987 llCknowledged by card *** ~ ,......,.,r.a,u;mllia

5 1uc1*1:.,. _c**,_~TOP.Y c9MMISSIOB DO:::r~. E ,- .'  ::~*. :c SECTION c- -r, * - AR_'(

l J/;,L, I

"I 2-1,!}M ~StR-/2

Mr. S. J. Chilk Petition for Rulemaking by Quality Technology Company March 13, 1987 Page 2 c: 0. W. Dixon, Jr./T. C. Nichols, Jr.

E. C. Roberts

0. S. Bradham J. G. Connelly, Jr.

D.R. Moore W. A. Williams, Jr.

J. Nelson Grace Group Managers W.R. Baehr C. A. Price C. L. Ligon (NSRC)

• R. M. Campbell, Jr.

NPCF File

r DOCKET NUMBER U-600873 L30-87 (03-14 )-L PETITl9 N RULE PRM ~-4~ lA . 120

(. .5£. FiR, /,tliD) (!!;I.I lll/NOIS POWER COMPANY llPI OOC.KETED US NRC CLINTON POWER STATION. P.O. BOX 678, CLINTON. ILLINOIS 61727

'87 MAR 17 P2 :41 March 1 4, 1 98 7 OFFI c- CF :_ r:..!Ai--':'

DOCK ETING ,. SE r VICf.

BRANCH Docket No. PRM-50-47 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Response to Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Sir:

On January 12, 1987, the Federal Register (Volume 52, No. 7) contained a notice to the public requesting comments on a petition for rulemaking dated October 27, 1986, that was filed by Quality Technology Company. The Petitioner requested that the Commission add to its regulations a requirement that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC' s) Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrong doing" activities and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

Illinois Power has reviewed the above proposal for such rulemaking and believes the Commission should deny it in all respects for the following reasons:

• 0 The establishment of such an employee concerns program should be at the initiative of each utility and considered only when need has been demonstrated.

The Petitioner's basis for the proposal is heavily weighted on experiences obtained from one plant under cons t ruction. There is insufficient factual evidence to suggest that this experience can be validly extended and applied to other plants, and in particular to operating nuclear plants.

0 The issuance of a rule may result in a standardized approach to employee concern programs that would reduce the flexibility of utility management to develop a program that meets plant specific needs.

MAR 2 0 1987 Acknowledged by card .*** , * , , **.,-....,...,,..-.111~

lJ.S. NUCLE R REGUI.ATORY COMMISSIO DOCKET G & s~RVl"E SECTION OFFICE C TH ~~C 0 ETA Y C, :

Postm_. ,*

C'Op*,,

Ad 4 ' I

0 The proposed rule would encourage communication of employee concerns to third parties, at the expense of the reporting of concerns to line supervision and management for resolution. This would tend to dilute the accountability of those with first line responsibility for the quality of the safety-related work and may hinder timely resolution of problems and concerns.

0 Clinton Power Station's experience in this area indicates that existing rules are adequate for the communication of employee concerns to line super-vision and management, and to the NRC; and for the protection of employees' rights who voice concerns.

Therefore, the additional reporting requirements proposed by the Petitioner are unnecessary, impose unwarranted requirements and would not contribute significantly to the safety of nuclear plants .

If there are any questions on the above, please contact R. E.

Campbell, Manager - Quality Assurance, at Clinton Power Station.

Sincerely yours,

@ D.

• Hall Vice President RDW/jsp

DOCKET NUMBER , . ~

-41 ~

Frank E. Agosti Vice President Nuclear Operations t TITION RULE fRM*i'~

Detroit Edison Fermi 2 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, Michigan 48166 (313) 586-4150

( 5/l p:,e /.tll. . 'lit!:.,..,

, -, Op~aJIO,li!:.9

• s7 t1AR 16 t' I ,:)1 March 12, 1987 VP-N0-87-0047 OFFI Ct OF $u ., r{t.f,,R '*

DOCKETING S~f", './ ICf.

BRANCH Mr. Samuel J. Ch ilk Secretary of the Cormnission

u. s. ?b=lear Regulatory Camnission Washington, D. c. 20555 Attn: Docketing am Service Branch

References:

1) Fermi 2 NlC Docket No. 50-341 NlC License No. NPF-43

2) Request for Public Cooments (Docket No.

PR-I 50 47; 52 Federal Register 200, January 12, 1987)

Subject:

Comments on Petition for Rul.emakioo Detroit &lison welcomes this opportunity to cannent upon the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the O.,.ality Teclmology Conpany. 'Ibis petition requests that the Camnission require all utilities involved in a nuclear program to (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all enploye-identified concerns relatoo to

• wrongdoing" activities am (2) establish and maintain an enploye concerns program *

• Detroit &lison is an investor-owned public utility serving custaners in southeastern Michigan. It is the owner and operator of the 1100 M-l Fermi 2 nuclear facility.

Detroit Wison has ha:l an errploye concerns program at the Fermi 2 site for four years. 'Ibis program, SAFETFAM, is currently indeperrlently operated by Detroit

&I ison 's wholly-owned subsidiary, Syndeco. Syooeco has also operated this program for several other utilities under contracts with those utilities.

Detroit &lison believes that erploye concerns programs have value, as indicated both by its use of one at the Fermi 2 site, and by the marketing of such a progran by its subsidiary to other utilities. However, Detroit a:!ison believes that the proposal contained in the Petition for Rlllemaki03 would decrease the effectiveness of such programs. Detroit D:iison agrees that enployes 2'1)

Acknowlwgelil by ~~.,l.._cbi'RMw!:ii:IW

U. S. N t,c,._

DOC:,

G '

Cr ri *

[,

I Pos!r, C *, I -

Add 7..--

S µ-:c,

/211)5_~ t ~ _,

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 12, 1987 VP-ID-87-0047 Page 2 are often the best source of information regarding concerns about the safety of the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Enployes should be encouraged to voice their concerns so that such concerns may be rodressed. However, the current proposal rather than enhancing the ability of enployes to raise their concerns would have a stifling effect.

Presently, the enployes at Detroit Exl ison have several methods of raising corx:erns. The normal channels of conmunication to managenent are always available, as are raising concerns directly with the N1C or going to SAFETFJ\M. Nothing stops an enploye from reporting concerns directly to the NIC, and, indeerl, Detroit Wison and SAFRl'FAM encourage enployes to make such reports.

However, many 100re employes have chosen to report concerns to SAFRI'FAM, either as an alternative to reporting to the NIC, or in rodition to such a report.

These enployes nust believe that there is value in making reports to SAFETF.AM, either in crldition to or instecrl of the NIC, or the significant number of enploye reports to SAFETF.AM would not occur. We believe that in large measure this is due to the protection of confidentiality offererl by SAFETFAM as an operation independent of nuclear power plant management and the nuclear power regulator.

Over the past four years, SAFETFAM has investigaterl over 2200 employe concerns at Fermi 2. SAFE'IEAM has been able to bring these corx:erns to management for resolution. The resolution of these concerns has resulterl in many hardware and procedural changes, which have enhanced the safety at the Fermi 2 f~ility.

The essence of an enploye-corx:erns program is that it is voluntary. Enployes are willing to raise concerns when they are assurerl of confidentiality. Ap{arently, the fact the SAFE'IEAM protects the identity of the enploye, and thus, the employe is not publicly involved, serves as an irrlucenent for enployes to report concerns.

If the employe concerns program becomes another arm of the NOC, or a mandated coopmy-run program, then safety relaterl matters may go unreporterl. Making such a program mandatory would destroy its value and decrease rather than enhance the ability of conpanies to resporrl to employe-raiserl concerns. '!be Coopany fully and totally agrees that d::>taining employe concerns about nuclear power plant safety is crucial to employe and

USNIC Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 12, 1987 VP-00-87-00 47 Page 3 public credibility aoo enhances safe aoo reliable operation. Mandating these programs under 10CFR would reduce their impact on protecting public health aoo safety

• DOCKET NUMBER PRM ,e:,IV

~A-,4'7 {ij)

/

PETl( }]uL;:-,e ;.u~)

Log # TXX-6339 File # 10185 DOCl(ETEQ USNRC "87 MAR 16 P7 :3 3 1UELECTR/C William G. Counsil Ererntive Vice President Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch REF: Docket No. PRM-50-47 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking Filed by Quality Technology Company (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 January 12, 1987)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

TU Electric welcomes this opportunity to comment on the Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company. This petition requests that the Commission require all utilities involved in a nuclear program to (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

TU Electric has had an employee concerns program at the Comanche Peak site for two years. This program, SAFETEAM, is currently provided by contract with Detroit Edison's wholly-owned subsidiary, Syndeco. Syndeco has also provided this program for several other utilities under similar contracts with those utilities. The Comanche Peak Safeteam Program is managed by a TU Electric Manager independent of site management .

• TU Electric believes that employee concerns programs have value, as indicated by its use of one at Comanche Peak. However, TU Electric believes that the proposal contained in the Petition for Rulemaking would decrease the effectiveness of such programs.

TU Electric agrees that employees are often the best source of information regarding concerns about the safety of the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Employees should be encouraged to voice their concerns so that such concerns may be addressed. However, the current proposal rather than enhancing the ability of employees to raise their concerns would have a stifling effect.

Presently, the employees at Comanche Peak have several methods of raising concerns. The normal channels of communication to management are always available, as are raising concerns directly with the NRC or going to SAFETEAM.

Nothing stops an employee from reporting concerns directly to the NRC, and, indeed, TU Electric and SAFETEAM encourage employees to make such reports.

400 North Olive Street L.B. 81 Dallas, Texas 7520 I R 2 Q \9bl

TXX-6339 March 13, 1987 Page 2 of 2 However, many more employees have chosen to report concerns to SAFETEAM, either as an alternative to reporting to the NRC, or in addition to such a report. These employees must believe that there is value in making reports to SAFETEAM, either in addition to or instead of the NRC, or the significant number of employee reports to SAFETEAM would not occur. We believe that in large measure this is due to the protection of confidentiality offered by SAFETEAM as an operation independent of nuclear power plant management and the nuclear power regulator.

Over the past two years, SAFETEAM has investigated over 1600 employee concerns at Comanche Peak. SAFETEAM has been able to bring these concerns to management for resolution. The resolution of these concerns has resulted in many hardware and procedural changes, which have enhanced the safety at the Comanche Peak facility.

The essence of an employee-concerns program is that it is voluntary.

Employees are willing to raise concerns when they are assured of confidentiality. Apparently, the fact that SAFETEAM protects the identity of the employee, and thus, the employee is not publicly involved, serves as an inducement for employees to report concerns.

If the employee concerns program becomes another arm of the NRC, or a mandated company-run program, then safety related matters may go unreported. Making such a program mandatory would destroy its value, and decrease rather than enhance the ability of companies to respond to employee-raised concerns.

TU Electric agrees that obtaining employee concerns about nuclear power plant safety is crucial to employee and public credibility and enhances safe and reliabl e operation. Mandating these programs under 10 CFR wou l d reduce their impact on protecting public health and safety

• Very truly yours, t().4/~

W. G. Counsil By:

G. S. Keel ey Manager, Nuclear Lice ROO/dl c - Mr. E. H. Johnson - Region IV Mr. 0. L. Kelley, RI - Region IV Mr. H. S. Phillips, RI - Region IV

l> DOCKET NUMBER PETITION ~ ULE

(?2-PRM -.Ja-,4'7/jji J; /J~_} (.!V WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM P.O. Box 968

• 3000 George Washington Way

• Richland, Washington 99352

'87 MAR 16 P7 :13 OFFICE 8F S_v' . ,,q-<,

DOCK ETI NG 1-.. S~;; VIC f, BRANCH March 12, 1987 Document Control Desk Docketing &Service Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Secretary of the Commission

Subject:

QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY PETITION FOR RULEMAKING DOCKET NO: PRM 50-47 The Supply System has reviewed this Petition for Rulemaking (PRM) and is concerned that its implementation would result in an additional layer of reporting requirements which have the potential to decrease safety due to their chilling effect on the ability of licensees or applicants to conduct their own internal investigations.

In accordance with what has become a standard industry practice, the Supply System has procedures which implement an employee safety concerns program at our operating plant and a quality awareness hotline at our construction sites. We also post NRC IE Notice 80-14 and NRC Form 3 as required by 10CFR 19.ll(c). We believe that the NRC and the industry already have in place adequate mechanisms which allow employees who have concerns to express them, and see these investigated thoroughly. The PRM implies that employees are now reluctant to come forward because of the potential for intimidation and possible harassment. It has been the experience of the Supply System in both construction and operation that employees who have concerns pertaining to nuclear safety are not shy about voicing them. A brief training segment, adequate posting, and a reasonable assurance of confidentiality are the necessary ingredients.

The issue of reporting "wrongdoing" is a little harder to grasp. This is mainly because "wrongdoing" is undefined by the PRM. In any case, it is hard to imagine a situation where, upon becoming aware of a violation of an established requirement, a condition adverse to quality, or a potential safety concern, the licensee would not already be required to report it.

2 0 1987

~

U. S. NUCLE ,R EC. , v,l Do * 'l ..... ~ ; .s Pos!Mark D * ~/rz-/<Y°7

(,.,4 I ,;

I u 2......

I

• Secretary of the Commission Comments - Quality Technology PRM Page 2 If the question to be addressed is simply the involvement of the NRC Office of Investigations and how and when this is best accomplished, we believe this is something that should be handled internally by the NRC.

Requiring a separate report by the licensee or applicant direct to the NRC Office of Investigations, in addition to causing a strain on already limited NRC resources, would effectively stifle any internal investigation by the licensee or applicant. This would prevent or delay the identification of root cause by the licensee or applicant, and 11 11 ultimately could lead to the continuance and/or worsening of an unsafe condition due to these delays.

