ML23153A051
| ML23153A051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1999 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 64FR57785, PRM-030-062 | |
| Download: ML23153A051 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:J ADAMS Templ~te: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 10/27/1999 TITLE: PRM-030-062' - 64FR57785 - UNION OF CONCERNED . SCIENTISTS; RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINING CASE
REFERENCE:
.PRM-030-062 64FR57785 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive*- SUNSI Review Complete
Docket No.: PRM-030-061 J1/03/2()()() FR Cite: 6'FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number David A. Lochbaum 08/18/1999 08/13/1999 Petition for rulemaldng submitted by David A. Lochbaum on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists seeking to require NRCs llccnsecs to provide specific training to management for employee protection 10/21/1999 10/21/1999 Federal Register Notice - Petition for rulemaldng; Notlce of receipt 1 Phyllis Hanna Penny Hanna Self 12/06/1999 12/01/1999
- 2 Susan B. Miller, Ph.D Self 12/06/1999 12/01/1999 3 John F. Nagle Self 12/06/1999 12/01/1999 1
Docket No.: PRM-03(µ)6] J1/03/2()(J(} FR Cite: 61FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Mi!cellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 4 Nicholas Harmon Self 12/06/1999 12/01/1999 5 Clyde Anderson Self 12/06/1999 12/02/1999 6 Betty Streett Self 12/06/19<<)9 12/02/19')9
- 7 Bonnie L. Wigen Self 12/06/199<<) 12/02/1999 8 Walter Grant Self 12/06/19')9 12/02/19')9 2
Docket No.: PRM-030-()6:J 11./03/1()()() FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneolll A~ioo Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 9 Elizabeth Claire Self 12/06/1999 12/02/1999 10 Barbara Curtis Self 12/06/1999 12/02/1999 11 Phyllis J. Raynor Self 12/06/1999 12/02/1999 12 C. Alexander Cohen Self 12/06/1999 12/02/1999 13 Roger Voelker Citizens Action Coalition 12/06/1999 12/03/1999 oflndiana 3
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 11/03/1000 FR Clu: 64FR57785 In the Matter or Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Dock.et Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 14 Michel A LombBJ'd Self 12/06/1999 12/03/1999 15 Charles Safiran Self 12/06/1999 12/03/1999 16 Paula K Ivey, Ph.D. Self 12/06/1999 12/03/1999
- 17 Margreta von Poin Self 12/06/1999 12/03/1999 18 Kris L. Chnstine Self 12/06/1999 12/04/1999
Dockd No.: PRM-030-062 lll03/l000 FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Acce11sion Number Submitted by RepresentinK Date Date Description Number 19 Joan W. W1tkin, Ph.D. Self 12/07/1999 12/01/1999 20 Peter Wernick: Self 12/07/1999 12/01/1999 21 James E. Giesen Self 12/07/1999 12/01/1999
- 22 Ludell Deutscher Self 12/07/1999 12/02/1999 23 John Buggie, PhD. Self 12/07/1999 12/02/1999 5
Docket No.: PRM-03(M)61 ll/03/lOOO FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document MlscellaneoiH Acce!lsion Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 24 Jane Kelly Self 12/07/1999 12/02/1999 25 Peter Robbins Self 12/07/1999 12/02J1999 26 Wes Sanders Self 12/07/1999 12/02/1999 27 James L. Ray Self 12/07/1999 12/02/1999 28 Elizabeth Weiss Self 12/07/1999 12J02J1999 6
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 lJ.AJJ/1000 FR Cite: MFR.57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number MarkM Giese Self 12/07/1999 12/03/19()9 30 David H Walworth, M.D Self 12/07/1999 12/03/1999 31 Gerald Cavanaugh Ragan Self 12/07/19()9 12/03/1999 Cavanaugh 32 Larry Little Self 12/07/1999 12/03/19()9 33 Gary Matthews Self 12/07/1999 12/04/1999 7
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 1M)3/1()()() FR Che: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Acce11sion Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 34 Wilbur R DeHart Self 12/07/1999 12/04/1999 35 Ruth Niswander Self 12/07/1999 12/04/1999 36 Peter W. Bliclccnsderfer Self 12/07/1999 12/04/1999 106 Patrick Oark: Self 12/07/1999 12/02/1999 37 David Illsley Self 12/08/1999 12/01/1999 8
Docket No.: PRM-03()..()62 Jll03/J()(}(J FR Cite: 6-IFR.57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 38 Penny Hanna Self 12/08/1999 12/02/1999 39 Richard Cone Solf 12/08/1999 12/02/1999 40 Louis D. Smullin Self 12/08/1999 12/02/1999 41 Donna Mummery Self 12/08/1999 12/02/1999 42 Sarah Miller Moore Self 12/08/1999 12/02/1999 9
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 J1/()3/l()()(} FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 43 Amanda Brown Self 12/08/1999 12/03/1999 44 David F Gassman Self 12/08/1999 12/03/1999 45 Linda Quinet Self 12/08/1999 12/04/1999 \. 46 Louis Puttennan Self 12/08/1999 12/04/1999 47 Geno Kostruba Self 12/08/1999 12/04/1999 10
Dockd No.: PRM-030-062 J1/()3/2()()() FR Clll: MFR.57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Ac.cession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 48 Jennifer Willis Self 12/08/1999 11106/1999 49 Bart Ziegler, Ph.D. Self 11113/1999 12/02/1999 50 Barbara C. Sorkin Self 12/13/1999 11103/1999 51 G. F. Paslrusz Self 12/13/1999 12/04/1999 52 Elliott Krackhardt Self 11113/1999 12/04/1999 11
Dockd No.: PRM-030-062 J1/(}3/1()()(} FR Cill: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous ACcestlion Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number Nancy l:lazard Self 12/13/1999 12/04/1999 54 Kipp Davies Self 12/13/1999 12/04/1999 55 Dave Dolniclc Self 12/13/1999 12/05/1999 56 Carol Sydney Marshall Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 57 Donald McNellis, M.D. Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 12
Docket No.: PRM-03()..062 JJA)!JI](){)() FR ctU: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for RulemakJng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 58 Warren J. Holbrook Joyce Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 Holbrook 59 Ralph Gunderman Janine, Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 Gunderman 60 Carol Kurz Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 61 David Mel Paul Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 62 John T. Morris Self 12/13/1999 12/07/1999 13
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 11/03/lOOO FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Mlltter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 63 Wolfgang Benz Self 12/13/1999 12/07/1999 64 Jo S1ppie-Gora Self 12/13/1999 12109/1999 65 Jon Davidson Beth Davidson Self 12/13/1999 12JOU1999 66 Victoria Kalldrtz Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 67 Perley Paap-Crabb Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 14
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 IMJJ/2(}1)() FR Cite: 61FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Acceuion Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 68 I L. Miller Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 69 N Bayer Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 70 Erin Ferguson Roger Kruse Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 71 auistopher I. Demerll Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 n Roger Kruse Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 15
Docket No.: PRM-03()..()62 l l/03/1()()(} FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Mhicellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 73 Lynn B. Fulkerson Self 12/13/1999 12/06/1999 74 Laura Magzls, Ph D. Self 12/13/1999 12/07/1999 75 Paul J. Deutschman Self 12/13/1999 12/07/1999 76 William E. Hinrichs Self 12/13/1999 12/07/1999 n Alma Medsker Self 12/13/1999 12/08/1999 16
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 11AJ3/'JOOO FR ate: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 78 Anna Burton, MD. Self 12/13/1999 12/08/1999 79 Margaret A Eastman Self 12/14/1999 12/02/1999 80 Siobhan McCafferty Self 12/14/1999 12/02/1999 81 Mark K. Bennett Self 12/14/1999 12/07/1999 82 Jack: Salem Donna Salem Self 12/14/1999 12/09/1999 17
Doclcet No.: PRM..030-061 11/()3/2000 FR Cite: MFR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneow Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 83 Marion P. Morgan Self
- 12/14/1999 12'09/1999 84 Mila Cubillo Enrique Cubillo Self 12/14/1999 12/10/1999 85 Carmen Cubillo Self 12/14/1999 12/10/1999 86 Richard Lance Orristie Self 12/14/1999 12/10/1999 87 Gladys Schmitz, et al Self 12/14/1999 12/10/1999 18
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 11AJ3/l()()() FR ate: MPR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 88 WalterJ. Hipple Self 12/14/1999 12/1U1999 89 Jesse Steinman Rose Steinman Self 12/14/1999 12/12/1999 90 Joanna McKray Self 12/16/1999 12/06/1999 91 Susan W. Small Self 12/16/1999 12/10/1999 92 Richard S. Riggs Self 12/16/1999 12/1Ul999 19
Docket No.: PRM-032-062 11./03/1000 FR Cite: 6'FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 93 VirginiaF. Walters Self 12/17/1999 12/13/1999 94 Leonard A. VanWyk Self 12/17/1999 12/13/1999 95 Sherry Wildfeuer Self 12/17/1999 12/15/1999
- 96 Roger W Perry, Jr. Self 12/20/1999 12/13/1999 98 Joseph D Jackson 12/20/1999 12/14/1999 Chemical Corps - us Army Reserve 20
Dockd No.: PRM..030-061 JJ;f)3/1()()() FR Cite: MFR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 99 D. Jay Doubleday Self 12/20/1999 12/15/1999 103 Edward C. Brainard II Self 12/20/1999 12/16/1999 97 Bill Hogan Self 12/21/1999 12/15/1999
- 100 Mary Jane Tate Self 12/21/1999 12/15/1999 101 William F. Hassel, Ph.D., P.E. Self 12/21/1999 12/15/1999 21
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 ll/0311000 FR Cill: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Represendng Date Date Description Number 102 K Bendell 12/21/1999 12/16/1999 104 Pat Collier Self 12/21/1999 12/17/l 999 105 Clare T. Pelkoy Self 12/21/1999 12/18/1999 107 Gerson T. Lesser, M.D. Self 12/21/1999 12/05/1999 108 Oiarles S. Watson Self 12/21/1999 12/06/1999 Professor end Director, Institute for tho Study of Human Capability 22
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 JMJ3/1000 FR CiJe: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 109 Bruce Pringle Self 12/21/1999 12/13/1999 110 Steven Zack Self 12/21/1999 12/13/1999 111 Andrea Schorosch Self 12/21/1999 12/16/1999 112 Robert L. Blau Self 12/27/191)9 12/18/1999 113 Robert B. Dorsett, M.D. Self 12/27/1999 12/19/1999 Member, Union of Concerned Scientists 23
Doclcet No.: PRM-030-()62 l l/03/1000 FR Cite: 6"FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accesllion Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 114 Steven Plotnick Self 12/27/1999 12/19/19')9
- 115 Dr. Douglas E. Wingeier Self 12/27/19')9 12/20/1999 116 George Glen Self 12/29/1999 12/22/19')9 117 Kathi Lindsay Self 12/29/1999 12/23/1999 118 Joannetto Bowman Self 12/30/1999 12/01/1999
Docket No.: PRM-03()..(}62 1JAJ3/J(J(}() FR Cite: MFR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaldng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 120 Jan C. Siren Self 01/01/2000 12/27/1999 119 David G. Schowalter, Ph.D. Self 01/03/2000 12/23/1999 121 David Buchner Self 01/04/2000 12/30/1999 122 Ali9C V. Uyttebrouck Self 01/04/2000 12/30/1999 123 John Stewart Self 01/04/2000 12/31/1999 25
Docket No.: PRM..()3()..1)62 11/03/2000 FR CiJe: MFR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 124 Pat and Diclc Clemmer Self 01/07/2000 12/30/1999 125 Joan 0. King 01/07/2000 01/01/2000 126 Philip A. Marrone Self 01/07/2000 01/03/2000 127 Jeanne D. Lindahl Self 01/10/2000 01/01/2000 128 John S. McAnally Self 01/10/2000 01/04/2000 26
Docket No.: PRM..03()..061 11/03/1000 FR Cill: 6-IFR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accession Number Snbmitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 129 Beth J. Singer, Ph.D. Self 01/10/2000 01/06/2000 Professor of Philosophy Emerita, Brooklyn College C 130 Nicole Moms Self 01/10/2000 01/07fl000 131 Kathy Van Dame Self 01/10/2000 0 l/0&'2000 132 Barry Quigley Self 01/10/2000 01/09/2000 133 Thomas F. Plunkett Florida Power & Light 01/11/2000 01/06/2000 President Nuclear Division Company 27
Docket No.: PRM-030-062 111()311000 FR CJu: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Miscell.aneoWI Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 134 Frances Lamberts Self 01/11/2000 01/07/2000 135 Donn C. Meindertsma Wmston & Strawn 01/11/2000 01/10/2000 136 Conni B. Kulas Self 01/12/2000 12109/1999 137 David Shelton Self 01/12/2000 12/23/1999 138 Paul and Wendy Manganiello Self 01/14/2000 01/05/2000 28
Dockd No.: PRM-03()..()62 JJA}3/](J()() FR Cite: 61FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking Comment Comment Docket Document Miscellaneous Accesllion Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 139 William J Bnumol Self 01/14/2000 01/07/2000 Professor of Economics, New York University 140 Robert W Bishop
- Nuclear F.nergy Institute 01/14/2000 01/10/2000 Vice President and General Counsel
( 141 Mark J. Burzynski Tennessee Valley 01/18/2000 01/10/2000 Manager Nuclear Licensing Authority
- 142 James A. Hutton, Jr.
Director - Licensing PECO J3nerg)' Company 01/21/2000 01/07/2000 143 Joseph A. Ynrinn Self 01/21/2000 01/09/2000 29
Dockd No..: PRM-03fJ..062 11/03/2000 FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document Mi!cellaneous Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 144 Jim Mosser Self 01/21/2000 01/13/2000 145 Molly Giller Self 01/21/2000 01/17/2000 146 James H. McCarthy Virginia Power 01/24/2000 01/10/2000 Manager
- 147 Peter Muise Self 01/24/2000 OI/1&7.000 148 Thomas V. Connor Self 01/24/2000 01/21/2000 30
Docket No.: PRM..()3fJ..062 11AJ3/2(}(}(} FR Cite: 64FR57785 In the Matter of Employee ProtectJon Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaklng Comment Comment Docket Document MJscellaneow Accession Number Submitted by Representing Date Date Description Number 149 C. Lance Terry TXU Electric 01108/2000 01mnooo Sr. Vice President & Principal Nuclear Officer 150 Elizabeth Wien, Ph.D. Self 01110/2000 02/07/2000 151 DebK.atz Citiz.ens Awareness 01115/2000 01114/2000 Executive Director Network
- 152 Patricia H Seffens Self 02/18/2000 12/08/1999 153 Kevin R. Doody Self 10/20!2000 09/29!2000 ML003761819 31
Frances Lamberts, 113 Ridge Lane, Jonesborough, TN 37659-5800-January 7, 2000 v:>n1,v Secretary of the Commission
*oo J U ,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCK. ET - - n*
Washington, DC 20555-0001 PETITIO RULE ~ 30-6:Z
. . "[f,'lh~5178'5) A)
Dear Secretary:
I have had concerns about nuclear power-plant safety for a long time, as the enclosed letter in a local newspaper indicates. Believing as I do, that energy generation from renewable sources has many advantages over energy from other sources, I nonetheless realize that nuclear generation does anq will play a part in our energy system. Strengthening safety-enhancing measures at nuclear plants is an important public issue which your Agency must continually evaluate and address .
- I understand that you_ are *considering issuance of two relevant rules, one perfaining to managerial staff training on employee legal prot.ection if workers raise safety concerns, and one pertaining to enforcement of limitations on line-staff working hours.
I strongly support such regulation and urge its need in light of both past safety_ failures at plants and of likelihood of econo~ic/competitive pressures on power producers under anticipated deregulation of the electricity industry. As in inany industries, these pressures may encourage work force reductions, and demands for longer hours by workers. The public-safety issue from worker fatigue ~nder excessively long work shifts is clear. I urge that the new regulations assure short en01,1gll shifts to prevent worker fatigue, which could impair their performance. The work shift limitation should be effective when plants are operating, as well as when shut down for safety t.esting and equipment repair. During the latter tasks and times it would seem especially important that worker alertness and
- physical ability for maximally effective work be safeguarded.
It is of vital importance to the public that any on-line workers who note and report saf~ty issues be fully protected from intjmidation or other, untoward pressures or consequences. Requirement of training for managerial staff on the relevant legal issues and responsibilities should be included in the new regulation. Such training should be as commonplace as workforce training oil discriminatory practices. In public or industrial work settings, ignorance of the legal foundations in such areas does not prot,ect employees from consequences of illegal acts. Neither should it in the nuclear industry. Thank you for considering my comments. In hope of strong new regulations to enhance public confidence in nuclear *power-plant safety, Sincerely,
~~-- Lo-.-,1/2--A)
Enclosure f 8 14 bycartL.. , ..
LJ.S. NlJvLCAn nc
- vLl"II v I v1vitVl~SIO RULEMAKI S&ADJUDICATIONS STAFF 0 *CE OFTHESECRETARY
- OF THE COMMISSION 0ocwnent s~
~ LETTERS 1
~*
Writer: 'Nuclear Ene.rgy Noi ,., afe, Not- The Answe(
Dear Sir:
A recent editorial in an area newspaper equipment failures, then Three mile Island near-suggested that the U.S. should expand its disksters, and Chernobyl-type catastrophes do nuclear energy program. From NIH research not support so sanguine a yiew of nuclear energy results which show that persons living near reac-* safety. tors are not at increased cancer risk from radia- The enormous human costs of the Chernobyl tion, *the editorial seemed to conclude that 1;1ccident were highlighted in a recent CBS "Sixty nuclear energy is safe a.nd could be a viable alter~ M~ utes" report. It stated that an area compar- . native to fossil fuels.
- ablf to the state of Iowa is contaminated forever.
- The nuclear industry is beset with many Teqs of thousands of persons continue to have to safety-related problems in the operation of undergo regular *medical *checks for radiation current plants, not to si,eak of the 40-year-old , effects. Nearly 100,000 persons have
- been problem of radioactive waste - disposal: The '*evacuated from contaminated areas, and within Nuclear Regulatory Commission found it neces- the next five years, 200,000 more are to be sary, in l 985~ to establish a commission to moved. In Byelorussia, more than two million research surfacing "plant aging" problems of people need to be relocated, ieaving behind their unanticipated magnitude. Premature equip- homes, farms, factories, and communities. / ~-
.ment deterioration . has repeatedly resulted in Economic cos~s of this di~aster are equally accidents such as at the Surry Power plant near stagg~ring. As reported in the November 1990 Newport News, Va. issue of "World Watch," official 'Soviet goverrt-There in 1986, a pipe designed for 40 years of mentfiguresforthe cleanup sofarare$19billion . .
use and carrying water heated to 350 degrees had Cleanup costs are to reach $120 billion by the corroded to less than I/16th of an ipch (within 13 year 2000. years). Its bursting released 30,000 gallons of the A study by the government's R&D Institute of water, critically burning eight workers, four of Power Engineering found that the accident's whom died. The costs of the repair and .replace- to~ costs will reach $358 billion, comparable to ment power were close to $40 million. 15 percent of the Soviet GNP in 1987. It TheNRCgrantspowerplantsastandardoper- con~luded that "the Soviet economy_would be a ting license of 40 years. Yet more than one in 10 better off if nuclear reactors had never been of the commercial nuclear power plants had to be buil~." closed with 20 years of licensing, and more than I~is clear that we must search diligently and half of those closed were in operation less than 10 urgEln tly for energy solutions. But expansion of years. nuclear energy should not be among the The pipes, pumps, valves, generators and preferred options. electric motors in the back-up, safety and . emergency failure-monitoring systems are all Frances Lamberts subject to such deterioration as caused the Surry Route 11 accident. Add failures of human performance to Jonesborough tt
- User name: BRN21402 (38) Queue: T2/BRN214_1 *
- Filename : Server BRN214PS *
- Directory: *
Description:
C:\PSIPLOTW\$RESULT$.TXT *
- December 13, 99 3:06pm
- 000 222 R ~
BBBB RRRR
- B B R ~e!f J9 9.~!l 4 44 0 4 4 0 00 0 2 2
- B B R R N N N 2 1 2 *
- 6~ BSBB Rlil<R NsN N s~ 2 vil. 4£~ 4 Oz;~O 0 ~~ 2 0~
- B BRR N N N ? 1 4 4, 44 00 0 2
- I BI B, R I RI N NN; 2 1 4 0 (l w ~TI I
.fl.~ m. 0
~
- .1:S.l:SBB ,
- f,\-* * * * ** * * * * **** * ** "* * ***' **************
- L *
- L
- L
- L ss
- 0~
L *
- L *
- Sl! nJ~a~ = pa11 !,:j LI [.LL s ;
- ~~!'ll"~ !:j!Sf~* * ***** *
- 1, I' ~**** * ********' **************
)>
oz; < Q) en ., 0£ ov S~!nJ~aJ pue sJa~!nJ~aJ JOJ sIeApJe JO sJaqwnu a41 : ~ 4deJE)
Florida Power & Light Company, P. 0. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-042 nc
- 1~
DOCKET NUMBER L-2000-005 PE11TION RULE PAM 3o-,a_, JAN - 6 200000 JAN 11 p J :40 Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook lfs>'IFR57785) Secretary I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ar.: Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Re: Florida Power & Light Company Comments Petition for Rulemaking - Employee Protection Training Docket PRM-30-62, 64 Fed. Reg. 57785 (Oct. 27, 1999)
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), the owner and operator of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, hereby submits the following comments on the above-referenced petition for rulemaking. In summary, the petition does not present an adequate factual or legal basis that would justify the proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) should deny the petition.
- 1. FPL agrees that it is essential that nuclear plant licensees maintain a safety-conscious work environment. In order to meet this goal, FPL provides ongoing training on handling safety concerns in an effective and efficient manner to its managers and supervisors. The success of such training is largely attributable to the flexibility 1
permitted by NRC to tailor this training toward the unique issues facing its workforce and to incorporate actual experience into such training. In this regard, a mandatory requirement for employee protection training would eliminate this flexibility. Further, the need for employee concerns training may vary widely, and what is effective for one licensee may not be effective or appropriate for another licensee. As NRC has recognized in rejecting the concept of codifying aspects of a safety-conscious work environment, 63 Fed. Reg. 6235 ( 1998), "there needs to be flexibility in considering appropriate action to address each situation on a case by case basis." For these reasons, the determination of the need for and content of employee protection training should be left to the discretion of individual licensees.
- 2. The petitioner asserts that the proposed employee protection training requirement would permit NRC to pursue enforcement actions against individuals under the deliberate misconduct rule, 10 CFR 50.5, for violations of the NRC's employee protection regulations (10 CFR 50.7). The petitioner fails to explain why existing mechanisms to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 50.7, including enforcement actions
£8 1 4 etcnowfedaed by emu." ,_,_
1 Employee concerns training is encouraged by the NRC' s Policy Statement on "Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry To Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation," 61 Fed. Reg. 24336 (1996). an FPL Group company
v1.1 ... t\ti rtl:tlULATORY COMWt;SION iULEMAKINGS &AOJUDl0Al10N8 SJi OFFICE OFlttE SECRETARY OFTHE COMMISSIOO DOCll1lentSt!ti6ttcs Postmark Date / / 8/ O o Copies Received r r I Ad I Coples Reproduced _ _____ _ ?Pecial Dislribution_ _ __
\ Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook Page2 against licensees, civil penalties, confirmatory orders, and press releases to announce the action taken, are not sufficient to deter discriminatory behavior or to encourage corrective action. In its decision not to adopt a regulation codifying a safety-conscious work environment, NRC concluded that these tools were adequate to ensure safety-conscious work environments at nuclear plants. Further, NRC has also included monitoring attributes of a safety-conscious work environment as part of the new performance assessment process. Therefore, NRC has ample tools available to redress violations of 10 CFR 50.7.
- 3. The petitioner also argues that a requirement for employee concerns training would make it easier for the NRC to take personal enforcement action, in that an individual could no longer argue that they were not aware of NRC employee protection requirements. FPL disagrees with the suggestion that every violation of 10 CFR 50.7 necessarily includes a finding of deliberate misconduct against individuals involved in such cases. Many cases involving alleged violations of 10 CFR 50.7 result from good faith attempts by managers and supervisors to deal with difficult situations, and shifting legal interpretations of 10 CFR 50.7 and of the underlying statute (Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act), and not from deliberate attempts to discriminate against nuclear workers. While employee concerns training might remove the ability of a particular manager or supervisor to argue that he was not aware of the existence of 10 CFR 50. 7, the fact that a manager or supervisor had such training would not automatically mean that the individual has violated the deliberate misconduct rule.
- 4. The petitioner's assertion that there are frequent violations of 10 CFR 50.7 is not supported by the facts. Even assuming that the petitioner's statistics are correct, the mere fact that there were 23 enforcement actions against licensees for violations of 10 CFR 50.7 in a 3-year time period (less than 8 violations in a single year) does not illustrate a widespread and pervasive industry problem warranting a rule requiring 2
employee protection training.
- 5. The petition cites a proposed enforcement action against FirstEnergy as a basis for requiring employee protection training. Since this case has not been finally adjudicated, it is premature to rely on that matter as the basis for rulemaking.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the petition for rulemaking. s;;;::rs~~ Thomas F. Plunkett President Nuclear Division 2 Further, the NRC's web site does not identify whether other non-public sanctions (reprimands, demands for information, orders) were pursued by NRC against the employees involved in these cases.