In conclusion, the Supply System does not support the Quality Technology Company Petition for Rulemaking. We believe it would add unnecessary and

• duplicative reporting requirements. The industry as a whole seems to have accepted as standard the concept of employee concerns programs, and in any case, the NRC has its own system in place as well. Finally, we feel that implementation of the Petition could cast a shadow on the important internal investigation process of licensees and applicants and has the potential to allow unsafe conditions to go unresolved for indefinite time periods.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment on the PRM. If you have any questions or desire further clarification of the points in this letter, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yd

~~~

• Regulatory Programs

DOCKET NUMBER *__ 5(J-41 PETITION RULE PRM . A ) <ff)

Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.

7101 Wisconsin Avenue

/!f;,t FA, / J, ~ o/

L~

Bethesda, MD 20814-4891 OO(;KETEC Telephone: (301 l 654-9260 USNRC TWX 7108249602 ATOMIC FOR DC March 12, 1987 *a7 MAR 16 P7 :11 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Quality Technology Company; Petition for Rulemaking The NRC published in the January 12, 1987, Federal Register (52 FR 1200) a request for public comments on a petition for rulemaking

• by Quality Technology Company (QTC). QTC's petition for rulemaking requested that the NRC add to its regulations a requirement that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program. The Atomic Industrial Forum's Committee on Power Plant Design, Construction and Operation, Subcommittee on Quality Assurance, has reviewed the petition for rulemaking and offers the following comments.

We recommend that the petition be rejected because the proposed rulemaking is unnecessary and counterproductive to existing industry initiatives to respond to employee concerns. The industry does not need another redundant reporting requirement to the NRC. There are sufficient regulations in place that allow employees of any organization participating in a nuclear program the opportunity to express concerns to the NRC either openly, in confidence, or anonymously. In addition, there is a requirement to post notices on bulletin boards or otherwise inform employees of their right to express their concerns and to report violations of NRC regulations or other requirements.

Utilities and many others involved in nuclear programs already have in place such programs as exit interview systems, problem reporting systems and other programs for reporting, investigating and resolution of quality concerns, which are effectively doing the task described by the petitioner.

The concept that utilities would be required to report all employee-identified concerns relate d to "wrongdoing activTties",

along the same lines as the reports of nuclear safety-related issues required by 10CFRS0.55(e) and 10CFR21, could unduly burden MAR 2 o 1987

LJ.S. NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSI09 DOCKETING & 5cpy1CE !:ECTION OFFICE OF 71 ;r ~::nETARY.

I - . ,

f'ostm er': f' '

Copies r*,

-~/!~- .. - /_ _

Add'I C:.- *~

~ a l Di:,rii,*.

~-----

p.os,%_

~

Secretary March 12, 1987 the NRC with insignificant information. The petitioner does not define the term "wrongdoing activities," but such items could only be of a lesser significance than the nuclear-safety related issues covered by 10CFRS0.SS(e) and 10CFR21.

We take exception to the petitioner's conclusion that employee concerns have been "falling into a 'black hole' and that the sheer number of concerns identified along with the greater than 50 percent rate of substantiation of these concerns more than justifies the need for establishing and maintaining a nationwide employee concerns program". The petitioner's conclusion does not appear to be based upon industry wide knowledge of conditions and,

• further, the petitioner has not defined "substantiation". Presum-ably, tfiis statement is based on the petitioner's experience, but an objective analysis of that experience might reach a different conclusion.

The proposal, if adopted, would result in increased NRC involve-ment in an area where industry efforts for self-improvement are being emphasized. In addition, the proposal could lead to considerable NRC workload of very questionable priority and validity, at the expense of necessary NRC activities.

It is our view that the nuclear industry is keenly aware of issues related to its credibility and specifically the need to handle properly employee safety-related concerns. We believe the nuclear industry, by various measures, has been doing an effective job and that management responsibility correctly rests with each licensee, including a program of open communication with employees and adequate, timely investigation and resolution of their concerns.

The proposed rulemaking would weaken this responsibility, decrease the impetus to improve programs and presumes failure on the part of licensee management. We therefore recommend that the petition for rulemaking be rejected.

Sincerely, J. W. Williams, Chairman Committee on Power Plant Design Construction and Operation JWW:bjr

DOCKET NUMBER * .

i ETITION RULE PRM *.!J&-4?) ~

. { 5 2 -?! I.t d t1/ l.!;1/

STEVE C GRIFF ITH , JR.

DUKE POWER COMPANY GEORGE W . FERGUSON, JR .

LEWIS F. CAMP, JR .

LEGAL DEPARTMENT OCl<ETED RAYMOND A . JOLLY, JR .

P. 0. Box 33180 USNRC WILLIAM LARRY PORTER W . WALLACE GREGORY, JR .

JOHN E . LANSCHE GHARLOTTE, N. G. 28242 (7 04) 3?3 - 2570 RONALD V . SHEAR IN EDWARD M . MARSH, JR .

W . EDWARD POE, JR.

• 57 MAR 16 P5 :04 ELLEN T . RUFF ALBERT V . CARR , JR .

ROBERT M. BISA N AR WILLIAM J . BOWMAN, JR.

OFF ,t.~ ci- ..~

RONALD L . GIBSON March 13, 1987 OOCK i:. T1 1 1G ); ~ ~ .. ::

JEFFREY M . TREPEL i., 11.:. i; 'I*

JEFFERSON D - GRIFFITH,lI[

OF" COUNSEL WILLIAM I. WARD , JR .

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

• RE:

Dear Mr. Chil k:

Docket No. PRM-50-47 Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company On January 12, 1987, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( 11 NRC 11 or 11 Commission 11 ) invited comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (QTC). The notice was corrected January 29, 1987. (See 52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (January 12, 1987); 52 Fed. Reg. 2951 (January 29, 1987)),

Duke Power Company (Duke), incorporates by reference the comments filed on behalf of it and other utilities by the firm of Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds. In addition, Duke submits the following comments in opposition to the petition.

QTC represents that it has gained substantial background in the

• "collecting, collating and investigation of safety concerns" at "several nuclear facilities". Petition at 1. QTC alleges that existing reporting and employee concerns regulations are only "effective to a degree"; that licensees will not allow QTC to investigate "wrongdoing issues", nor will licensees "willingly" report such issues to the NRC. Therefore, QTC urges the Commission to amend its rules to require that all utilities (1) report to NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities"l/ and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

QTC has demonstrated no need for the proposed regulation. QTC ignores the fact that ample means already exist by which employees of nuclear utilities can bring concerns to the attention of both utility management and the NRC. The existing regulatory structure is more than adequate to assure that nuclear power plants are constructed and operated so as to protect the health and safety of the public. The petition barely acknowledges the existence, and does not give any credit for the effectiveness, of the myriad NRC reporting requirements which already govern all activities of nuclear l I One obvious defect in the petition is that QTC makes no attempt~

to explain what it means by 11 wrongdoing activities".

Acknow~ by card.. -.noisatu1.1Afib*i!ll,uitil

U. S. N U CLE. R R~GULATORY L! ' f_,..., ON D0~.~:r1;13 S :H C dCc. v:- ,

D . -  :;

Pos* , ~(s/<rl I

z_

&~~~ C--~. ~=-*

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page Two licensees.2/ More importantly, however, QTC is totally silent as to the programs already in place whereby utilities investigate, report to the NRC, and resolve employee concerns whether or not those concerns allege any "wrongdoing 11

• It is on Duke 1 s own programs to perform those activities that these comments focus. When Duke 1 s programs are examined, it will be clear that, contrary to the QTC allegations, employee concerns are heard by utility management, reported to the NRC, and resolved properly.

Duke actively encourages its employees performing any work associated with NRC licensed activities to report to management~ concern they may have "about nuclear safety, harassment, or retaliation in the performance of their job duties". Duke also makes it clear that its employees have an absolute, and unrestricted, right to go to the NRC with those concerns at any time .

In no case will Duke tolerate harassme~t or recrimination of any nature against an employee as retaliation for raising any such concern. Duke 1 s policy in this regard was reviewed in some detail by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Catawba licensing proceeding.

• In its decision, the Board found that Duke 1 s QA program "on the whole . . . worked well". Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), 19 NRC 1418, 1434 (1984). On examination of Duke 1 s policies, the Board found that employees were encouraged to bring concerns to management, and that employees, as a whole, also understood that they could bring concerns directly to the NRC without any retribution. 19 NRC at 1508-11. The Board did suggest (19 NRC at 1509) that Duke revise its policy on employee access to the NRC to make it more direct and explicit. That was done; the revisions were reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff; and the .revised policy (Attachment 1) is now in effect and posted on Company property.

Duke also has in place an employee concerns program. That program

• provides for employees to express concerns regarding technical, operational safety, or quality matters to management. The concerns may be expressed anonymously if the employee wishes. The concerns expressed will be evaluated and the employee will* be apprised of the resolution. The procedure provides for acce$S by the employee to successive levels of management either to express concerns or to discuss the resolution of expressed concerns if the employee so desires. The procedure (Attachment 2) is in effect and is posted on Company property. In addition, certain departments -- including Duke 1 s Quality Assurance department -- have an 11 Employee Forum" program. Small groups of employees may meet with an upper level manager without the immediate supervisor present. Any questions may be asked or concerns raised. The meetings are handled in confidence and employees are guaranteed a response.

If the response requires further investigation, the manager conducting the meeting will personally follow up with the employee later.

l I The existing NRC reporting requirements are outlined in the comments filed by Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds and will not be discussed further herein.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page Three Though both the "access to NRC" policy and the employee concerns program make it clear that no harassment of, or any form of retaliation against, an employee reporting a concern to management or contacting the NRC to express a concern will be tolerated by Duke, a separate harassment procedure exists, as it has for some years. The Catawba Li ce nsing Board, followfng an examination of the then-existing harassment procedure, ordered it revised to make it more clear. (19 NRC at 1531-32) The procedure was revised, reviewed and approved by the NRC Staff, and is now i n effect. That procedure is Attachment 3 to these comments.

Finally, as the NRC well knows -- but QTC ignores in its petition --

employee access to the NRC is facilitated by the fact that at least one resident inspector is assigned to each plant site. Moreov.er, the NRC has caused to be posted on each site its revised Form 3 J/ which unequivocally informs employees of their rights to express concerns to the NRC, and provides a number which employees can call collect if they so .desire.

Clearly, from the foregoing, there is no need to adopt the regulations proposed by QTC. Duke already has in place policies and procedures which go beyond the reg ulatory structure urged. Moreover, those policies and procedures were adopted voluntarily. They have been examined by an NRC Licensing Board in a contested licensing proceeding and the Board found that Duke's activities carried out under those procedures worked well. Changes were suggest~d, were made (with review and approval by the NRC Staff) and are currently in place. No need exists for t he NRC to add yet another layer of regulation at the suggestion of a petitio ne r of limited experience with an obvious commercial interest in the adoption of such a rule.

Sincerely y urs ,

• J/!!:v. C rr, Jr.

Assistant G nera l Counsel AVCjr/clr 1I The NRC's Form 3 was revised following the Catawba Licensing Board's review and criticism of the then-existing Form 3. 19 NRC at 1441 .

ATI'ACHMEtn' 1 DUKE POWER COMPANY POLICY STATEMENT NUMBER 1007

SUBJECT:

EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I PAGE 1 of 2 DATE EFFECTIVE 10/1/85 DATE REVISED NEW POLICY This policy sets forth the Company's position on employee access to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

• IMPLEMENTATION I. Duke Power Company employees performing any work associated with projects licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are en-couraged to notify management of any concern about nuclear safe-ty, harassment, or retaliation in the performance of their job duties. Employees may notify management in any of the following ways:

A. Notify supervision.

B. Notify the department Personnel or Employee Relations Sec-tion .

• C.

D.

Use Management Procedure 101.06, Harassment of Employees.

Use Management Procedure 101.09, Employee Recourse.

Each employee concern will be fully investigated and the employee notified of the disposition.

II. Duke Power Company employees are free at any time (with or with-out prior notification to the Company) to take concerns about the construction, design, or operation of nuclear generating stations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC may be contacted through the on-s i te Resident NRC Inspector or through the Region II office located at 101 Marietta Street NW, Suite 2900, Atlanta, Georgia 30323, phone (404)331-4503.

POLICY STATEMENT NUMBER 1007 I PAGE 2 of 2 DATE EFFECTIVE 10/1/85 DATE REVISED NEW III. Duke Power Company will not tolerate harassment, or any form of retaliation against any employee who has brought concerns to management or the NRC or who has participated in the investiga-tion or resolution of such concerns.

W. S. Lee Chairman of the Board D. W. Booth President

~ 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101 ,09

SUBJECT:

RECOURSE I.___________________

PAGE 1 of 5 DATE EFFECTIVE 5/1/79 _ DATE REVISED 10/1/85 STATEMENT:

It is the policy of Duke Power Company to ensure fair and equitable treatment for all employees. Employees , therefore, are entitled to a prompt review and decision regarding any concern which may arise during the course of employment. Although discussion of a concern with the immediate supervisor is encouraged, the Company assures all employees access to additional managemen t .

• The Company rea 11 zes that occas i ona 11 y an emp 1oyee may prefer to remain anonymous when presenting concerns of a technical, operational safety or qua 11 ty nature; therefore, a process is provided for that option. It should be clearly under stood that bringing forth techni-cal, operational safety or quality concerns, and supporting any corrective action which may be warranted, are in the best interests of the Company.

The Company wi 11 not tolerate any form of retaliation against an employee who has brought forth concerns or participated in an investi-gation or review associated with this procedure .

IMPLEMENTATION:

I. General Guidelines A. Employees are encouraged to discuss with their immediate supervisor any concern they may have during the course of their employment. Departmental Personnel Assistants, Employee Relations and Human Resources Staffs are also available to discuss any concern if the employee desires.

The discussion process should begin within thirty (30) calendar days of an incident or event.

B. The Recourse Procedure is ava i lab 1e to an employee whether or not he/she has made efforts to resolve the concern through discussions with supervision.

C. The time limits in this procedure may be extended when both management and the employee agree.

0. Meeting(s) the employee attends to discuss concerns will be held during work time, unless an employee requests to remain anonymous.

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101. 09 I PAGE 2 of 5 DATE EFFECTIVE 5/1/79 DATE REVISED 10/1/85 E. During the initial pro.bationary period, an employee may not use the recourse process for an individual personal concern beyond his/her department head, except that technical, operational safety and quality concerns may be pursued to all levels during the probationary period.

F. It is reco11111ended, though not required, that former employ-ees use registered mail for correspondence concerning recourse matters. However, a postmark within any of the specified time frames will be considered timely. Correspon-dence with current emp 1oyees wi 11 be routed through the courier mail system.

II. Recourse Procedure for Individual Personal Concerns A. If discussions with the i111nediate supervisor or staff personnel do not resolve an employee's concern, the employee may discuss the concern with successive levels of supervi-sion or may elect at any time to use the written Employee Recourse process.

B. Written Process STEP 1: An employee who elects to use the Recourse process ...

should outline the concern in writing to his/her immediate supervisor within thirty (30) calendar days of the incident or event ~ within thirty (30) calendar days following the last discussion of the concern with supervision.

a. Employees who have terminated have a maximum of fifteen (15) working days to initiate a b.

STEP 1 review of their concern(s).

Each department has outlined internal pro-cesses for dealing with STEP 1. The employee will be provided a written response within a maximum of thirty (30) working days from the receipt of the written concern by the depart-ment.

STEP 2: An employee dissatisfied with the response at STEP 1 may, within ten (10) working days from receipt of the STEP 1 response, contact the Dfrector -

Employee Relations and Services by writing the Director through courier mail at Power Building, Human Resources Department, Charlotte, or

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101. 09 I PAGE 3 of 5 DATE EFFECTIVE 5/1/79 DATE REVISED 10/1/85 Duke Power Company PO Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242; or Phone (704) 373-7126

a. The Director - Employee Relations and Servic-es will coordinate the review of all informa-tion relevant to the employee 1 s concern.

b. The Director - Employee Relations and Servic-es, or designee, will work with the employee and department/location management toward additional efforts to resolve the issue. If the employee and department/location manage-