( *633-0001.msw Page 11 DOCKETNUM DOU,. r D January 9, 2000 II .. j l., PETITION ULE PAM 3o-G. :2... Ms. Annette Vietti-Cook ""t:~5 '118 SJ Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'00 JAN 10 P2 :1~
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 C,
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook,
AD, The comments below are in reference to a rulemaking petition submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists as published in the October 27, 1999 Federal Register. The petition requests that training be provided for various levels of supervisors and managers on regulations prohibiting discrimination against workers raising safety concerns. This would vacate NRC arguments of not taking individual enforcement actions due to lack of knowledge of the law. I do not think that the proposed change should be necessary. In a proper regulatory climate, penalties would be based on facts and the law. However, the proviso of'proper regulatory climate' does not apply to NRC, especially when it comes to whistleblower issues. The petitioner does an excellent job of showing the NRC's inaction in certain aspects ofwhistleblower cases. By the NRC's own admission, action was not taken in one case because the manager lacked knowledge of the employee protection statutes. I think the real reason has to do with the NRC's cultural unwillingness to deal with both the issues raised by whistleblowers and the discrimination we ultimately face. Essentially the proposed rule change is an attempt to 'legislate morality' i.e., to get NRC to do the right thing because NRC is organizationally incapable of the doing the right thing. I support the proposed change in the hope that if the NRC follows the new rule those that discriminate against whistleblowers will suffer the same fate for their unlawful acts as the whistleblower suffers for his lawful ones. Respectfully, Barry Quigley 3512 Louisiana Rd Rockford, IL 61108 815-397-8227 QPIF@AOL.COM
' 8 14
., vv nn ncuULAfOH~ 1.,;0MMl~IU, 'l l.l: I GS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Ot=M:SECRETARY OF THE COMMtSSION Document Sm1istics P 1stmark te I/; o/ oo
C Comment on PRM-~tA§2 Page 11 From: Carol Gallagher To: Adria Byrdsong, Anthony DiPalo Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2000 12:26 PM
Subject:
Comment on PRM-30-62 Attached is a comment on PRM-30-62 that I received via the rulemaking website. Carol
[ *-~ Docket PRM-30-62 Page 11 From: kathy or david van dame <dvd.kvd@juno.com> D To: TWFN_DO.twf4_po(CAG} Date: Sat, Jan 8, 2000 3:45 PM
Subject:
Docket PRM-30-62
*oo JAN 10 P2 :14 January 8, 2000 C
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AD, Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments on Docket PRM-30-62 RULE PR 3o .. ~:L
'1'/F/?57785)
Because a nuclear power plant accident can injure many & cause long term environmental damage it is important to utilize all resources to promote safety. One very important aspect of ehcouraging workers on the front line to come forward with legitimate safety concerns. It is therefor important to ensure whistle blowers are not subject to harassment and intimidation. The NRC has rules that provide such protection, but in the past, retaliators have eluded proper consequences for their retaliatory behavior by pleading ignorance. It makes sense to provide training to s to supervisors, managers, and directors regarding these protections to legitimate whistle blowers. That will not only insure that future retaliators cannot claim ignorance, but also serve to inform all plant workers that conscientiously raising safety concerns is safe & desirable behavior. Such a rule would go a long way toward preventing prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems, and preventing supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions. This would protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident. Peace, Kathy Van Dame 1148 East 6600 South #7 Salt Lake City, Utah 84121 (801)261-5989 dvd.kvd@juno.com
DOCKET NUMBER PE11TION RULE PR 30-lt, :2. 00 Nicole Morris l,'/FR5"7715) 2710 Galisteo Rd. Apt. C Santa Fe, NM 87505
'00 JAN 10 P3 :L9 Secretary of the Commission 0 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio Washington D.C. 20555-0001 D, To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to you in support of the two proposed rules that are currently before you. The first rule, to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, is a must. As you must know, employee fatigue impairs working ability to a greater degree than your own legal limit for blood alcohol content. You have addressed the issues of alcohol and drug abuse on the job, why not extend that to worker fatigue? I work a month long night shift two months out of the year. Each time I transition into the work I observe marked differences in my ability to perceive and function properly. I hear voices and other sounds that have no source, my reactions are slow, and it can take awhile for me to recognize what I am seeing. Based solely on my own experience with fatigue, I ask you to really regulate what nuclear plant owners demand from their employees. As with many companies during the 80's and 90's, the shift to a reduction in staff and a greater workload for those who remain, has been the key to greater profitability. To leave decisions like these in the hands of the industry by claiming that "sound management practices" will be more effective than regulations, is to revisit Upton Sinclair's expose on Chicago's meat-packing industry at the tum of our last century*. I am also in favor of the second proposed rule - training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers and directors. Please protect "whistleblowers" with an action greater than a slap on the wrist. These people risk their reputations, their friends, their families, their lives, and their jobs to follow a greater integrity than tha the bottom line. Don't allow their efforts to go to waste by allowing the industry, o discriminate against them. No industry is "ignorant of the law"; it is only as b
- allow it to be.
- I refer, of course, to Upton Sinclair's, The Jun,ile.
I ..... lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATCJH\ ~UMMl::iSIOI' RWl4AIONGS &ADJUDlrATfONS STAFF OFRCE 0FlHE SECREfARY OF THE COMMISSION Doqurm)nt ~ Postmllk COpleaReoeMki J /1/0l O Add'l~HaDft>auced _ _ __ Spectsl DfllllJu(i)n_ _ _ _ __
BETH J. SINGER PH.D. oocr Ert 362 PENINSULA BOULEVARD us 0 c LYNBROOK, NY 11563-3110
*oo JAN 10 P3 28 January 6, 2000 Of Secretary of the Commission AD,J U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-001 00CKer NUMBER
Dear Mr. Secretary:
PETITION RULE PR ~6 -~:l. lfct/Ftes178.sl I strongly urge passage of the proposed rule limiting the ~ hours employees at nuclear power plants are permitted to work. This is extremely important in order to prevent errors due to fatigue *
- I also urge that the proposed rule requiring nuclear plant owners to provide training for supervisors, managers, and direct ors on employee protection regulations. These regulations must be enforced.
- Singer Pro sor of Philosophy Emerita Brooklyn College The City Univers i ty of New York
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULA I 0i, v UMMI ., fU.BW(INGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFRCE 0FTHESECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Poailk Date ,/ 0 0 ~Reca,ad _ _ {______ Actn~Reprodueed _ _.:;;;..
~- -
Specml[l)tladoo_________
AEGULAIOHY "VMM1.>>IU1J nU1os:w:rilJ\INGS &AO - ~ -STAFF OFFICE 0F 'ARY OF THE COMMISSION DocumentSl!Ustlcs
,/1 /00 1 ' 1
. \
\
u.S. NUCLEAR Kt:uUU\IUtH vUMMl.:>.)I\.J
- RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF , . *.
OFFICE (;)f='fHE SECRB'AAY OF THE COMMISSION \ Docllllent Statiatlcs Posbnllrk Date _ __,I~
/ 3--1-/_0_0 _ _ ....
~paAecallled ____, ~/_ _ __ 1 dd'l°"99~---- S~O-llblb_ _ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER OC' Cr I; D PETITION RULE PAM '3o - , ;2_ ,: ~ !~ 20 Hancock St. Tt,"ifi;R.5"778S) Eve et }1A 02149
*oo J~N -71a *ttary 3, 2000 0,
ADJ! Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir,
I would like to voice my support for two new proposed rules. The first proposed rule is one to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. The second proposed rule is one to provide training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors at nuclear power plants in order to protect employees who act as whistleblowers". Imposing working hour limits is not new for a government agency and is necessary to ensure that economic interests by power plant corporations do not violate safety, which is particularly important when dealing with nuclear power. Likewise, protection for whistleblowers is essential for ensuring that those closest to everyday plant operation voice safety concerns if they arise without fear of repercussion. Educating supervisors of employee rights will eliminate a large loophole that allows whistleblowers to be harassed and/or fired because their supervisors are not aware that this is illegal. Both new rules are essential for preventing fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance (whether the plant is operating or shutdown), fear from causing plant workers to remain silent regarding safety problems, and supervisors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions. Ultimately and most importantly, both proposed rules will also help better protect the public and environment from a nuclear power accident. Sincerely t:,'.,4a~ Philip ~- Marrone
\J.~. 1~uC1.tAH 11t.l.:IUU\I UH Y vUMtVll.-:>..:>i"--
RULEMAKINGS &ADJ~ STAFF OFACE OFTffE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DocllnemS1atlstics Postmalk Date .. Coples Aaa&Mld Add1 ° " ' 9 ~ _ _....,_ _
.r r,
* / /3 / 06 Spoolalllstldln._ _ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER RULE PR 3o-~ u January 1, 2000 '-'IF/? 5"778S) 304 Manor Drive Sautee, GA 30571 *oo JAN - 7 p 2 :SS Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 Washington, DC 20555-0001 PJ
- TotheNRC, I have followed nuclear issues for a number of years and have a fairly good layman's understanding of both the technical and the political problems involved. I am very concerned about deregulation of the nation's electrical utilities and the possible effect it may have on our nuclear power plants.
I have learned of two new proposed NRC rulings under consideration, one involving workers hours and the other involving whistle-blowers protection. I support both. We now know falling asleep at the wheel causes at least as many accidents as driving under the influence. We certainly don't want nuclear operators falling asleep on the job. I have met with nuclear whistle-blowers and heard personally of the hostility they face when they report mismanagement or cover-up at a nuclear plant. This should never happen. For these personal reasons, I urge the NRC to tighten all controls and standards at the nation's nuclear plants. These are not ordinary commercial businesses that can be allowed to cut comers or hide their mistakes as others sometimes do. It is the NRC's job to see that it doesn't happen. Sincerely, Jot?t<<.0 /;:z,' Joan 0. King
1 ' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAlOHY 1.iUMMt.:i&v RUt.EMAKINGS&Ml - ~ - STAFF OFFICE 0F ETARY OF THE COMMIBON DoctlnentS1atlsb
/2_,_/_o _
Pos!llmk 0ete _ _1,___ o_ CoplelRecei19(i _ _, _ ' --1-- - M~~ Specfal
~----
. n._ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER PETTI10N RULE PR 30-b;;i..
~ i1-lf..f'7 78~
*oo JAN -7 P2 :53 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Protecting Americans from Fatigued Nuclear Workers Afraid to Voice Safety Concerns We are writing to indicate our support for Proposals # I and #2, to ensure that the first line of
- defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination.
These two rules are essential to:
-prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance -prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down -prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems -prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions -protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Pat and Dick Clemmer 4413 Claremore Drive Edina, MN 55435
- r.clemmer@gte.net e
4clrllowl9fflled by cart]---~-*
\ ,_
I *
.u . 1 Ul;L.Cf\11 Hl:l:iULAI UHYliUMMl~Slv, RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OFlliE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DoctlnentStatll1lcs Postma,k Dete t ~1a()I qq Coplee RacaMld
- r 1 Add1CqiasAepoduced _ _ _ _
SpeclelClltrftJution._ __ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER PETITIO RULE PRM 3o ,. l:, ~ Secretary of the Commission (,'1~(5"77?~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary:
I am writing today to express my support for proposed rules intended to protec ,~, Americans from fatigued nuclear workers, who through no fault of their own could potentially cause problems in their work environments. I am also writing in support of workers who raise safety concerns. As you are no doubt aware, a nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and cause long-lasting harm to the environment. The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the consequences of an accident. The two proposed rules to help encourage a climate of safety at our nuclear plants:
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants.
This rule will make the NRG guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s. With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. Human performance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite this evidence, the NRG currently has no regulations against excessive overtime. The Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in March 1999 on the nuclear industry's overtime problems. This report, which is available on the Internet at http://www.tirednukes.org, documented scientific studies which have shown that being awake for 17 hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05%. Regulation implemented by the NRG in the 1980s ban workers with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.04% from nuclear power plants. The NRG introduced guidelines on working hour limits in 1982. The NRC's guidelines limit workers to 16 hours per day and 72 hours per week. But these guidelines only specifically apply to control room operators and key maintenance personnel. Managers, safety inspectors, engineers, and other plant workers are not explicitly covered by these NRC's guidelines. In addition, the NRG lacks the ability to force plant owners to adhere to these working hour limits - for control room operators and other workers - because they were issued as mere guidelines. It is my belief that it is time for the NRG to update these guidelines to cover all personnel working in a nuclear plant, and to give them the force of law, which would allow the NRG to actually enforce them. Worse still, the NRG recently opted to consider the guidelines to apply only when a nuclear power plant is running. Thus, plant owners force workers to put in 12 and 16 hour days for weeks on end during refueling outages. The NRG allows fatigued workers during outages because the plants are shut down at the time. The NRC's logic is dumbfounding. ALL of the maintenance on jet airliners is performed when the planes are on the ground. But the FAA would not permit this maintenance to be performed by drunken maintenance crews - which is the state the workers at nuclear power plants find themselves in, according to the study referenced above. Th e Federal government imposes working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. It is time for the government to implement the same rules on those EB 4
.,1.u4 I I M t - - . ......,..,
U.S NUCLEAR REGULA OR c; MMlt;SIO RUJ.EMAKINQS&ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFJCE0FTHESECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docum nt Statistics Poslmalk DE _ _,_~::.../--I Copa Aacand Add'l~Rripooucea _ _ _ _ ' DtJ*UJI-_ _ _ __
who work at critical facilities like power plants, for their safety as well as our collective well-being, and these rules should be applied regardless of whether or not a plant is operating.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors. The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRC's regulations are supposed to protect these workers from harassment and intimidation. However, I am informed that the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't know that these actions are illegal. The rule removes this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations.
The NRC's regulations protect nuclear workers from harassment and intimidation. When these regulations are violated, the NRC can take actions against the worker's employer and also against the responsible individual(s). Unfortunately, the NRC is only doing half its job. After determining who harassed and intimidated a nuclear worker for raising a safety concern, the NRC limits its sanctions to the company. In 1999 alone, the NRC imposed fines of $110,000 on the owners of the Perry and Zion nuclear plants and $80,000 fines on the owners of the Seabrook and Millstone plants. In each of these cases, and in very few of the dozens of similar cases since 1996, the NRC elected not to take sanctions against the individuals doing the illegal actions. By regulation, the NRC can take actions against individuals up to and including banning them from the nuclear industry. By practice, the NRC rarely holds individuals accountable for breaking employee protection regulations - a serious flaw. The NRC maintains that it cannot impose sanctions against the people it determines have broken the employee protection regulations unless it can prove that these individuals knew that their actions were illegal. Thus, "ignorance of the law," which is not a viable defense in any other US legal proceeding, is a valid excuse in the NRC's short-sighted eyes. By claiming to be ignorant of the employee protection regulations, nuclear power plant supervisors and managers can fire workers who raise safety concerns - and thereby silencing all surviving workers in the future -- with the implicit blessing of the NRC. If caught taking illegal action against a whistleblower, the NRC will - at worst -- impose a $110,000 fine on the company. Considering that each day that a nuclear power plant is shut down can cost the company $249,000 to $330,000 in lost revenue, a $110,000 fine is hardly an effective deterrent. Today, the risk/reward balance is heavily tilted towards law-breaking managers at the expense of law-abiding workers. That's nonsensical. It is high time for the NRC to force the industry to train all its management employees on employee protection regulations. A single new rule would eliminate once and for all the "ignorance of the law" excuse. In the future, NRC would have no reason to set aside sanctions against individuals breaking the employee protection regulations. The Union of Concerned Scientsits believes that personal accountability will be far more effective in reducing harassment and intimidation against nuclear workers than the NRC's past practice of the occasional fine against companies.
It is my belief that both of the above rules are essential, in order to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance
- prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down
- prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems
- prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions
- protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident I urget the Commission to adopt both proposed rules at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
~~art 941 25th Ave .
- Seattle, WA 98122
Secretary of the Commission DOCKET NUM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PETITION RULE PAM 30-b ;z_ DOC ETED ashing on, DC 20555-0001 U C b'lf!~571B's) Dec. 30, 1999. '00 JAN -4 P3 :40 I am writing today to urge you to implement two proposed rules regarding working con i ii;>ns at Nuclear Power plants. 1i _ ADJI f-Proposed rule #1. Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. Worker fatigue can seriously impair good judgment and the ability to perform manual tasks without making grave mistakes. I know from experience driving that even modest levels of fatigue can have dangerous effects on the ability to perform adequately. The transportation department just released a study concluding that there are 1500 driver fatalities each year due to fatigue. Why would we wan tired workers handling spent fuel at nuclear power plants during a refueling outage? Human performance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Why do we continue to take risks by allowing Utility companies to require massive overtime from nuclear plant workers? osed rule #2. Train plant supervisors, managers, and directors on the existing rules protecting whistle blowers harassment and intimidation. Rules that allow managers retaliate against whistle blowers by claiming ignorance e laws is ridiculous. No where else is this nation built on the rule of law is "ignorance of the law a valid defense. - Why should it be so in such a dangerous area of endeavor as the the safe operation of a nuclear power plant ? This is beyond comprehension. It seems that the NRC 1s entirely beholden to the moneyed interests of the electric power industry. The implementation of these rules are absolutely necessary to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to ain silent about safety problems vent supervisors, managers, and directors from g "ignorance of the law as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident I think that the role of the NRC should be to shepherd the United States through his dangerous period, to see to it that our nuclear power plants are managed in the safest mann po ible until they are all shut down, decommissioned and entombed. After this the NRC can put it's considerable tal no helping to design and operate the many solar power plants that will be using by then.
Adopting these two proposed rules will help insure his brigh ure Thank You,
~v:~
l.J.S. NUCLEAR Al::uULAI UHY \.iUMM~01 RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFRCE 0FT+fESEC&TARY OFTHECOMMISStON OocumiRtS1atllUcs Postmatkoate ,-rw ~ CoplatAl)BMXf I A d d ' l ~ ~ ---JC-- -- Spd!IIDlll!bb._ _ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER Secretary of the Commission PE11TION RULE PRM 30-,.2 DOCKET,~ ,.... cED U.S. uclear Regulatory Commission U.) , Washington, DC 20555-0001 (&:>'IPR577B's) Dec. 30, 1999. *oo JAN -4 P3 :40 I am writing today to urge you to implement two proposed rules regarding working ditions at Nuclear Power plants. Proposed rule #1 . Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. Worker fatigue can seriousiy impair good judgment and the ability to perform manual tasks without making grave mistakes. I know from experience driving that even modest levels of fatigue can have dangerous effects on the ability to perform adequately. The transportation department just released a study oonoluding that there are 1500 driver fatalities each year due o fatigue. Why would we want tired workers handling spent fuel at nuclear power plants during a refueling outage? Human performance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Why do we continue to take risks by allowing Utility companies to require massive overtime from nuclear plant workers? posed rule #2. Train plant supervisors, managers, and directors on the ex1s ing rules protecting whistle blowers harassment and intimidation. Rules that allow managers retaliate against whistle blowers by claiming ignorance e laws is ridiculous. No where else is this nation built on the rule of law is "ignorance of the law a valid defense. Why should it be so in such a dangerous area of endeavor as the the safe operation of a nuclear power plant ? This is beyond comprehension. It seems that the NRG is entirely beholden to the moneyed interests of the electric power industry. The implementation of these rules are absolutely necessary to: - prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to r main silent about safety problems vent supervisors, managers, and directors from g "ignorance of the law as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident I think that the role of the NRC should be to shepherd the United States through this dangerous period, to see to it that our nuclear power plants are managed in the safest manner possible until they are all shut down, decommissioned and entombed. After this the NRC can put it's considerable talent into helping o d sign and operate the many solar power plants that will be using by then. Adopting these two proposed rules will help insure this bright future. David Buchner 110 Mohawk Dr. Clarendon Hills, IL. 60514
-~bycmt1 _FEB 41ffl Ill tt It _ ,._
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CQMMl~Slvh RULa4AKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFlffE SEURETARY OFTHECOMM189fON Document StatlsUcs PoalllllkDate 7'4l~ l ())paAecaive(J _ __ _ __ Add'l~Reproduced _ _ __ SpedlilDfalnbution,_ _ _ __ I
filOO<ETNUMBER @ PETITION RULE 3 o * ' DOC~ETtd ( /,'JFI( 6°1785) LJ~ 'f I
*oo JAN -3 p J ::3 Jan C. Siren 3280 Fairview Drive Melbourne, FL 32934 December 27, 1999 Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555-0001 To: Whom It May Concern I am writing as a private citizen.
The following comment concerns Proposed Rule #2 on employee protection training. Protection of the public from the adverse consequences of nuclear power plant accidents must be the highest priority. Clear channels of communication should always exist to permit any employee of a nuclear power plant, at any level of the organizational structure, to conscientiously raise concerns of safety to the level at which they can receive action. "Whistleblowers," so-called , should never be subject to adverse sanctions without a fair hearing from supervisors fully cognizant of employee protection regulations. These regulations are intended to protect plant workers from harassment and intimidation. Training of supervisory personnel in all worker protection regulations, as called for by the proposed rule, should be mandatory. Sincerely, r ~ -,
'/ Jan C. Siren cc: Union of Concerned Scientists
.v. ,~ut.;LI:Ati REGULATORY (;UMu.~"
RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE0FMSIIHTARY OF THE COMMIS9fON Document Slatll1lcs Po Coptes-- _ _~- ---- - - Add'I voqclaffl1811lldlon_ _ _ _ __
DOC H_O December 23, 1999
*oo J 1 - 3 P3 :49 David G. Schowalter, Ph.D.
378 Walker Rd. 0 Grantham, NH 03753 Secretary of the Commission AD~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 OOC ET NUMBER PETITION RULE 3t>- 1:, ;i.
'1 '1FI< 5778s-)
Dear Secretary:
I am writing to you in support of two proposed rules before the commission. The first is a rule to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. The second concerns training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors. Recent scientific studies have shown that being awake for seventeen hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05%. Regulations implemented by the NRC ban workers with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.04% from nuclear power plants. Although NRC guidelines enacted in 1982 limit workers to sixteen hours per day and seventy-two hours per week, this applies only to control room operators and key maintenance personnel, not to managers, safety inspectors, engineers, and other plant workers. Even for the control room operators, the NRC has no authority to enforce these limits because they were only enacted as guidelines. Given the potential risks of human error at nuclear power plants, I implore you to impose and enforce working hour limits at nuclear power plants. Currently, a manager or supervisor illegally firing a worker who raises safety concerns can so so with impunity due to a loophole known as "ignorance of the law." Although a power plant can be fined for such behavior, there is no way to enforce personal accountability. This loophole can be closed by requiring supervisors, managers, and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee protection regulations. I believe it is imperative that this new rule be enacted. Nuclear power is a very important source of power in this country. It is also one of the most dangerous. The above rules provide relatively simple avenues for ensuring that the industry follows safe practices.
- J~y,
- David G.
,~ --.....----L Ph.D.
; ; 4
. ed by card --**---_,,_,__
lJ.S. UCLEAR E U J RY G MMl~SI " RULEMAKINGS &ADJIJDICATIONS STAF~ OFACE 0FTHE SECRETARY OFTHE COMMISSION Document StatiBtlcs Postmllk Date I~ d- C/ 9 Copleiflecei8d _ _ _ _ __ Add'I Cq&Reproduced _ __,~,.____ peciallJalllDUUoll_ _ _ _ __
IActria Byrdsong - Proposed Rules Page jI From: "Bowman, Jeannette" <JBowman@idahopower.com> To: "'nrcweb@nrc.gov"' <nrcweb@nrc.gov> Date: Wed, Dec 1, 1999 6:44 PM
Subject:
Proposed Rules
*99 0['"' 30 P3 59
Dear NRC Secretary:
0, Adopting safeguards against a nuclear disaster are essential. I support the proposed rules offered by the Union of Concerned Scientists to: AD._'
- 1. Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, whether the plants are working or not.
DOCKET
- 2. Require nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers l'Ei 11 ION RULE PRM 36-~:t.
on the employee protection regulations. Fines to companies are only seen as ( ~'lr~5178S) a "price of doing business." Only by making individuals accountable will problems ever have a chance of being solved. Thank you for your consideration of my remarks . Jeannette Bowman Pricing & Regulatory Services CHQ-9 X-2718 (208) 388-2718 - Phone (208) 388-6936 - Fax jbowman@idahopower.com
, , - - - - - - - - ---oc ...Ja
...{cir-NWiffiffi"- - - , -, Kathi iind$ay
. PETITION RULE PAM 30 *'9 :2.. ~ \
Secretary of the Commission '4'1FR'57785) /' . U.S. Nuclear Regula~ory Commission Washington, QC 20555-001 *99 * -ri 29 PS :26 [ _l To Whom It May Concern: I am writing regarding two proposed rules the NRC s*studying to detenIJ.ine their effect on sa~ety. The first rule establishes limits on employee working hours at nuclear pow~r plants. Studies, as well as common sense, indicate the impairment on judgment which comes when a person is fatigued. It makes sense in tlie nuclear energy industry -I' to hav.e rules determining the number *o f hours a worker can safely perform his or her job. The trucking industry is another industry .that has researched ;md put into effect limits on the hours worked by its employees. in that indust1y, as should be in the nuclear energy industry, the safety of the workers and the pu?lic were tantamount to the decision. The second proposed rule concerns providing training to supervisors and managers to ensure their awareness of regulations protecting "whistleblowers" from being harassed or intimidated as a result of reporting unsafe conditions. Acc9rding to my sources, the NRC often excuses those in charge from the:se regulc\tions based on the rationale that they are unaware of them. As a teacher in the public schools, I cannot fathom such a thing within
*any system responsible for anything of importance. I cannot imagine my superiors being excused from their actions because they were unaware of the regulations, nor can I a
imagine a teacher being excused for such reason. Shouldn't.the nuclear industry be at least as*responsible to the public and to its workers as the public schools? I would think you would do all you could to encourage workers to step forward with information on conditions that might jeopardize the safety and health of people and the environment. Please support both the rules discussed above. To do so protects.workers, the public and the environment. To neglect to do so is to invite disaster to occur. A proactive stance at this time is muph better than a reactive one when a prev~ntable accident occurs. Than}c you for your time and consiqeration' iri these matters. Please let me know what decision the NRC c1akes on these rules. Sincerely,
~ -k ~;:;) ' \
Kathi Lindsay EB .ODD - ~ - - - - - 6 7 0 0 EAST ' LINDSEY NORMAN , OKLAHOMA 73071 405 3 2 1 - 1 5 7 & - - - - , - - - - -
' I U.S.NUClEAA REC:aul.r\1v,11 ....... ,
RllBWONGS &ADJUDICATION 3
,OFFICE 0FTHE ~ RETAR' OFTHE COMMISSI0 11.
Document Statistic~ ~--~ --12-/;;>.3 Iq 9 Cqa Aacalved _ I~I - AMI~ IGIJIU,J\R," t:'- SpeclalWoi1_
George Olan 569 Warm Springe DriYe Fairborn OH 45,24-59,0 DUCKET NUMBER *99 22, 1999 PETITION RULE PR 3o -,a..
'1VfR57785)
Se*ret.ary of the Oommi*eion U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DO 20555~0001
Dear Sir:
I wish to make few oomment* in support of proposed rules whish ere essential to proteot workers employed et the nuclear power plants.
- l. PreTent fatigue that would impair t.he performance or the nuclear plant worker.
- 2. PreTent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting and testing safety equipment when nualear power pla~t* are operating or are shut down.
Preyent te_ar trom_ *ausirig nudear plant workers to remain silent about eatety problems.
- 4. PreTent auper'Yi-sol"e, mana*ger* and cH.reetors trom using "ignorance of the law" as a shield tor their illegal actions.
- 5. Protect the public and the enTironment from e poesible nuclear power plant acoident.
The Union ot Concerned Seienti*~e petitioned \he Nuolear Regulatory Oommiseion to adopt a rule requiring auperTisore, managers and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee proteotion !".egulations. -This new rule would eliminate onee and tor ai l, the "ignoran~e ot :tne :1a:v* ~c~se. In* the future you would haYe no reason to set aside eanotione against indiTiduals breaking the employee protection regulatione. UOS's proposed new rule was published in the Pederai Register on October 27, 1999. lt is time tor the Federal GoTernment to impose working hour limits on employees et nuclear powe~ plants. The proposed rule wee published in the Pederal Register on .tcember l, 1999. - is be lieTed that personal aaeountability will be tar more ettectiYe in reducing haraeement and intimidation egainet nuclear workers than your past practioe ot the occasional tine against eompaniea. Sincerely,
' t F . () 1,1.I -
. ...ro ,. ~- ,.,,....,..,...,,,.._~~
.. ...,.. , .. ,. r .,.,. .:, NlJ:.;Lt:Ah Lil:I.JUL.."'?-...;*.: .;\J I. I .,*..:,*.