• ment are unab 1e to resolve the issue within fifteen (15) working days of the STEP 2 interview with Employee Relations, employee may decide to pursue STEP 3. If the employee decides to oursue STEP 3, the employee is to notify Employee Relations the staff.

STEP 3: Employee Relations staff will present the employee's concern, along with the history of management's actions, to address the concern to the President, or designee, for a full review. A written decision will be given to the employee within twenty (20) working days.

a. The decision o( the President, or des i gnee.

will be final and binding on all concerned .

Iii. Recourse Process for Technical, Operational Safety or Quality Concerns A. Current Employees

1. If discussions with immediate supervisor do not resolve an emp 1oyee I s concern, the emp 1oyee may discuss the concern with successive 1eve 1s of supervision or may elect at any time to use the written Employee Recourse orocess.

STEP 1: An employee who elects to use the Recourse process should outline the concern in writing to his/her immediate supervisor when he/she becomes aware of a condition or situation which causes concern.

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101. 09 I PAGE 4 of 5 DATE EFFECTIVE 5/1/79 DATE REVISED 10/1/85

a. Each department has outlined internal processes for dealing with STEP 1. The employee will be provided a written response within a maximum of thirty (30) working days from the receipt of the written concern by the department.

STEP 2: If the employee feels that the matter has not been satisfactorily resolved through the STEP 1 process, the employee may, within ten (10) working days from receipt of the STEP 1 response, request further review.

a. Such requests should be addressed to the Corporate officer who supervises the department head.

b. This officer will initiate a review of the concerns using experts and profes-s i ona 1 op1nions from within or outside the Company.

c. A response wi 11 be sent to the ques-tioning employee within thirty (30) working days from receipt of the re-quest.

B. Anonymous Concerns

1. An employee who has a technical, operational safety or qua 1i ty concern. who des i .res to remain anonymous, may at any time, contact the Director - Employee Relations and Services by writing the Director through courier mail at Power Building, Human Resources Department, Charlotte, or Duke Power Company PO Box 33189 Charlotte, NC 28242; or Phone (704) 373-7126

2. An employee may call to discuss a concern; however. to receive a reply, each concern must be put in writing and signed. The Director - Employee Relations and Services wi 11 not rel ease the name of the emp 1oyee presenting a concern of this nature~ except in cases where records may be subpoenaed by the courts.

3. The Director - Employee Relations and Services will identify the concern to the department head for appro-priate action. The findings during the review process

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101.09 PAGE 5 of 5 DATE EFFECTIVE 5/1/79 DATE REVISED 10/1/85 will be documented by the reviewing professiona l s, and the Di rector - Emp 1oyee Re 1ati ons and Services wil 1 provide a written response to the emp 1oyee based on those findings within thirty {30) working days of receipt of the concern.

C. Former Employees

1. A terminated employee has fifteen (15) working days to express a technical, operational safety or quality concern, in writing, to initiate a STEP 1 rev i ew. If the former emp 1oyee wishes to rema i n anonymous, the concern should be submitted as described i n Section III.B.1. of this procedure .

• Human Resources

ATrACHMENT 3 DUKE POWER COMPANY MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101.06

SUBJECT:

HARASSMENT OF EMPLOYEES h',- - - ,!--P-AG-E--lo_f_3__D_A_TE-E-FF_E_CT_I_V_E_2_/1_7_/_81--D-A-T-ER-EV_I_S-ED- ~--

l ,'_l_/8-6--~

STATEMENT:

It is the policy of Duke Power Company to treat all employees equita-bly in their terms and conditions of employment. The harassment of any employee is contrary to this policy and will be considered justi-fication for disciplinary action. This procedure defines harassment and outlines the method by which it is reported .

• IMPLEMENTATION:

I. Definition Harassment is any annoying action which singles out an employee, to the employee's objection or detriment, because of race, sex, religion, national origin, age, handicap, or personal character-istics. Harassment also includes actions by any employee, inc 1ud i ng a supervisor, that are intended to interfere with or modify the proper performance of any other employee's job duties.

A. Examples of harassment include, but are not limited to, the following:

• 1.

2.

3.

Verbal abuse or ridicule.

Unnecessarily rough or repeated physical contact.

Interference with an employee's work by improper action such as threats, intimidation, or promise of reward.

4. Displaying or distributing pornographic or racist

- materials.

5. Discriminating against any employee in work assignments or job-related training.

6. Intimate physical contact.

7. Retaliation against an employee for some previous l y taken action.

---

• r........,;_________________________

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101.06 J PAGE 2 of 3 DATE EFFECTIVE 2/17/81 DATE REVISED 11/1/86

8. Demanding favors (sexual or otherwise), exp li citly or implicitly, as a condition of employment, promotion, transfer, or any other term or condition of emp loyment.

11. Reporting and Investigating Harassment or Suspected Harassment It is every employee's responsibility to insure that his or her conduct does not include or imply haras~ment in any form. If, however, harassment or suspected harassment has or is taking place, the following will apply:

A. An employee should report harassment or suspected harassment to his or her supervisor or the Department Personnel Section. If the harassment involves the supervisor, however, the emp 1oyee shou 1d report it to the next level of management or the Department Personnel Section. The EEO Section or Employee Relations Staff of the Corporate Human Resources Department may be contacted by the employee.

B. Any supervisor who receives a report of or has knowledge of harassment will inform higher management and the Department Personnel Section.

C. Each complaint will be fully investigated and a determina-tion of the facts will be made on a case by case basis.

Ill. Disciplinary Action A. Duke Power Company will not tolerate harassment or any form of retaliation against any employee who has brought concerns to management or to Regulatory Agencies, such as the NRC, EEOC, and OSHA, or who has participated in the investigation or resolution of such concerns.

B. Disciplinary action will be taken according to Corporate and de~artment disciplinary procedures.

IV. Quality or Safety of Nuclear Generating Stations A. In situations where the quality or safety of nuclear gener-ating stations was or could have been affected and an investigation revealed that harassment has occurred or there was the potential for harassment and subsequent action was taken, the following communications will take place.

Supervisors at the 1ocati on where the situation occurred will be appraised of the general circumstances and the

MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER 101 . 06 I PAGE 3 of 3 DATE EFFECTIVE 2/17/81 DATE REVISED 11/1/86 action taken by management to prevent such situar*,~ s in the future. Supervisors will communicate that Duke Power wi 11 not tolerate such instances. The name(s) of any employee(s) or details which may identify an individual will not be identified or referred to in any way in communicating this information to supervision and employees.

J. R. lavis Vice~~. Human Resources

OOCi( T UM ER

~T.IJlON 8ULE PRM fl -41 1i:

[ 52/:::£./2d~ (51 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OOU(ETED RICHMOND , V IRG INIA 2 3 261 USNRC W. L . S TH WABT March 13, 1987 "87 MR 16 P1 :51 VICE P RESI D ENT NUCL EAR 0P E RAT t 0 NS 0

Secretary of the Commission Serial No.87-045 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

• VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY COMMENTS ON PETITION FOR RULEMAKING BY QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY Virginia Electric and Power Company reviewed the notice of receipt of petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company as provided in Federal Register , Volume 52, No. 7, page 1200 dated January 12 , 1987 . In the petition , the NRC has been requested to add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigations all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program .

Virginia Electric and Power Company believes that prograIIU11atically addressing and correcting, if applicable, employee-identified concerns regarding perceived improper activities is important . It is prudent that a Company address employee concerns both from a safet y and economical perspective . We also believe this to be the proper responsibility of the Company both as employer and responsive licensee . However, we strongly take issue that this responsibility requires additional regulation. We believe that codifying a program to address employee-identified concerns will stifle constructive employee input and may reduce resolution of negative input into an adversarial situation. Furthermore, existing regulation (10 CFR 19) provides a mechanism and protects workers who wish to identify potential violations to the NRC .

As an example of a more constructive and interactive approach to employee involvement in identifying and cor recting deficiencies, we offer the example of our Company's implementation of the Human Performance Evaluation System (HPES) .

Gknowl

I! )

,... .,

• JI"\

) ' I I-I-<"

• s *n ,

Realizing the impact of human error in a nuclear station, the Company implemented a pilot program in 1984 to evaluate and correct human performance problems . Employees report, anonymously if desired, an inappropriate action or a potential problem that should be corrected so that it could promote reliable human performance . The results of the evaluation and corrective actions are made available to the reporting employee as well as the Company's Corporate and Station management. Our experience with the HPES program has shown that inappropriate actions can be identified and corrected through employee reports and station safety engineering reviews independent of any federally mandated program.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this petition for rulemaking and encourage your careful consideration of our connnents.

Very truly yours, W. L. Stewart

0 Public Service'"

1J7 16 AlO :22 2420 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 100D, Denver, Colorado 80211 OFFICE OF Sc_ t,~,c.TAR 'f DOCKETIN G&: SERVIC f.

BRANCH March 12, 1987 Fort St. Vrain Unit No. 1 P-87082 Secretary of the Conunission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Docket No. 50-267

SUBJECT:

Quality Technology Company; Petition for Rulemaking Gentlemen:

Public Service Company of Colorado {PSC) seeks to provide co111T1ents on the Petition for Rulemaking (Docket No. PRM-50-47) submitted by Quality Technology Company. This Petition requests the establishment of NRC regulations to require: (1) reporting to the NRC of employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and, (2) establishing and maintaining an employee concerns program .

PSC does not agree that regulations be promulgated to require licensees to adhere to an "employee concerns" program for the following reasons:

A) The regulations of 10CFR19 provide for concerns to be presented to the NRC by employees, without fear of discrimination or loss of confidentiality. This is an established regulation with proven results for employees that cannot gain satisfactory responses from within a licensee organization. PSC feels that the evidence offered by the peti tioner does not conclusively support the allegation that 10CFR19 does not provide an adequate vehicle for dealing with 11 employee concerns." PSC does not see evidence that the issue is an industry-wide problem.

MAR 2 o 1987

s: IA ar Juu u

I u s.

I t.

L 2-

l-'-81082 Page 2 March 12, 1987 The petition seeks to establish regulations for all licensees based upon evidence gained at only one facility. PSC believes that the situation described at the Watts Bar facility resulted from management breakdowns coupled with inadequate followup (subsequent notification of the NRC) by the identifying employees. Had either the licensee been responsive to the concerns or had the employees used the vehicle already provided through 10CFR19 and notified the NRC of the undispositioned concerns, the review by Quality Technology, Inc. at the Watts Bar facility would have been needless. Under the proposed rulemaking, the requirement for a licensee to notify the NRC of employee concerns would constitute an unnecessary, costly, and redundant burden upon licensees.

B) The proposed rulemaking infers documentation requirements to establish the adequacy of an employee concerns program. PSC is concerned that the confidentiality of an employee who identifies a perceived wrongdoing may be impacted by the requirements of auditable documentation. The security requirements for this type of documentation would be critical, similar to the level required for safeguards information, although access would necessarily be more restricted. PSC proposes that employee concerns can best be voiced initially inside the licensee's organizational framework, without fear of loss of confidentiality brought about by documentation requirements.

In summary, PSC does not endorse this petition for rulemaking because licensee organizations are responsible for resolution of employee concerns. These can best be dispositioned without external reporting and internal documentation requirements (above those already in place for nonconformance/corrective action). If the employee does not receive a satisfactory disposition, recourse is readily available from the NRC through the provisions of 10CFR19.

Very truly yours,

• i./. L. (J-r(.

1 -0, 7<1;J./~a1~

H. L. Brey, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Fuels Division HLB/WMD:jmt

OOCKET NUMBER '

~rn11 RULE PRM ..1T0*4'f7j)

(5£ r/!. //,61J oou<.E TE C USNRC 80 Park Plaza, Newark, NJ 07101 / 201 430-7000 MAILING ADDRESS/ PO. Box 570, Newark, NJ 07101 March 9, 1987 *s1 MR \6 1\10 :46 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary to the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio n Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

EMPLOYEE CONCERNS PROGRAM PETITION FOR RULEMAKING QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY 52FR1200 We have reviewed the above refere nced Federal Register notice, and offer the following for your consideration.

We have concluded that the petition should be denied on the basis that present regulations afford each nuclear plant worker the right to report any perceived safety concern directly to the NRC and request a formal investigation.

Employees may preserve anonymity and are protected from employer discrimination.

Present licensee sponsored programs afford the licensee the opportunity to resolve employee concerns without unnecessarily involving the NRC. This type of program does not relieve a licensee of the responsibility to report

• legitimate deficiencies under the provisions of present regulations.

Requiring that all employee concerns be reported to the NRC would place an additional administrative burden on both the NRC and the licensee with no assurance of significant improvement to safety .

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this petition for rulemaking.

r1;;;;z:*

R. L. Mittl General Manager -

Regulatory and Environmental Support - 22A CWV:vw MG 10 1/2 The Energy People MAR 95-0942 2

~now Iii by card. -rur, ,*~11, !.!L

I u l, CC, 2-

DOCf(ET NUMBER * .

11 March 1987 Secretary of the Commission PETIT!O{N:;,J,C..,

~~E::e~~~"(// /fj) 1/ <.fY COlKET EC; U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commiss ion US NRC Washin~ton, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketin~ and Service Branch

'87 MAR 16 P7 :09

SUBJECT:

Docket No . PRM-50-47 REFERFNCE: Federal Register Notice OFF ICF Jr ~ - vr:.. r,~,.. f DOCKE TING t_. SU, VICf.

BRANCH

Dear Sir:

As one who is not affiliated with any business or concern which might involve a utility in the nuclear program , but a concerned citizen who has worked f or a company i nvolved i n he nuc l ear indust ry and who now works with a Government contractor, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the subject docket before you.

As you are aware, it has become increasingly apparent that safegards are

• as important or even more important now, to the heal th and welfare of this country, not only in say the quality assurance of a company that makes hair spray in aerosol cans, but in the changing and advancing company which maintains and operates a nuclear power plant.

With public attention given to nuclear power plants the past 8 (eight) years or so, it has become obvious to the average person that safegards are not only needed, but required.

The petition before you in Docket No. PRM-50-47 will establish the guarantee of each employee involved in a nuclear business an opportunity to submit their valid concerns. The suggestion to have the program conducted in confidentiality by an independent thrid party is also advisable. The benefits of this is far-reaching. What better time to investigate possible deficiencies t han at the moment an individual realizes it? Not only will the utilities be able to address these concerns, but the NRC, as part of its regulation, will become aware of possible problems.

These two requirements, .

• 1) to report to the NCR Office of Investigation all employee concerns related to "wrong-doing", and 2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program, should be required for the company that makes the power panels, as well as the utility that operates a nuclear power plant, whether they are government owned or a private industry.

Similiar programs are already in place at other businesses, and have proven effective . What better industry to require this program than the nuclear industry. This requirement will benefit the company, as well as the public.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider this petition, as well as an opportunity for me to comment.

~~ -/14,J Theresa Wilson 3343 Via Elba Lompoc, CA 93436 2 J981

U, S. NUCLEl>R t: : GlJIJ,1'0 Y COMMISSI OCCKr-.zr ~~~-:; r, : . ... Y~S ~,:1Qbj OFFICE ' . ;. : <:_ ,.:?HAii:

c*, ' .:~. . ~,::*

Poslm r r Copies Add'I Co, Special Dis , *.

DOCKETED USNRC "87 MAR 13 P4 :Q 3 CF " ' ::- "F' ~

GOC L March 13, 1987 b ,,. . *,

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

• Re: Docket No. PRM-50-4 7 Comments on Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Jan. 12, 1987))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On Monday, J anuary 12, 198 7, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") published in the Federal Register a notice inviting public comments on a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company. See 52 Fed. Reg. 1200, 2951 (1987).

The petitioner's proposed rule would establish by regulation new

• requirements that a ll utilities (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program. On behalf of System Energy Resources, Inc., Northeast Utilities, Duke Power Company, Florida Power Corporation, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, and Consolidat ed Ed iso n Co. of New York, we respectfully submit the follow ing comments on this proposal.