RLU:lAAKINGS & AOJUOlCATIONS srt.r-F-OFACE OF THE SECflETARY OF THE COMM! s1mJ Oocwne 1.1tis -
- ,tmark Date. / ~~~f-'/C/
*i tes ReceiVSl /
\ 1'1 Copies Repmdurc.. (o 'c,ecial Distribut1or-
36 Bust-0-Dawn Drive Waynesville, NC 28786
*99 DE'- 27 Alu :57 20 December 1999 Secretary of the CoreJllission U.S. Nuclear Regulato riv ~ommission DOCKET NUMBER Washington, DC 20~0001 PE 11 IION RULE PAM Jo - e:, :2.
(b'/F(f 5'17~5)
Dear Friends :
I write to urge you to *support two proposed rules--#1 , to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, and #2 to protect nuclear "whistleblowers ," the *plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns . Thewe rules will help ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination . I believe that these two rules are essential to: --prevent .,fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance; --prevent fatigued workers from repairing , inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down; --prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems; --prevent ,supervisors, managers, and directors from using " ig no rance of the law' as a shi13ld for their illegal actions; and --protect the pubtic and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident . I hope you soe the wisdom and crucial necessity of these rules, and will enact and enforce them as soon as possible . ~~,l ~ Dr. Douglas E. Wingeier copy: Eric W,esselman, Energy Field Coordinator, Union of Concerned Sci1:mtists
'.: * 'JvL-W"\n ,1:uuLAI ORY COMMltiSION
- JLEMAKINGS &ADJUDtCATIONS STAFF OFFICE 0F THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistlr.s Postmllk Date / ~./~ OI 9 COplao RloalYed _ _ I_---',.
/9____
Adr.fl ~ Reproduced b SpeclalOlsdJutior1,_ _ _ _ __
DL"'r I
, J Efr<<Jlllltn:H PETTTION lllE _ 3 o- ~:2. *oo or ~21 AL :55 (6 'IIR S7785)
\...,
1-AD '
/}ec. I~ /l?f9 THE POSTBOX COLLECTION fl() j) . s ecre fa7 u ¥ r11e {01?11?'-:;,o")
- f/l'c,/ e__ S"f/o(t Y,/,u fo r#
el,f?'l,nr1le O v~y t,*rne ( f.7ue) and 4tjlY;m1~11f,11,,, dfrllt?>f wt,*,1fle. bloU,"~"J.
<;lh(,{'f~I;,
~u~~
f£B
..,,;:;, Ul,;u:Ah ru:uULAI OHY C ~SIOl'i RULEMAKINGS &ADJWICAl'l(N SfAFF OFFICE a='REIICAiTARY OF THE cor.tll8ION Docuna.t 81: lalu PoaM111k 0. I~/.? 0 / 9 9 Cqa Rac u ct _ _ __ _.___ _
Add'l~RlipallMj ~ 5pg1m1~*-- - -- - -
DOCKET ~ PETITION RULE PAM Jo'- ,:i.. {vt/f1( £ '1 78) Secr~tary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 December 19, 1999
Dear Sir,
r , I am writing to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt rules to 1) limit working hours by workers in nuclear facilities and 2) require training of supervisors in nuclear facilities about regulations regarding the rights of whistleblowers. These rules are essential in order to
-- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance -- prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down -- prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems -- prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for illegal firing of whistleblowers These rules will help to protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
~~MJ Robert B. Dorsett, MD Member, Union of Concerned Scientists 127 Park St.
Meeker, CO 81641 rdorsett@amigo.net
~ FEB 14 1000 cknowtooged by cam ........ .. ,*-_
U.S. NUCLEAR Hl:GULATORY COMMltiSION iruLEMAKlNGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE 0FTHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Poslmark Date i~/~o / 99 Cople&RaceiYed _ _~_' _ __ Add'! Coples Reproduced - - - - Special Oislrlbutlon._ _ _ _ __
DOCKETNUMBB1 PETlnON RULE PR 3t>-&:L
-t,1/F~ 51185)
December 18, 1999 Secretary of the Commission
*99 OE~ 27 P5 :52 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 o.
I11 AO..,
Dear Secretary:
I am writing to urge the adoption of two proposed rules before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The first is a proposal to establish limits on employee workin,g hours at nuclear power plants. The second is a proposal to protect whistleblowers by requiring that management persomel at nuclear plants be educated on employee protection regulations. Limiting employee working hours at a nuclear power plant seems like a real no-brainer to me. I was appalled to learn that such a rule was not already in effect I feel
- kind oflike a sky diver about to make ajmnp, havingjust been informed that my parachute was folded by someone who hadn't slept for 17 hours. Putting a nuclear power plant in the hands of fatigued workers, whether they are handling the plutonimn or doing a safety inspection, is just crazy.
As to educating management about employee protection regulations, ... Sony, but that one's ano-brainer, too. Do we really intend to protect whistleb)owers, or are those regulations a cynical sop to public opinion? In an industry as perilous as the nuclear energy industry, can we afford not to protect whistleblowers? Please adopt these connnon-sense rules. Thank you. Sincerely,
~~
Robert L Blau f. FEB 4 000
*cknowtecmed bv cara ............... --*-
tJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULAT RY \.iVMIVll.:>w, ~ .
.RUlSWONGS &AOJUOlCATIONSSTAFF OFFICE 0FTHE SB:RETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document~
P<aarkDa1e /;;./a o /9 9 CqaR&Qwed _ _ _ -.J-_ Add'I ~ R&produced _ 0_ _ SpeclalDlslll>ution._ _ _ __
@)
I IA..m wnft~ ;A.* St<fflrf- a-f ba-f/,.._ ,onf>'dJ-e_c) fu/t..f fV'ltlcit. Wl11tl/ 01.fa..re fw- lttlCftJu-f4Nif pt~-fr are .J/tl#et/ iy vwr,Lu:J-
;v/M AH -h-ce h,m_ 61,H_., -4:h~
M.d hr uf t!Uy-! rf..,(rlfl'trv/t..mttx:,
/1J'--dreA. £tun Jdc DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RU P jo--"i (r,'IFR577Ks)
H6 4 1009
~r~~ed C!ffl... -
t~/2 ~ q 9 fmtnmed_G
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AUL R o-6:Z Steven Zack
"(tt,'l~R5778S) 1308 Oxmead Road Burlington, NJ 08016-4208 December 13, 1999 *99 OE~ 21 P4 :21 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555-0001 0 To the Secretary of the Commission, To provide for the safety of Americans everywhere, and particularly for those citizens who live in close proximity to nuclear power plants I believe it is imperative that you ensure that the working conditions at a nuclear plant provide the utmost in safety for the public.
Specifically, there should be limits on how many hours an employee can be forced to work, no matter whether the plant is operating or not. Similar rules apply to truck driver, airline pilots, and airplane maintenance employees. Given the fact that a human error at a nuclear power plant could cause injury and death to an even greater number of citizens I find it unconscionable that the same rules do not apply to nuclear plants. In addition , whistleblowers at nuclear plants should be afforded every possible measure of protection to ensure that they cannot be harassed or intimidated by management when they bring forth safety concerns. "Ignorance of the law" is not an excuse for any other type of illegal behavior and there is no reason this should be acceptable when it comes to nuclear power plants. There have been dozens of cases where employees have alerted the public to serious safety concerns at a plant that would have otherwise been overlooked. I do not believe we should wait for a serious accident such as occurred at Chernobyl before we take measures to prevent this type of
- situation.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Steven Zack
*~r a . 4 ?11111J
\cknowfedg by cara **-----~*
S10 TAF
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AUL PRM 30-h:2. {<<;rft<5778's)
*99 DEC 21 P4 :2 1 Bruce Pringle 1703712th Place S.W.
Seattle, WA 98166 Ot (206) 241-2452 hL r AOJI prlngb@compuserve.com December 13 , 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555=0001
- Subject : Proposed regulations for power plants
Dear Sir or Madam :
An accident at a nuclear power plant could be a terrible disaster. We depend upon alert and effective workers at these plants to watch for danger signs and take preventive action . It is very important to adopt two proposed regulations: (1) to establish limits on working hours for employees of nuclear power plants , and (2) to require training on employee protection regulations for supervisors, managers , and directors of nuclear power plants-so that it will be clear that regulations protecting whistle blowers must be enforced . Thank you ,
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY GUMMt:::i-,1v,
&ADJUDICA E
FTH
/YV ~ t _ , 4~
- _}
0
IAdria Byrdsong - RE: Decision on proposed rules Page 11 From: "Chuck Watson" <watson@indiana.edu> ooc~ !'3 TD To: "Carol Gallagher <CAG@nrc.gov> Date: Mon, Dec 6, 1999 11 :58 AM
Subject:
RE: Decision on proposed rules *ao 0.. 21 P4 .28 Ms. Gallagher, Here are the proposed rules to which I was referring. Certainly my concerns are also relevant to any other proposed protections along the same lines, of p.1 which I may be unaware. Thanks for getting back to me. (The descriptions were those circulated by the Union of Concerned Scientists.) DOCKET NUMBER csw PETITJO AUl
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee
> working hours at nuclear power plants:
> This rule will make the NRC guard against human
> performance degradation from fatigue just as it has
> done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s.
> With the onset of electric utility restructuring,
> nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash
> operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce
> staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work
> longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have
> concluded that fatigue impairs human performance.
> Human performance problems contributed to the nuclear
> accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite
> this evidence, the NRC has no regulations against
> excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way
> when plant owners abuse the agency's overtime
> guidelines.
>
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection
> regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors:
> The second proposed rule will protect nuclear
> "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who
> conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRC's
> regulations are supposed to protect these workers from
> harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately, the
> agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations
> based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who
> fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't
> know that these actions are illegal. The rule removes
> this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring
> nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers
> on the employee protection regulations.
> --Original Message-
> From: Carol Gallagher [1]
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 3:15 PM
> To: watson@indiana.edu
Subject:
Decision on proposed rules efmowf~ed -'~ F£B l 4 e1 I I -'1t 4) tdc,C-
LATORY COMMI CATIONS$ CRETAR SSIO O'JQlment Statis .
IAdria Byrdsong - RE: Decision on proposed rules Page 21
> Professor Watson,
> Your e-mail message to the NRC's Office of Public Affairs
> regarding the subject matter has been forwarded to me for processing.
> It appears your comment could apply to one (or more) of several
> petitions for rulemaking that have been published for public
> comment. Please specify which petition (or petitions), by PRM
> number, you are commenting on so that I can have your comment
> docketed properly.
> Thank you,
> Carol Gallagher
> ca@nrc.gov
IAdria Byrdsong - beds!on on propose? rules. Page 11 From: "Chuck Watson" <watson@indiana.edu> To: OWFN_DO.owf1_po(OPA) Date: Thu, Dec 2, 1999 10:07 AM
Subject:
Decision on proposed rules. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NRC, AS I WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE AN EMAIL ADDRESS FOR THE COMMISSION. THANKYOU. CHARLES S. WATSON PROFESSOR INDIANA UNIVERSITY SIRS, LIKE MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RULES REGARDING NUCLEAR PLANT EMPLOYEES, THEIR WORKING HOURS AND THE TREATMENT OF "WHISTLE BLOWERS". THE SIMPLEST OF VALUE-COST ANALYSES OF THIS PROBLEM CLEARLY FAVORS EXTREME MEASURES TO ASSURE THAT THOSE AT THE CONTROLS NEVER BE OVERLY FATIGUED. LIKEWISE THE SAME ANALYSES RECOMMEND THE UTMOST EFFORT TO PROTECT THOSE WHO REPORT UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND PRACTICES, AT THE RISK OF THEIR CAREERS. RESPECTFULLY, CHARLES S. WATSON, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF HUMAN CAPABILITY INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON, IN DIANA 47405
ec1s1on on propose ru es From: Carol Gallagher To: Adria Byrdsong Date: Tue, Dec 21 , 1999 3:40 PM
Subject:
Fwd: RE: Decision on proposed rules Adria, I'm forwarding a message I received from a Professor Watson in Indiana. His comment was not explicit on which PRM he wanted to comment on. I e-mailed him back, asking him to specify which one (or more) PRM his comment was on. He e-mailed me back ... you'II see his message. Anyway, it appears to me that this comment could actually be on two PRMs (maybe someone over in SECY can figure it out for mel) I did not put it on the rulemaking website, for fear of putting it under the incorrect PRM. I'll add it to the website when I get my copy of the docketed comment. Thanks, Carol
DOM ff D GERSON T. LESSER, M.D. 1;s I DEBBIE J. PETERS, J.D. 200 EAST END AVENUE, #7E NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10128 *99 OU 21 P4 :22 212-410-5950 (tel) 0 Commission Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Committee Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET BER December 5, 1999 PETITIO RULE RM 3o-"~ (1,,'l~ 11ss)
Dear Mr. Secretary:
The aging of nuclear power plants and the cost controls being set by their many new owners set the stage for future accidents. We urge the NRC to support and act upon: (a) the current proposal to limit plant employee working hours for all employees, including during outages; and (b) the proposed rule for extending training on employee protection regulations. It is essential that "whistle-blowers" be thoroughly protected and that controls regarding supervisors who violate the letter and practice of such protection be enforced and punishments applied. We look to the NRC to act upon its mandate to protect us and our environment. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl should be, for all of us, daily alarms of future possibilities. Sincerely, Gerson T. Lesser, M.D. Debbie J. Peters, J. D. Clinical Professor of Medicine NYU School of Medicine
GUlATORY COMMl~ION RUU:YMINGS AA=
DOCKr:-r-o
- Secretary of the Commission Dec.2,1999 l S 'RC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 '_QQ_
DEC -7 P3 :20
Dear Mr. Secretary,
0, I I am writing this letter to encourage you to support two proposed rules which are intended to make sure that nuclear workers are fully capable of performing their duties. Proposed Rule # 1 would set limits on employee working hours DOCKE BER at nuclear power plants. Proposed Rule #2 would require nuclear plant owners to train PETITION AUL 3b _, ~ supervisors and managers on employee protection regulations. (""F~s11as) These rules will ensure workers capability by eliminating work-er fatigue and performance degradation, and by providing free-dom to voice their concerns regarding safety of operations with-out being subjected to harassment and intimidation. These two rules are fundamental to good, safe operation, and are necessary to:
-prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance -prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing saftety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or are shut down -prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using " ignor-ance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions -protect the public and the invironment from a nuclear power plant accident Sincerely, Patrick Clark 1302 East 95th Ave.
Hutchinson,KS 67502-9017 (316)662-0626 e-mail pdclark@mindspring.com
- ~dcnowt8ft>ed by cam FEB
.. ~
14 11JOf1 1 - __,.,..
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RUL ~ 3 !) - ':2, C (t,'fMS11ss) 330 Alplaus Avenue Apt. n~ *oo r:T ~-* 21 P411 :14 Alplaus, New York 12008-1012 December 18, 1999 C, I AD,, Secretary of the Cormnission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary,
This is a request that you support both of the following proposed rules:
#1 Training for employees protection regulations - to protect those who conscientiously raise safety concerns;
#2 Establish limits on employee working hours to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination.
Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, Uva-r/~~ c--~ g-c1are T. Pelkey, CSJ (),,
~ rrn r ~ 7ffllD
~adped by card *- ' - --
UCLEAR REGULATOHY l,;UMMli::>i::,11.J n1111.11.mnnaNGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OF'FHE SECRETARY FTHE COMMISSION ent Statistic"
,~/.! s/9!_
I
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RU 30-'=,:J. (/,:,l/~RS778S) Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
*99 OCC 21 P4 :14 Please make sure that nuclear vv'orkers are an effective lir.e of defense against nuclear power plant accidents. Q; Please establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power i,.!OOt§ that guard rr--
against performance degradation from fatigue. Nuclear power plant owners must not be ailowed to cut costs by reducing staffing to ievels that require remaining staff members to work longer hours. Please assure that "whistleblowers" - plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns, are adequately protected by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations so that "ignorance of the law" cannot excuse harassment and intimidation. It is essential that you:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance; - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down; - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems; - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions; and - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
Please let me know your views on this issue and what action you intend to take.
- Thank you.
SP$-~ Pat Collier POB 574 Vashon Island, WA 98070 206 463 3552 pcollier@scn.org "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations." From the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy
.. .... ,.. 'Ii' by
DIRECTORS: FRIENDS of WASHOE Roger S. Fouts, Ph. D. Central Washington University Deborah H. Fouts, M.S. . 400 E. 8th Avenue Gregory Beach Ellensburg WA 98926-7573 Jane Goodall, Ph. D. F. Steven Lathr.op, Attorney at Law
- Telephone: 509-963-2244 Fred Newschwander, D.V.M. FAX: 509-963-2234 FRIENDS OF WASHOE 2000 Membership Renewal Notice Dear Friend of Washoe's arid her family)
As those of you who have supported Washoe and her family for many years know, your donations are used to directly support, enrich and safely care for this family of chimpanzees . Your donations are never used to fund direct mail projects, as you know we continually try to conserve our limited funds. It is time, once again to ask for your help. Please h<: p this unique family of chimpanzees with your renewal. Not only will you continue to receive information about the chimpanzees and the on-going research, but also you will be helping t0 .insur'e*the health and safety of these chimpanzees. DUE TO THE HIGH COST Of' POST AGE; :WE WILL ONLY SEND AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF YOUR DONATION AT YOUR REQUEST. Please indicate on
~
the renewal return slip if you wish an acknowledgement. We will, continue to send annual renewal notices to you one time in De~ember. We found that this implified our record keeping and hopefully yours as well. You will only be sent one* notice: is saves the cost of wasted postage. We do hope that you will continue to support these chi anzees without frequent costly mailings. If you are moving or have moved, please notify us of your new address; the newsletters are not sent by first class mail and are not forwarded nor are they returned to us. We deeply appreciate the support you are able to give this project. You are friends in the truest sense of the word. Thank you in advance from all of us.
/'
If you have made a donation recently, please accept our thanks and your subscription will be renewed. * ' U rely, / .
' ~)~'
Deborah H. Fouts *,_ *,, Director-Visit our homepage on the World Wide Web http://www.cwu.edu/~cwuchci REDUCE CONSUMPTION REUSE RECYCLE
ritl tics Postmmt: _.,_ /:i./t1/9J __ I (,
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AUL 3o~~:i. (" 'IFR5178S) oocKr: IED Mr. & Mrs. Edward C. Brainard II US k'"' 23 Roger's Drive Marion, MA 02738 *99 O[C 20 P 3 :19 Tel. & FAX (508)748-0782 Dec. 16t 1999 Secretary Of the Commission U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Subj.: Support of Proposed Rule #1 & 2 Dear Sir; Please support Proposed Rules #1 &2 which will ensure safer operation of nuclear power plants. The rules will ensure that the first line of defence is staffed by workers who are free from both fatig ue and fear of illegal discrimination. The rules are essential to: - prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing , inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident I thank you in advance for your consideration and support of this very important matter. Sincerely Yours, Edward C. Brainard II FEB 1 4 IJllrl
UHY 1..,UMiv'l1-, IONSST1 ETARY 01\J l).q.!fflQnf ~t~t; QUl,fialloj 1;,. h./_"1"1 \ (p
or ,..., -u OCKET NUMBER PETITIO RU .3o - b_l (r,'IFRS17'46) *99 o~r 21 p4:3 0
- Secretary of the Ccmnission United States Nu=lear Regulatory Ccmnission Washington, District of Columbia 20555-0001 I,, I, III,,, ,I ,1 .. 1,1 ..1,I I II, 1111111 II, I 1111 II, ,I, II December 16, 1999
Dear Sir or Madame:
I type to sup~~roposed changes iri_~ designed to ensure safe nuc1i!Ywork places by limi.tLbq_ unrelieved-time on front _:lko jobs and designed to aeert an ignorancr is bliss appruadP b y - - ~ . Rulas *rrai'R:trt.1ng classes ~ signed to instruct supervisory level per~el on policies, procedures and laws prot.'"ectin~ ~~ from abuse and/or discrimiantion related~~ fa 1 :..h efforts to expose safety and other types of problems embody elementary canponents of standardiz-ed orientations. To wait until an accident secondary to fatigue decimates the health and well being of workers and civilian popula-tions and/or to tolerate the abuse of workers' rights are irresponsible. Please becane instrumental in effecting relevant changes. I wish you success in so doing. y ~ {( K. Bandell
~ctcnowl **-H
o.s NUC 11::::UUIL, . I u A NGS&ADJUD OFFICE Of THE OF I
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RU F ~ M 3o - (:,;2_. (t,i/F[?5'11B5) William F. Hassel 200 Calle del Norte Sedona, AZ 86336 *99 DCC 21 P4 :13 December 1 5, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Gentlemen: I am writing you regarding some proposed rule changes regarding nuclear
- power plants. One of these addresses limits on employee working hours (Proposed Rule #1 ). Since the operation of a nuclear plant affects public safety, as a Safety Engineer I am concerned with allowing workers to perform operation, maintenence or repair duties for excessively long hours, allowing deterioration of their attentiveness to their job.
Therefore, I urge you to approve the proposed change in working hour limits . The other item of interest to me is the proposal to provide proper training to the supervisiry staff on employee protection regulations. The public depends for its safety partially on the actions of "whistle-blowers" , who report broken equipment and violations of regulations which affect safety
- when management doesn't listen or respond. Such people should be commended instead of being fired, as often happens. So I urge you also to approve Proposed Rule #2 .
Yours sincerely, William F. Hassel, Ph.D., P.E. FEB 4
~eknowf909ed by li'l"fri11 L aror....-
- UCLEAR AEGULAI V IVIIIJII AtONGS&ADJUDICATIO S CEOFlllESEC ETA '
OF E ISSIO
DOCKET U BER PETITIO AUL 30-(?:J.. 3381 Oak Knoll Dr. fr,,'fH< 5778s'\Paso Robles, CA. 93446 (~ '/ *99 OEC 21 P4 .15 Dec. 15, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U .. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Secretary:
A nuclear power plant accident can cause irreparable damage to the environment and can hurt thousands of people. To help prevent such accidents, I urge you to adopt two proposed rules which will make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense. First, establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, thus preventing fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance. Whether the plants are in operation or shut down, nuclear power plant workers need to be alert and vigilant at all times. Second, give training on employee protection regulations to supervisors and managers and directors. The plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns must be protected from harassment and intimidation and those in charge just be made to realize that such treatment is illegal. Yours truly, 11~ ~~ .:Jrdi Mary Jane Tate H8 a 1111
~cknowfoop by
1559 Indian Creek Loop Kerrville, TX 78028-1766 December 15, 1999 DOCKET NUMBER Secretary of the Commission PETl ')N RUL 3D- (,.2 '99 Off 20 P 3 :1 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (~1PRS11'8S) Washington, DC 20555-0001 0 I am writing to urge the NRC to adopt Proposed Rules # 1 and #2 whic Would establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants and would require training on employee protection regulations for supervisiors, managers and directors. Rule # 1 is needed to: ( 1) prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance; (2) prevent fatigued workers working on safety equipment during operation or shutdown. Rule #2 is needed to: ( 1) encourage nuclear plant workers to freely discuss safety problems; (2) prevent managers at all levels from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for illegal activities; (3) protect the public and the environment from nuclear power plant accidents. The airwaves are full of talk about accountability. It is time to stop the nonsense where companies are given fines that are not serious penalties and the individuals responsible for violations of policies and rules go scot free on the ground that they are 'ignorant of the law." The training program should absolutely eliminate this weak excuse and the lack of accountability that results. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views . FEB 10ffll
~~owtedOed by CfflCJ _...... - - *-
10 RUU:MAtaN01S&ADJU0tCATIO SECRETA E 10
DOCKET NUMBER 3c~to~ 14 December 1999 pE1Tf\O RUL ('7'/r/?£1785) Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Washington DC 20555-0001 *99 DEC 20 P3 -1 9 RE: Nuclear Plant Safety 0 I Sir; , It has come to my attention that, within the next few months, the NRC will make de i Js-on two proposed rules. They are intended to ensure that Nuclear plant workers are an effective defense against accidents which have the potential to inflict huge scale and long term damage on our planet and its' inhabitants. One of the rules would limit employees working hours; to guard against performance degradation caused by fatigue. The NRC already has rules to protect against performance degradation caused by drug and alcohol use. It has also been conclusively demonstrated by scientific study, that fatigue causes the SAME KIND of performance degradation. Human performance problems DID contribute to both of the accidents at the Three Miie Isiand and Cnernobyl Plants. Yet the NRC now takes no action against Plant owners or managers who abuse overtime guidelines. HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE. The other rule would mandate training for supervisors, managers, and directors, on employee protection regulations. Both of these NRC rules are essential to creating an effective defense against the causes of accidents, but this second one is CRITICAL. I have good reason to believe that at least two horrendous accidents have ALREADY occurred HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, because those in control failed to heed the voices of technicians with safety concerns. One incident was related to me as having been a Top Secret Military experiment. I have read published accounts of the results of another, which appeared to me to have been "sanitized." There are probably others. The truth about ALL is probably still classified top secret. The worst were apparently not as catastrophic as what happened at Chernobyl, but DID result in immediate deaths and extensive long term health problems for those affected, and in considerable environmental damage as well. I have never had the opportunity to read any official or classified accounts of these military incidents, but I have heard a narrative account of one, from a military individual, who had been in a position to know. That person stated that the information was classified, and demanded that I promise NEVER to identify them as the source. That source sought to obtain protection in THE ONLY WAY AVAILABLE TO THEM. Yet the NRC has allowed just exactly the same situation in the civilian Nuclear Industry since 1974, when Karen Silkwood first spoke out. Only secrecy and irresponsibility are protected. If a worker voices unpopular concerns, they are harassed and/or intimidated, perhaps even clandestinely poisoned, until they are silenced. Current NRC regulations Cl.AIM to protect them, but do not. Action is taken ONLY against the CORPORATION, leaving the criminal supervisor, manager and/or director to continue the practice. The excuse used to justify this foolishness is that the NRC can not PROVE that the guilty individuals KNEW that their crime was illegal! This is IDIOTIC! If a normal adult drove a car down the street where you live at 80 miles per hour, and killed your child with it, would you conclude that the CAR should be blamed, because the driver had never obtained a driver's license? A corporation is an ARTIFICIAL and FICTITIOUS individual, no more capable of assuming responsibility than that car! MANDATE THIS TRAINING, so that you can HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE! If you do not, then YOU may one day be indirectly responsible for causing hundreds or thousands of deaths and injuries, resulting from an A VOIDABLE nuclear accident. Some of the victims might even BE you or members of your family. If you do not protect these conscientious workers, then I hope that YOU are held responsible for it, by losing YOUR career, health and peace of mind, as many of them have lost theirs'. Sincerely, Joseph D. Jackson Chemical Corps US Army Reserve 0' () 'J' I O L/- 'I t 1./Ii -;- F F 5 T, p I V} /:J, :S I (J FEB 4 fflllff I I tl) I' ifl 1 0, 1.1.//'.j C :nowfedoed by " ' '. . . . . . . . . . J 1 .,,..,.-.sl"
ULAIUH1 DJUDICA" SECR MMISSI RrotJed !~/6/&f'f 1 Reoroduced - ~
Fe 1 mm ~mtowf . edby
OFTHE Ra)iiO~
.... I:i/J"/99j h -
DOCKET NUMBER PFTITION RU 3o-lP,;l (r..~Ff?57785) Secretary of the Commission 13 December 1999 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 .99 OCC 20 P 3 :19 Dear Commissioners; _ This letter is written to let you know I support the two propose rules being considered that are intended to improve safety of nuclear power plants ~ to. help insure that nuclear workers are an effective first line of defense against nuclear accidents. It is disheartening to think that in an industry as sophisticated, technical and sensitive as nuclear power rules must be promulgated concerning limits of working hours and protection from harassment for employees who conscientiously raise safety concerns. However, having spent 40 years associated with the "medical industry" this does not surpnse me. Everyone knew that fatigued, sleep deprived doctors made more mistakes. Nothing was done. During the 1970' s and 1980' s numerous studies demonstrated the deterioration of signal recognition, problem solving, short term memory, judgment and motor skills as fatigue and length of sleep deprivation increased. Indeed there developed a significant degree of paranoia in study participants at prolonged periods of fatigue and sleep deprivation, even when they knew it was only a controlled, simulated situation. Nothing was done. Now that the national media has publicized the frequency and cost of medical errors and identified fatigue and lack of sleep as one of the factors maybe something will be done. The Federal Government has seen fit to impose working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. I believe it is time to impose working hour limits on employees of nuclear power plants that can be enforced whether plants are running or not. As to " whistleblower protection" I feel that to allow "ignorance of the law" to be an excuse is ridiculous and should not have to be an issue. However since it is, then mandatory training for management should be required. Tell them what you are going to tell them---tell them harassment and intimidation is illegal---tell them what you told them and then make them write it on the blackboard 100 times. Personal accountability will be far more effective than the occasional, inadequate fine against companies. Living in Maine we feel lucky that concerned workers stepped forward to raise safety concerns that played a role in the premature dosing of Maine Yankee. We do not need another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Thank you for your time. Respectfully,
~~-w.1 RR 5 Box 1536D Farmington, ME 04938 Roger W. Perry, Jr. 207-778-6830
. f£8 4 ?ffflff cknowladged r:,y cara .. .... .. .,
RY ti Paildt ~
~
1~ J__ L,1-/Iq 9 {o
CAMPHILL VILLAGE KIMBERTON HILLS
- /rl!Yn +ct-hju e .