I.I, $. NUCLW RECIJIATORY COMMISSlOS 000<£T G a SERVICE s.E'cnot-t OfflCE Of THE SECRETAR'V; Of i*H: ':(' ,er GJ '

r**

(

~<!14' I e, 2-

,.cief DU1.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 2 I. Discussion Petitioner's proposal states t ha t the existing reporting and employee concerns regulations are only "effective to a degree." It is alleged that it is not clear how licensees dispose of "wrongdoing activities" (a term that the petitioner does not define), that they do not willingly report such activities, and that they have no effective corrective action mechanism to investigate or r e solve wrongdoing issues. Our position is that the existing regulations are more than adequate

• to assure that nuclear plants are constructed and operated in a safe manner, and that employee concerns are adequately addressed. Petitioner's proposed regulations would not significantly improve plant performance or incr ease the protection of- the public health and safety. Rather, they would inundate the NRC with new data, the processing of which would involve time and resources the NRC does not have to accomplish a task that NRC does not need to perform.

A. Existing Reporting Requirements .

Present regulations set up an extensive system of reporting requirements which requires licensees to notify the NRC of various defects, events, incidents, and instances of noncompliance. The system is designed to provide a framework in which events significant to the operation and s a fety of nuclear power facilities are presented to the Commission so that appropriate regulatory action can be taken . Examples of selected reporting requirements are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 3 Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §5846) requires that the Commission be notified of defects or instances of noncompliance. Section 206(a) states:

Any individual director, or responsible officer of a firm constructing, owning, operating, or supplying the components of any facility or activity which is licensed or otherwise regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended . . . or pursuant to this chapter, who obtains information reasonably indicating that such facility or activity or basic components supplied to such facility or activity (1) fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order, or license of the Commission relating to substantial safety hazards, or (2) contains a defect which could create a substantial safety hazard, as defined by regulations which the Commission shall promulgate, shall immediately notify the Commission of such failure to comply, or of such defect, unless such person has actual knowledge that the Commission has been adequately informed of such defect or failure to comply.

Section 206(b) provides for criminal sanctions against persons who knowingly and consciously fail to provide the required notice. Section 206(d) grants the Commission authority to "conduct such reasonable inspections and other enforcement activities as needed to insure compliance with the provisions of this section."

The implementing regulations for Section 206 are found in 10 C.F.R. Part 21. Section 21.21 sets forth procedures to be followed in order to comply with Section 206. Subsection

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 4 21.2l(a) requires that appropriate procedures be adopted to provide for evaluation of deviations, and to assure that a director or responsible officer is informed of a reportable situation as defined by Section 206. 10 C.F.R. §21.2l(b) then requires this person (or some other designated person) to notify the Commission when he obtains information reasonably indicating such a defect or failure to comply. The subsection goes on to describe the proper contents and timeliness of such notification .

• 10 C.F.R. §21.41 states that NRC representatives shall be permitted to inspect the Licensee's records, premises, activities, and basic components as nec~ssary to insure that the purposes of Part 21 are carried out. Licensees are required by

§21.51 to maintain records.which are. required_to assure compliance with the Part 21 regulations.

Holders of nuclear plant construction permits are subject to the reporting requirements found in 10 C.F.R. §50.SS(e). The permit holder must notify the NRC:

. of each deficiency found in design and construction, which, were it to have remained uncorrected, could have affected adversely the safety of operations of the nuclear power plant at any time throughout the expected lifetime of the plant, and which represents:

(i) A significant breakdown in any portion of the quality assurance program .

• or (ii) A significant deficiency in final design . . or (iii) A significant deficiency in construction of or significant damage to a structure, system, or component . . . or (iv) A significant deviation from performance specifications . . . .

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 5 The section goes on to describe the proper contents of the notification, and set time limits within which deficiencies must be reported. The report must contain sufficient information to permit analysis and evaluation of the deficiency and any corrective actions which may have been taken.

10 C.F.R §~50.72 and 50.73 govern the reporting of various "events" which affect plant operation or pose threats to the safety of plant personnel or the public. Section 50.72 requires that licensees licensed under either §50.2l(b) or S50.22 notify

• the NRC Operations Center of the declaration of any of the Emergency Classes specified in the licensee's Emergency Plan, or of non-Emergency events described in §50.72(b). If an Emergency Class is declared, the licensee must notify the NRC immediately

.. after informing ~ha appropriate .Stataor.local agencies. In no case should the NRC be notified more than one hour after the declaration. Section 50.72(b)(l) lists a series of non-emergency events or conditions which must also be reported to the NRC within one hour. A list of similar, but less serious, events is found in §50.72(b)(2). These must be reported within four hours. These reportable events involve problems in plant operation, actuation of safety features, threats to the safety of plant personnel, etc.

Section 50.73 creates the Licensee Event Report system.

This requires licensees to make detailed reports within thirty days of the listed events. These events are similar to the non-emergency events of §50.72 which must also be immediately

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 6 reported by phone -- i.e., deviations from the plant's Technical Specifications, events which could prevent safety functions, and impermissible releases of radioactivity.

10 C.F.R. Part 20 has several provisions which*require licensees to notify the NRC of significant events. Section

20. 402- require-s license~s to report the thef-t or loss of nuclear materials. Subsection (a)(l) states:

Each licensee shall report to the Commission by telephone, immediately after it determines that a loss or theft of licensed material has occurred in such quantities and under such circumstances that it appears to the licensee that a substantial hazard may esult to persons in unrestricted areas. 1 In addition to immediate notification, a detailed written report describing the incident must be submitted within thirty days.

Holders of nuclear plant operating licenses must submit this_

report in accordance with the procedures described in 10 C.F.R.

§50.73.

10 C.F.R. §20.403 requires notification of 11 incidents. 11

• Such incidents include the exposure of individuals to radiation, the release of radioactive material, a loss of operation of any facilities affected, or property damage. Notification must be either immediate or within twenty-four hours, depending upon the seriousness of the incident.

!/ Other regulations require immediate notification of the NRC, including 10 C.F.R. §20.205 (discovery of leakage in shipped packages containing nuclear materials) and 10 C.F.R. S73.71 (reports of unaccounted-for shipments, suspected thefts, unlawful diversion, radiological sabotage, or.

(Footnote 1 continued on next page)

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 7 10 C.F.R. §20.405 requires written reports within thirty days describing any occurrences of overexposure to radiation or excessive levels and concentrations of radioactivity. Again, holders of nuclear plant operating licenses must report these incidents in accordance with the procedures described in section 50.73. This is in addition to the information required by paragraphs (a) and (c) of section 20.405, which includes: the extent of exposure of individuals to radiation, levels of radiation and concentrations of radioactive material involved,

• the cause of the exposure, levels, or concentrations, and corrective steps taken or planned.

10 C.F.R. §50.36(c) describes several categories which must be included in the Technical Specifications. Among these are safety limitsy-l~miting safety system-settings, limiting control settings, and limiting conditions for operation. If these are exceeded, do not function properly, or are not met, the incident must be reported to the NRC both by immediate notification and

• by written report. In addition to the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

§50.36(c), it is standard for licensees to include plant-specific events and conditions in their Tech Specs which must be reported.

(Footnote 1 continued from previous page) events which significantly threaten or lessen the effectiveness of safeguards).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 8 B. Existing System for Processing Employees' Concerns.

It is desirable that employees have a means to raise safety-related concerns in an atmosphere conducive to the free flow of information. The existing system is intended to provide employees with such means. Programs implementing the regulations cited above and the Quality Assurance Program required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix Bare designed to enable any employee to raise safety 9oncerns with no fear of retribution .

• For example, 10 C.F.R. §2l.2l(a), which, as mentioned above, requires licensees to notify the NRC of the existence of a defect or instance of noncompliance, requires that procedures are set up to insure that reportable concerns are brought to the

- attentiDn-of management. Th~ section states that:

(a) Each individual, corporation, partnership or other entity subject to the regulations in this part shall adopt appropriate procedures to:

(2) Assure that a director or responsible officer is informed if the construction or operation of a facility, or activity, or a basic component supplied for such facility or activity:

(i) Fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order or license of the Commission relating to a substantial safety hazard, or (ii) Contains a defect Appendix B of Part 50 makes each license applicant responsible for the establishment and execution of a quality assurance program. Measures must be established under this

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 9 program to assure that structures, systems, and components will perform satisfactorily. Particularly relevant are Criteria I and XVI. Criterion I states that:

[t]he persons and organizat~ons performing quality assurance functions shall have sufficient authority and organizational freedom to identify quality problems; to initiate, recommend, or provide solutions; and to verify implementation of solutions. Such persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions shall report to a management level such that this required authority and organizational freedom, including sufficient independence from cost

• and schedule when opposed to safety considerations, are provided.

Criterion XVI requires that measures be established to correct conditions adverse to quality:

Measures shall be established to assure that conditions adverse to quality, such as

-- -failures, -malfunct-ions, __ deficiencies, deviations, defective material and equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to quality, the measures shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. The identification of

• the significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management.

Quality assurance programs at licensed nuclear power plants are designed to insure that all defects, events, incidents, and ll Criterion I defines the quality assurance functions as being "those of (a) assuring that an appropriate quality assurance program is established and effectively executed and (b) verifying, such as by checking, auditing, and inspection, that activities affecting the safety-related functions have been correctly performed."

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 10 instances of noncompliance that affect the plant's safety are brought to light and resolved. Quality assurance personnel are provided with the authority and organizational freedom to adequately carry out these programs. All reportable events and conditions are to be brought to the attention of responsible officers and directors. Also, licensees have systems that permit employees to raise safety concerns, such as QA hotlines (including toll-free numbers), mail-in concern forms with pre-paid envelopes, and on-site offices of independent safety teams .

• Beyond all this, it is not uncommon for licensees to voluntarily set up employee concerns programs which are operated by independent contractors.

Should an employee feel that licensee mana~ement is not

___ properly examining and/or reporting concerns brought to its attention, this employee may bring his/her concern directly to the NRC. An employee choosing this route is protected by Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act. This section, and

• its implementing regulation, 10 C.F.R. §50.7, protects employees engaged in certain activities from retaliatory discrimination by the employer. Section 50.7(a)(l) describes the protected activities:

(l) The protected activities include but are not limited to:

(i) Providing the Commission information about possible violations of requirements imposed under either of the above statutes [Energy Reorganization Act and Atomic Energy Act];

(ii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; or

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 11 3

(iii) Testifying in any Commission proceeding.

Section 50.7(e) requires that licensees, permittees, and applicants post Form NRC-3, "Notice to Employees," on its premises where employees can observe it on their way to and from their place of work and be informed of their rights under Sections 210 ana 50.7. An employee who believes that he or she has been discriminated against may seek a remedy by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor. Possible remedies 4

include reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages. The

• employer may also have its license denied, revoked, or suspended, be assessed a civil penalty, or be the subject of some other enforcement action.

5 C. The Requested Rule Change Would Not Significantly __

Improve the Existing System The regulations governing reporting requirements and the area of employee concerns are designed to assure the safety and good performance of nuclear facilities. The existing system

• provides a high level of assurance that defects, instances of noncompliance, and the various events and incidents described in the regulations will be discovered, investigated, documented, and corrected. The regulations are, for the most part, very 11 According to 10 C.F.R. §50.7(a)(2), these activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee's action.

i/ 10 C.F.R. §50.7(b).

2/ 10 C.F.R. §50.7(c).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 12 clear in describing the types of events and conditions which must be reported, the proper contents of such notification, and the appropriate time frame within which reports should be submitted.

The system is not designed to be a conduit between employees and the NRC. Rather, it is designed to provide the Commission with information regarding specified events and conditions which it has determined to be important to safe plant operation. Using this information, the Commission oversees and

• audits safe operation. It does not manage the plants, however.

This is the job of licensee management, which is responsible for filtering the significant safety data from the trivial in deciding whether a situation must be reported. Should an employee feel- that this arrangement is not functioning properly, and that a particular concern should be brought to the Commission's attention, Section 210 provides him/her with a method of bypassing the established internal system. Section

• 210, record-keeping requirements imposed on licensee management, and the NRC's ability to inspect, audit, and investigate all contribute to the assurance that any possible shortcomings in the reporting system do no~ prevent important information from reaching the Commission.

The petitioner requests that the Commission promulgate new regulations which would make employee concerns programs mandatory, and would require utilities to report all employee concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" to the NRC's Office

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 13 of Investigation. The petition states "(i]t is * . . clear that several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern program[s] QTC conducted, or were associated with, at several facilities that otherwise would not have surfacea. 11 Even assuming this to be true, it can be questioned whether mandating a particular type of program would improve plant performance and safety, or would instead stifle the evolution of programs that meet the needs of Licensee management and the NRC. Further, mandating such programs may not be justified when the costs of such programs are considered.

Nor does petitioner show that mandating such programs would improve safety. The proper functioning and adequate safety of nuclear facilities are the NRC's concerns. It is not the NRC's function to examine all employee complaints in the first instance. Nor does the NRC have the resources to do so. The NRC properly looks to licensee management to deal with employee

• concerns in the first instance and to take appropriate action. 6 For it to do otherwise would be to inject itself into areas of management-employee relations which are not its proper domain.

~/ The NRC often places the responsibility for evaluating information for materiality on the licensee. For example, in its proposed rule to codify the obligations of licensees and applicants for licenses to provide complete and accurate information, the Commission determined that it is the responsibility of licensees to scrutinize information and determine whether it is reportable. While it is the Commission's responsibility to provide guidance on what type of information is deemed to be material and, thus, reportable, the submission of a report would depend on the licensee's recognition of materiality.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 14 Also, since devising a method of screening the significant complaints from the insignificant would be extremely difficult, implementation of petitioner's proposal would also require a huge increase in the resources necessary for the NRC to process employee concerns. Absent additional funding from Congress, these resources would have to be diverted from other important NRC activities in order to accomplish the unnecessary task of evaluating every allegation made by employees. This would be extremely wasteful since, at bottom, the NRC would have a list