~ EnsuY-e +haf l,<)tJY/::.ers wko rar'se.. e.r5Ylscr:S-Us _
11 e55 Cl5Yl<'-ern 'J ;ssu.es of. s~.fe.,tJ 4 r"e_ f rofec/-ed. /!r-l5Yrl I ({ j a( Jr sc nm IVl a.--/2 cTVl- ,
U.S. NUCLEAR AEGULAIUHl vVIVl1w11-.;.._ RULEMAl<Ni6 &ADJUOICATION&STAF* clflcEeFMIIDEfAAV CFlHE COMIIIIION Doallat a I II 1
- a. J.2/2 5 /'} q Add'I C q a ~ __ 0 SpeclalCld!tam._ _ _ __ _ _
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 3 o - ~ :2-( 11 &/r:Rs-11s~) Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 *99 OEC 17 P3 :08 Leonard A. Van Wyk,Cfh.D. 115 Southampton Drix~~< Harrisonburg, VA 2280t' vanwyk©math.jmu.edu December 13, 1999
Dear Secretary:
I strongly encourage the NRC to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants and to require nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the NRC's employee protection regulations .
- Establishing limits on employee working hours is essential for safety. As a college professor, I can attest to the fact that people (students, in my case) perform far below their potential when fatigued. For college students, the results are simply lower grades; for nuclear power plant employees, the results could be catastrophic.
Educating supervisors, managers, and directors about "whistle-blower" protection laws would protect workers who bring up safety concerns at nu-clear pmyer plants from harassment and intimidation. Since such workers are the first line of preventative defense from a nuclear accident, failing to enforce the current protective laws for such employees based on some type of "ignorance of the law" rationale is not a coherent policy. I trust you will do the logical thing and institute both of these proposed rules. Sincerely, Leonard A. VanWJ~**.
* \~.::
l
*,~;
! l'I\. :* -.!._ * ,
HB t 4
~cknowleaped by
U.S.NUCLEAR REGULA I VI ": 'J./1 1 RUl&WCING6 &ADJUDICAT . .1 ~ f ,_.~ *. Clfl0£0FTHE SECRET.*. ,v OFTHE COMMIS ,, *., Oocumen . -. ~ ~'- * ~--Date _ ~Aaoeived _
- i/. . . / . .
/ $.['}__'7_ - . . -
AMI~ Repr* *,*, ~ - __ _ Spedm Dlstributir ~ .. _
- _
RICHARD and VIRGINIA WALTERS 708 Wake Robin Dr. Shelburne, VT 05482-7581 DC~ r 1. r)
,)
(802) 985-9473 -I<..;
*99 O[C 7 P3 :09 DOCKET NUMBER December 13, 1999 PETITION RULE PAM 36 - G, ~
(to'/~1(~1?85) 0 - Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
We write in support of two new rules regarding nuclear regulations:
- 1) Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants.
- 2) Train supervisors, managers, and directors regarding the employee protection regulation. This rule will protect whistle-blowers who conscientiously raise safety concerns.
These two rules are essential to prevent fatigue from impairing the performance of nuclear plant workers' performance, whether a nuclear power plant is operating or shut down, and will prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems. They will also prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" to attempt to evade discipline for their illegal actions*
- These rules are essential to protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
We urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to adopt and enforce these rules. Sincerely, 1; /,'S t.-1.--'-*~ ~- Wee l ~~ Virginia F. Walters (Mrs. Richard H. Walters)
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl~S1' RULEMAKINGS &AOJUOICA1ION8STAFF OFACE0FTHESBJEMY OF THE COMMISSION DocumentStalllllcs Pos1ma1k Cqa _ 4-/. . . Date _ _2, Racelved _ 1/--t;,_
.__.~-
AMI~ Reproduced _ __ '=,_ __ SpealDbttution._ _ _ _ __
DOC ETNU BER 143 Cedar Grove Rd. PETlTION RULE P 3 t>- C:, :2. Somerville, NJ 08876 ( f,'{r;R5 178S) December 11, 1999
'99 0 C 16 A9 :44 Secretary of the Commission 0 I US Nuclear Regulatory Commission kL Washington, DC 20555-0001 ADJl I F
Dear Sir; I am writing to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support both, Rule 1 which will guard against human performance degradation due to fatigue by limiting workers hours and Rule 2 which will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" who raise safety concerns. These rules are necessary to protect the nuclear plant workers and the American public. Very truly yours,
'~
Richard S. Riggs JA 18 2000
~owtedg by
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMll:iSION RULEMAKINGS&ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE 0FTHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docll11ent Statistics Postmark Date . /,;,/I 3 /_ 9 Copie&Rooeived _ _*_____ _ Add'I Copies Reproduced _ _ _ __ Special Distribution._ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NU BER PETITION AU 3 o - ~ ;i.. ( ~'IF/? S17BS)
- ~~.
'1~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 1 r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t;l t>f.~ ~~ ~ ~ ~f~ul- d--o~ ~ c>-4l ~ /l<.d.L,~ 0--, ~~~iLi;a,;dl.
- ~~ ~/~~ , Q k , ~ ~
~ µ 'd- ~ k p.~1.*,tA -h>c.--/t * ~~ ; t : 1 - L ~ , ~ ~ !r/J~
I IJ,I_,_ 1r ~~ ~-u-&-1-c-f-- ~ ~ a . ~ , vJ ~ ~ ~ ~ c IL / ~ ~
~t>-u.-;t;L.;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~tb._ ~tr~ ~-
Jen~ ~ ~ a.-u. <-I
~~k~~~
JA owledg by * *----~""'
t.J.S.NUCLEAR REGULA O OMMI S10 MULJt:Ml-\1\INUS &ADJUDICATIO S l FF OFFICE OF ESECRETA~V OFTHE ISSIO QJcamentSmtistics LtP-/t1 /e, 9
~~----
- 1 b
~~~ 61;- a . ~ ~ ~~~~a.eA-:~fo~
t~:..t- ~ ~ o-CwtJ ~ 61--~
~~~~ ~ .. r ~-~.J::l..£J ~ ;h.u~~~~~. ~~:~r:,2~
- ~
~ ~,~~~.t~,*-~~~
w~~- :t~*~ ~-
/\n~)
{ I!> ~ :-t..L.. e¥, tu~e ~ -t.J.L,, ' c f - - - - * - ~
~ J~_~ "~~-~ ~
~~~ '/4 ~~ r
~~-~11.~~
16 ~ ~~~ ~ - I '1J ~ ~ 1... µ, LrL., ~ a~ ~z; J..::,
- I
- Lo-LJU..~ oJ-1. ~ , IJ,l*F~~ ~-hn-aJ ci- i;L_, ~tw;L'4_) k_ ft.*{)<<<; **_...f -lo ~~
rv~1.{#Q a.u..&.-- ~ ~ ~ ~ l,f)4c, ~
~~~~~ lf'tiLJ~~~ ~-
DOCKET NU BER l"\~,,..o AU 30-~,2. ( <,'(~R.517'if s)
- ,. *.* . ,. (,tJ.(~ ~
*99 DEC 16 A9 :43 . £I.. . _,. .t-..,
& (2 A- fi rd :V
':J) ...,L~._._ CI ./ "/ f"*'j*
It *
- ~.AU<< ~ /4 ~ / ~ ~ ,,.R. &L~-'..
7 ... _,
*&J ~-::a:-e.-.A,. --1', ~ ~£ ;---,-, ~ ,::i ~-..e..,,---_..-.
- I:_~ ~-co
~~4.,.c.,:,_-7',c12.,~ .
~ ae,..-£~ _,_; c..,-:h~u._.. ... fJ . ~ ~
U.S.NUC AU Kl 0 OF
Editorial and Op-Ed pages, 0-1 mJJt Nt\tt lork i!iutt~ Sunday, December 5, 1999 Education Advertising Careers in Education and Health Care Employment Week in Review Section 4 Do No Harm Breaking Down Medicine's Culture of Silence
'I did the same thing last week.' And I'm thinking, I've over patients' rights on its head. That discussion re- ed by changing systems has been slow to catch on, in By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG been chief of this department for five years. Now I'm volves around whether patients should be able to sue part because doctors rarely talk openly about their chief of surgery. And nobody has ever said to me, 'We their health plans; this one revolves around what health errors. The pat explanation is that they are afraid of R. MICHAEL LEONARD, an anesthesiologist D
have this problem.' A lot of it comes back to this culture care can do to create a climate in which patients are less being disciplined, or sued. But it is not the whole truth, and chief of surgery for Kaiser Permanente in of silence." likely to sue because mistakes are less likely to occur in says Dr. Lucian Leape, a professor of health policy at Denver, was operating on a cancer patient a That culture of silence, and why it needs to be the first place. The report's authors called on Congress Harvard Medical School who studies medical error. few months ago when he reached into a drawer broken, was the unstated theme of a report that shook to create a new agency that would collect data on "Physicians are taught that it's your job not to for medicine. Inside were two vials, side by side. Both the medical profession last week. The study, by the medical errors, analyze their causes, identify trends and make a mistake," Dr. Leape said. "It's like a sin. The had yellow labels. Both had yellow caps. One was a independent Institute of Medicine, estimated that in recommend changes, in much the same way Dr. Leon-paralyzing agent, which Dr. Leonard had correctly Continued on Page 18 hospitals alone mistakes, from drug mix-ups to surgical ard changed the drug labels from yellow to red. administered to keep the patient still during the opera- errors to misdiagnoses, kill as many as 98,000 people "To err is human," the institute panel concluded, tion. The other was the reversal agent, which he needed yearly. In addressing basic safety, it said, health care is "but errors can be prevented." next. "I grabbed the wrong one," Dr. Leonard recalled. at least a decade behind other high-risk industries. The idea that doctors make mistakes is, of course, "I used the wrong drug." The report is likely to turn the Congressional debate nothing new. But the idea that mistakes can be prevent-It would have been easy for the doctor to keep quiet; the drug wore off and the patient was not harmed. Instead, he talked - to the surgeon and scrub nurses, the patient's wife and the hospital pharmacist, who has since relabeled the paralyzing agents with red stickers and put them in a separate drawer. He also talked to his five partners, whose reaction unnerved him.
"Four of the five of them said, 'You know, I've done the same th~g,' " Dr. Leonard said. "One of them said,
2 WK THE NEW YORK TIMBS, SUNDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1999 Nov. 28-Dec. 4 Want to Be -* A Debate Leaves Everyone Standing Gov. George W. Bush of Texas fi. A Quiz nally abandoned his Yellow Rose Gar-den strategy and stood on stage along-side his rivals for the Republican pres-idential nomination in a debate tele-Show Host?a You're Sure? vised nationally from Manchester, N.H. There were no unforgettable zingers or, for that matter, unforgetta-ble blunders. Mr. Bush survived attacks from several rivals, notably Steve Forbes, and repeatedly presented himself as By JACQUES STEINBERG having the best leadership abilities AITERS, trying to be cute, say it all the W and executive experience. Senator John McCain of Arizona, questioned time. So do some E-mail correspondents, again and again about his temper, who have discovered that it makes a snap-managed to control it throughout the py one-line reply. It even came up in a 90 minutes. In fact, he was the loosest recent press conference at the Justice Department.
- of the half-dozen contenders. He re- And if Regis Philbin, the man who has said it the fused to criticize anyone, and he dis- most, can be considered an authority, it is being invoked played good humor and wit. during delicate negotiations in the bedroom.
One participant who was not It is a question - two questions, actually: "Is that amused was Senator Orrin G. Hatch of your final answer?" and its shorter form, "Final an-Utah. "All these debates - as good as swer?" tliis one has been - have been kind of In the course of just a few months, the mQ.91: stilted," he said in his closing state- frequently repeated line on the runaway hit game shaw rtient. "They've been kind of boring." "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" has sandblasted its l1is suggestion? The candidates all way into the American popular lexicon.
- tide around in a bus together for a cou- In terms of the sheer number of lips through which w-e weeks in Iowa and New Hamp- the question has passed, particularly during the pro-shire. RICHARD L. BERKE gram's 18-night romp through the November ratings sweeps, "Final answer?" has already taken its place iq A Hunt for Bodies the pantheon of television catch phrases .- a list that On a Mexican Farm Trainspotting includes "Where's the beef?" from a fast-food commer*
cial, which crossed over into the 1984 presidential race-j With the Empire State Building looming in the distance, three Manhattan-bound subway riders spent a In one of the largest joint law en- "You look mahvelous," Billy Crystal's take on the few meditional moments waiting for their train. syntax of the Latin matinee idol Fernando Lamas and forcement operations undertaken by Mexico and the United States, 65 fo- "Yada Yada Yada," from "Seinfeld."
- Qlnsic experts from the Federal Bu- But whether "Final answer?" will have the legs to reau of Investigation and hundreds of outlast "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore,
police officers and soldiers began to from "The Wizard of Oz," or "You talking to me?" from "1g up shallow graves at a farm near Kohl Under Investigation the film "Taxi Driver" - to say nothing of the phrase Ciudad Juarez, across the Rio Grande Helmut Kohl, the former chancellor "Like gangbusters," a resilient remnant from a 60-year-old radio show - remains to be seen. from El Paso, Texas. The search for bodies of people who have run afoul of of Germany, once remarked that he had never had a good head for num- The Adults Rendering one television critic's verdict, Caryn James of The New York Times dismissed the phrase as drug traffickers was set off by an FBI bers. But Mr. Kohl may have shrewd-informant who led authorities to the ftttm and to three other nearby burial er than he had let on: Following a bar-rage of new disclosures, Mr. Kohl ad-Are At It Again "overused," which would seem to resign "Is that your final answer?" to the same fate as "You bet your sites. Even though the first five days' mitted that he had used secret bank hippy," from the 1960's comedy show "Rowan and Children are often caught in the Martin's Laugh-In." ' efforts unearthed the remains of sev- accounts to channel big political con- middle of divorce. But when the child eral people, it remained unclear how All of which raises the question: why do we feel the tributions to local party leaders. Party is a Cuban refugee with family on need to repeat these lines over and over again? far the operation would go toward re- leaders say the secret accounts exist- both sides of the Florida Straits, the solving riddles over the fate of scores It should come as no surprise that there are experts ed for most of the past decade and custody battle is as much political as who study such things. who have disappeared in northern were only shut down last December. it is personal. Probably more. Mexico, most after detention by po- One, Mitchell Stephens, a professor of journalism Prosecutors and the German parlia- Elian Gonzalez has been living and mass communication at New York Universi licemen working for traffickers. with relatives in Miami since he was ment are investigating. thinks people use a form of shorthand derived from SAM DILLON EDMUND L. ANDREWS rescued on Thanksgiving Day after television and movies because, "It's a way of grabbing a floating at sea for two days strapped little slice of the drama of the show and placing it to an inner tube. His mother and 10 purposefully on an everyday occurrence." others died in the journey. His father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez, was said to While cautioning that he was being "overly schol-have originally approved of the boy's arly," Professor Stephens marveled at the phrase's ce of a week, Dr. Muawiya elegant simplicity. known best as a thorn in remaining in Miami. But he and oth- Elian Gonzalez in Miami. er relatives in Cuba have since said "It's very similar to what makes for a good prov* Palestinian Authority, erb," he said." 'Is that your final answer?' is not on the of a local hero in the they want Elian returned to Cuba, of refugees have taken to boats and level of 'A penny saved is a penny earned,' yet it has a took a masked man's tearfully accusing his ex-wife of hav- certain charm." l, a big mouth. ing kidnapped the boy. Although rafts this year is itself a product of many people in Miami argue that the the less-than-amicable breakup be- Mr. Philbin, the host of "Millionaire," who made nded, Dr. Masri, a phy- "Final answer?" a household phrase by asking it more stinian legislator, boy's fate has already been decided tween the United States and Cuba by his mother's desperate act of tak- "The situation here is complicated than a dozen times on some nights, said in an intervie-11 d of a checkered glory. that the line's appeal was no more complicated than injured leg propped ing to the open sea, the law would like everything else because of the normally tend to uphold the father's great chasm between the Cuban gov- this : "It makes people smile to say it." : e received visitors, re- "They feel a kinship," he added. investigators and, best custody rights as a surviving parent. ernment, the United States govern-But in this case there are compet- ment, the exiles and Mr. Castro," When "Millionaire," a clone of a British game show, ce for the point he has was first broadcast on American television last sum~ ing claims from other estranged par- ~aid Max Castro, a senior research ake for years. associate at the University of Mi- mer, the show's producers said they did not set out t~ this home in Nablus on ties who have endured decades of their own bitter divorces. Cuban ex- ami's North-South Center. "Every- make "Final answer?" a successor to "Let's make a
.s blaming the other side." deal."
Their concern was more defensive :
Breaking Down Medicine's Culture of Silence Continued From Page 1 ture that makes it permissible to porting medical mistakes, the insti* talk about mistakes. tute has recommended that infor-whole concept of error as sin, as a When a plane accident results in mation about errors that were moral failing, is deeply ingrained in death or serious injury, the National harmless be protected from discov-medicine, and it is very destructive. Transportation Safety Board inves- ery in a lawsuit, a recommendation It means people cannot talk about it, tigates. When a hospital patient that predictably does not sit well because it is too painful." dies, doctors convene what is known with plaintiffs' lawyers. There are two ways to think about as an "M and M" conference, for At the same time, some wonder if human error, experts say. Error morbidity and mortality, to analyze it is wise to eliminate the notion of can be understood as a matter of the death and discuss how it might blame completely. "You've got to negligence, a willful disregard for have been prevented. Most doctors walk a very delicate line between standards. Or it can be understood find them extremely useful. But the responsibility of the individual in the context of normal human there is no way of disseminating physician and a recognition that a frailty. When people hear about these findings nationwide. system can determine behavior and medical errors - the surgeon who That is the role the Institute of promote error," said Dr. David J. amputates the wrong leg, the oncol- Medicine envisions for the new fed- Rothman, professor of social medi-ogist who delivers a chemotherapy eral agency, which it calls the Cen- cine at Columbia University. overdose - they assume bad doc- ter for Patient Safety. Its plan calls tors are to blame. for mandatory reports on any mis- HAT line was not lost on me. In fact, the opposite is true, says Dr. Donald Berwick, president of the Institute for Healthcare Im-provement, a Boston research cen-ter. The vast majority of medical take that causes death or serious injury, which the agency would col-lect and make available to the pub-lic (including malpractice lawyers). But the lesson of the airlines is T While preparing this article, I took my 15-month-old to an ear, nose and throat special-ist. He prescribed Biaxin, an anti-biotic, a half teaspoonful twice a mistakes are committed not by bad that it is just as important to report day. Late that night, while I was apples, he says, but by good doctors mistakes that don't hurt anybody. interviewing Dr. Leape, the special-trying to do the right thing, working Aviation has a voluntary system, ist left a message on my answering under conditions that do not account independent of the Federal Aviation machine saying he had been flip-for the fact that they are human. Administration, in which pilots and ping through his notes to double-Anesthesiologists have already other crew members submit confi- check the day's work: the baby's made several equipment changes dential reports about mistakes. dose was a quarter teaspoon, not that have saved thousands of lives These reports are analyzed and half. and, Dr. Leape said, also cut their alerts are issued as needed. My first instinct was anger. How malpractice premiums in half. "If tomorrow morning, I take off could he make such a mistake? If he "You don't get to safe systems in my airplane and I see a problem had been using a computer to write that have human beings in them by in the air traffic system that could his prescriptions, I knew, the ma-yelling at them or asking them to lead somebody into the side of a chine would have checked the dose try harder," Dr. Berwick said. "You mountain, the whole world of avia- against my daughter's weight and need to engineer the work environ- tion can know about it in the next 24 flagged the error, recognizing the ment so that normal human limits to 48 hours," said John Nance, an dose as too high. But computers cost are respected." aviation analyst. '"We have been money, and in today's managed working hard to get rid of the blame care environment, most doctors are VIATION has done precise-A culture, which is so imbued in medi- squeezed for cash. And in any event, ly this over the past two cine," he added. as Dr. Leape pointed out, I hould decades. In 1976, the risk of But in this litigious society, get- have been grateful, not mad. The dying in an airplane acci- ting rid of medicine's blame culture doctor made a mistake. He caught dent was one in two million; today it may be easier said than done. To it. He called me right away. Mis-is one in eight million. Dr. Robert foster a better environment for re- takes happen all the time. Helmreich, an expert in human fac-tors analysis at the University of Texas at Austin, said the change came about from pioneering studies that found that the majority of air-line accidents are caused not by Calculating Costly Mistakes technical failures but by break- LTHOUGH experts believe cent were attributed to error; 13.6 downs in communications - "ex-actly the thing that pilots were nev-er taught."
- Today, pilots are given intensive training in what Dr. Helmreich calls A medical mistakes happen with alarming frequency, there is scant research to document them.
The Institute of Medicine study, percent were fatal. When extrapolated to the number of people hospitalized in the country in 1997, the institute calculated there were 98,000 deaths. "the human aspects of flight." Ju- which estimated that between The Colorado and Utah study, nior pilots - who, like young doc- 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die which was conducted in 1992, exam-tors, may be too intimidated to criti- each year as a result of medical ined 15,000 records and used similar cize their superiors - are taught errors, based those figures on two methodology to reach the lower fig-that if they see a mistake, it is their studies in three states: New York, duty to speak up. Simulators teach Utah and Colorado. ure of 44,000. airline crews teamwork. The New York study was the While there is no way to know if For the past several years, Dr. most extensive. Dr. Lucian Leape, a the numbers are going up or down, Helmreich has been working to professor of health policy at Har- Dr. Leape said there was "every bring these same techniques of vard Medical School, analyzed dis- reason to think they have gone up," "crew resources management" to charge records of more than 30,000 because hospital care is more com-health care. Dr. Leonard, who is patients from 51 state hospitals in plicated now and patients are sick-among Dr. Helmreich's disciples, 1984. He found that 3.7 percent suf- er. In addition, he said, most medi-recently visited Southwest Airlines fered an injury from their treat- cal errors are not reported and to observe a pilot training session. ment that was severe enough to many are not recognized, even by But just as important as tnlining, disable them or prolong thei hospi- the peopltl who make them. , the experts say, is a change in cul- tal stay. Of these injuries, 58 per- SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
--l""TIWe1'1 keep asking: "Will Syria make
\;UIII..UIU.;\.I H vu-11-,1,,;;u -...vu1..&-v.&.
away. nuc cne anuc :nyu: u, ""* '""""- coalition of environmentalists, union-peace with Israel?" That's too nar-n:,w a question. What Mr. Assad is ists and others obscures an earlier and more instructive historical par-Look to the 1890's, saying to himself is more complex: "I CWl't open Syria to Israel - and allow allel: the anticorporate insurgency of the 1890's. not the 1960's, for Israeli tourists, trade and an El Al office in Damascus - without open-A century ago, there was mass outrage against big business in the protests' precedent. ing Syria to the world. And at some United States. Best-selling books and point I need to open Syria to the world, popular magazines blasted the con-otherwise my country is going to fal- centration of wealth and the feckless-ness of mainstream politicians. The bottom line. Prohibitionists and People's Party assembled a broad Christian Socialists joined the Popu-y coalition of small farmers, craft list uprising in hopes of curbing un-Will Assad workers and middle-class reformers to battle the "monopolists" and "plu-regulated businesses that ran 24-hour saloons and exploited child la-ever tocrats" accused of plundering the hard-working majority in America borers. The moral reformers publi-cized the demands of hard-pressed farmers and wage earners alongside deal? and other industrial societies. In 1892, Ignatius Donnelly, a Populist their own. spellbinder, charged that "a vast As every schoolchild once knew, conspiracy has been organized on the bubble of the dissenting alliance two continents and is rapidly taking burst in 1896, when William Jennings ter. But if I open Syria to Israel and Bryan, an anticorporate Democrat the world, privatize the economy, and possession of the world." Favorite culprits were J.P. Morgan, Andrew endorsed by the Populists, lost the let 'er rip, how do I still keep control? Carnegie and railroad barons like presidential election to William Mc-And if I don't have an answer for that, George Pullman on this side of the Kinley, the Republican nominee, who I won't take the first step. I would Atlantic, and financiers like the outspent his rival by more than 10 to r.ather have total power over a failing Rothschilds on the other. 1. But mass discontent blazed on. state than modernize Syria, by open- Of course, the alleged crimes of And this discontent helped progres-ing up to the world and Israel, and these magnates were not the same sives and, a generation later, New lose power." ones that have been roiling the Dealers establish some protections Mr. Assad knows that once he streets of Seattle. A century ago, for workers and a limited welfare starts privatizing and deregulating state that gradually lifted many Syria, many of his bureaucrats, state Americans into the middle class. industries and protected monopolies, Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown, is co-author (with Mau- Those reformers were motivated by which have benefited from the closed the belief that, as Bryan bluntly put it Syrian system, will lose power to the rice Isserman) of "America Divid-ed: The Civil War of the 1960's." in 1896, "One of the most important private sector. To stop that they will try to delegitimize change by saying it;s all part of an Assad "sellout to Israel." So unless Mr. Assad has a strategy and resources in place to t4ke care of those Syrians threatened bJ change, he certainly is not going to Discovering Greatne gjve them a banner to wave against hun: "Assad, Peacemaker With a great society? Johnson did more Jtlws." Right now Mr. Assad has no By George McGovern than any other president to advance such strategy, so he's frozen. civil rights, education and housing, to Given this reality, Israel and Amer- any Americans, I was name just three of his concerns, L ica need to reassess Syria and adopt deeply opposed to Lyn- through enactment of laws. one of two new strategies. One strat- don Johnson's pursuit I now regret not devoting more egy is simply to declare that Syria is a of the Vietnam War. time to praising the Johnson record failing state, with a regime that is My views on the war at home. And I wish I had known lost. Therefore it would be insane for have not changed, but earlier what the Johnson White Israel to give up the strategic Golan my opinion of Johnson has. I believe House tapes, published two years to such a decrepit regime with an now that with the exceptions of ago, show: Johnson was agonizing uncertain future. Instead, Israel over Vietnam policy from his first should unilaterally withdraw from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin day as president until his last. Lebanon, wait for Syria to implode Roosevelt - and perhaps Theodore Johnson shared his doubts and and sort things out after its transition. Roosevelt - Lyndon Johnson was fears about Vietnam primarily with The other strategy would be to ac- the greatest president since Abra- Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, knowledge that Syria is a failing state, ham Lincoln. chairman of the Armed Services but try to help it. "Just as it is difficult John Kenneth Galbraith called re- Committee. I knew that both Johnson ta have a stable international system cently for a reassessment of John- and Russell opposed American in-with a failing Russian state, or a son, arguing that history was unfair volvement in Vietnam when it was stable Korean peninsula with a failing in identifying his presidency primar- proposed to them as senators by the
- r-{orth Korean state, it is difficult to ily with the war. Professor Galbraith Eisenhower administration. The have a stable Middle East peace with is on the mark. tapes show that they continued to a failing Syrian state," Mgues Ste- The Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon have terrible doubts and regrets, Phen Cohen of the Center for Middle administrations were all wrong in even while publicly supporting the East Peace. Therefore, this strategy Vietnam. This issue was central to war.
w.ould offer Mr. Assad a pathway for my 1972 presidential run against On May 27, 1964, six months into modernizing the Syrian economy, and Richard Nixon. But despite his in- his presidency, Johnson asks Russell opening Syria to the U.S. and the volvement with the war, Johnson on one tape, "What do you think of world, on the assumption that Mr. used his remarkable political skills this Vietnam thing?" Russell an-A'ssad will never give up his pretend to build the most far-reaching pro- swers: "It's the damn worst mess I war with Israel - which is his great- gressive domestic program since the ever saw, and I don't like to brag. I
~t excuse for not changing - unless New Deal. Johnson's opponents like never have been right many times in he has an alternative strategy for to ridicule the Great Society, but my life. But I knew that we were change that can stabilize Syria with- what is wrong with an American going to get into this sort of mess out destabilizing him. president who envisions his nation as when we went in there." To which 1 I don't know which strategy the U.S. Johnson replies: "That's the way will adopt. But I do know this: Israel George McGovern, former senator that I've been feeling for six shoul4,n't exit the Golan un ~ss it sees from S9uth Dakota, was the 1972 months."
syria enter the world. D Democ~tic presidential nominee. Russell answers: "If I was going
Editorial and Op-Ed pages, 0-1 btNt\ttUorkShnts Sunday, December 5, 1999 Education Advertising Careers in Education and Health Care Employment Week in Review Section 4 Do No Harm Breaking Down Medicine's,Culture of Silence
'I did the same thing last week.' And I'm thinking, I've over patients' rights on its head. That discussion re- ed by changing systems has been slow to catch on, in By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG been chief of this department for five years. Now I'm volves around whether patients should be able to sue part because doctors rarely talk openly about their chief of surgery. And nobody has ever said to me, 'We their health plans ; this one revolves around what health errors. The pat explanation is that they are afraid of R. MICHAEL LEONARD, an anesthesiologist D
have this problem.' A lot of it comes back to this culture care can do to create a climate in which patients are less being disciplined, or sued. But it is not the whole truth, and chief of surgery for Kaiser Permanente in of silence." likely to sue because mistakes are less likely to occur in says Dr. Lucian Leape, a professor of health policy at Denver, was operating on a cancer patient a That culture of silence, and why it needs to be the first place. The report's authors called on Congress Harvard Medical School who studies medical error. few months ago when he reached into a drawer broken, was the unstated theme of a report that shook to create a new agency that would collect data on "Physicians are taught that it's your job not to for medicine. Inside were two vials, side by side. Both the medical profession last week. The study, by the medical errors, analyze their causes, identify trends and make a mistake," Dr. Leape said. "It's like a sin. The had yellow labels. Both had yellow caps. One was a independent Institute of Medicine, estimated that in recommend changes, in much the same way Dr. Leon- Continued on Page 18 paralyzing agent, which Dr. Leonard had correctly hospitals alone mistakes, from drug mix-ups to surgical ard changed the drug labels from yellow to red. administered tu keep the patient still during the opera- errors to misdiagnoses, kill as many as 98,000 people , "To err is human," the institute panel concluded, tion. The other " 'as tt,~ reversal agent, which he needed yearly. In addressing basic safety, it said, health care is 1
'but errors can be prevented."
next. "I grabbed the wrong one," Dr. Leonard recalled. at least a decade bE:hind other high-risk industries. The idea that doctors make mistakes is, of course, " I used the wrong drug." The report is likely to turn the Congressional deba.te nothing new. But the idea that mistakes can be prevent-It would have been easy for the doctor to keep quiet; the drug wore off and the patient was not harmed. Instead, he talked - to the surgeon and scrub nurses, the patient's wife and the hospital pharmacist, who has since relabeled the paralyzing agents with red stickers and put them in a separate drawer. He also talked to his five partners, whose reaction unnerved him.
"Four of the five of them said, 'You know, I've done the same thing,' " Dr. Leonard said. "One of them said,
'i fllt. S,\!t:Mll)I *v.;a MaN :ilU!II\ON
Breaking Down Medicine's Culture of Silence Continued From Page 1 ture that makes it permissible to porting medical mistak~s. t~e ~~!{~ talk about mistakes. tute has recommended that Infor-whole concept of error as sin, as a When a plane accident results in mation about -errors that were moral failing, is deeply ingrained in death or serious injury, the National harmless be protected from discot medicine, and it is very destructive. Transportation Safety Board inves- ery in a lawsuit, a reco~mendation It means people cannot talk about it, tigates. When a hospital patient that predictably does *n<1t \sit W'etl because it is too painful." dies, doctors convene what is known with plaintiffs' lawyers. There are two ways to think about as an "M and M" conference, for At the same time, some wonder*if human error, experts say. Error morbidity and mortality, to analyze it is wise to eliminate the notion 'ot can be understood as a matter of the death and discuss how it might blame qimpletely. "You've got to negligence, a willful disregard for have been prevented. Most doctors walk a very. del\~ate *une be~W~~ standards. Or it can be understood find them extremely useful.
- But
- the responsibility *of the *Indivlduil in the context of normal human there is no way of disseminating physician and a' recognition that'a frailty. When people hear about these findings nationwide. system can determine behavior and medical errors - the surgeon who That is the role the Institute of promote error," said Dr. David *J.
amputates the wrong leg, the oncol- Medicine envisions for the new fed- Rothman, professor of social medi-ogist who delivers a chemotherapy eral agency, which it calls the Cen- , cine at Columbia University. overdose - they assume bad doc- ter for Patient Safety. Its plan calls tors are to blame. for mandatory reports on any mis- HAT line was not lost on riie, In fact, the opposite is true, says Dr. Donald Berwick, president of the Institute for Healthcare Im-provement, a Boston research cen-ter. The vast majority of medical take that causes death or serious injury, which the agency would col-lect and make available to the pub-lic (including malpractice lawyers). But the lesson of the airlines is T .While preparing this article; I took my 15-month-old to an ear, nose and throat special: ist. He prescribed Biaxin, an anti-biotic, a .half teaspoonful twice ,!!- mistakes are committed not by bad that it is just as important to report day. Late that night, while I was apples, he says, but by good doctors mistakes that don't hurt anybody. interviewing Dr. Leape, the special-trying to do the right thing, working Aviation has a voluntary system, ist left a mes.sage on my answer)ng under conditions that do not account independent of the Federal Aviation machine saying he had been flip-for the fact that they are human. Administration, in which pilots and ping through his notes to double~ Anesthesiologists have already other crew members submit confi- check the day's work: the baby's made several equipment changes dential reports about mistakes. dose was a quarter teaspoon, no~ that have saved thousands of lives These reports are analyzed and half. and, Dr. Leape said, also cut their alerts are issued as needed. My first instinct was anger. How malpractice premiums in half. " If tomorrow morning, I take off could he make such a mistake? If he "You don't get to safe systems in my airplane and I see a problem had been using a computer to write that have human beings in them by in the air traffic system that could his prescriptlons,, I knew, the ma~ yelling at them or asking them to lead somr.body into the side of a chine wou,d-have"chec'ked the dose try harder," Dr. Berwick said. "You mountain, the whole world of avia- against my daughter:~s*;.\Velght and need to engineer the work environ- tion can know about it in the next 24 flagged the error, re<;<>$Jllzlng the ment so that normal human limits to 48 hours," said John Nance, lilil dose as too high. But cofnpu'ters cost are respected." aviation analyst. '"We have been money, and 'in *today's .managed working hard to get rid of the blame care environment, most doctors are VIATION has done precise-A culture, which is so imbued in medi- squeezed for cash. And in any,,event, ly this over the past two cine," he added. as Dr. Leape pointed out, I~hould decades. In 1976, the risk of But in this litigious society, get- have *been grateful, not *mad. The dying in an airplane acci- ting rid of medicine's blame culture doctor made a mistake. He caught dent was one in two million; today it may be easier said than done. To it. He called me right away. Mis-is one in eight million. Dr. Robert foster a better environment for re- takes happen all the time. " Helmreich, an expert in human fac-tors analysis at the University of Texas at Austin, said the change came about from pioneering studies that found that the majority of air-line accidents are caused not by Calculating Costly Mistakes technical failures but by break- LTHOUGH experts believe A cent were attributed to ~rror; 13.6 downs in communications - "ex- medical mistakes happen percent were fatal. . .. . actly the thing that pilots were nev- with alarming frequency, When extrapolated tp the number er taught."
- there is scant research to of people.hospitalized in the country Today, pilots are given intensive document them. in 1997, the institute calculated training in what Dr. Helmreich calls The Institute of Medicine study, there were 98,000 deaths.
"the human aspects of flight." Ju- which estimated that between The Colorado and Utah study; nior pilots - who, like young doc- 44,000 and 98,000 Americans die which was conducted in 1992, exam-tors, may be too intimidated to criti- each year as a result of medical ined 15,000 records and used similar cize their superiors - are taught errors, based those figures on two methodology to reach the lower fig-that if they see a mistake, it is their studies in three states: New York, duty to speak up. Simulators teach Utah and Colorado. ure of 44,000. airline crews teamwork. The New York study was the While there is no way to know if For the past several years, Dr. most extensive. Dr. Lucian Leape, a the numbers are going up or down, Helmreich has been working to professor of health policy at Har- Dr. Leape said there was "every bring these same techniques of vard Medical School, analyzed dis- reason to think they have gone up," "crew resources management" to charge records of more than 30,000 because hospital care is more com-health care. Dr. Leonard, who is patients from 51 state hospitals in plicated now and patients are sick-among Dr. Helmreich's disciples, 1984. He found that 3.7 percent suf- er. In addition, he said, most medi-recently visited Southwest Airlines fered an injury from their treat- cal errors are not reported and to observe a pilot training session. ment that was severe enough to
- many are not recognized, even by But just as important as training, disable them or prolong theif hospi- the people: who make them. **
the experts say, is a change in cul- tal stay. Of these injuries, 58 per- SHERYT. (;AY .<;Tn1 i:>r;-or,
8207 Calabar Avenue Playa del Rey, CA 90293
*99 OEC 4 P4 :32 12 December 1999 Or I
AD~ Secretary of the Commission U.S. Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Washington, DC 20555-0001 PETITION RU We strongly support establishing working hour limits throughout the nuclear power industry as is done in other industries critical to peoples safety. It is even more necessary in an industry which has-the capability of affecting the lives of tens of thousand people due to worker
- fatigue. These working hour limits should apply to all times an employee is on the job at the nuclear plant.
We also support the implementation of proposed rule # two. It is quite surprising to us that such a rule does not exist at present. Whistle blowers are an important asset to any company whose misdeeds have the probability of harming a large sector of the population. As concerned citizens we again urge you to implement these rules. Thank you
~~
'f:o-u~~
sr-~ Jesse and Rose Steinman IA 1 8*
~ by
OF THE COMMISSIO~
.t
3o-~ ~ ( "1'/t:'R 'S1?B~} 11 Decernber1 999
*99 Off 14 P ~ :32 Secretary of the Commission U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555-0001 0 Colleagues :
A[ I write in support of proposed rule changes which would ( 1) limit employee working hours at nuclear plants and (2 ) provide for training of supervisors on employee protection against harassment and intimidation . 1 ) Fatigue from working excessive hours--or simply from staying awake for excessive hours --has been shown to be as deleterious to performance as blood alcohol levels in excess of accepted guidelines . At present , only a certain few nuclear-plant workers are covered by guidelines limiting their working hours--and that protection is only in the form of guidelines , guidelines which apply only during " up " periods of plant operation . What is needed--and what the proposed rule change provides-
- is mandatory limits on working hours for all employees whose performance is pertinent to safe maintenance and operation of nuclear plants , whether the plants are " up" and running or shut down . Human error has been a factor in numerous nuclear accidents and near-accidents , and this safeguard against undue fatigue is one way of minimizing the risk of human error .
2 ) In the nuclear industry even more than in others ,
"whistle-blowers " may act as protectors of public safety--and they have in fact done so in numerous cases . There is inadequate protection of the " whistleblowers " themselves , however ; the few fines levied against the nuclear companies which have harassed such employees are negligible from the standpoint of those big-budget companies , and the individual personnel responsible for the harassment have not been targeted . Thye can always plead " ignorance of the law ."
The proposed rule provides for training of all management personnel to understand the role of " whistleblowers " and the legal protection due to them . Management personnel would thus be individually responsible for their conduct in such matters . Both of these rule changes seem eminently sensible in providing for increased safety in the nuclear industry , an industry where unsafe practices could have catastrophic consequences . I urge the Nucledar Regulatory Commission to adopt them . Walter J Hipple (Pro 328 S Darlington St We st Chest~r PA 19382 i
/ b
DOCKET NUMBER PEiino RU 3D--"'~ (ht/l=~S17B.s) 170 Good Counsel Drive Mankato, MN 56001-3138 OEC 14 P4 :33 December 10, 1999 Secretary of the Commission Or , Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 - . Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 AO,Jl_,.* ,*
Dear Commission Secretary,
We have many serious concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants. We are, therefore, writing to urge your support of two proposed rules to protect people from nuclear power plant employees who are fatigued from too long hours and who are afraid to speak out about unsafe conditions. 1.) We ask you to adopt Rule # 1 which sets definite limits on the number of hours that a nuclear power plant employee can work inspecting, repairing or testing safety equipment; this should apply whether the plant is operating or shut down. These need to be made mandatory; simply to offer these limits as guidelines is not good enough . 2.) We ask that Rule #2 to protect whistle blowers from being fired, harassed or intimidated in any way be adopted. Power plant owners should be required to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations so that supervisors and managers cannot plead ignorance when breaking employee protection regulations. Simply fining a power plant, especially when the fine is less that the loss of a day's "shut down", will do nothing to deter the company from repeating a breaking of the law if it sees this is to its financial advantage. We expect the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to act to protect the public. Preventing another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl is necessary not only to protect the American people but also to protect ALL the world' s people as well as ALL other forms of life now and for MANY generations to come. Again, we urge your support of the two proposed rules. Thanks you for your attention to our concerns. We would appreciate a reply. JAN f 8
~ /!4~1. --
REPOaJOOCJ _ b
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 3o~'-~ ( f,,'/F-25718~) 3018 Old City Park Road Moab, UT 84532 December 10, 1999 *99 DE 14 P4 :32 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of-Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 fl ADJ! f-Gentlemen: RE: Whistleblower protection proposed rule published October 27, 1999, in the Federal Register I support the proposed rule. Current NRC regulations protecting nuclear workers from harassment and intimidation by management for reporting problems are inadequate to protect the public interest as they are applied. In 1999, after determining that management at the Perry and Zion, Seabrook and Millstone nuclear power plants harassed and intimidated workers for raising safety concerns, the NRC imposed fines of $110,000 on the former two and $80,000 on the latter two. Since each day of a nuclear power plant shutdown costs the utility company between
$249,000 and $330,000 in lost revenue, it is obviously very much in the financial interest of the company to prevent a shutdown due to safety complaints by workers. Paying the NRC fine for harassing workers into shutting up about safety problems is a cheap way of continuing business.
Further, most utility managers receive part of their compensation in the form of bonuses dependent on the financial performance of the portion of the utility they are responsible for. Therefore management can be seen as getting "paid" by the NRC for shutting up workers through harassment if, by doing so, they can avoid the high cost of shutdown relative to the fine they incur, thereby enhancing their performance-contingent compensation. Finally, the NRC has maintained it cannot impose sanctions against these managers it determines have broken existing employee protection regulations unless it can prove these individuals knew their actions were illegal. Thus, NRC embraces "ignorance of the law" as a valid defense, while "ignorance of the law" is not a viable defense in any other federal legal proceeding .
- With deregulation of the electric utility industry, utility management has strong financial incentives to avoid costs if a legal means of doing so is available. The "ignorance of the law" excuse must be eliminated, which is provided for in the proposed rule. If managers can be held personally accountable for harassment and intimidation of whistleblowing nuclear power workers, it is much more likely to restrain such behavior than the occasional NRC fine against companies which is much cheaper to the company than downtime for safety repair.
Sincerely yours, Richard Lance Christie
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOHY ~UMMl::>~I\.J, FIJLBMKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF
~UL;. OF'FHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMtSSfON Docllment Sta~
1;;. / q9
- :: ~,, ,,-~ 17,,.C) lee hj ~ coo,~
u W ~ r~ .s ~ fLdvi ~ , ~ 13
- 0/U- ~ 1111~~ & v i ~
1* d ~~ k ~adf,-' ~A//2'(?, 17 1s 19 s I\ V\_(l O _,,. D Q _)
-a 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 UClEAR REGULA I UH {;UMMl~~IU 1'14.1!.CIIIMNm~&AOJUOJCATJONSSTAFf 50 CfflCE OFlHE SECRETARY OFTHECOMMISStON 51 Doeument Statistk:s 52 /:J. /2 ~ /9'1 53 54 55
DOCKET NUMBER @ PE II ilON RULE ----~ ~
- - - - - - - ~ - _ _ _ _ : _ _ : _ ; _=-=-+---+--
s 8flr rEO 1
'(2 c I , I 0 ft'/°l 2 OeCI..A.- 5:?crJ ~ 1J \1/4.._ ~ovvt= iss ; ift}\ }r 4 P4 :33 3
4 ~ 1V~ \}~ 0 3-; l~~.J~JJ 1-F 5 o s ~ -!i.L r ~ ~h!t'~/?J-7 s !t'rYI / f s O'YJ ~ ~J'~ w or/:/~ ho v rs c ~ff
- 9 10 11
-/'Le._ f o U1 ~ f le~ 1 ~ / ~ Se ~
12 ~ /h'-p /4 c.-pL/:,,'5 ~~ ?U ~ 13 0 14 ~,~ ~,, ~ , ~ t10 15
- ~ 60,<<__ 1~()/~ cl ~oulotf' 1s 19
&_ S7Yt1r/ 7 ~ AJlf_<!,
20 21 S 1 1 v1~f / 22 23 fv\_,\o-_ Qu~tllo t\ Er\..~~ eJb;({o 2* 7J..5 h, s f ~ La--vJL I 25 CQ_ b ~ 1 f ( I ?otj~ _ ~ 26 27 'drlowfedged b¥ 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 UClEAR REGULA HY Cu~M1::;::;1u. 49 S&,_.....,n...,JIONS STAFF CfflCEOFMSECRErARY 50 a=TIE COMMISSON 51 52 53 54 55 5
Marion P. Morgan 717 West 33rd Street, #305 San Pedro, California 90731-6848 e-mail: mpmorgan@SoCa.com
- 99 0[~ 14 P 4 :33 December 9, 1999 Secretary of the Commission l"1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AD,O' Washington, DC 20555-0001 liKET U BER
Dear Sir:
PETITIO U 30-".:2. ( ls,1/~/?G,7:UJ,;,.) I am writing to ask your support for two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense.
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants: This rule willl make the NRC guard against human pereformance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s.
Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors: This rule will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. These two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers and directors from using "ignorance of the lawn as a shield for their illegal actions - protebt the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Your cooperation in seeing that these two very important rules are adopted will be very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
~c'~~
Marion P. Morgan
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE R 30-'=':l December 9, 1999 lro11t=RS11ss) Secretary of the Commission *99 DEC 14 P4 :33 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 C I; 11 Gentlemen: AD,Jl My family and I are alarmed at the working conditions at our nuclear plants! We must limit the working hours at these plants; overtime is all well and good but if our workers are fatigued, it can lead to deadly accidents. Carelessness caused by fatigue is not benign when dealing with nuclear power. Further, we have to protect those individuals who are in the best position to detect flaws
- in our system, and encourage them to speak up about potential problems. The "whistleblower" is a vital component in plant safety and therefore must be protected from harassment and intimidation.
We urge you to carefully consider and to act upon these important employee protection rules. Thank you. Jack and Donna Salem 923 Teakwood Rd. L.A., CA 90049 Tel: (310) 471-2122 Fax: (310) 472-8368 E-Mail: SalemLA@aol.com J'A
.S NUCu:A11 Ht:<.:iULA\ OHY GO l:SSIO u ...... MA ING & UDICA I SST.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO Document Postma /~ /9 f-_____9__ C d Sp
DOC Secretary of the Commission 30 - G,.;1_
~'lfl?S7fl,ey; ff D U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ": - . ., I,* , :.r*o ou* r C'fJrl* T .
lfS~ .. (' Washington, DC 20555-0001 '**
..J I 11...
Dece'91ber , 1999 9
*99 DCC 14 P4 :33 RE: Proposed NRC Rules/Employee Working Hour Limits '&9Em~fuyee ~teitioq ~ l.ll. v J"riJging, _; 2 or
Dear Secretary:
AE: 1 Oi ',, /:L Of I '* - F' I'm writing to share with you my views on two proposed r j ; ~,; *h at are M~~nded to ensure that nuclear workers become a critical line of defense in preventing a disastrous nuclear accident. Every effort should be made to assist and support employees who have so much responsibility. Workers everywhere should not be working when they're fatigued nor be fearful of illegal discrimination, this is doubly important for nuclear power plant workers. They are, as the Union of Concerned Scientists says, our FIRST LINE of defense against accidents. I urge you to support two proposed rules. 1) establishing limits on working hours for employees at nuclear power plants. and 2) mandating training on employee protection regulations to supervisors. managers. and directors . It is my understanding that these two rules will go a long way to:* enhancing nuclear plant worker performance by preventing fatigue,* insuring that the repairing, inspecting, and testing of safety equipment (while the plants are operating or shut down) will be done by workers NOT impaired by fatigue,
- encouraging nuclear plant workers to come forward about safety problems by diminishing their fear of telling the truth, and finally
- preventing supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions against workers who conscientiously and responsibly report their safety concerns. I'm convinced that these two proposed rules, taken together, will further safeguard the public welfare and our environment by reducing the likelihood of nuclear power plant accidents.
My views here are offered as public comment on your upcoming review of the proposed rules. I expect you will be careful and circumspect in your deliberations. Thanks for listening. Sn Mark K Bennett 513 KStreet Davis, CA 95616 (530) 792-1822 maxmark@sirius.com
-zooa
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE . 30 -'1 ~ f D December 2, 1999 ( "t/F/(57785)
*99 O[C 14 P 4 :32 Secretary of the Commission U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cr ,.
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 I AO.JI
Dear Sir,
I'm writing to let you know that I endorse the two proposed rules currently being considered by the NRC. These rules would essentially:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance
- prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down
- prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems
- prevent supervisors, managers and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions Please support both rules, thereby protecting the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Thank you for your consideration.
- cc: Eric Wesselman, Energy Field Coordinator Union of Concerned Scientists Ms. Siobhan McCafferty 2255 Bronson Hill Dt.
Los Angeles, CA 90068 2000 JH 14
- 0. *. NUCU:A EGULATO Y CU NI ::sS 0 r.uu~tvw,GS &AOJUDICATIO STAFF OFRCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE CO SSION Document
DOCKET NU B PET1T10N AUL 3o - 0 c:2 {!Pt/Ff?.5"7785) 124 South Blair Street Stillwater, OK_740704[r p : December 2, 1 9
- 14 4 33 01 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary:
I am writing in support of two new rules proposed for nuclear power plants: one to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, and the second to require training of supervisors, managers, and directors of plants on regulations protecting employees from harassment and intimidation when they voice safety concerns. Unsafe operation of nuclear power plants can lead to accidents with loss of life, human health risks, and serious environmental damage. The proposed rules will significantly improve the safety at plants by ensuring that workers are not suffering from fatigue, which would impair their ability to make safe and correct decisions, and are not subject to intimidation when they speak out about safety. The Federal government has set limits on working hours for truck drivers and airline pilots, since their impairment by fatigue could lead to accidents with grave danger to the public. Nuclear power plant workers also control potentially dangerous equipment and should be subject to similar regulations. These limits on hours of work must apply whether the plant is in operation or is shut down, because safety is also important in the performance of maintenance work done during periods when the plant is shut down. Currently supervisors, managers, and directors of plants can use the excuse of ignorance of the law if they harass employees who speak out. This excuse is generally not accepted in any other legal proceeding and creates a climate in which workers may reasonably be afraid of reprisal for speaking out. The second rule eliminates the use of this excuse by ensuring that these people are not ignorant of the law. For these reasons, I urge you to enact the new rules.
;;::i~
Margaret A. Eastman ZoocJ
KET BER PETITIO AUl 30-C::..2 (,t/Ff?57785} Anna Burton, M.D. 163 Engle Street, Bldg. Two Englewood, N.J. 07631
*99 0(( 13 P3 :13 (201) 567-4633 AnBurtonMD@Compuserve.com 01 I
AO~ December 8, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
I am writing to urge that your influence is used to support and implement realistic limits on the working hours of employees at nuclear power plants, and the most careful kind of training on employee protection regulations for supervisors, managers, and directors. Plant workers who wish to make suggestions or criticisms of any practice or work situation should be supported, protected, and listened to carefully. Obviously, the staff at a nuclear power plant is the first and best line of defense against accidents. Sincerely yours,
- ~ C,L..+--, Ill P Anna Burton, M.D .