• of safety-significant complaints which the existing reporting system would have provided far more efficiently. Meanwhile, extensive resources would have been expended in investigating complaints which are not related to the safe operation of the facility or, worse, appear at-first glance to be significant but are in reality groundless, and motivated by a desire to create problems for licensee management. For example, an employee who was denied a raise might try to intimidate or get revenge on

• management by claiming that his supervisor harassed him for raising safety concerns. Such a complaint would, according to petitioner's proposal, require NRC investigation.

The Federal government is aware of the problems that would result from overburdening the NRC with every complaint and allegation employees might make. This issue was addressed in its brief in opposition to a motion for certiorari in Kansas Gas

& Electric Co. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 1505 (10th Cir. 1985), cert.

denied, 106 S.Ct. 3311 (1986). The government's concern was to

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 15 maintain a manageable flow of information, and consequently, to protect the quality assurance program established by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix B. The brief states in footnote 7:

This problem is further compounded for the NRC because, were all employees to complain directly to the NRC about perceived deficiencies, the Commission would be required to di v.ert its 1-imi tea resources away f"rom' other nuclear safety matters to the investigation and resolution of these complaints . . .

• Thus, if the flow of information through a quality assurance program dries up, substantial strain and disruption could result for the NRC in

• enforcing nuclear safety requirements and in issuing op rating licenses to nuclear utilities. 7 [ Emphasis added. ]

Thus, it is evident that properly implemented programs under the present regulations would be a more efficient method of maintaining plant quality than petitioner's proposal would be.

The existing reporting system, while it could perhaps be refined and simplified (the antithesis of what petitioner proposes), is adequate.

Finally, the changes in licensees' organizations which

• would be required by the proposal would, in all probability, be considered a "backfit" as defined by 10 C.F.R. §50.109.

Consequently, the Commission would be required to prepare a report, in which it analyzed specific factors, before the backfit could be imposed. A backfit is defined by Section 50.109{a) (1) as:

21 Brief for the Federal Respondent in Opposition at 11, Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Brock, 780 F.2d 1505 {10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 3311 (1986) {No. 85-1403).

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 16

. . . the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a p-reviously applicable staff position. . .

The creation of a mandatory employee concerns program and changes in reporting requirements would certainly be a

• "modi:f;ication of or addition to" the organization required to operate a facility. If that is the case, Section 50.109(a)(3) allows a backfit to be required only when:

The Commission . . . determines, based on the analysis described in paragraph (c) of this section, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection.

Section 50.109(c) lists factors which are to be considered, as .

appropriate, in any backfitting analysis. These factors include:

(3) Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental off-site release of radioactive material; (4) Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees; (5) Installation and continuing costs associated with the backfit . . .

(6) The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements;

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 17 (7) The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed backfit and the availability of such resources.

These factors have been discussed above. Petitioner has not shown that plant quality would be significantly improved or that the protection of the public health and safety would be substantially increased as a result of its proposal. Instead, the NRC would be overburdened by employee complaints which would bypass the licensee's management organization, including the

• quality assurance program, and various reporting requirements

\

which have been established. It is clear that, under this analysis, a backfit should not be allowed. Regardless of whether petitioner's proposal is held to fall within the backfit rule, however, the considerations discussed above would still militate against new regulations implementing the proposal.

II. Conclusion The NRC has established regulations which provide employees with methods of airing grievances and raising concerns .

Employees are protected by law from employer harassment or retaliation should they choose to raise concerns directly with the NRC. Quality regulations also provide assurance that quality workers will not suffer retaliation for reporting safety defects to management. Regulations are also explicit in informing licensees what types of events and conditions must be reported, and what these reports must contain. Record-keeping requirements and the Commission's ability to engage in

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 13, 1987 Page 18 inspections, audits, and investigations protect against any hesitancy on the part of a licensee to properly notify the NRC.

Petitioner's proposal would impose additional burdens on both licensees and the Commission without a corresponding increase in plant quality and protection of the public health and safety. Present re§ula-tions a-re ad-equate 1:o bring all significant safety concerns to the NRC's attention. Creating a system whereby the expression of a concern by any employee automatically triggers NRC involvement would interject the Commission unnecessarily into the area of employee-management relations, where it would become overburdened by claim~rand allegations, many of which would be spurious or insignificant from the standpoint of safety. Enactment of the petitioner's proposal would thus subject the NRC to substantial ad~inistrative costs with little chance of improvement in plant quality. For all of the above reasons, we submit that the petitioner's proposed rule be rejected.

Respectfully submitted, p, L1berma urcell & Reynolds

DOCKET NUMBER ETITION RULE PRM fft:1-4?/;1)

{ 5~ 1-;e/~ ~) l_!;P March 11, 198 7 nucleor oworeness

• network

• 13471/2masso.chusetts

• lo.wrence, ko.nso.s 66044 * ~1) 74!t-1640 m-o ~g

oz '"TJ i

'.> C')

z:;,,r V>

c-:, rn

.::CU'>~

Samuel Chilk, Secretary ~;~~- -0 .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  !:~ N Washington, D.C. 20555  :-"l:::t'.I

=- ~<

Re: Comments of NAN concerning NRC Docket No. PRM 50-47

Dear Secretary Chilk:

The Nuclear Awareness Network <NAN) is an interest group concerned with, among other things, the means utilized to assure the public that the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS> and other nuclear power plants have been constructed and are operated consistent with the best interests of the public.

The importance of an effective quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC) program cannot be overstated. QA/QC prog r ams are virtually the only systematic means by which to document and ver ify that the safety margins designed into nuclear power plants are actually present in the finished product. The degree of integrity with wh i ch th i s documentation and verification process

• is managed c onstr u cti on is an important indicator of the committment of the li censee to mai n taini ng an effective QA/QC program.

The reality of financial pressures on some utilities holding NRC permits to ex pedi t e t h e resulted in dangerous compromises in the QA/QC process.

c o nst r uct i on phase h~~

As these compromises h ave become known a dia l ogue h as emerged regarding the means by which the NRC and the public can be ass u red by ut il ity management t h at the safety margins designed into plants have not eroded due to QA/QC document alteration or destr u ction.

In t he case of WCGS t h e management i nstitued the Qualit y F i r st p rogram in 1984. This pro~ram was established in respo nse to al l egat ions t h at serious QA/QC b reakdowns had occured dur in g the construction of WCGS. The Quality F i rst program enc oura g ed workers to r eport concerns regarding t h e construct i on o f WCGS with the assuran ce that the identity of the inf o rmant wo uld be kept c on f i de n t i al (if s uch was req uest ed) and t h at the c oncerns would be investigated.

1

U,S. NUCL REGULATORY COMMISSlOO OOG<ET G & SERVICE CTIO OfflCE OF THE SECRETARY:

Of j ~ * *. '.I~ I ,N Ad 'I

• Specilli * ..

Initially the organizational structure of the QA/QC program at WCGS did not isolate the Quality First program from management interference. This led to not only an appearance of impropriety but to allegations of WCGS management using the Quality First program to identiy "whistl e blowers" and to internally route many quality concerns to avoid further investigation. Obviously, if these allegations are true (substantial evidence has been accumulated by NAN, the NRC and others which indicate that the allegations have merit) the Quality First program actua ly had the opposite effect that it was supposedly intended to have.

That is, it not only did not protect the identities of in f ormants but the program also provided a means of sending certain allegations iY1to a management "black hole". When this occured it arguably put the allegations beyond the reach of regulatory officials and the concerned public.

The present regulatory appar~tus regarding programs like Quality First is inadequate because it does not require licensees or holders of construction oermits to report allegations of management wrongdoing or evidence bearing on the character and/or suitability of management. This gap in reportability means that the NRC and the public may never know about allegat i ons of management wrongdoing. This is clearly an unacceptable situation.

This gap in reportability was brought to light in the case of WCGS. As the NRC will recall, a closed hearing was held on June 3, 1985 Just prior the public hearing which resulted in the issuance of an operating license for WCGS. At the closed hearing the NRC's Office of Investigation (QI) reported that an audit of the Quality First program had uncovered allegations of management wrongdoing reported to personnel in the Quality First program but that were not apparently systematically reported to the NRC.

William Hutchison from NRC 01 told the Commission that:

• to In the area of falsification of records give you a better flavor of the kinds of falsifications that records, we are talking about, there were etch test records, Westinghouse pump house Daniel's weld inspection records, entries on various drawings, TMI procuremeY,t documents, instrurner,tation and calibration records, Daniel's hanger heat and traveler documents, start-up records, NCR disoosition records, the stamping of

• quality stamps on threaded rod hangers, changing drawings in the area of structual steel, quality control, rebar records, maintenance r ecords, cadwell inspection reoorts, quota records, MT tests, mechanical QC inspection records, B&B inspection records, cheating on qualification exams for QC inspectors, TM!

insoection records and work packages to give you ar1 idea.

2

Then Chairman Palladino inquired of OI as to whether these allegations, if true, were due cause to refuse or de f er licensure of WCGS. The OI personnel were unable to give a definitive answer to this question because many of the wron gdoing allegations had not been sufficiently investigated by that time.

However, the fact that this exchange between the Commission and OI occured at all points up an inherent weakness in the wrongdoing al l egation reporting system. It is inexcusab l e that the wrongdoing allegations had not been the focal point for an extensive NRC investi gation long before l icensure. This g laring omission is due, in part, to the lack of an NRC regulati o n which

~~gyi~~§ repor ting of wrongdoing allegati o ns. NAN conten ds that the omission is also due, in part, to a regulatory ass umption that allegatic,ns of "wror1gdoir1g 11 have no inherent nexus to technical concerns. However, consider one category of alleged wrongdoing listed by Mr. Hutchison in his statement to the Commission: falsification of

• records .

• The question must be posed as to why true and accurate records are required to be maintained and what falisify the records.

incentives e x ist to The record-keeping requirement exists to assure the regulatory agency and the public that the proJect has been constructed consistent with design requirements which supposedly includes a margin of safety. When these design requirements are difficult to accomplish or require additional t i me and expense some personnel may have an incentive to falsify the record to indicate that the particular requirement has been met. Each time this occurs the designed-in margin of sa f ety is i ncrementally eroded. This is one example of an obvi o us and important nexus between wrongdoing allegations and technical cor1cerns.

Moreover, so long as the NRC does not require allegat i ons of wrongdoing to be reported, there is little disincent i ve for

• management listed above by Mr.

a l l egat ions o f not to e ng age in or condone activities like those Hutchison. If utility managment knows that wrongdo i ng are legally required to be reported such conduct may be lessened. Additionally, reporting such a ll egat i ons would allow the NRC to better monitor the management o f proJects so that exchanges like that which occured between the Commi ssion and 0 1 in the closed h eari ng can be avoided . This wo uld prov i de an added assurance that i ssuance of an operating l i cense is not be i ng d one with o ut s tanding signif i cant c oncerns be i n g unr esol ved. When utility management receives an operating l i cense t h e re shou l d be no reasonable question as to the i nt egr i ty and character of the licensee or the presence o f the d e sig ned ma r g i n o f safety.

Th e QTC pet i t ion al s o advocates establishment of a na t ionw i de e mployee concerns program. NAN endorses such a proposal.

Mc,re o ver, em p loyees wh o r e port pro bl ems s h o uld, at a min i mum, be protected from intimidation, harra.sment and black l isting. It is 3

a disturbing indication of the state of the nuclear industry that extensive protective measures have to be instituted in order to assure workers that they will not be identified by management as "troubl ema!l.ers" for report i r,g cor,cerns. Hc,wever, so !orig as nuclear proJects are being constructed and licensed, workers must have an effective means to report concerns without fear of suffering retaliation.

In conclusion, NAN shares the Petitioner QTC's concerns regarding reportability of "wrongdoing" and urge adoption of regulations to close this gap. NAN also endorses QTC's proposal to establish an effective system which affords workers a means to report concerns without fear of retaliation. Adoption of these proposals would provide important and useful means to determine whether specific proJects are worthy of NRC licensure.

Sincerely,

• Robert V. Eye Associate Director and Counsel cc: with copy of Federal Register notice Representative Jim Slattery Representative Dan Glickman Senator Rc,bert Dole Senator Nancy Kassebaum Owen Th ero, QTC Margalee Wright, Commissioner, Kansas Corporation Commission Nuclear Information and Resource Service 4

DOC K=T : JU UBER PE -1111._1,

,- ,- '-' ti

• • • uLE PRM ..j?J-Alj 0)

- , (_J/

( 5~ r-~ /,!,~tJ NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, P. C.

OOtl<ETE Q JACK R. NEWMAN 1615 L STREET , N . W . USNRC WILLIAM E. BAER, JR.

JOHN E. HOLTZINGER, JR. DOUGLAS L BERESFORD HAROLD F. REIS MAURICE AXELRAD WASHINGTON , D. C. 20036 JADE A. EATON JANET E. B . ECKER J . A. BOUKNIGHT, JR. MERLE W. FALLON PAUL H. KECK GEORGE L EDGAR 202 - sss -~J:, o HAR 13 P12 :33 LOIS R. FINKELSTEIN*

BRIAN R. GISH KATHLEEN H. SHEA JILL E. GRANT DOUGLAS G. GREEN ANDREW N. GREENE*

KAROL LYN NEWMAN JOHN T . STOUGH, JR. OFF ICE er ~:.L1.:.! 1, ~Y PAMELA A. LACEY FRANK R. LINDH JAMES B . VASILE MICHAEL A. BAU SER OOCK Ei !NG .-, Si:.F ViC: !. KEVIN J . LIPSON ALVIN H. GUTTERMAN BRA NCH KATHLEEN M . McDERMOTT JEFFREY B . MULHALL*

EDWARD J . TWOMEY ERROL R. PATTERSON KEVIN P. GALLEN JANE I. RYAN THOMAS A. SCHMUTZ PAUL J. SAVIDGE*

MICHAEL F. HEALY DO NALD J . SILVERMAN ROBERT I. WHITE JACOLYN A. SIMMONS SCOTT A. HARMAN ROBERT H. SOLOMON STEVEN P. FRANTZ JOSEPH E. STUBBS DAVID B. RASKIN NANCY A. WHITE*

RO B IN T . WIGGINS*

ROBERT LOWENSTEIN HERBERT B. COHN ~OT ADMITTED IN 0 .C.

ERNEST C. BAYNARD, 111 OF"COUNSEL March 13, 1987 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Petition for Rulemaking Fi led by Quality Technology Company (Docket No. PRM-50-47), 52 Fed.

Reg. 1200 (January 12, 1987)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

• The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested publ i c comments concerning the referenced Petition for Rulemaking.

These comments are being submitted on behalf of Houston Lighting

& Power Company.

The petitioner, Quality Technology Company, c i tes its exper i ence as a contractor implementing an "employee conce r ns program" at one nuclear construction project as the basis for its petition seeking to make such programs mandatory at all plants under construction or in operation. The petition also proposes that NRC require its licensees to report to NRC's Office of Investigations all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities." In our v i ew, the peti t ion should be denied in all respects.

Although exper i ence in the nuclear i ndustry has demo n -

strated the potential value of employee concerns programs, no universal need for such programs has been demonstrated and a requirement for such programs would not contr ibute

U.S. NUCL~A.R R5GU!.ATORY COMMISSIO~

IXXKET G Ii SERVICE SECTION OFflCE O THE SECRETARY CF *;*,- ;:<: \:'.:.S:01 Po,tm ' ~

Copi  :-

Add'I r Speci .,, *, *

~ : : . : : :LL

=-

NEWMAN & HOLTZINOER, P. C.

Secretary of the Commission March 13, 1987 Page Two significantly to the safety of nuclear plants. Furthermore, definition of the details of such programs by the NRC could have the negative effect of reducing licensees' flexibility to design effective management systems tailored to the needs of particular companies and individual facilities. Current NRC reporting requirements are adequate to assure reporting of "wrongdoing" found to be of safety significance. The additional reporting requirement proposed by the petition is unnecessary, inadequately defined and, depending on the definition adopted, may relate to matters beyond NRC's area of regulatory responsibility .