.._ r '
Zoo()
~~edby
IV SST 1Y
~ /{)I~h-
~Ml CJ {p
~
r £pt? / _g ~ , . ~ , , rooz ?-,f"lfrf' ',?!7 ~~~~
"?Z}f 'J'?:_.,?.?;? 7 ~ f ~p (l: [ d El JJO 66. I ot?{l,..y_s_5',?c.-- . f ? ~ ,,, , , , , , , _ ~ - ~ ~
-v;;,.A/ 5 /1
,\ 1::
- r. ' l
- I "" ,
J:,00 0 ~~~ 7-2-?t? ~ 7 " ( t;Bll-S?:/:J h'J) @ --z:1-0£ nu Ollll3d l:J38VmN 13 ~0(]
U.S. NUa.EAR REGULATORY COMM.ltitil iU.B4AION884ADJUOICATIONS STAFF SECRETARY COMMISSIO
,~t5(qe;_ _
I 12. 1:P1-*Pb , 4 ~
~ _:j)pt(- ~(Q.(
Mr . William Hinrichs 99 Johnson Ave. Meriden, CT 06451-2735 d.eCA-e.lc, "ff Hu.- c~,SSiV"\. DOCKET NUMBER
/.J *5
- n &a,.._ ({!_~ 4,_"'<J UC eCTl'Xhn-*SS I,_,.., PETITIO AUL l<la..sh~~, i) .c. ~oss.s- - ooo, Sh.*.-
(joHi -H...... ~ r>?:4 .fs~ ~..t. 1--k C'~t.o~ nu~~ ac~h hitrr4-u1a-liJ~cL NJv.. I l3as,c:. ~ 1--1.... nIA.,C~ i(e9k~ (',-,...,.... *SJ.ivn's IIA.sf~Si '-,~:/-:es 1a p-oled~ a-ll\..,'co-s (l,,.d a.,..,.,.,..c.o,._ r h'"'~~ -A4.3.3~((.s- l3a.s/c /.a ktf /v>-cfeclrrn ;, H.,__ n~d. 1a a-t--v->a:. ja.AJ...._._ h t . ~
~qa.r-c' ""' h"'c&ah-- lf'o- ~'fitrn r,;:i,,,.djtn.,, . A . e ~ ~ a.lso i-.,., ht.s~c/;n-. Ot.Kd/(IV ~,1.,Vl.. ~ ,a ~+"-'- ~ le ~led~di"h'~ uf..o C.tr>1$ci...._+;~t rta.,,"$1! so.r-1'} c .......ce-....s ~ ~ -l,an.a.ssm.-e....f- en...
Ja//ilf5C/>.w,,.;,.,ci~ d,,JC*f~~ t,t.d,h<S*
- "7-k ~ {r/1~ ~ ?,,ic ,*tf.-.f-~ shin J- &~ llw- ~ dwtUkA_ "; ~ hat>>~~l-
~14J.1/25 flcv.,.f.s l-kMq.;,._.
4/fcl-s JOA.
--t<. M 04h.
h.ql.JL.
\->-\"'ch M CM.t. ~ -
ff...a- M.c. ('~-t a,.,d .-1:s 5~ ~ ~ tr!_<{. a_ 4w.....,_d,*a.'" .a,,.,,lrtha-kS* C<n1J.,:,,.'- t-~ Wt'ck > ~Jrc/.,:,.1 rn, ll,-.r f) (U-u-,'a, ~-Ii 1css/~ J1-s -l.f.- ~le-~ hu-c~
*~fs ~r dthtt.sJ~
H-i<-4tot.;..J na.l~s
~ <1 crn o{ u . ~ .~ daA.~ e.s.
1 ~,r<nl- fV'. ((. C. S 11vo ptwros.eti tuJ~,J? ~ ./-h..17 ceola-vzsS ~ ~ &l4fec/-;J t HivJ
~ ) a,,,d ~ ~I-Md --k ac,.,pud 4,,*~ 1-k c~ ,sf f"ss,1-4 sh4.~r f-H..Lr ~ ,i)w,,.-c!f~
~ nol-'sef~skvnsO"l-*~-~-t.:-..\*A.."'J~:-
l:&d/'u*c t-t./.,*~i; Nsll\.ucl--1,f/\-.:,,'J L-cJ*ll in<>V>~ t~~ /,,,v~fc. ~.5Stt,~.S .sea.sh oru--t!uf-J Cos.f.s. ?fiaJ 111tt;>,.SM$ ,..;,1v /'r.e.dtAc.hn. ~ ~ "f'.;1. -4,..,._....J. - C)....,d ,H-.c,..r -fl:..o-..,;lt:4i,.s h,,/o -4~"'-
~ t:nittj(!l. a,dold_ ~sf'- Hwne. ~J . Ttar /4.;,,,r1 jal'J'-.. .&rds ,.,,fo -M... lf'*c:tw....
df),,, jf--liM ~ ~'J .;sk,,.W.-s~"- ~ f /t1..l-'J--.. ~~ -Au-.,,.__ 1=/v~m.a..1<<:A.. 7.n... .....,,s!i:i,,,_C-'., ~ - kc. jv,, ,7 ~ -1i~J &. $a-<. ~-.i..e.. r;fcf-,,,_ I i ~ F~d,,h~ a-.1 £cu,-.:..._s ~ Art. ot f *
,g o.os%. I
- t. .
ff/1,Cro~a. tl?.....'4 "-1 (fviJd_ tvd..l ~ H..t,_ tf~2 if.,1 I:. :r,,cl.,.lt,"'- /k,,,/t,,J kin~ 16 Ii.VJ,(,~ F do? IJ..,(J{ 1-o 7'J..-kYJ ~ ~ , ~/.. 11- .sl,v,,,../d ~~ -II.al /IM.4f'- r""'hw-( /'wln,,,_ 'f'-U---&t-lrn.:. a..-r -4i 1 h,a,..;,k,.a,.,,.~
~ lo Ail ~..,.,rp~~ r..f All~ r,--- m-o.s,e a...a Ju.r1ns."4, .1~..J'.,s;,uc"""-, ~,1~""'.-
t"c.n, '/svv 3fn.,d "'*v>*, ~s i Hi,,,~ £.Cn'°"R ~ h-.-. ~ ..A r, "'~ hiot,v,a...a.£ wv-&h.-..5 h, ff-4.. "'*lt' .. p4,,.r.
;) SL1..pr-,u-,_ r Pn..;-fos.eci. ~~ tf l *"J ,f ~')(p.e;c,* ~ /'l..!:.'if."~ ~ -r.t..-..-1 *s ~ -k, lr..t'ff.t,,.,
l/fa,,.,r) s~,..*s*~ ~~ D~c~ ~ .e...,,~~/-C!.ch~-... ~c..lrr.is,, ~c-f-'to.iiy zo;'t e.sf-{c/~
'dnowf bY . '3
11/7/ff
~ ~, ~./*cl* c(IW,sc,..,,.k.-.s "wf..,~1,,.,_ &-w" f,- -1,~,__t ~~ dl.Jet;_;,.11-"'7 dt:.$r**pL.... .
it.o.t /1\.4.;,,.~P hue~/. ,:y,cf...,~ ~ j,,.ct- .µ,J tr.; R..C. C4?i ~ 41>."-e dizl~ ~ ( 01. w4o aU., *J ~
~ o-,..c.) -AM,--.d. tlwt.<</ (/1, ,;.f,:,,,,,,-eta /.ut. > ~ ..,,*<< 1-o-ec.. tk.ck~ ~ f f/,i.a,/- ,,;.,:,t.,*~ ( <lL +4t.~
/h&d11N1<<AA-Js) "/' ~ a,.,.d hrc!~ --',,,_1/2° ~ rL. " n ~ ~ i..du,,/-"'f.
't1)~ SfllMc.~el. a...oi ~*-S/.-fAd_, ~ /-r- ~ ,t/..-..td,~
;) Pl\.eirc-f fr'-*,-.~ '-'po.v.7 ti~°"'-1'.ta.-:J- 1Annl1.1A.: ~c.c.
!l.) Ptw.erc-r 1/1"*~ ~ r* ~~s > H1Sfccl-3/4, (M,,41 ;.~1-.:.y. S4f<I, "'ir 'r1 ~..,.. ~
hue.~ f ~ ~ f s a.'l.t.. o~~J n- SrliM,,ft!J,qwy,..
~') Pru,~)-~ jw- c.tt-1~ ttu.c~ 13eo._+ Wrl'LR.~ lo tu--..:.. s,'4,.f' A-h....t- ~r}
F~* r,v- ~ **,°i"""-..~t:..< ~ H..r.. 1.;,... sn,*.Ja pa.-
'1) p~,- s~ h'.svw, h-Lo...~,ew.<< ~hN.l a,:, tl
,¥ tu:."liu,., s.
-'") t'Mhct- ~ p,J,i,, &kcd 11..t. ./h,.VV>cf>t.-"""'f ~ o.. -.-i"~ 'd'l/lM<h,, f"--t" dl!.cl<<.At../-:
_A,;,..~ ~ /usruc1frJ4, J (w~u.*~) ~.*~c.1ts
30-~;J. OU t .. 1 ((, (1P'/Fr?5118S) I ~.; I December 7, 1999
*99 ocr 13 P3 :13 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Sirs:
As a member ofUCS I am writing to state my support of the critical need for limiting the working hours of maintenance workers and operators in Nuclear Power Plants. In addition rules protecting whistle blowers against harassment are sensible and should be clearly established Rejecting these rules entails needless risks .
- Thank you.
Si~ly, i _
~ ,/4 ~~ ----
Paul J. Deutschman 1514 Misty Cloud Place Santa Rosa, CA 95409 2CYXJ
ua.EAR REGULA1 OH Y '--'***** FU.EMAKN:lS &AOJUOICATIONS S
~~~ OF THE SECRETAR Of THE COMMtSSION
~ment Statistics J ;J./7/i1c, I
oor:KrTED IS* 30 .. /e,~ { G'IFR517ES)
*99 OEC 13 p3:14 POB 8774 I t Penacook, NH 03303AD, 12(1/99 Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary:
I am writing to you about safety in nuclear power plants. As a psychologist, I am keenly aware of the effects on performance of inadequate sleep. There are many good studies which show that human performance deteriorates when individuals have not managed to get enough sleep. Such studies demonstrate, for example, that many auto accidents and fatalities are caused by fatigue. Current regulations to protect the public from nuclear accidents caused by tired and overworked employees are not sufficiently stringent. I therefore urge you to support Proposed Rule #1, which will mandate monitoring of fatigue levels equivalent to monitoring of substance use. In addition, I urge you to implement Proposed Rule #2, which mandates training on employee protection to "whistle blowers" by plant supervisors, managers and directors. If line staff fear they will lose their jobs or be otherwise punished for mentioning safety problems, then the public is in danger. Please accept this measure .
- Thanks for you attention.
Sincerely,
'EAM~
Laura Magzis, Ph.D.
Ll UlA ORY l-v ~ ADJUD iTIO S 9 TH SECRETARY COMMISSIO
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AU PAM3~ .:2. (l#'IFRS7785) 176 Clark Rd. Litchfield, CT 06759 *99 OG' 13 P3 :13 December 6, 1999 orr* Secretary of the Commission I I U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission AD Washington D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Secretary of the Commission:
It has come to my attention that the NRC will reach decisions on two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense against a nuclear accident. This is welcome news since we are all aware of the potential a nuclear power plant has to hurt thousands of people and to cause long lasting damage to the environment.
- I urge you to support both rules to ensure that this first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination.
My understanding is that these rules are essential to prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance and to prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down. It is also essential that workers do not fear speaking up about potential safety problems and that supervisors, managers and directors cannot use "ignorance of the law" as a shield for the illegal actions. The Federal government imposes working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilot to protect the public from fatigued workers. Isn't it time for the Federal government to impose working hour limits on employees at nuclear power plants that can be enforced whether plants are running or not. We, the public, depend on you for protection from potentially deadly nuclear accidents .
- Thank you for your attention.
J~ ' 1
~edaed by card *. - - - -
30-~~ {t,l/fRS'77f5) December 6th, 1999 Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-000 l
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am writing to urge you to support both proposed rules that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are alert and free of fear of illegal discrimination. These two rules are essential to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear p lant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems.
- Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions.
- Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed ru les for everyone' s safety. Sincere~ f o I
3D- fa2. r I December 6th, 1999 ("'f FR517SS)
*oo rr , IJ P3 :12 Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
/' l
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am writing to urge you to support both proposed ru les that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are a lert and free of fear of illegal discrimination .
- These two rules are essential to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear p lant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing , inspecting, and testing safety equipmen t when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems.
- Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions.
- Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed rules for everyone's safety. Sincerely,
f.R 3o~";z. I
- December 6th, 1999 ('-1./j:R :r11a-s-)
*oo [lr, 1*
J P:.12 Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 I ,
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am writing to urge you to support both proposed rules that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are alert a nd free of fear of illegal discrimination .
- These two rules are essential to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear p lant workers to remain silent about safety problems.
- Prevent supervisors, ma nagers, and d irectors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions.
- Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed ru les for everyone's
- safety.
Sincerely,
3o-lP2 [ I ( &'l~R5'7795) December 6th, 1999 Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 I
Dear Sirs/Madam,
/ /
I am writing to urge ~ ypport both proposed rules that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are alert and free of fear of illega l discrimination. These two rules are essential to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems.
- Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions.
- Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed rules for everyone's safety. J<('\7 0ru£ ~~ \ ~ ~lJ, (\\ N )S'c{ O]
30-(.,,~ December 6th, 1999 ( (p l/PR51785) Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 A
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am writing to urge you to support both proposed rules that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are alert and free of fear of illegal discrimination .
- These two rules a re essentia l to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear p lant workers to remain silent abou t safety problems.
- Preven t supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance o f the law" as a shield for their illegal actions.
- Protect the public and the environmen t from a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed rules for everyone 's
- safety.
Sincerely,
3D-~;1. L December 6th, 1999 (~'IFRS7785)
*99 nrr 1J p ~ : 11 Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-000 l h,
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am writing to urge you to support both proposed rules that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are alert and free of fear of illegal discrimination .
- These two rules are essential to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems.
- Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions.
- Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed rules for everyone's safety.
~~~
Perley Paap-Crabb 4336 Colfax Ave. S Minneapolis, MN 55409
GULAtv fH:..i~~lS ICA,.I R C:
( 30-ts:, :J.. I December 6th, 1999 (1pt/~R57785)
*oo nr
., j p? *1
-
- I Secretary of The Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sirs/Madam,
I am writing to urge you to support both proposed rules that will ensure nuclear power plant workers are alert and free of fear of illegal discrimination .
- These two rules are essential to:
- Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance.
- Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down.
- Prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems.
- Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using 11 ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal a c tions.
- Protect the public and the environment fro m a nuclear power accident.
Again, I am urging you to support the proposed rules for everyone 's
- safety.
~
Victoria Kalkirtz 3731 Park Ave. South #4 Minneapolis, MN 55407
DOCKET NUMBER OOC ** l E PETITION RULE PAM 36-b:l. U(;\JC
',}I ,T' I,
Jon & Beth Davidson P.O. Box 8822 (IPL/FR S-71KS) Incline village, Nevada 89452-882?. December 1, 1989 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Gentlemen: Please protect your fellow Aniericans ---- by :mplernenting the following two rules: (1 )limit the employee worl-<ing hours at Nuclear Plants and thus guard against worker fatigue and (2) protect *rork~rs who conscienticusly raise safety concerns from harassment, int:midation and firing. The Union of Cor.cerneci Scientists prese;its a well reasoned case for these rules and sl1ouid be heard ir, this rnati.er. Tile Ametican public relies on the diligence of your Commission iu apply cG1 eful precautianary oversight to the :,uclear industry. cc: Ur.lon of Conce.rr.ed SGientists
'20e')(J JAN f 3 fffl
~ by
U.S. NUCLEAR ......................... ~10
'AFF COMMJSSION
OuCr-.E T*.O DOCKET NUMBER t i, ' )
) '
PETITION AUL RM 3o - ~z, (,'IF~ 5"178S)
'99 DEC 13 A9 :24 4 Dogwood Trail o,
I, Kinnelo~ NJ 07405 AO,. December 9, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingto~ DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I understand that In the next few months, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will reach decisions on two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense. These two rules are essential to:
- 1. Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance;
- 2. Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down;
- 3. Prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems;
- 4. Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions;
- 5. Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
- From Karen Silkwood in 1974 to George Galatis in 1996, there is a long history of nuclear workers stepping forward to raise safety concerns. Their efforts forced repairs to broken safety equipment at several nuclear power plants and closings of others.
The NRC's regulations should fully protect nuclear workers, the public and the environment.
~by
I TAF
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 3 o -~ , i ( IP'IFl{S7785) OOC'E E Wolfgang Benz US C 63 Cummings Circle West Orange, NJ 07052 email: wbenz1632@aol.com *99 Er 13 A9 :24 December 7, 1999 I I Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: Proposed rules on working hours limit and employee protection training
Dear Secretary:
I would like to urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support both proposed rules. There are Federal limits on working hours for truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. Several studies have confirmed the common sense expectation that tired people are more likely to make mistakes. The potential for a devastating disaster caused by human error in a nuclear power plant certainly is larger than the damage a truck driver might cause. So it is reasonable to protect the workers, and thereby the public, against excessive overtime. Such a rule must apply to all personnel at all times. The second rule deals indirectly with the protection of whistleblowers. There are presently Commission rules protecting such employees, but these rules are used in a half-hearted manner. I find it unbelievable that the Commission does not act *against individuals breaking these rules because they do not know about them. Where is 'ignorance of the law' a valid defense? No court will accept "I didn't see the posted speed limit". By mandating that all supervisory personnel be trained on employee protection regulation you will ensure that potential whistleblowers feel safe to actually call attention to problems. Past experience is ample proof that such public warnings are needed. The overall safety record of nuclear power plants is not bad. But the potential harm of an accident is enormous. Therefore stringent safety measures are absolutely necessary. Workers constitute the first line of defense against such mishaps. Therefore, in my opinion, the proposed rules are eminently reasonable. Sincerely yours, w~i~ Wolfgang Benz JAN 1 3 lffl
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlt:>SION RUI.BWONGS&ADJUOICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFlHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMl$10N D:lcament S"1tistics p 1~1s11, CopleaRaaai _ _ _ _ _ / -- Add'l~Raplattieed _ _ _ _ SpeclmCllllll~L------
John T. & Charlotte L. Morris 93 Nathan Lane Plymouth, MA 02360-6835 OOCt', 1 I0
! lP r '
FAX 508-743-9456 508-743-4684 Email jmorr@ca ecod.l'let DOCKET NUMBER *99 [C 13 A9 :24 PETITION RULE PAM 3 o-l:. .2.. 07 December 1999 ( fD f./,C~S778S) OI . I~ - AD~ Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
I retired just two years ago and my wife and I moved to Plymouth, MA. We were made aware of the proximity of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant soon after arriving. Being within the zone which would be affected by any release of radiation from the plant, we are most interested in its continued safe operation. We have learned about two proposed rules for safer plant operation which the commission is studying: # 1 establishes limits on employee working hours at any plant and # 2 provides for required training of management and supervisory personnel with respect to protecting employees from retribution by such personnel when the employee reports a problem. Considering the history of nuclear plant accidents, both inside and outside of the United States, it seems to us that these two rules should have been in effect long ago. If they have not, we feel strongly that their adoption is necessary. We urge the commission to put both rules into effect at the earliest possible moment. Sincerely yours
~ ~~
John T. Morris
~nowte(tladby
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl~SION FUEMAIICN36 &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF c=~~ OFlHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMIS.910N Docusnent8tBttstics 1~/7, - I
/9 2
DOCKET NUMBER PEii llON RULE PRM 3 o--" :2. Tbt./F~S1785) DAVID MEL PAUL I ThebestofSweden... inEnglish *99 oe 13 IA9 :24 4912 "W" Street NW , Washington DC 20007 USA voice 202/337-2575 fax 202/333-3 r4L 1 email <<davidmelpaul@earthlink.net>> f December 6, 1999 AD 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission In re: Proposed Rules published in Federal Register 1555 Rockville Pike October 27, 1999 and December 1, 1999 Rockville, MD for Limits on Nuclear Workers Overtime and for Whistleblower Protection
Dear Sirs:
It was with deep concern that I learned that your rules limiting the overtime of workers at nuclear plants only apply when the plants are running. The fatigue of such workers is a potential cause of mistakes that are an even greater threat to public safety than any mistake that could be made by, for example, the crew who maintain jet aircraft. Several hundred people died in the crash that resulted from the recent Value Jet negligence, but the lives of millions and the desolation of huge areas for a millennium to come are at risk when an over-tired nuclear worker makes a mistake, and such mistakes are as much a threat when, for example, refueling closed nuclear plants as when such a plant is in operation. Therefore I strongly urge you to accept the proposed rule establishing limits on all employee working hours, and specifically forbidding excessive overtime, with substantial penalties against plant owners for violations. I was equally concerned to learn that, in distinction from all other legal proceedings, "ignorance of the law" is a sufficient defense against NRC's current regulations meant to protect those nuclear workers who step forward to raise safety concerns from harassment and intimidation. Thus no action can be taken against individuals harassing and intimidating such "whistleblowers" unless the NRC can prove that these individuals knew their actions were illegal. The remedy for this is to make training in employee protection regulations an absolute requirement for all nuclear industry supervisors, managers and directors. It will then be unnecessary to accept ignorance of the regulations as any excuse, and the enforcement of these vital regulations and the vital protection of those brave persons who call attention to deficiencies in nuclear operations will be enforced with vigor. I urge you to institute a requirement that all these persons be trained in the rights of all employees to blow the whistle on safety threats. You know that the penalties for American society are simply too huge for laxity in nuclear plant op~ation to be tolerated. These newly proposed rules close gaps in the enforcement of nuclear safety, and I hope you will swiftly accept and enforce them .. Sincer~ e ~ -.,__ U,Dd JA 13 by
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULA I UH y l.,UIVIIYlh.,...,, .... RULE AKINGS & AOJUDICATIO SSTAF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO Docllnelrt Statistics J:J / 7
!,?
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 30- &. :i. DOCKETED 2556 WellingtonLt3t. PC ( t, 'I!=~ 5"7?85'} Evanston, IL 60201 December** 19 (r 13 A : 9 23 Secretary of the Commission Od. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission FL Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 ADJL,1,
Dear Sir:
I am writing to encourage the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to support both the working hour limits and the employee protection training regulations that have been proposed. These rules are as follows: .
*Proposed rule #1-To establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants.
- Proposed rule #2 - To establish limits on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors.
The most important reason is to protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power accident. This, obviously, will affect all of us, and therefore we should be working together to avoid such a calamity. Because so many accidents are a result of human error, preventing employee fatigue is of utmost importance. This pertains to not only the running to the but also to the repairing, inspecting and testing of the plants safety equipment whether nuclear power plants are running or shut down. Workers should not be put in a situation where they fear speaking up about problems they see occurring at the plant. They have first hand knowledge of of safety problems, and should be given every encouragement to report any problems regarding wear and tear, malfunctions, etc. Unfortunately, profit motives can cause problems of worker fatigue and safety issues to be overlooked. Environmental concerns should outweigh any profit motive because the consequences of a nuclear power plant accident can be disasterous. There are literally hunderds of these plants. It will take the utmost viligilance to insure that NONE of these plants has a problem. The best way to insure that these plants remain safe is to make sure that EVERYONE works together on safety issues. Supporting these proposed rules are a step in the right direction. And ignorance of the law should be no excuse for safety violations. Sincerely, Carol Kurz
'JA 13 2000
~ by card----
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMlt>SlUN RULEftWQNGS&ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFlffE SECRETARY OFTHECOMMfSSION DocuRlant Statistics p _ 0$ Jtl/ 1/99 . Cq&Rllcaod I Adcft ~------
DOCKETN 30-fD:t. or Kfl
*rr D
( (,r/,CRS-778~ Ralph Gunderman 138 Millard Ave. C Sleepy Hollow, NY l 0591-1413 December 6, 1999 AL Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
- I am writing to urge adoption of the two new rules being proposed to establish limits on hours worked by nuclear plant workers and to train managers in the rights of employees to report on problems.
The safety record of America's Nuclear Power industry, measured by the number of catastrophic accidents, has been admirable. But we cannot take it for granted. The two proposed rules would help assure that we avoid dangerous
- accidents, and make the industry even safer, by lessening the threat of fatigued workers making mistakes and by assuring that workers be supported in their efforts to report any oversight or malfeasance.
We urge the Commission to adopt these rules . Z.ooJ
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA I U RULEMAKINGS&ADJUO JI OFFICE OF THE SECR~ 0 THE COMMIS~I
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AUU: 3 o - '- :2... { r,'IFl? S778s) 5625 Aubrey Terrace Downers Grove, IL Gm 16EC 13 A9 :24 December 6, 1999 0 11 , Secretary of the Commission 1*1 AD_, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
We urge the NRC to support the rules proposed to: #1 - establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, and #2 - provide training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors. The above proposed rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using " ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
Workers must be free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. Si~ -~ Warren J. H~~ WP-f
~ee- f f ~
Joyce Holbrook Zl)tJll AN I3
DOCKET NUMBER DOCKETED PETITION AU PAM 3 o - {:, 2- USNRC (~ 'I~R s17a~)
*99 DEC 13 A9 :2 4 11805 Gregers~li5 r~~t. r Potomac, Md . Af];})S:54 t I=-
December 6, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr . Secretary:
I would like to raise my small voice to urge you to support the currently proposed rules to (1) ensure that nuclear plant workers are prevented from working excessively long hours that could lead to worker fatigue , and (2) require training of supervisors and managers in nuclear plants on empwee protection regulations relating to reporting safety concerns. I believe these rules are needed to assure that adequate safeguards against a nuclear accident are in place . Thank you for considering my view . Sincerely ,
~//Jt_//!dL..<
Donald McNellis, M. D. Jft. 11 by
- IFI I M I& ,r Pl-*
' CLEAR REGULATOR, COMM! -
- U ,
AI.BMKINCiS &ADJUDICATI SSTAFF lHE SECRETARY vvmm,aalON
3183 Wayside Plaza #109 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (1 r December 6, 1999 00
- l, ( I ,
I I US, *- , DOCKET NUMBER Secretary of the Commi~sion pE1TI1ON RULE 30--ts,,t. *99 DEC 13 A9 '.23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [~t/FR51785) Washington, DC 20555-0001 or.:
Dear Sir:
The following are formal comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission supporting the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999 regarding training for supervisors, managers, and directors related to employee protection regulations NRC regulations supposedly protect nuclear workers from ras sment and intimidation. When these regulations e violated, I gather that the NRC can take actions agains t both the worker's employer and also against the responsible individual, including banning them from the nuclear industry. However, in practice after determining who has harassed and intimidated a nuclear worker for raising a safety concern, I gather that the NRC mostly limits its sanctions to the company alone, and in most cases takes no legal action against the individuals doing the illegal acts. By claiming to be ignorant of the employee protection regulations, nuclear power plant supervisors and managers have been able to fire workers who raise safety concerns. Thi s serves to effectively silence all other workers. rule requiring supervisors, managers, and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee protection regulations would eliminate this "ignorance of the law" P.xcuse. It is simple and obvious. When people are personally responsible, I suggest that we will see much less harassment and intimidation, and therefore safer nuclear power plants, which is to the benefit of everyone. Thank you very much.
~}If~
Carol Sydney Marshall JA I 3 by
(J.S. NUCLEAA At:
- rWt:MANMil:> &
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM '3~-le,:J-(t,'IFH,1:10~) OOC,..MF CED 746 Glen Oaks Rd. U Thousand Oaks, CA. 91360 December 5, 1999 .99 :z O[r. 13 A9 4 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Or-1
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing to ask you to support the two proposed rules regarding establishing limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants and for training of supervisors, managers, and directors on employee protection regulations. Safety should be the primary consideration in the operation of a nuclear power plant. It has been demonstrated that fatigued workers are more likely to make mistakes than rested, more alert workers are. Documented studies have shown that being awake for 17 hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%. Current NRC regulations prohibit workers with a BAC greater than 0.04% from nuclear power plants. Current guidelines limiting workers to 16 hours a day and 72 hours a week applies only to a very narrow group of workers (control room operators and key maintenance personnel). These guidelines should also apply to safety inspectors, engineers and other plant workers not covered by these guidelines. There should be a complete overhaul in the way employees with safety concerns are treated. No employee should feel threatened or be fearful about management retaliation for merely expressing their concerns with respect to safety issues. Current NRC regulations to protect these workers from harassment and intimidation are inadequate. To address this, there needs to be training and re-orientation of all management employees with respect to these issues so that "ignorance of the law cannot be an excuse. The NRC should impose harsh sanctions on the managers and the companies who have broken the employee protection regulations. The NRC needs to remember that one of its main objectives is to keep nuclear power plants as safe as possible. A nuclear "accident" is unacceptable with all the industry has learned over the past four decades. Workers who are rested and who do not have fear of illegal discrimination will be able to do their jobs in a careful and safe manner. Passing these two rules will insure an added degree of safety for the public and the environment. Sincerely, Dave Dolnick
- 2-ooli JAN I 3
..-.,___, by' card 00 111111111111 ....~
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl~SION RIUlB~NGS &ADJUDICATI SSTAFF n:Rr.s:QF"fHESECRETA Y OFTHE SS
DOCKE=T NUMBER oar r r. Kipp Davies PEm O AUL 30-6~ 180 SE 13th Street ( lot/FR 57785) Pompano Beach, Fl. 33060 *99 DEC 13 A9 :24 Secretary of the Commission 0 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 4 December 1999
Dear Secretary of the Commission,
I am writing to encourage you to support rules making our nuclear plants safer.
- These include setting and enforcing guidelines for working hour limits and employee protection training. These two rules are vital in order to:
*prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance
*prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down
*prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems
*prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions
*protect the public and the environment from a nuclear plant accident.
Please give the implementation of these ntles utmost priority in your immediate agenda. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincer~ly, _ dff!:P Sac/ZL_,
,, Kipp Davies Zoou
DOCKET NUMBER DOC ~< E 0 us PETITION RULE P 3 o - ~ .2 [h'IFR 5178,V
*99 Off 13 A :24 December 4, 1999 0 11 Safety of the Commission h ADJ US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
It has been brought to my attention that the NRC will be reaching a decision on two proposed rulings that are designed to help make workers at nuclear power plants effective as a first line of defense against a nuclear accident.
- I strongly urge the Commission to approve the two proposed rulings that will help workers be as free from fatigue as possible, and to avoid fear of being discriminated against in the workplace if they speak out.
As you know nuclear accidents can have far reaching effects to the health and well being of all plants and animals on planet earth. I applaud your efforts to make the nuclear power plants as safe as possible, and I urge you to approve the two proposed rulings which will help minimize human error, and/or the hiding of factual information about the safety of any one nuclear power plant. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this letter. Sincerely, I
~\~
Nancy zard 30 Spring Terrace Greenfield, MA 01301
'2-oou JA I 3
IJ.S.NUCLEARREGULAT0Hl 1.,v1 11 RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF FACE OFTHE SECRETA v OF THE COMMISSI0 Docu1:ne1nt Statisf ___I~ I __,/ b '1 '1
§m;taj '
¥
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AU n 30- b,2, (tt,'IFR 6178.i) 214 Patricia Dr. North Syracuse, NY 13213 December 4, 1999 *99 0[" 13 A9 :23 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555-0001 AD. . ,.
Dear Secretary:
It is my understanding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will reach decisions on two proposed rules in the near future. The first rule has to do with employee fatigue due to excessive overtime, which can degrade human performance and contribute to nuclear accidents. The second rule is in regard to training on employee
- protection regulations for management employees. This proposal would protect nuclear "whistleblowers" against harassment, intimidation or being fired, where ignorance of the regulations is used by management as an excuse.
To prevent worker fatigue, strict regulations on overtime requirements, whether the plant is operating or shut down for maintenance, are necessary to assure safe and proper operation and maintenance of equipment in nuclear plants. Studies have shown that being awake for 17 hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol level of0.05%, yet NRC regulations ban workers with blood alcohol levels greater than 0.04%. The Federal government imposes working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. Is not the operation of a nuclear plant even more critical to public safety? Regarding the protection of "whistleblowers," who call attention to unsafe conditions in nuclear plants, the NRC needs to institute a mandatory policy where all supervisors, managers and directors are trained in the regulations on protection of employees against discrimination. Safety concerns raised by whistleblowers led to the wise but premature closure of the Yankee Rowe and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants. I respectfully urge you to support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. Sincerely: zuoJ JU 13
UCLEAA HE:uULAI UtiY IJUIVIMl.:>vlv nuu=-'\.Ll-.uS &AOJUOICATI SSTAFF OFFICEOFMSECRETARY THE COMMISSIO
2,ooJ J4 / 3
stmark Date_ / ~J Coples Received__ I
'I 'I
103 Gainsborough St. , #404 Boston, MA 02115-4239 3 December, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is to urge your support for the currently proposed rules #'s 1 and 2. I feel that these rules are essential to ensure our safety from nuclear accidents. All nuclear accidents that have occurred to date have been, at least in part, the result of human ~ror. A large body of research shows that fatigue has markedly adverse effects on job performance ~ o r e marked than the effects of alcohol levels which NRC regulations ban in power plants! Although the guidelines you introduced in 1982 limit worker hours, they only apply specifically to control room operators and key maintenance personnel, and even for this insufficiently inclusive group, the guidelines are not enforceable. Moreover, you recently determined that the guidelines apply only when a nuclear power plant is actually running. Since plants often require 12 to 16-hour workdays for weeks at a time during refueling outages, this means that critical maintenance is being performed by crews suffering from sleep deprivation. Do you really believe that work with large amounts of highly radioactive, fissionable nuclear fuel requires less alertness and capacity for prompt and appropriate response than driving a truck? The Federal government imposes strict working hour limits on truck drivers! I urge your support for similar limits for nuclear power plant employees, and for strict enforcement of these limits during refueling and maintenance, as well as when the plant is running. Proposed rule #2 is critical to ensure that the nuclear industry does not retaliate against ployees who attempt to remedy unsafe practices. Although you imposed fines of $80,000 to
$110,000 for harassment or intimidation of workers who raised safety concerns on four nuclear power plants in the past year, no sanctions have been taken against the individuals responsible for breaking the employee protection regulations. The NRC has argued that ignorance of the regulations on the part of the individuals responsible for breaking the regulations makes it impossible to impose sanctions against them. As a shutdown costs the plant considerably more PER DAY than a fine, there is clearly a strong incentive to the industry to discourage whistle blowers. In order to protect the whistle blowers who protect us all from the potentially disastrous effects of corner-cutting by the nuclear industry, this unusual argument for circumventing the regulations must be abrogated.
Proposed Rule #2, which requires that supervisors, managers and directors in the nuclear industry be trained to familiarize them with the employee protection regulations would eliminate the "ignorance of the law argument. I urge you to support this essential new rule. Sincerely yours, Barbara C. Sorkin by
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMl::iSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date / ~ b ,_/ C, a....;9_ __ I
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE RM o.. "~ December 2, 1999 b'IFR5-J7Bs)
'99 er. 13 A9 :24 Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: proposed rules for staffing nuclear power plants To Whom It May Concern:
Please let it be known my support of the proposed rules to ensure that workers will be free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. The two newly proposed rules are essential in preventing nuclear power plant accidents resulting from fatigued workers with impaired performance due to inadequate rest. Additionally, the proposed new rules allow workers to speak up if concerned about safety problems, without fear of management reprisals, leading to a safer and communicative environment, where all benefit, including the general public. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
- Bart Ziegler, PhD, Toxicology PO 232, Del Mar, CA 92014 "200u JAi 1 3
- I /,
,. * ., 1' t, .,
~ . . ' *.~-* 11 .' *' J,
. , 1. *
*:,**. ~ ~ . <..
.11,,,
)
,, ., , 1 ...
. ,:* ,J. ,.
I I ! '; ,,.t *: ji. I" I Ml~ 1( SSTAF y 10
DOCKET NUMBER December 6, 1999 PEllTION RULE PAM 30 -ts,~ (IP /:RS11es) 0 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
*99 ocr -s P 4 :17 To the Secretary:
Oi I am writing to express my support for the proposed rules Ii itii;ig the working hours of nuclear power plant staff, and protecting "whistleblowers" thr~ugh the proper training of supervisors and management. I am also deeply concerned about recent reports of understaffing and overwork. I think we should have developed safe and clean power sources by now, and we could have if we had decent leadership. The government also could have done something by now to convince American architects to design more responsible structures, and to stop the typical American energy glutton fr:om wasting so much. Had anyone done these things, we would need no nuclear plants whatsoever. ut since we are stuck with the damned things, the least you could do is be extremely strict about anything which impedes safety strive to prevent another disaster until those plants can be decommissioned. The environment is threatened by both the idiocy of nuclear power and the waste it generates, as by the conventional plants which kill our forests and heat up the globe. I'd hate to be in your shoes if there is another disaster. ennif:~e~ 10061 Bennington Drive Cincinnati, OH 45241
~owtedged by card _ o_rc_2_1 eeet=1ss.
s ._
f J\l-hahm1 J\l-lsl*111 People living in the \ est and throughout the world Beginner's Introduction should not allow then *elves to be ignorant about Islam and Muslims. F example, there arc six million Muslims living n the United States out of Islam was not born in the 7Lh century /\. . Rather, 1.2 billion in the world. Only 18% of Muslims live it is the same religion that God reveal through in the Arab world. De ographers say that Islam is His messengers (peace be upon them
- to every the fastest growing reli ion in the U.S. (and the people. Islam sometimes seems stra ge to world) due to high bin! rate, immigration, and high non-Muslims because it is a religio which impacts conversion rate. By the 1car 2000, Islam is every part of life, from eating an sleeping to predicted to be the sec d largest religion in working and playing. It is not 01 y a persona.I America ifit is not alrc dy, surpassing Judaism, religion, but also a social one.
Mormonism, Jehovah's "itncss, and other religions. Muslims seek to live in accor ancc with God's laws. Herc arc some things y u can do with regard to By doing so, they strive to u* tai n nearness to God_ your Muslim neighbor students, employees, and and victory over temporary rials and temptations m coworkers that would e appreciated: this world. All aspects of ti *ir practice including Respect their religi us convictions by allowing prayer, fa,;ting, charity, an pilgrimage arc intended to help meet this goal. J\.lt ough strict by secular them to pray, dress_ fast, and socially interact standards, Islam is not an scctic religion. Islam according to their liefs. requires its followers to e active participants in Be sensitive about ietary constraints, their communities. particularly when i comes to alcohol and pork. Feel free to ask qu~stions! Muslims believe that fi d is One, indivisible, and they believe in all the p phets of the Christians and Contributed by Masooma Beatty. Jews including Adam, oah, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, J b, Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon, Elia,;, Jonah, John the Baptist, and Jesus (peace be upon them). Muslims also rccogniz another prophet nan1cd Muhammad (peace be pon him and his family ), who is a direct dcsccn ant of Abraham through his first born son, Ishmael. His prophethood may be prophecied in the Bibi in several places, including Deut 18: 18 and John I : 16. The Qur'an is the holy ook of Muslims. It contains many stories that are I' *1iar to Christians and Jews. It wa,; not create by man but wa,; revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) through the Ang Gabriel at the command of God. lt contains no sc ntilic fallacies or internal contradictions. In fact, it ontains much scientific knowledge discovered by cientists only in this 3Hl::!O century. The Qur'an is an u paralleled Arabic Aij._._-3H!;:j0308~0 literary masterpiece. Funhe ore, it survives in its ::1:r1iS SNOUVOIClnl'CIYi SeNDIVW31m-J original revealed form, uniik the Torah and the OISSlrfr40~ Al:l01\fln931:1 l:IV31~nN *s*n Gospel. 1 of2 2 of2
DOCKET U BER PETITlON RU Gene Kostruba 180 Elm Court #1304 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 *99 [C -8 P4 :16 Secretary of the Commission Or l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission AD l 1 Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary,
I am writing to support passage of the proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are effective in maintaining nuclear safety:
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, to prevent employee fatigue.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors, to protect "whistleblowers".
We should be abandoning nuclear power in favor of renewable energy, but as long as we have nuclear plants, they must be 100% safe. Since~ Jz!<<-
- Gene Kostruba
U.S. UClEAR REGUlATOR C MMISSIO
- RUl.EMAKINCiS &ADJUDICATIONS S FF rn:Rt~OFMSECRETAR OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics
DOCKET NUMBER I,,. 00CKE*: ~D t PETITION AUL RM 3 o- "2.
'" IP'IFRS'1785)
*99 DEC -8 p4:17 1128 Old Marlboro Rd.
Concord, MA 01742 I J ADJl December 4, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Secretary:
A nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and cause long-lasting harm to the environment. The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the consequences of an accident. I understand that the NRC will be considernig two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense.
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors.
I urge you to support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. These two rules are essential to: - prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a O[C 2 J\cknowledged by card-----
IJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR'f ~OMMIS 10 RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ent Stati :tiCS
/~ (o &f9
nuclear power plant accident Yours sincerely,
~~~
Loui s Putterman Member, Union of Concerned Scientists Professor of Economics, Brown University
DOCKET NU BER PETITION RUL 111 River Run Greenwich, CT 06831 December 4, 1999
*99 DCC -8 P4 :18 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm* i on Washington, DC 20555-0001 r--t A0....;1J This is to urge you to support proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination.
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants:
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and di rectors:
- These two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and di rectors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Yours truly Linda Quinet
December 3, 1999 Secretary of the Commission MB U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PETITION RUL 30- " :z_ Washington, DC 20555-0001 R5178 5)
*99 O[r, -8 P4 :15
Dear Sir:
The following are formal comments to the Nuclear Regul a 6 ry Commission supporting the proposed rule published in t h,.,D '11 ,
* ;,tL u*
Federal Register on October 27, 1999 regarding training for supervisors, managers, and directors related to employee protection regulations NRC regulations supposedly protect nuclear workers from harassment and intimidation. When these regulations are violated, I gather that the NRC can take actions against both the worker's employer and also against the responsible individual, including banning them from the nuclear industry . . However, in practice after determining who has harassed and intimidated a nuclear worker for raising a safety concern, I gather that the NRC mostly limits its sanctions to the company alone, and in most cases takes no legal action against the individuals doing the illegal acts. By claiming to be ignorant of the employee protection regulations, nuclear power plant supervisors and managers have been able to fire workers who raise safety concerns. This serves to effectively silence all other workers. A rule requiring supervisors, managers, and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee protection regulations would eliminate this "ignorance of the law" excuse. It is simple and obvious. When people are personally responsible, I suggest that we will see much less harassment and intimidation, and therefore safer nuclear power plants, which is to the benefit of everyone. Thank you very much. Sincerely, David F. Gassman 389 Belmont #111 Oakland CA 94610 H:510-835-2334 W:415-973-6051 Faxes: 415-973-7215, 6437 2 1 1999 by card.-----~
u 1~UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO ULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OFTffE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docf11'18t'1t~lltiNt P stmark Date P 3 ?i7 C pies A I dI Copies Rep,oouced - - -/* - - - ecial istribution_ _ _ _ _ __
~.
J~~t;; ~ ~/1//!,C 1i5~ ~ ~ - J i
~;;t;f tu ~ ( ~ ~ ( J , ~ ~ -
M ~ ~ ~ u/4_ = j,,, fa,-- ,&,:a, ~ ~
~i~ ~ -
f~ ~~ffv.~ ~'7 ~o::f
~~~~r~~~ ~ ~~- ~/1/tG ~ # d ~ ~~~ - ~~~~~~~~ ~r~,~~~-
fk,J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
/:ff~~~~o-,/~ ~
~ it;;, ~ ~ ~ r I<~ itfu_, ~ J,1
~ :L ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ fa--
~ ~ ~ wvl~ ~ ,* ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ r ~ ~ / , o.-r~
~ 6-\,~~ * :!!.~~fur-.~
~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~~ ~ / . ft ~~)~*~**pr~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ k~crtfu__~)l~CA-~~~ ~~-~~~~~
2- ~ h_~ ~ 1~ µ ~ .1
~ 1~ 1~~~ ~~
~~ ~ o . J ~ ~ J{;~ ~~ f.-- ~ ~ - M.;, ~ f,. 1tcu ? ~ ~ti~~~~~~
~~~~~~Id~~
~ tlM ~ 01,~.
)v...~J~ /11/i-c.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ u d~ o ~ - ~ : t
~4 ~. H j ~ i ~ ~ I I V } ~~~ ~ ~ (f ~ u. .S ¥ ~ - ~ ~~k o...~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ - I f;t;L ,,..,,;;,,._ - . I ~M ~
- tztf;I ~ ~-~~o;t~~r
~-~ W,~. f ~ ~ 4JJ/ite ~ ~~~~~oJ~
~ ~ ~ -lb,,.._, i,l., ~ iv r
~-
~ (1~
p~~tL-<<.t~~~-lfd-
~ ~ ~ ~ (ii-~.~ ~ ~:>.--) ~~~~ ~ ; b ; ~/ ~d, ~ .
i~. \ . 108 Lockwood Rd. ~ rJ Syracuse, NY 13214 ~ ~ /Z-/3/~1
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 30-~2 7f#'IF-R 51785) December 2, 1999 l 'QQ oci- -s r., s, :19
Dear Secretary of the Commission,
I am writing to urge you to support the proposed rules on working h9-'J! .limits and employee protection training. The working hour limits rule is needed to ensure that fatigued, and therefore impaired, workers will not be responsible for repairing, inspecting, or testing safety equipment at nuclear power plants. As seen in both recent and historic examples, worker error can be responsible for accidents at nuclear power plants. Many studies have shown that a person's ability to perform difficult tasks suffers when they are tired. Implementing this rule will help reduce the risk of accidents at nuclear power plants by reducing the likelihood that fatigued workers will be responsible for operations. In addition, the proposed rule on employee protection training for supervisors, managers, and directors is necessary to protect "whistleblowers" and, by extension, the health and safety of the general public. It is absurd that managers can currently get away with harassing and intimidating whistleblowers on the grounds that they weren't aware that such behavior was illegal. Providing specific mandatory training for management on the employee protection regulations will assure that management is aware of their employees' rights. Additionally, it will remove the "ignorance of the law" excuse. Once again, I am writing during the public comment period in support of both the proposed rules on working hour limits and employee protection training. I look forward to seeing these proposals become finalized. Sincerely, Sarah Miller Moore 712 Mulford St Evanston, IL 60202 or 2 199 f\cknowf edged by card ..... Ill II r *--
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR ~UMIVllvv
~ &ADJUOICATIO S STA OFFICE OFlltE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO~
Docume t 1N!f-M11"" Date_ / ~ /.;,. / 9 9 R - /'/ n.1U,1uuu~O _ D!mlbutlon._ __
0 p 30-(o:2. ( IP'/Ff< 5778S) 67 Village Trail Honeoye Falls, NY 14472 December 2, 1999 OEr -8 A10 :57 Secretary of the Commission 01 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 AD.'
Dear Sir,
Re: WORKING CONDITIONS AT NUCLEAR GENERATORS I am concerned about the safety of nuclear generating systems in this country and would urge you to take the following steps:
- 1. Limit the working hours of staff who are under pressure to compete with other forms of power generators.
- 2. Prevent fear of reprisal for staff at nuclear generators who see a safety problem.
It is an urgent need for the public safety that these two issues are addressed by the Commission. Sincerely, Donna Mummery DEC 2 ckn ped by cara ~-*-~~. . . .
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA I vn r vU llv.. i RV1.1J,inn1NGS &AOJUD ATIO SSTAF OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR OF THE COMMISSION OocumP.n Id-- tf(tr, I no\,IIVUIAtOU _ ~
Prof. Louis D. Smullin Dept of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT Rm 36-213, Cambridge, MA 02139 1212/99 LJL), DO NUMBER us PETITION RU Off -8 P4 :16 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 or, AC Sir: I am writing to urge the Commission to adopt the Proposed Rule #1 and the Proposed Rule #2 concerning limits of employee working hours in Nuclear Plants, and training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors. The limitation of working hours by federal regulation has been used to protect the public in the case of airline employees and of truck drivers. The consequences of fatigue- caused errors in a nuclear power plant can be enormous. Employees must feel free to report violations to the commission, for the
- protection of the public. A training course for supervisory personnel should be required to inform them of their duties and personal responsibilities in regard to such reporting and "whistle blowing".
~ 3t; - J..Jj MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE Of TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE 77 Mouochuselts Avenue CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139-4307
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSIO RUlEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS S AFF OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document tis~ I i
DOCKET NUMBER t cocceoo 0 BAYLOR
-* ~
" \
PETITION AU 3o-~.i, 001I,...~-ffJ ED r
¥1)
~ ** srJ COLLEGE OF
{ {,'ff:~57135) L, l \..,*£oucAT'°",l MEDICINE Dr. Richard Cone, MD, PhD Secretary of the Commission *99 0[~ -8 P 4 :18 Associate Professor Department of Pathology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 or Mailing address: HAM-TMC Library I 1133 M.D. Anderson Blvd. Dec.2, 1999 ADJ Houston TX 77030-2809 Ph: 1-713-799-7135 Fax: 1-713-790-7052 Re: Proposed safety rules Email: rcone@bcm.tmc.edu
Dear Secretary,
This note expresses my strong support for two proposed safety rules: limits on working hours for nuclear plant employees and training for supervisors at nuclear plants. These rules will undoubtedly improve nuclear safety, and I hope that you will embrace them. I am grateful for your role in protecting the public from unsafe practices and encourage you to continue your good work.
~~
Dr. Richard Cone
~cknowfedged by card DEC 2 1 1999
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULAfUHY vUMMl~~,o RULEMAKINGS &AOJUDICATIO\lS.. AFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Postmark Copies dd'ICo Special
DOCKET BER DO KFTi:-n J'" u PETmONRULE __....,;;..;;...~ ~ G)
*99 0[ 1 -8 A'J :49 01 AL
- hlm-ng You Every Happiness this Holiday seasori.
,/4/ZC -
p&c_y sur?f'oY+ f!-vln -,/JI v 2 -lz, at,<su-""2 trn,- /}ve,l..;;,ur {",,-,,,;e-.- f'b-.b LU'e s-/4 f,e_of b'1
/Jodu,,-,s ,fy",,_,, ~ fo -f, 9v .e " ' :fea,v- cl) /&J<-fl ci!.,(.5-c,1 "'" , ,,,, d c.,/h. , 1Jt c.,,..k 'P"' j?., " '1 1-/4 n ~
c}ts fJ11.r'-d~ {;ry
/rpl?)S c'/J qJ?J03 l'fflny Honnl 113 Mt.dlDt """01, CA 9ll003-6019
REGULA Il.Jn, FU.l:ilAIONG & 10 OF ET ('
1.JRGENT ACTION ALERT :rROM UCS
Subject:
URGENT ACTION ALERT FROM UCS Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:2 1:25 -0500 From: t!wessdman@ucsusa.org To: <UCS_LIST@ucsusa.org>
*99 DEC -8 P4 :19
***** UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS ACTION ALERT*****
TELL NRC TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FATIGUED NUCLEA..~ Of WORKERS hFRl\.ID TO VOICE SAFETY CONCERNS f A[ I THE ISSUES : A nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and call!::;e lnnq-laflt.inq harm t.o t.he environment.. The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the 3.0-'=,2 consequences of an accident. In the next few months, the Nuclenr Regulntory Commi55ion (NRC) will rench (,'/F~!:J-7785 decisions on two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense . r .Proposcd Rule ffl - Establish limits on cmployc-c I ~~rking hour5 nt nuclenr power plnnts : This rule will make the NRC guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s . Pl-tl/'5E 5VPPO'KI With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclenr power plnnt owners face pre55ure to 5lu5h operating costs , forcing plant owners to reduce 7Ht-St. Tr.10 staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours . Numerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. f~ 0P~to rvit5 Humnn performnnce problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite this evidence , the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency ' s overtime guideline5 .
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers , and directors :
The ~econd propo~ad rule will protect nucle~r "whistleblowers " - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns . The NRC ' s fegt1lat1011s a1*e supposed to protect n1ese workers rrnrn harassment and intimidation . Unfortunately , the agcn~y ~on£ist~ntly f ails to cnfor~c these rcgulati0ns ba5ed on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don ' t ki1ow Uiat U1et;e actloh£; a:r*e lllegal . The :nile :C:-emoii~; this " ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring
' ~~clear plant owners to train supervisors and managers
~ the employee protection regulation5 .
ACTION: Please writ.e the Nuclear Reqnlat.ory Commission and tell them to support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from l.>olh fal.igue and fear of .illegal 1 of4 12/2/99 S:20 PM
I U.S. NUCLEAR REOOlATOHY (.;UMMl.>~IU ~ HUUl:MN\IM:iS&ADJUOICATIONS Ti FF OFFICE OFlllE SECRETA Y OF THE COMMISSION
DOCK TEO us ) 1202 West 31st Street Kearney, NE 68845-3367
*99 OE'" -7 P3 :21 Dec 4, 1999 Of AD Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET NUMBER PEIIIION RULE PAM .30-b;2..
Ladies and Gentlemen: (ro'IFRs11es) I am writing you about the proposed rules for workers in nuclear power plants. I am generally a supporter of nuclear power, but only if these plants are operated as safely as possible. Therefore I strongly urge you to (1) adopt the proposed rule for strictly limiting the hours of work of employees working to operate, maintain or inspect nuclear plants. (2) I also urge you adopt the proposed rule to protect employees who are "whistle blowers". we cannot afford to have anything less than optimum performance of nuclear workers, and these two rules would help insure that. Thank you tor your consideration. Yours very truly,
/3/4£,/J~
Peter w. Blickensderter DEC 2 D1999
~cknowledged by can:J *Ml MIIIIIIII J I -GIi
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO MISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFRCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docunent Sl!asllics Postmark /;;..1~/ 99 Coples Racelwd _ _ _'____./-,-::-_ _ Add'l~Raplo(k:ed _ __,__ _ SpeclalDlsblOOllor:1_ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER PETl11ON RULE R 3-D--'1~ (<,'IFR5178S) () Ms. M. R. Niswander
\ 622 Barbera Pl. -JI- Davis, C A 95616-0409
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RUlEMAKJNGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postma iesR
'ICo cial Distribution._ _ _ _ __
ooer -,ro 11 C.