• Some utilities were prompted to adopt employee concerns programs at nuclear construction sites by the receipt of increased numbers of employee concerns in the late stages of construction. The programs e ncouraged earlier identification of employee concerns and improved the utilities' ability to resolve them without schedule delays. The programs also improve employee morale by providing an effective system for resolving concerns without fear of adverse action by the employers. Although the programs have identified some conditions of safety significance and resulted in their correc-tion, it generally appears that the quality assurance programs also would have detected and corrected the conditions. It should also be recognized that employees are free to express their concerns to the NRC whether or not a utility has esta-blished an employee concerns program.

While the new requirements proposed by the petition would not significantly improve safety, they could result in increased costs to develop and administer such programs.

These additional costs are simply not justified by any measur-able safety benefit, and the proposed requirements could have a detrimental result. Employee concerns programs are the product of utility management innovation. If such programs were required by regulation, NRC would find it necessary to establish acceptance criteria and perform inspections to determine compliance. This would limit the ability of utility managers to experiment with alternative systems or to adapt to changed circumstances, such as the transition from a large transient contractor construction work force to a relatively small, stable utility plant operations staff.

This overregulation could thus have the unwanted effect of discouraging development by the industry of improved systems.

In proposing that the Commission require that allegations of "wrongdoing activities" be reported to it, the petition does not define "wrongdoing" or explain why current reporting

NEWMAN & liOLTZINOEH, P. C.

Secretary of the Commission March 13, 1987 Page Three requirements are not adequate to cover any such activities of safety significance. Clearly, no new NRC regulatory require-ment or investigatory program is necessary to prevent activities prohibited by Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 or by criminal law, since there are already effective enforcement programs being implemented by other government entities.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this petition.

Respectfully submitted,

~II~~~

• /bp Alvin H. Gutterman

e DOCKET NUMBER Commonwealth Edison T G ITI ON RULE One First National Plaza, Chicago, lllinoi E PRM n _,.;1n(JV

..;JV -,-,

/,)

Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 S:,, F£, /A, H1 Chicago, Illinois 60690

• 0767 V ({/

March 12. 1987 DOCKETED USNR C 0

87 MAR 13 P1 :44 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OFF ICE Of St 1.,,-; r_ 1,.,RY DOCK ET ING & SE:R VICf.

1717 H. Street. N.W. BRANCH Washington. DC. 20555

Subject:

Petition for NRC Rulemaking to Require Utilities to Report to 01 All Employee - Identified Concerns Related to Wrongdoing Activities (52 Fed. Reg. 1200. January 12. 1987)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

• This provides Commonwealth Edison Company's ("Edison")

comments on the subject petition. For the reasons discussed below.

Edison be lieve s tha t the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( 11 NRC 11 or 11 Commission 11 ) should deny the petition.

Petitioner. Quality Technology Company ( 11 QTC 11 ) . has requested the NRC to promulgate a rule that would; (1) establish and maintain a nationwide employee concerns program; and (2) require licensees to report to the NRC all employee - identified concerns related to 11 wrong-doing 11

• These actions. in QTC's view. are necessary to ensure that licensees do not ignore employee concerns but. rather. act on them promptly.

QTC stated that its concerns arose from its experience with employee concerns programs at several utilities. especially the Tennessee Valley Authority's ( 11 TVA 11 ) Watts Bar plant. Edison has no basis for questioning the accuracy of QTC's experience. but does

• question the basis for QTC's belief that its experience can be extrapolated to all licensees. Edison. through its active involvement in industry-wide activities. knows of no general problems regarding licensee treatment of employee concerns. Rather.

Edison is aware of several licensee- initiated employee - concerns programs which have been implemented successfully. Those programs have been inspected and reviewed by the NRC and have not been found deficient as suggested by QTC. Surely. evidence of such deficiencies would be an absolute prerequisite to any NRC proposal to establish a program of the scope suggested by QTC.

U.S. NUCL6AR P.EG\JL T'Y Y COMMI 510 .

DOCKET G f>

OFfir, ,r C" ..

Pomnar'.

c~ .

Add'!

Ss,eci

• In addition to the lack of evidence of any industry-wide problems. Edison's experience has been quite the opposite from QTC's. In 1985. Edison established a "Quality First" program for dealing with employee concerns at the Braidwood Nuclear Station.

Since its inception. the program has conducted approximately 7,600 employee interviews. both baseline and exit. Of those interviews.

approximately 400 raised concerns. and of those concerns fewer than 200 were related to the quality of work. Based on the quality concerns for which the interviews have been completed. fewer than 50 quality concerns are expected to be substantiated. Thus. Edison's experience does not corrborate QTC's claim that more than 50% of all employee - identified concerns are corroborated.

Moreover. Edison's detailed investigations into employee concerns shows that. for the most part. employees do not have the most accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety issues. Rather. most employee concerns are based on narrow.

partial. incomplete views of construction activities and

• requirements. Thus. QTC's assertions regarding employee perceptions are not universal.

Edison's experience with "Quality First" also shows that there is no need to involve the NRC's Office of Investigation ("01")

in the bulk of employee - identified concerns. Most of these turn out to be unsubstantiated and many of the remainder are insignificant.

If OI were to be burdened by processing all such concerns. its ability to focus on significant safety issues would be severely diluted. Thus. implementation of QTC's proposal could have just the opposite effect from what QTC seeks to attain.

There is also no merit to QTC's contention that licensee actions on reports of wrong-doing are unclear and that such reports are not willingly provided to the NRC. Currently. regulations and statues establish sufficient requirements to assure that valid

• concerns are kept from "falling into a black hole". Criteria 15 and 16 of 10CFR50 Appendix B require licensees to document defects and take corrective action. as appropriate. including defects brought to the attention of the licensee by employees. 10CFR21 and 10CFR50.55(e) require licensee reporting of significant defects.

Although Part 21 and Part 50.55(e) establish requirements to report only significant defects to the NRC. deficiencies normally reported only under Criterion 15 and 16 are controlled and are always available to the NRC for their review and inspection. NRC Form 3 and its posting requirements provide employees with a confidential avenue for the reporting of violations or lack of adequate corrective action for concerns independent of the licensee's normal quality assurance defect reporting systems. Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act provides additional protection to workers who identify defects either to the licensee or the NRC. Taken together. these requirements provide an adequate framework for the reporting of employee concerns. as well as providing protection against harassment and intimidation to employees for their reporting of such concerns.

The foregoing reasons belie QTC 1 s believe that without its proposed rule there is a potential for hardware failure or public danger. Rather. the extensive record of safe nuclear operation shows that employees concerns are already receiving adequate consideration so that employees concerns are already receiving adequate consideration so that the petition should be denied.

&}~-

Staff Attorney

/klj 284 6K

-E*UNION LECTRIC oocKETf.O

~~ USNRC 1901 Gratiot Street. St. Louis Donald F. Schnell "81 t1AR 13 P1 :4, March 11, 1987 Vice President Secretary of the Commission

u. s . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , D. C. 20555 Attn : Docketing and Service Branch Gent le men :

DOCKET NO. PRM-50-47 PROPOSED ADDITION TO 10 CFR 50 QUALITY TECHNOLOGY CO.: PETITION FOR RULEMAKING References : Federal Register , Vol . 52 , No . 7 , dated January 12 , 1987 p . 1200 Federal Register , Vol . 52 , No . 19 , dated January 29 , 1987 pp . 2951 , 2952 (correction)

The subject petition for r ulemaking would r equire licensees to :

(1) report all employee - identified concerns related to " wrong-doing

activities to the NRC ' s Office of Investigations and: ( 2 ) establish and maintain an employee concerns program . Union Elect r ic has reviewed this proposed addition to 10CFR50 and concludes that the proposed regulation is unnecessary . Existing regulations which are available to address employee concerns are adequate , and we therefore recommend against additional r ulemaking

• Union Elect r ic does not agree that the Basis of the Proposal is representative of the nuclear industry , particula r ly in r eference to the assessment and resolution of employee-identified concerns related to " wrong doing " activities . Contrary to what the petitioner contends , we have found that in many cases employees engaged in construction or operation activities do not have the most accurate information or the full perspective and insight of nuclear safety-related issues . Our e xper ience has shown that the majority of employee concerns result from a lack of information and , when such information i s provided to the employee , the concerns are resolved .

Existing r egulations within 10CFR19 and 10CFR50 , Appendix B, Criteria XV and XVI together with good management pract i ce provide adequate confidence that valid problems identified by employees will be investigated and corrected . Additionally , 10CFR50 , Appendix B, Criteria I and II require a well defined chain of command and a strong independent Quality Assurance organization . If an employee cannot satisfy his concern through the chain of command or Quality Assurance ,

he has direct access to the NRC resident inspector or NRC Regional Headquarters as provided by 1 0CFR19 .

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 149, St. Louis, MO 63166

Current regulations (e.g. 10CFR20, SO, 70, 73) also provide for the submittal of necessary reports to the NRC. We believe these regulations for reporting are adequate to identify significant concerns to the NRC. In addition, the NRC may at any time review licensee performance of employee-identified concerns resolution (as provided by 10CFR19) and address weaknesses as needed.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed regulation. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours, Donald F. Schnell

• JJW/tar

cc: Gerald Charnoff, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 J. o. Cermak CFA, Inc.

3356 Tanterra Circle Brookville, MD 20833

w. L. Forney Division of Projects and Resident Programs, Chief, Section lA U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137

• Bruce Little Callaway Resident Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RR#l Steedman, Missouri 65077 Paul O'Connor (2}

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 316 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20014 Manager, Electric Department Missouri Public Service Commission P.O. Box 360

• Jefferson City, MO 65102

DOCi'ET NUi\-H:JER _ ,;1 ION RULE PRM ~~-;y 7~

( 5',? F/4 /~I~)

OOC~ETEO NUCLEAR OPERATING K iJ7 USNRC l1ftR 13 A11 :23 CORPORATION 1

OFF ICE Of SEL.i\t;_TMF. ,

OOCKETI G~ ~l:." VIC

• BrtAt CH March 10, 1987 Secretary of the Corrmission

u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coomission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. C. 20555 Letter: WM 87-0081 Subj: Docket No. PRM-50-47, Corcments of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On January 12, 1987, the Corcmission published in the Federal Register (52 F.R. 1200) a notice requesting conrnents on a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company. The petition asked that the Corcmission impose additional regulatory requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigations all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities," and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (W:NOC") respectfully suani ts the following corrments in response to that petition for rulemaking. ~NOC is the operating agent for Wolf Creek Generating Station located in Coffey County, Kansas, and owned by Kansas Gas and Electric Conpany ("KG&E"),

Kansas City Power & Light Company ("KCPL") and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. ("KEPCo").

W:NOC believes that (1) the experience with an employee concern program at Wolf Creek does not support the factual basis for the petition, (2) making mandatory a voluntary utility program could chill utilities' efforts to develop programs which exceed those required by Comnission regulations, (3) the need for a Corrmission-mandated program to report employee concerns should be viewed separately with respect to nuclear plants under construction and operating nuclear plants, and (4) the petition for rulemaking may have been motivated by self-interest. vl::NOC recomnends that the petition be denied.

P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/FIHC/VET 2 0 1987 ACk\10ffl by card ..****** *** ... ***

U.S. NUCLEAR R!GUl.ATO Y COMMISSIOO DOCKET G & SE VICE ~ION OFFICE F TH" SEC HA 'l OF T '; C ....... I!;~ t

Mr. Chilk March 10, 1987 WM 87-0081 page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND Some electric utilities voluntarily have initiated and irrplemented programs to address and resolve employee concerns during construction of their nuclear power plants. Such utilities expended considerable resources to assure that concerns were investigated and resolved. Many of such programs have been continued in the plants' operational phases.

During the construction of Wolf Creek Generating Station the owners designed and implemented an employee concern reporting system denominated the Quality First Program to assure that expressed concerns of individuals received independent and objective investigation and resolution. The Quality First Program was designed to identify and help correct problems that may constitute or lead to violation of regulatory requirements.

Although Wolf Creek's construction was completed more than one year ago, the Quality First Program remains in effect today *

• THE OVERSTATED SUBSTANTIATION RATE Petitioner alleges that "the sheer number of concerns identified along with the greater than 50 percent rate of substantiation of these concerns more than justifies" the need for a Comnission-mandated reporting program.

Although Petitioner does not support that allegation, WCNOC believes that, based upon experience at Wolf Creek, a "greater than 50 percent" substantiation rate is highly overstated. Moreover, Petitioner has failed to indicate how many, if any, of the "substantiated" concerns were safety related and previously undiscovered. As the Conmission is aware, the key issue here is the question of safety. Petitioner's failure to present any evidence that public safety would be enhanced significantly by the proposed rule is reason enough for the petition to be denied.

Petitioner alleges that its efforts have helped identify "several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities. that otherwise would not have surfaced." {Emphasis supplied.) As will be shown below, the magnitude of Petitioner's alleged findings is highly unrepresentative of at least Wolf Creek's experience, and more importantly, Petitioner's implication that all such concerns would have remained undiscovered without the concern reporting program is completely unfounded.

Wolf Creek's Quality First Program was implemented nineteen months prior to conmercial operation. During that nineteen month period, four hundred sixty-five concerns related to nuclear safety and potential wrongdoing activities, as those terms are used by Petitioner, were sutmitted to Quality First. Of that number, one hundred forty-two, or thirty percent, were substantiated. One hundred twenty-five of these were determined not to be

Mr. Chilk March 10, 1987 WM 87-0081 page 3 of 5 reportable to the Comnission under the conditions of the Construction Permit and were therefore not considered to be significant to safety. The remaining seventeen concerns were found to be reportable to the NRC.

However, in all cases, the reportability of and correcti ve action for the seventeen identified deficiencies already had been addressed in the normal course of Wolf Creek's Quality Assurance Program.

Between comnercial operation (September 3, 1985) and January 1987, a period of sixteen months which included one refueling outage, the total number of concerns voiced by employees dropped dramaticall y to only forty-six, eight of which were substantiated safety-related or potential wrongdoing concerns. However, none of the substantiated concerns were determined to be reportable to the NRC under the conditions of the Operating License.

THE POTENTIAL FOR SUPPRESSING INNOVATION Employee concern reporting programs have been developed by utilities seeking to do even more, on a voluntary basis, than is required of them by law to ensure that nuclear power plants are built and operated in a safe and efficient manner. It is good policy for the Conmission to encourage utilities to be innovative and to exceed the already demanding performance levels imposed by existing Comnission regulations. However, if every innovative utility~eveloped program is subsequently mandated for all utilities by Comnission regulation, future utility innovat ion likely will be suppressed. The question then becomes: where is the incentive for innovation if the utility believes that its efforts only will be rewarded by another level of regulation?

DISTINGUISH BE'IWEEN CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION PHASES

• The Petition For Rulemaking would have the Comnission impose a concern reporting requirement on "all utilities involved in a nuclear program,"

irrespective of whether such nuclear program was in the construction or operation phase. As illustrated above, Wolf Creek's experience has been that the number of registered concerns markedly decreases upon construction completion. W::NOC believes that this marked reduction in the number of concerns expressed subsequent to comnercial operation of a plant is typical in the industry.

Because of the potential chilling effect on utility innovation discussed above, W::NOC believes a mandated reporting program during both the construction and operating phases of nuclear plants would be inappropriate.

This is particularly so for the operating phase. Wolf Creek's experience

Mr. Chilk March 10, 1987 WM 87-0081 page 4 of 5 indicates that because of the significant reduction in numbers of concerns voiced during the operating phase, as opposed to the construction phase, a utility which desires to maintain an employee concerns program is able to substantially down-scale the reporting program upon corrmercial operation of the plant.

Adequate alternative methods exist for employees to report their concerns regarding plants both under construction and operating. For example, pursuant to 10 CFR 19.16 and 10 CFR Part 21, such concerns may be registered directly with the NRC, and the licensee is required to post notices (NRC Form 3) of the proper procedure for registering such concerns.

Of course, resident NRC inspectors are available at each site, and their presence is made known to all who work there.

THE PETITION MAY BE MOTIVATED BY SELF-INTEREST Although economic self-interest does not necessarily disqualify an otherwise valid proposal, such self-interest is important to consider in evaluating a proposal as unsupported as Petitioner's. As the petition indicated, Petitioner most recently has been involved in operating an employee concerns program at a major nuclear facility. However, the management of that project released Petitioner from that effort. Petitioner may believe that the potential for acquiring new assignments in this field would be enhanced by a Coomission-mandated concern reporting program for all utilities involved in nuclear programs.

W:NOC is concerned that this proceeding not be influenced by unsupported allegations advanced by a party who could receive direct and significant financial benefit from the Comnission's adoption of the proposed regulatory changes *

• VAGUENESS The petition is so vague as to make it impossible to use as the basis for a new rule. Although Petitioner would have the Coomission promulgate a rule requiring utilities to maintain an employee concern program incorporating the facets of the Employee Response Team recently conducted at the Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Facility," the petition contains no indication of the nature or extent of such "facets," nor does it refer to any document which a comnenter may review to determine the merits of the petition.

Mr. Chilk March 10, 1987 WM 87- OOBf page 5 of 5 COOCLUSION Petitioner has sul:mitted no evidence that public safety will be enhanced significantly by the Comnission's adoption of the proposal. For all of the reasons stated above, the proposal is unnecessary, and the petition should be denied.

Respectfully,

~~

Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer BCM:see cc: PO'Connor JCunmins

DOCKET NUMBER- --..

PETITION RULE PRM ~?J-4 7q)

(5Z. F;e 12(!)0") 02,/ Telephone (61 7) 8 72-8100 TW X 71 0-380-7619 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

~a

"-.Y~~o

• 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham , Masw DOCKETED USNHC uf{Affs fer~ l :QQ

---

* March 5, 1987 OFF.ICE OF SE.dL :A:iY lilO'C KETI NG SERV ICf' BRANCH FYC 87-006 GLA 87-032 Secretary of the Commission United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Quality Technology Company Petition for Rulemaking (52FR1200)

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to reply to the subject NRC petition for rulemaking filed by the Quality Technology Company (QTC) . YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts . Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing for other nuclear power plants in the Northeas t , including Vermont Yankee, Maine Yankee, and Seabrook .

We believe that resolution of employee concerns is important to the overall efficient and safe operation of a nuclear facility. In recognition of its importance, the Yankee facilities through their indoctrination programs specifically apprise all employees of the channels available to them for resolving individual concerns, including the right to approach the NRC at any time with a given concern . Furthemore, the NRC has long maintained a policy that encourages licensee employees to bring concerns to its attention. To facilitate this policy, the NRC provides all licensee employees the opportunity to discuss a concern with the NRC resident inspector or the regional office in person, in writing, or via telephone, while affording the employee strict confidentiality. In addition to licensee activities to resolve employee concerns, such NRC provisions certainly negate the need for further regulatory requirements regarding employee concern resolution.

We also believe that the controls created by existing Commission rules and guidance on reporting of deficiencies and noncompliances which could adversely impact safety adequately envelope those employee concerns that should be reported by licensees to the NRC. Reporting such concerns need not be a function of whether a licensee has a formal program for resolving employee concerns because it is a function of the relationship between the expressed concern and its relation to safety. Additional regulations or regulatory guidance in this area are not necessary for ensuring such reporting, as enforcement action is always available to the NRC if it determines that a licensee is not reporting employee concerns that fall under existing regulations.

0 s'r'.

p1r.

d ,

ecie

fl United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 5, 1987 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Page 2 In summary, we recommend that the subject petition for rulemaking be denied. Our specific comments on the two-part petition are provided in the attachment to this letter.

Very truly yours, D. W. Edwards Director of Industry Affairs Attachment

Attachment The QTC petition for rulemaking recommends that the Commission adopt a two-part rulemaking on wrongdoing activities and employee concerns. our comments on the specific proposals are as follows.

1. Petition The Commission should require licensees to report all identified concerns relating to wrongdoing activities to the NRC Office of Investigations, much along the same lines as is required to report nuclear safety-related issues in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e) and 10CFR Part 21.

comment The purpose of the NRC, in part, is to protect the radiological health and safety of the public and the environment. The NRC accomplishes this, in part, by requiring licensees to promptly identify and report potential safety problems. Such reporting requirements as 10CFR Sections 20.403, 21.21, 50.55(e), 50.72, 50.73, 70.52, and 73.71 have been promulgated by the Commission with the intent of identifying, for possible further regulatory action, those deficiencies and noncompliances that either reduce or have the potential for reducing the degree of protection afforded to the public health and safety and the environment by NRC regulations. However, as pointed out in the Statements of Consideration for reporting of deficiencies for the design and construction of nuclear power plants (37FR6459), it was never the intent of the Commission to require the reporting of trivial matters.

In light of existing reporting requirements and the commission's intent as presented in the statements of Consideration, we believe that

1) existing regulations already require the reporting of any employee concern related to an adverse impact on safe plant operations, and 2) the reporting of all employee concerns to the NRC would be contrary to the intent of the Commission's regulations.

2. Petition The Commission should require licensees to maintain an "employee concern program.. incorporating the facets of the (QTC) Employee Response Team recently conducted at the TVA Watts Bar facility.

Comment Licensees are not presently required by law to develop and maintain an "employee concern program... We continue to believe that no basis exists to justify a change from this policy. Licensees are presently required to report to the NRC all deficiencies and noncompliances that could adversely affect safe plant operations regardless of whether such a deficiency or noncompliance was identified as a result of an expressed

Attachment (Continued) employee concern. The regulations also grant the Commission the latitude to take enforcement action if a licensee 1) violates such reporting requirements and/or 2) the Department of Labor determines that an employee has been discriminated against by a licensee for expressing a given concern.

In light of these controls and the long standing Commission policy that affords an individual the opportunity to report known or suspected deficiencies or noncompliances directly to the NRC while still maintaining his or her confidentiality, we believe that existing regulations and guidance exist to ensure that all employee concerns related to safety are indeed resolved .

DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM M-47/AJ

{§'~ F/4 /£ ~) CY

o~K[-:..

;~jwi

'87 MAR -2 P3 :Q6 M:::'rvin I.. Lewis 7801 Roo5evelt Blvd.,#6i .

Ph i1 a.' PA 19152 ~ot~r *n:1: *., *r h':' C'

!RANI 11 Secretary of the Commission IJSNRC Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. S&cretary; Please accept the following letter as my comments on Federal Register Nc,tice dated January 12,1987. The title c,f the nc,tice is Quality Technology Company; Petition for Rulemaking. <Docket PRM

~::o- i:1 7 . ) Quality Technc,lc,gy petitic,ned that the 11 \o',rc,ngdc,ir,g A t::i. ties c,f emplc:,yees " receive the same cc,nsideratic,n as the

~ fe t , related issues in 10CFR 50.56 and 10CFR 21.

am very much in agreement with the petition that wrongdoing activities of employees get some critical attention from the NRC. Also the experience at many plants: Marble Hill, TVA, TMI#2, and many others have shown that the NRC has been most deficient in its overview of nuclear power and all its ramifications.

Management is also made up of employees. Case in point is the recent wrongful discharge of a worker at Peach Bottom by PECo.

Only m~nagement has the power to discharge an employee. Obviously this actic,n was a "wrc,ngful activity" on the part c,f management.

Workers must be protected and allowed to provide anonymous information for this program to work. Workers are apprehensive about blowing the whistle on management be~ause of possible retaliation. Anonymity and confidentiality must be guaranteed and made easy. A telephone tip line is a good start.

A Wrc,ngdc,ing activities mL1st be defined tc, include nc,n-nL1clear w ,d non-utility business. The protected , confidential air about the business of a nuclear power plant promotes drug sales. The

~orkers know that all the employees and management ha e been sc::reenf!'d and <":'re n,::,t Lmdercc,ver l1arcc,t ic c,*ff i cers. Bc,c,kmc.d-: i 11q 2,nd drug sales abound in such a protected environment. See the f.

attarhed public Citizen press release f~r background.

Although Part 21 is cited as justification, Part 21 does not ccnsidei the m3ny ramifications of other wrongdoing activities.

Part 21 looks at many situations as less than criminal, and treats the respc,nse in nc,n-criminal ~"3ys. Fines are levif?:!d against the utility to discourage violations. Fines a e mere p a ss thru*s to the stockholder or the ratep~yer of the utili t y.

The stockholder or the ratepayer must pay for the violdtion c,f management c,r emplc,yee. Fines tc, the uti 1 i t:y c*r l ic E*ns:;E*E.' £ "O

provide less than nothing as far as discoui aging the individL1al OJ whc, is guilty because the gL1ilty individL1al does nc,t pi:,lf thE* ~

~

fine. ~

0 I hc,pi;J th:::1t the.> NF<C wi 1 J. prc,vide punishments tc, detE-i r- thE:" ~

wrongdoing activity to the employee or the manager who is ~

respc,nsible.. Targeting apprc:,pri,-ate individuals wit;h 1 hP _\

appropr j ate punj sh,r,ent shc,t.1ld provide some imprc, em':nt,. (1z/~.,,.,....../

I- e. Y\<-\o~llt~-,: :P~r V. * ~;:,:::v~ tt"1/< ¢7 c::b'J

U. S. NUC' EJ\R REGIJL TOK't' COf MISSION 0OGKfT G &. SL VICE SECTIO f, :E F THE * .

• RY

~ T' E CO,.\ ~... -

I" Postr.rrl C *t.

C A

Speci ,t r' ti.,n

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 Tel. 215 337-5330 No. 1-87-21 February, 1987 No. 1-87-22 No. 1-87-23 No. 1-87-24 No. 1-87-21

Contact:

Karl Abraham February 10, 1987 NRC STAFF PROPOSES TO FINE THE PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY $50,000 FOR AN ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF A WORKER AT PEACH BOTTOM PLANT The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff has cited the Philadelphia Electric Company for allegedly causing the dismissal of a contractor's health physics technician because the technician expressed concern about his possible overexposure to radiation at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in York County, Pennsylvania. The Staff proposes to fine the Phil ade lphi a Electric Company (PECO), which operates Peach Bottom, $50,000.

NRC regulations specifically protect nuclear industry workers' rights to express concerns about their safety to employers, or to the NRC.

On October 4, 1985, a Peach Bottom contractor, Bartlett Nuclear, Inc.

terminated the employment of George A. Field, a health physics technician, giving as its reason that he al l egedly had excessive absences from work.

In a 11 Notice of Violation 11 sent to PECO on February 9, 1987, the NRC staff alleges that Mr. Field was fired by Bartlett "at the direction of the PECO Field HP Supervisor because Mr. Field 11 persisted in raising concerns regarding whether he might have received a radiation exposure in excess of the regulatory limit while he was working in the Unit 3 offgas tunnel in March 1985 and because of a belief by certain PECO supervisors that Mr. Field had informed the Commission of his concerns. 11 A special inspection, as well as an investigation, were performed, and the NRC staff believes that while Mr. Field received some radiation exposure during his work in the offgas tunnel, the amount of exposure was within the limits of such exposures set in NRC regulations.

(more)

In a letter transmitting the Notice of Violation to PECO, Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator of NRC Region I, said that the NRC staff had11 determined that Mr. Field was terminated 11 for engaging in protected activity. Although PECO provided, during the investigation, other reasons for the termination, Dr. Murley said that the NRC was persuaded of its conclusion by four findings of the investigation:

1. The technician apparently was never counseled regarding excessive absenteeism;

2. There was no mention of such absenteeism in the technician's personnel file;

3. Although seven employees were designated for layoffs due to excessive absenteeism, only three employees were discharged;

4. Terminati_on based solely on absenteeism apparently was inconsistent with the then current and past practices at Peach Bottom.

11 The importance of allowing employees sufficient freedom to bring their -

perceived safety concerns to the attention of licensees, their contractors, and the NRC must be reinforced," said Dr. Murley. "While the NRC encourages licensees to adopt an 'open door policy* which encourages employees and contractor employees to report problems to their supervision, it must also be made clear to employees that they have the right to contact the NRC whenever they perceive a safety prob 1em exists and that they wi 11 not be harassed, intimidated , or discriminated against for bringing such concerns to their supervi sion or to the NRC. 11 Dr. Murley concluded that these events were "indicative of the need for more effective management control of the radiation protection program. 11 PECO has 30 days either to pay the fine or to request in writing that part or all of it be withdrawn by the NRC staff. The company also has 30 days to admit or deny the alleged violation, and if admitted, to give its reasons for its happening, corrective steps taken and results achieved, steps taken to ~

avoid further violations, and the date when full compliance will be achieved. W' The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been informed of this proposed enforcement action.

(more)

Congress Watch

• Critical Mass Energy Project

• Health Research Group

• Litigation Group

• Tax Reform Group For Relea s e : February 18 , 1 98 7

Contact:

Joshua Gordon 6 : 00 a . m. 202 - 546-4996 FEDERAL REGULATORS IGNORE RAMP~ DRUG ABUSE AT U.S . NUCLµR POWER PLANTS (Washington, o. c.) Hundreds of workers are using drugs and alcohol while operating nuclear power plants throughout the United States, according to a new study released today by Pub lic Citizen .

However , while the federal government has pledged to wage a war on drugs, President Reagan's appointees to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have all but ignored the problem .

The report, Nuclear Power Going to Pot : Drug and Alcohol Abuse at Nuclear Power Plants is based on internal documents obtained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and interviews with dozens of government and industry officials. It shows that public safety is threatened daily by the widespread and increasing use of drugs and e alcohol among plant workers.

"Most people think that nuclear power plants are operated by sober technicians in white coats , " said Joshua Gordon, nuclear analyst with Public Citizen and author of the study. "The truth is, however, that many are run by people who routinely drink on the job qr work under the influence of drugs."

The report further charges that notwithstanding a six-fold increase in reported drug use over the past five years, the NRC has refused to take the steps minimally necessary to control this 1

Public Citizen

• 215 Pennsylvania Avenue S.E.

• Washington, D.C. 20003

burgeoning threat. Likewise, Congress and other responsible federal agencies have failed to addre s s this problem. Federal officials have instead chosen to leave the nuclear industry alone to regulate itself.

"Ignoring this problem puts at risk the lives of the 150 million Americans who live within 50 miles of nuclear power plants," warned Ken Bossong, Director of Public Citizen's Criti"cal Mass Energy Project. "Their health and safety depends on the ability of nuclear plant employees to think clearly, -to be attentive to their respon-s ibilities, and to make the right decisions during emergencies."

All to often, however, these workers are using drugs and alcohol 9 which may significantly increase the chance of a major accident.

For instance:

• Over 120 cases of drug and alcohol abuse have been reported to the NRC during the past several yeares. These cases involve' at least 400 ~uclear plant employees, including senior reactor operators and nuclear security guards.

• The NRC acknowledges that these reported cases represent only a small fraction of the drug and alcohol abuse that actually takes place. According to the agency, its records represent "just the tip of the iceberg" because there are no formal NRC requirements for reporting drug and alcohol abuse. Other evidence suggests that the actual number may be hundreds of times higher.

• The NRC calls the increase in drug and alcohol abuse "alarming." Six times as many cases were recorded by the NRC in 1985 as in 1980, suggesting that the nuclearindustry is unable or unwilling to cope with the problem.

• Abuse occurs at virtually every nuclear power plant and involves alcoholic beverages, marijuana, as well as a variety of 2

harder drugs such as speed, PCP, quaaludes, cocaine, and LSD.

• The NRC has done almost nothing about the problem: it has not i ns tituted procedures to ensure that good progra ms are developed and i mplemented. It has instead turned responsibility over to a n industry group , the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), thereby allowing the industry to regulate itself. Consequently , few drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs are in place . Where they are, the public, and in many cases, the NRC, have no access to records on the p~ograms' effectiveness.

Congress, as well as federal agencies other than the NRC, have 9 jurisdiction or oversight over drug abuse at nuclear power plants.

They, t o o , have failed to take meaning fu l acti o n.

The report concludes that the NRC needs to take immediate and forceful action to addres s the drug and alcohol abuse problem.

'Public Citizen has consequently called upon the NRC to implement regulations to:

• Require record keeping on* drug and alcohol abuse at nuclear power plants:

• Mandate participation by utilities in programs designed to

~

eliminate drug and alcohol abuse:

• Establish criteria setting minimum standards for utility drug and alochol programs and providing procedural safeguards for employees who might be affected by them:

• Develop enforcement mechanisms to ensure that utilities comply:

and

• Force the NRC to assume primary responsibility for controlling drug and alcohol abuse at nuclear power plants.

3

In addition, Public Citizen is calling upon Congress to hold hearings and, if necesary, enact legislation to compel the NRC to fulfill its obligations.

"The NRC should just say 'No' to drugs," concludes Gordon.

"Instead it has allowed drugs, alcohol, and nuclear power to form a powerful and potentially deadly mix."

The study, Nuclear Power Going to Pot: fr~i and Alcohol at Nuclear Power Plants, includes an appendix""de ai i~more than--r20 documented cases of drug use at nuclear facilities. Copies of the 50 page report are available from Public Citizen, c / o the Critical Mass Energy Project for $10.00 (215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Washington, o.c. 20003).

Public Citizen is a non-profit resear ch and advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader in 1971 to address a range of consumer and environmental issues. The Critical Mass Energy Project is Public Citizen's energy policy arm and works to promote safe energy-alternatives to nuclear power.

4

DOCKET NUMBER /-:;)

i>ETJTION RULE PRM .jd-4// ~

LAW OFFICES OF (5~ p,e /,,tl?J)

• Q r1 [ l, BISHOP, LIBERMAN, COOK, PURCELL cSc REYNOLDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH S TREET, N. W.

WASHINGTON , D . c. 20,'s,6 FEB 27 1\11 :07 (202) 857-9800 IN NEW YORK TELEX 440S74 I NT LAW U I ut t 1 BISHOP, LIBERMAN & COOK TELECOPIER ( 202 ) BS7 - 9846 QC t I.

IISS AVENUE OF THE AM ERICA S

• J..11 ..

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036 (2 12) 704 - 0100 TELEX 222767 February 26, 1987 WRITER "S D IRE CT D I AL

( 202 )

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Docket No. PRM-50-47 Request for Extension of Comment Period on Petition for Rulemaking filed by Quality Technology (52 Fed. Reg. 1200 (Jan 12, 1987))

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds , on behalf of several utilities, would like to request an extension of the comment period on the petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology. Coordination of the different concerns and views held by utilities is often a lengthy process. An extension of the comment period would facilitate the submittal of a clear, concise comment which would reflect the view held by a sector of the nuclear industry . We feel that such an extension , by allowing additional time to coordinate views , would aid the Commission in making its decision.

DOCKET NUMBER ECOLOGY/ALERT l?ETITION RULE PRM ..;J-4~ Feb 7 - 87 BOX 62, ( 5,2, Ft /rt~)

BLOOMSBURG 17815

• ~ = p e t 1* t ion i:.,_

• f or ru 1 emak 1* '

E Nemethy , Sec ' y uality Technology Co Fed Reg - an 12-'fl:s1,, PEBl ff OAll :24 Sec ' y - NRC

\ ash DC 20 555 r V'f.

ATT: D~CK TI NG & S RVIC B CH Gentlemen =

You must be well aware t ha t most

• t om i c util ties h ave discovered problems of drug and/or alcohol abuse among t heir employees .

In no other in ustry (airlines and railroa s included) could suc h widespre ad catastrop .e result from t he carelessness or in-attention of some je r k who ' s high on dope or alcoLol .

herefore , we think u al i ty Techno l ogy o pany ' s petition sLould be given your prompt and undivided attentjon .

Acknowfedred by card FEB 1 3 1987 1

• III **** ...........

f U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C:l DOS.:K 111 , & .:, H lc;C:: 81, CH Ott ,C._ C,.,.. 1 t ~l-t, I Al Y Ur I rlt. Cu

• I I~

Do ument S a,,s ics Postmark Date c,., 1.:s ed 2-/ 'ife 7 c.ct 1 s Hepro, 1., ed __________

1 wlh!t.l H l.11!.I lo.,ullOO

'87 FEB -4 p 3 :59 t=:ebruary 2,1987 Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~t,.,' ;x,_'.'*

Washington DC 20555 Attn1 Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Commissioners:

Reaponding to Val. ~2, No. 7 Federal Register notice of Monday, January 12, 1987, 10 CFR Part 50 [Docket No. PRN 47], I submit the following commants1 I am a recently retired engineer and worked in design of equipment, R&D and in applications engineering during my career. One of the most valuable sources of information came from the technicians and craftsman who supported my efforts.

This is true all the way from the technicians who made test setups and breadboards ta develop a concept, through the craftsmen and women who put together the prototypes, tested them, through th production people and inspectors, to the operators and maintenance technicians in the field. Without their f*eedback, many of my achievemnts could never have been accomplished.

For several years now, I have done some freelance consulting with the company proposing this rule and have become aware of instances of cutting corners in the execution, test, and dac~mentation of the design, construction and retrofit requiremnts in nuclear power pl ants. Al 1 too of*ten, the management tries to disregard defects, ignor. than who w~uid hjav the defects corrected and coverup th" .problems. At "ttm*s, these corrections are costly in both time and money to correct, but safety is often compromised.

The concerns cf the employees who have participated in the construction and aparati~ of'isuch plants must not be ignored. Thay are the ones who saw the errors being made!

They are the *ones wha witnessed irif~rior aquipment being installed! They are the ones ~ho were ordered to be quiet about the problems! They are the ones who have seen theft and corruption in the workplace! Some have even put their careers and occasionally their very lives on the line in an attempt to bring these mat.t rs to 1 i ght so corrective action would be imposed on those who would not do lithat was required! This rule will provide a safe, confidential avenue for the information ta be provided by employee* with no fear of reprisal. The concerns may than be investigated by a competent, independent party so the problems, if they exist,

may be properly addressed thereby assuring safe, quality installation and operation of these highly sophisticated plants. Where such a program has been conducted and received the cooperation of the utility management, the results have been dramatic. Schedules were kept and the plants are producing power for sale.

I am not an anti Hi-Tech person, having participated in same rather sophisticated developments, but I regret the cavalier attitude many managers take toward such projects. It is a matter of common knowlege that the space shuttle tragedy was due ta a problem the Thiokol company engineers warned against. The litany of such skimping in the projects can fill many volumes. It is not my purpose to make you aware of that. I'm sure you have observed this in your work. The power companies will strongly appose this rule as they have apposed every and all requirements before. This rule needs all the support it can get. Therefore I ask you to establish it as soon as possible.

~:,:;1~

FJames Thero, PE, CEM 107:54 Talbot Huntington Woods, Mi 48070

7590-01 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 0 87 JAN 23 P4 :15

[Docket No. PRM-50-47]

Quality Technology Company; Petition for Ru l emaki rl~'~

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Co1t1nission.

ACTION: Receipt of petition for rulemaking; correction.

SUMMARY

This document clarifies a portion of the notice of receipt for a petition for rulemaking filed by Quality Technology Company and docketed as PRM-50-47. The notice of receipt for this petition was published January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200). This notice clarifying the petitioner's original intent is based on communications with the petitioner since PRM-50-47 was docketed on November 14, 1986.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, lJ. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1t1nission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Telephone:

301-492-7758 or, Toll Free, 800-368-5642.

In the notice of receipt for PRM-50-47, published on January 12, 1987 (52 FR 1200), replace the next to the last sentence in the second column under the heading "Basis of the Proposal," with the following sentence:

It is clear to the petitioner that the safeguards that the utilities' management and the regulatory co1m1issions have put in place are only effective to a degree. /

Dated at Washington, D.C., this 2-l'-'r d y of J-,1..)<.)ft'i4-[ 1987.

the N lear Regulatory Co1t1nission.

,We~ .

the Co1t1nis\ion.

DOCKET NUMBER - ,

PETIJ ION RULE PRM M-4"7

(_5/! r£ /~}

QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

• a7 JAN 15 cw ?o LK:QTC86-#1532 Dec 8ilbBr 23, 1986 DCk T , " ,

I ANt,~ '/f';f Mr. Donnie H. Grimsley, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration' U. s. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D. c. 20555

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

Thank you for your letter of December 16, 1986, regarding the establishment of Docket No. PRM-50-47, responding to our request of October 27, 1986 (Re: QTC86-1439).

I would like to point out a statement in the body of the Petition, page 3, under the paragraph titled "Basis of the Proposal" which should be corrected. The next to last sentence in this paragraph reads ... "Their experience makes clear to the petitioner that NRC's safeguards management is only partially effective". We have not identified a concern with the "NRc's safeguards management" program which governs utilities plant security systems. Our October 27, 1986 letter states ... "It is clear to QTC that the safeguards management and regulatory commissions have put in place are effective to a degree."

"Safeguards" in the context of our 10/27/86 letter refers to the systems of checks and balances implemented by utility management to assure that; 1) the plant is designed, constructed and operated in a "safe" manner, and; 2) the "requirements" ' put into effect by the NRC, state agencies and other regulatory agencies are complied with. We did not state that those controls (management and regulatory) were only "partially effective".

We respectfully request a correction to the Petition as is stated herein.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY ot2~

President OLT/ts 3 BROADWAY SUITE 3

• P.O. BOX 407

• LEBO, KS 66856 * (316) 256-6734

)

• V u S. NUrtr,.

Dorr ~\ ISSION 0,  : ... noN I y

(,

d'I C pec'a r..,.'

DOCKET NUMBER .

PETITION RULE PRM ;itJ-4 7 -*5f'()

/ jU- 01 (f5£, F~ /~MT oocKEiE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC D O L--,

10 CFR Part 50 "87 JAN -9 p 3 :45

[Docket No. PRM-50-47]

Quality Technology Company; Petition for R~-i~t ,.

r

, l I AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Co1T1T1ission.

ACTION: Receipt of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requests public comments on this notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated October 27, 1986, that was filed by Quality Technology Company. The petition was docketed by the Co1T1T1ission on November 14, 1986, and assigned Docket No. PRM-50-47. The petitioner requests that the Commission add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program (1) report to the NRC's Office of Investigation all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

DATES: Submit comments by March 13, 1987. Co!Tlilents received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the Secretary of the ColTITlission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Obtain a copy of the petition by writing to the Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission, Washington, DC 20555.

A copy of the petition. and of corrvnents on the petition are available for inspection or copying for a fee at the Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7758 or, Toll Free, 800-368-5642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Petitioner s Proposal 1

The petitioner encourages the Commission to add to its regulations requirements that all utilities involved in a nuclear program {l) report to the NRC's Office of Investigations all employee-identified concerns related to "wrongdoing activ,ities" and (2) establish and maintain an employee concerns program.

The petitioner envisions that the reporting of "wrongdoing activities" would be much along the same lines as the reports of nuclear safety-related issues required by 10 CFR 50.55(e) and 10 CFR Part 21. The petitioner suggests that

i

• the employee concerns program could incorporate ideas from work of the. Employee P.esponse Team recently conducted at the Ter.nessee Valley Authority (TVA) Watts Bar facility.

Basis of the Proposal The petitioner bases this proposal on experience from its involvement in an employee concerns program at several utilities, most recently at TVA's Watts Sar facility. The petitioner contends that its various roles in employee concerns programs have provided the company the unique position of viewing the nuclear industry from both the perspective of management and the employee.

They further contend that they know from this vantage point and experience that employees engaged in construction or operation of a nuclear facility have the most accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues. Several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred "wrongdoing activities" were identified through efforts of employee concerns programs that the petitioner contends would not have otherwise been identified.

Tr.eir experience makes clear to the petitioner that NRC's safeguards management is only partially effective. Therefore, they think that an effective way should be developed of obtaining the information that only employees may hold.

Reason for the Proposal The petitioner thinks that without resolution of employee-identified safety-related concerns, the potential exists for a series of costly hardware failures or danger to employees of nuclear facilities or the general public.

The petitioner states that, from their experience, how a licensee disposes of "wrongdoi ng activities" is not clear at all and that licensees do not willingly report these activ ities to the NRC or the Department of Justice. Therefore, a corrective action mechanism should be developed to investigate or resolve "wrongdoing" issues.

Conclusion The petitioner concludes (1) that requiring the reporting of all employee-i centified concerns to the NRC's Office of Investigation would pre ven t un resolvP.d issues from falling into a "black-hole," and (2) that the sheer numbers of concerns identified along with the greater than 50 percent rate of substantia-tion of these concerns more than justifies the need for establishing and main-tai ning a nationwide employee concerns program.

r{

Dated at Washington, D.C., this _ _,__--111

.. ,---- day of January, 1987.

uclear Regu1atory Corrrr.ission.

Secretary of the Commission.

DOCKET NUMBER ii>ETITION RULE PRM.$tJ-41'"/

QUALITY (5,?~ /2tm TECHNOLOGY DOC.. K(Tl USNrc COMPANY oo nm 14 Aid .49 LK :6ff~~6-,- l~ 3 9 _ .

Octtarl6~~Tl !4<] ~ 1 ~ ~~ r BkAl*h, The Honorable Lando W. Zech , Jr .

Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , D. C. 20555

Dear Mr . Cbairrnan:

As you know , Quality Technology Company (QTC) has been involved in the operation of an employee concerns program at several nuclear utilities , most recently at TVA's Watts Bar facility. Our program provides a systematic interrelationship between the collecting , collating , and investigation of safety concerns. The uninhibited free flow of information from employees was vital to the effectiveness of each program. Unfortunately, we do not live in a society which voluntarily promotes the free and uninhibited exchange of concerns without the fear, real or imagined, of reprisal against employees who identify the shortcomings of fellow employees or management. It is in keeping with this background and collective experience of the Quality Technology Company (QTC) in dealing with the issue of employee concerns (allegations) that prompts this letter.

Through its various roles in employee concern programs , QTC has been in the unique position of viewing the nuclear industry from management's perspective as well as from the perspective of the employees. From our experience , we know that employees of a nuclear facility engaged in its construction and/or operation hold the most accurate and insightful information about nuclear safety-related issues . It is clear to QTC that the safeguards management and regulatory commissions have put in place are effective to a degree . It is also clear that several thousand nuclear safety-related concerns and several hundred wrongdoing activities have been identified through the efforts of the employee concern program QTC conducted, or were associated with, at several facilities that otherwise would not have surfaced.

Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective way of obtaining from employees the information only they may hold.

~-9 OCT 86 t 1: 46 3 BROADWAY SUITE 3

• P.O. BOX 407

• LEBO, KS 66856 * (316) 256-6315

J LK:QTC86-1439 Page 2 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.

The fact remains that unresolved nuclear safety-related concerns could have surfaced through a series of costly hardware failures and/or potential endangerment of the employees and the general public if allowed to go into operation uncorrected . Compounding the issue , the disposition of wrongdoing activities by Licensee's is not clear at all . Historically, in our experience the Licensee has not allowed QTC to investigate wrongdoing issues reported to us . Neither have they willingly reported such activities to NRC or the Department of Justice . They have no effective corrective action mechanism to investigate or resolve wrongdoing issues.

They fall into a " b l ack hole ".

The sheer numbers of concerns identified along with the very high rate of substantiation {greater than 50%) more than justifies the need for a nationwide employee concern program to be authorized and defined by law . The existence of intervener organizations would no longer exist in the nuclear environment if a credible nationwide employee concern program that had the confidence of the employees were to be implemented . Neither would the blatant disrespect for the law continue if wrongdoing activities were to be properly reported and dispensed with by NRC OI .

I therefore encourage you to introduce legislation into the Code of Federal Regulations that .would require all utilities involved in a nuclear program to perform the following: 1) Report all identified concerns relating to wrongdoing activities to the Office of Investigation , much along the same lines as is required to report nuclear safety-related issues in accordance with 10CFR50 . 55{e) and 10CFR50 Part 21, and; 2) Maintain an employee concern program incorporating the facets of the Employee Response Team recently conducted at the Tennessee Valley Authority Watts Bar Facility .

I welcome your comments on this matter and request NRC to promptl y make into law these most essential adjuncts to the Code of Federal Regulations , title 10.

Sincerely, QUALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY Owen L . Thero President OLT/jk UALITY TECHNOLOGY COMPANY 3 BROADWAY SUITE 3

• P.O. BOX 407

• LEBO, KS 66856 * (316) 256-6315