- r December 4, 1999 Secretmy ofthe Commission DO lJ BER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PE11T1O RULE PR *99 Off - 7 P3 :12 Washington, DC 20555-0001 <,,'f FR. 178S)
Subject:
TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FATIGUED NUCLEAR v WORKERS AFRAID TO VOICE SAFETY CONCERNS AD Sirs: I have just heard from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) concerning fatigued nuclear workers and workers who are afraid to report safety conditions at nuclear power plants. They are concerned about this and so am I In order to eliminate these concerns the UCS has proposed two rules:
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants
- This rule will make the NRC guard against human performance degradation :from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s.With the onset of electric utility restructl.Ding ,nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slashoperating costs, forcing plant
- owners to reduce staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours.
Nmnerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs hmnan performance. Human performance problems contributed to the rmclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despitethis evidence, the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency's overtimeguidelines.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors: (my addition: with specific emphasis that harrasing, itimidating, and firing employees who raise concerns is illegal and "ignorance of 1he law is not an excuse.)
The second proposed rule will protect rmclear whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRC's regulations are supposed to protect these workers :&om harassment and intimidation. Unforbmately, the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't lmow that these actions are illegal. The rule removes this "ignorance ofthe law excuse by requiringnuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations. My impression ofthe NRC is that, in the past, it has consistently put the welfare of the power plant ahead of the welfare ofthe American public. I would be very pleased ifthis impression were changed by appropriate actions ofthe NRC. One such action is the adoption of the two rules proposed by the UCS. Please note that the UCS is NOT some fly-by-night pressure organization, but is made up of reputable scientists who are rightfully concerned about the welfare of the USA, and the world for that matter. They deserve to be heard with more justification than many other organizations. Wilbur R. DeHart Phone (734) 475-8308~ ~ fl~4 f-- 6969 Madden Rd e-mail: l i l n w i l@j u no . com Dexter, MI 48130 cknowl ed by card------ D C 2 O1 99
UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RU EMAKINGS&ADJUDfCATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFM SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark D /,;il.¥. 9 ~ Coples ReceMld _ __ ' _ _I _,__ Add'I . uced _ - -/-- Special *
- n._ _ - - ~
Garv Matthews 29 Sbadylawn Drive ori. Madison, NJ 07940-1011 I ' U.S. Phone 973-966-1924 Fax 973-966-5412
*99 0[: -7 P 3 :1 l Or December 04, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET NUMBER Washington, DC 20555-0001 P O AU P 30-re,;2.
( ~ t/FR5178s)
Dear Secretary:
- This letter is to support the two new proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense against accidents at nuclear plants is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. These two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident
- Sincerely,
~ 'lut1~------
Gary Matthews by
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtSSION ULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS St FF OFFICE OFM SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO DaCUln Statistics F stmarkDate ____,___,__ __
e, pie MK! _ _ __,___ __ t-1d I Copies Aoor<>duced _ L - - Special Oistrfbtrn n.____ _ __
J)ec, s 19 71 j n r s 0
.,,*"'~~
t Mr. Larry Little (('°" 3701 Dial Dr.
~* Stone Mountain, GA 30083
IJ.S. NUCLEAR REGUlATO C I 10 RUlEMAKINGS & UOICATIONS STA FACE O THE SECRETARY OF THE ISSION DocllnGnt Statistics P Reooh~ /~1-~ 9~9_ _ s
DOCKET NUMBER PEIIIION RULE PRM 3D-~.:>. December 3, 1999 ( ,t1FR!::>f7BS) Secretary of the Commission "99 OF -7 A9 *27 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 OF , f L, AD~l Greetings: Other than getting rid of that Frankenstein monster called nuclear energy, the single most important job you have is to make sure that the citizens are protected and that the people running the machines are
- qualified, well-trained, and never fatigued.
I have before me a report issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists concerning proposed work-place safety rules at nuclear power plants. These new and stricter rules concerning employee working hours, improved training, and protection of "whistle-blowers" should be promulgated and implemented immediately. I urge you to take these necessary steps. There is no higher duty than to insure that our people are protected against any sort of danger from nuclear "incidents." Sincerely, d (J JI Gerald and Rag n ~ naugh 'ti, 1/di,ca u Oc...-, P. 0. Box 24 (560 Oak St.) Ashland, OR 97520; 541-482-6543; fax: 541-488-8216; email: gjcav@jeffnet.org cc: ucs DEC 2 D1899_
~knowledged by card ................" w..;. W'ff
LJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI AULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date J:i/;;1/99 Copies Received ~ Add1I Copies Reproduced =t__ SpeclalDf . . n.__ _ _ __
DOCKET UMBER PETITIO RULE PRM 3o- ~ 2. (~'lt:RS7785) D0tr'.f f[0 4648 CHERRYURLE RUENUE
"-* ..)* ...
I Ir** i.J *1 ('* SOQUEL, CR 95873 (831)476-8225 December 3, 1999 01 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
I write in affirmation of the proposed Rules Change for workers in nuclear plants. The first is to provide rules for safeguard against fatigue. I have recently discovered a striking example of the problems with sleep deprivation and fatigue. We have an interchange in Santa Cruz County which is thought to be unusually dangerous. In my review of accidents recorded by the California Highway Patrol at the site, I found that over half of the accidents occurred in the hours from 12 noon to six PM, one-quarter of the day. This could not be accounted for by direction of travel nor by rush hours. We were fortunate that none of these accidents were fatal. The need for bus drivers to rest is legally recognized; the need for workers in nuclear power plants are as crucial as a public health measure. The Exxon Valdez disaster would have been prevented by observance of such restrictions. The other rule is about "whistle-blowers" which is a problem of long-standing. I have no personal anecdotes but have followed this going back to Whistle-Blowing at BART, which had local implications to us in the Bay Area. Thank you very much . Sincerely, a~dW~~~ EC 2 o199a_ f\cknowledged by card *11 II 5 I MM --
* ' , l* ," !.
** *
- I I I c.J.S. NUCLEAR REG\JLAlOR'l COMMISSI RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docunent Statistics
@Ober
MarkM Giese 1520 Bryn Mawr Ave. Racine, WI 53403 USA
*99 Off - 7 PJ :15 m.mk@juno.com 12/03/99 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 30- ~ ~
Dear Commission Secretary:
( fl'/ f R57 785) Please support both proposed rules (below) to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by woikers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. These two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant woiker performance - prevent fatigued woikers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant woikers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants: This rule will make the NRC guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s. With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce staffing levels. The remaining staff members must woik longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. Human t,erformance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite this evidence, the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency's overtime guidelines. Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors: The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant woikers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRCs regulations are supposed to protect these woikers from harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately, the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't know that these actions are illegal. The rule removes this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations. Thank you. Sincerely, *
,y----
c MarkMGiese MG/mg DEC 2 O19
-"cknowlectged by carCI .................,__ _.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGUI.ATOHY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS OFFICE OFllfE SECRETA V OFTHE I 10 11..AJLU,11. .111 Statistics
!'9/~f_99 __
DOC ET NUMBER DCCKE:.1EO 1_' 0 P[ PETITlON RULE PR 3 o - (o:L , . Elizabeth Weiss l 6/P/( 5178s) 6022 Dimm Way Richmond, CA 94805 r-December 2, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Mr. Secretary,
I am writing to urge you to adopt the two new rules proposed to help ensure safety at nuclear power plants. I am strongly in favor of both proposals, to limit the length of shifts and to protect employees from retaliatory harassment. For the safety of nuclear workers and of all Americans, please adopt those rules. Thank you,
~ JA,'7/ Vt/eJ,~
- Elizabeth Weiss
Ll S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR) COMMISSI N RULEMAKINGS &AOJUOtCATIONS S FF OFFICE OF THE SECREli ' OFTHE ISSI N tistics
/:;)/3 ft 9-1 I~
-- ~ -
D/S'Q~tlil,1
James L. Ray, Th.D. 1666 Leerk.amp Drive Franklin, IN 46131 DOCKET MBER .99 0[ 0 _ 7 p 3 :l 8 PETITION RULE M .So -l:, :2. ( f.'l/:~!5'77B£} o* r ADc. 1 December 2, 1999 Secretary of the Co~ion U.S. Nuclear Regulatocy Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Mr Secretary:
I am writing The Co~on to voice my concern about fatigue among the workers at nuclear power plants. I understand that, at times, they are pushed into longer hours than is consistent with safety. Fatigued workers cannot do a good job of insuring the public's safety. A nuclear plant catastrophe would be far more costly to the whole countcy than the savings in wages justifies. There is no price we can put on the public's safety. This also bears on national security and prestige. In addition to all the deaths and contamination, it would be an embarrassment to*the entire United States nation to have a power plant accident. I understand there is consideration at the Commission of enacting regulations that would prevent the long employee hours that cause fatigue and lowered effectiveness that leads to this kind of accident-with all its consequences. So-I want to see that regulation approved. Also, there is a concern about whistleblowers being fired because they blow the whistle on unsafe practices in nuclear plants. The problem seems to be that managers and supervisors can plead ignorance that such firings are illegal. So they can fire with impunity with the "ignorance of the law" excuse at hand A regulation is coming up for consideration that would remove this excuse by requiring training of managers and supervisors about the law that fotbids firing whistleblowers. I am asking the Co~on to enact that regulation. DEC ,, O1999
~cknowlec!Aed by
tl.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS 101 RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OFllfE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION nt StatisticS
DOCKET NUMBER DOCK IL I
- rr:o P O AUL 30-,.2.
{16'1Fl(S778S} Secretary of the Commission *99 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 2 December 99 VI
Dear Mr. or Ms. Secretary:
I am writing as a citizen very concerned about nuclear safety to as you to support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense at nuclear reactors is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. The two proposed rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident .
Please use your authority to ensure that these proposed rules become law. Thank you. President Art/Culture/Nature Sanders* Young 29 Indian CrMk 911 Dorset Street South Burlington. VT 05403 DEC 999
u.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI ~ ULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS ST. r* OFFICEOFTHESECRETAAV FTHE COMMISSIO entStatil tic HGCE~ _ 1_~/3h~q- __ I _~_
~Y-~
Peter M. Robbins 295 State St. Brooklyn, NY 11021 D DOCKET NUMBER *99 OE - 7 p 3 :11 PET1T10N RULE PRM 3o-,:2., IP 'F. 7?85) 0 December 2, 1999 AD Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary:
- I am writing to you to comment on the two proposed new rules which would ensure that the first line of defense at nuclear powerplants is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discriminatio n. I believe these ru les will help:
prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or sh ut down prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using 11 ignorance of the law11 as a sh iel d for their illegal actions protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident
- Requesting that you adopt these proposed rules and thanking you for you attention to this matter, I remain:
Very truly yours, Peter Robbins 99
~cknowledged by card *-~~:: ...,,....
. . NUCLEAR REGUI.Aru Yt;OMMl~,v RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS ST. FF OFFICE OF"FHE SECRETAR OF THE COMMISSION OocllTlent Statistics Postmark Date J;i /,;i 99 Coples R8CEMCJ r I AMI Cqj8s R"Ooc!uced Speclalllml!tJutlorlt__ _ __
- oor *
,._ r J 1317 McGee Avenue Berkeley, CA 94703-1005 December 2, 1999
*99 O[r -7 P::; :oo Secretary of the Commission U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission AL Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Secretary of the Commission:
DOCKET U BEA PETITION AUL PA 30.... ~2, I am writing in support of two new proposed rules. f, 51115) A nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and cause long-lasting harm to the environment.
- The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the consequences of an accident.
Please enter these comments into the record to support: Proposed Rule #1 - To establish limits on employee working *hours at nuclear power plants to prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance. Proposed Rule #2 - To provide training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors: this will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. These rules are necessary in order to:
- prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down; , - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems; OEC a
I UCL AR REGULATORY COMMIS
- 0 PJLEMAKINGS &AOJUO CATIONS St FF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COM ISSIO Document St *
- 1 p I ~ ;_-:i* '1 9 C - - - - /..- - -
A s
- prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions; - protect the public and the envirQnment from a nuclear power plant accident.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, . ~ C . C
- cc: Senator Barbara Boxer Senator Dianne Feinstein The Honorable Barbara Lee
DOCKET NUMBER OO CKr-.. .0
'-, . n PETITION RULE PRM 30- G:, ~
l I\ . [(pt/ FR57785)
*99 DCC - 7 P3 :10 1096 Mason Woods Drive Atlanta, GA 30329 OF December 2, 1999
~ \ }'
ADJ\.., Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am writing in support of proposed changes in NRC rules that would affect workers in
- nuclear power plants.
As I understand it, these rules would set limits on the number of hours persons could work, thereby helping to insure that fatigue does impair their performance; and prevent supervisors from claiming ignorance of the law as a defense when they improperly discipline so-called "whistle-blowers," i.e. workers who conscientiously report safety problems they encounter on the job. Both proposed rule changes would help protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power-plant accident, which could have devastating effects, as you know. Please enact them. Thank you.
- Sincerely, John Bugge, Ph.D.
MC 2 0 1999
~cknowled{led by card ******~.*..*****.....- - #
- t
US. NUCLEAR REGULATUHY \,;UMM1::,::,11..11J RULEMAKINGS&AOJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICEOFTHESECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date /~ p /9 9 Cqa:.,.-~~=produc*:ed /
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RUL p M3o-&:>~ ( "1'/FR 5 1185)
*99 DCC -7 P3 :03 Of U.S. Nuclear Commission Washington D.C.
Dear Secretary of the Commission:
I wish to request you to take all steps to prevent workers from repairing, inspecting and testing safety equipment, whether nuclear plants are operating or shut-down. I wish you to prevent fatigue from impairing workers perfonnance in keeping the plants running. I request that you provide support and protection to workers in Reporting safety violations. I make these requests in the interest for the safety of all ofus. Sincerely yours, Ludell Deutscher 730 West I St. Benicia, Ca. 94510
~knowledged by card ...............
EC 2 D1699.___
U. -.iuvLl::AR REGULATORY COMMISSION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Sta~ Postmark Oate _ L~ /?-,.__,___ Copies RBCBJVeo _ _ _ _ _ __ Add'! SpecfalDmtdoutiOll_ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION AUL RM 3o-' 12/1/99 (t.</ FR!i1185) *99 0[" - 7 P .3 :o 2 ( )! Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Proposed regulations for employees in Nuclear Power Generation Please consider the safety of the employees and all the citizens of the world and adopt the proposed regulation to limit working hours. This will minimize fatigue and tend to prevent accidents. Please adopt the training plan that will inform supervisors, managers and directors of their responsibilities regarding whistle blowers. To plead ignorance of their responsibility must be 711 countered. Whistle blowers should be protected, not harassed or intimidated. These are issues of basic safety for the public and should be implemented as soon ~ James E. Giesen 1600 Lori Ct q~
,/
Dubuque, IA 52001 1 nrc 2 91,
~cknowled ed by cara ,... ...............
lJ. . NUCLEAR Ht:L. ... RULE ,AK NGS &ADJilDICATI FFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
DOCKET NUMBER PETIT10N RU PAM 3o-{:, :L
, FJ!.5778S) 7930 Oxford Rd. *90
- on -? PJ :01 Niwot, CO 80503 Dec. 1, 1999 0,
Dear Nuclear Regulator,
I AC I am writing in support of two proposed rule changes in hopes they will promote the safety of nuclear power plants. One rule sets appropriate limits on workers' hours, to guard against stress and fatigue from overwork. The other gives appropriate protection to employee "whistleblowers", who constitute an important line of defense against unsafe practices. Both of these changes are sensible and should allow for the safest possible operation of these plants. Please support them.
- fiw)ffeJ Peter Wernick D C2 o1999
L . ,-iUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS , RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date J;i./4/ CoplesR8C13'V8Cll _ _*_I _ _ __ 9 'i' Add'I Repoduced _ _ _ __ Spt'CfaJ~b8llA_ _ _ _ __
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CO LL EGE OF PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS i..l D EP A R TMEN T O F ANATOM Y AN D C ELL B I O L OGY T *99 ocr -7 P2 :59 PETITION AUL 30-,:z., (','IF~5118s) o December 1, 1999 AD. . Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
I am writing with reference to NRC ' s regulations regarding the safety of workers and the safety of the general public and the environment. It is essential that you establish strict limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. In addition, stringent training on employee protection should be required for supervisors, managers, and directors. This is as an effort to prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance when repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment. This is important both when nuclear power plants are operating and when they are in the process of being shut down. I am sure that you better aware of the problems associated with the operation of nuclear facilities than I am, but I felt that I should add my encouragement to you in facilitating your handling of these problems. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Joan W. Witkin, PhD Research Scientist DE 2 O1
~owtedged by cara .................... _,,_ ..
630 West 168th Street ew York, Y 10032 212-305-3451 Fa 212-305-3970
....,v~~,a,. l-. ..,."'_ , ... 1 ...,u,1; ....,'"'
tJLEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS ~~t ~ f-OFr'CE OF THi: SEC RETA or THE COMMISSIO"J FJ~tmark Date _}__ Coples Received__ _/_
~/EJ 99 t 1d'I Copies Reprodur,o.rJ _ ~
oecial Distribution.__ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER
~ ED December 4, 1999 PETITION RULE PRM 3 o - ' ~
/pL/y"~577$5) C Commissioners *99 [: -6 P2 :so c/ o Commission Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission orF,,r Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 AD*
RE: Rule #1 Limiting Working Hours for Nuclear Workers Rule #2 Ensuring Protection of N uclear Whistleblowers Greetings: It is no more reassuring knmving my children's health could hinge upon the judgment of an exhausted emergency room doctor finishing the final minutes of a 36 hour shift than it is knowing their well-being depends upon fatigued nuclear employees working,long shifts considered illegal in other sectors. Citizens have little peace of mind knowing that nuclear employees routinely work 17 hour shifts and that they may have to make precise, split-second decisions during a crisis arising when they have diminished mental acuity due to fatigue. Confidence in the nuclear industry is further eroded by the Commission's implicit condoning of whistle blower persecution by supervisors and managers. Would you feel secure if the American Medical Association
- ignored reports of significant medical misconduct by your family physician for which supervisors intimidated or dismissed the qualified medical staff raising such safety concerns?
Surely you each rely on colleagues m other regulatory agencies to enact rules affording you, as members of the public, the greatest possible margin of safety. It is time you did the same for the public regarding the nuclear industry by ratifying Proposed Rules #1 and #2. ciiifE~ P.O. Box 12 Alna, ME 04535 DEC 2 0 199 ckno edged by card-*--..----
.s. NUCLEAR Rtl:IUl.111 VI 1 ..,_ .. ,
1ULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS SI OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMI SION Do entSteti ics I istmark Date / .;i@/__q 7 l oples Received _ _ __,_~ Add'I es Reproduced _ _,_ Speelal lslribution._ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 3o-<r,~ 1/f/?5175) ooc,, ~, Ee December 3, 1999 U::- '* C Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Mr. Secretary; Orr t; I urge you to support both NRC proposed rules that ensure the first ~ f defense is staffed by wprkers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. This is essential to Prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance; Prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, or testing safety equipment when plants are operating or down; Prevent fear from causing workers to remain silent about safety problems; Prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions; Protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident. Keep protecting the Karen Silkwoods and George Galatis of the world. They have been instrumental in protecting the public Sincerely,
~ l>-M~
P.O. Box602 Claverack, New York 12513.
. UCLEAP REGULATORY vvivi1v11..,
LEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STA OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO Doc, t1 ~,
- f stmarkOa _ !c:i/1/99 pl Received / x.....
'I Copies Reproduced i Special Distribution,_ _ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUMBER Paula K. Ivey, Ph.D. 1706 Bartoncliff Dr. PETtTION RULE PRM 30- &:,;2.. (f#t/FR517gs) Austin, TX 78704
*99 or_r -6 p 2 ::6 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OF Washington, DC 20555-0001 r AO December 3, 1999
Dear Secretary:
I am writing out of concern for public safety from nuclear power plant mishaps. As a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists and a public health professional, I feel strongly about the lax efforts on the part of the NRC to guard against staff fatigue and protection for employee "whistleblowers". It is in the interest of nuclear power plant staff, the public, and the NRC to choose a risk averse strategy for nuclear safety. Faced with increased competition, nuclear power plant owners continue to stretch worker hours and reduce staff. Overworked employees are presently allowed to repair, inspect and test safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down. Numerous studies have found that fatigue impairs human performance, and it is well known *that human performance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. At present, the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency's overtime guidelines. In addition to establishing limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants, the NRC should actively protect plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. At present, the NRC appears more a handmaiden of nuclear industry than a protector of "whistleblowers" who risk their livelihood to suffer fear, harassment and intimidation. Nuclear plant owners should be required to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations, and employers or employees should not be allowed to use
- "ignorance of the law" as a shield for illegal action. At present, the NRC has done little more than slap the hand of the nuclear power industry for serious violations of safety and employee protection. Individual power plant owners, supervisors and management should be consistently held personally accountable for violations, as occasional fines are little deterrent to industry abuses.
It is in the best interest of the NRC to strongly protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident It is critically important to be vigilant against safety risks. The horror of an accident can be avoided by a stronger NRC working in the interests of the public rather than of industry.
'J
'- O\9 9 cknowledged by card ~ ........~*****------
* .JvL.U'\ I i::.\..IVLJ'\I I.,
EMAKINGS & A UDICATIONS SI OFFICE OFT ESECRETARY OFTH: -~ISSION Docwnent S ~ * "s
,tmark Oat~_ I:;/_3 r t*,plesRaeetved _ _ _/
/c;
- I
;' f
** t Reproduced _ L/
DOCKET BER PETITION RULE PAM 3D-b:2. DOC ETED
' ~ !!ai ~</FRS11~ _...,. 11S~ R~G~ - - - - - - -
Ch-M:. u_s Sa £,'rr.t.,.... _.,,~~-"~,~ ,4::>t- A3
.r f- ;(,_ aul(LrL, U.1!f~ ~ - ~ lAt'!A0:!. ~c:_~ Sc,,,--evr.t,'.siJ - ( : ~ o _ _ ~~~ T _m-te_, R> ~'f -f-"--<_ n,uwt6,<<'
hAw uJor {c <-tl.. b'f ~ L - f } f ) ~ ~~~( ~ t"e gu.tnna,---+/-~ ik> .fr;.,,,- -P ltu,JC_S upu- ~' ~ --""~ --
~ ,r P--l_n~ - - L L . p:;::o c..,,ll' r<r'1-uvf:i-_,._...__ _ _ __
s-fn,v,a,L, 0ti---:h.-vo-r. f "tfi..<<,~o- ~ -- ~ - -
~ - -µ.,:_.- Ur V.V"'-- ~ IA.{JPO
_ J:d: ;.s es£&t-h~ --lo fk~vt.AX fa_~~worlc..tA-rvu. h,,v.. t- ~~ ..¥),!U_."s._~S I Q. VI J +/-:Le., _ C\&-~ ,~&if-) 12 S°"j e,,,.o,c..J:. - hAl ,,_ L,VV!l4.. .s '-'--tU.A L.l- e U<.- ~ ___.!~ ., ,.J- ../JJ...__,. /,.-~ d. - - - - i'A~,. _ £tJy:..+-fu.r ~ k u pQJ...Jcr pl~--~
~ /XJJJ._Y\~r..s 111 (,( st_ l't,O t __,_,_ a.,.1.1.oi.-V '-'7\r----L.<Jl--1,1'\,0 ~ ~ _!c>
~ - - -~ '---
+~ L4J-' r<-jAr r:lt~0 ---£:wJp~ ~ ~ ~ _ v v f . ~ , ~ b l - t
!) f-¥¥loye.G.J ~ h.o_ ~~ ei-A-17 --Gov,-UKJL..S° ~\.h o,.J_ _ _ _ _ __
q rtd.-l'JtU.n~ ~ 1 .$ >r.a._lJ__ .J.::u.._ f"LIJ-<-~ ~~~ 4. bo 4 _ "--- y;t.s-11n--J- ~ ~ ~ f}-¥Dj~_Q _ ~ ~ "::...:. ""....___ _ _ _ __..._--"i:'r......,,.~-- - 1JEC 2 0 1991
Michel A Lombard 912 Taft *Place New Or1eans, LA 70119-3828 Dec :-TED USA JS HC DOCKET NUMBER *99 D[r -6 P3 :23 December 03, 1999 PETITION RULE PAM 3o- t;;,;2.. (~t/FRS-1115) OH r Secretary of the Commission ACJ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir,
To Protect Americans from fatigued Nuclear workers afraid to voice safety concerns, I support the two following proposed rules:
- Proposed Rule # I - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants:
This rule will make the NRC guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and aJcohol use since the mid 1980s. With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. Human performance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite this evidence, the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency's overtime guidelines.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors:
The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise satety concerns. The NRC's regulations are supposed to protect these workers from har1U1sment and intimidation. Unfortunately, the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't know that these actions are illegal. The mle removes this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations. Sincerely,
\
Michel A Lombard UEC ? o,Ill
~cknowledged by card *** I f *--
{ ft tJ.5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RlJl.BMl(INS8&ADJUDICATlONS STAFF
<lflCl~'ftESECfETARY QFIUOOMMl&l L:J. hL9'i
- II fllpO(',Jced - - -
OCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PAM 3 o-~.2. OOL t .f [J
'1l/FR57785)
*99 Off -6 PJ :24 0
2015 Western Ave., Suite 101 South Bend, lt;(4.6629 (219) 232-7905 December 3, 1999 Secreta:ry of the Conunission U.S. Nuclear Regulato:ry Conunission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir or Madame:
On behalf of the over 300,00 members of the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, I am writing in support of the proposed rules to l) establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants even if the plant is shut down for maintenance or refueling; and 2) require training of management personnel regarding the rights of employees who point out safety violations and/or express concerns about safety. In regard to the proposed rule limiting the amount of time worked in a single shift or week: With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face great pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce staffing levels. As a result, remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. In fact, some studies have shown that being awake for 17 hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05%. Regulation implemented by the NRC in the 1980s ban workers with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.04% from nuclear power plants. Allowing fatigued workers to work during outages because the plants are shut down at the time defies conunon sense. ALL of the
**.._..A t * *
,:; ,~I .,. ~
I-1/4~.~~.... REGUlAroRV COMMISSION RUlJEMAKJNCffl&ADJUOICATIONSSTAF OFFICE OF H SECREt Y 0 THf OMMISSIO Al'lf t tJsfics IJ/3/q,
2. maintenance on jet airliners is performed when the planes are on the ground, yet the FAA would never permit this maintenance to be performed by alcohol-impaired workers. The Federal government imposes working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. The Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana believes it is time for the Federal government to impose working hour limits on employees at nuclear power plants that can be enforced whether plants are running or not. Regarding the proposed rule requiring training on employee protection regulations for supervisors, managers, and directors: This rule is needed to protect nuclear plant workers who
- conscientiously raise safety concerns. Current NRC regulations are supposed to protect these workers from harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately managers who fire and/or discriminate against whistleblowers often escape responsibility for their actions by claiming they didn't know their actions were illegal.
The proposed rule would remove this "ignorance of the law" excuse. In short, these two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing
- safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating .QI: shut down
- prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana
35 The Garrison - Rte. 108 Dover, NH 03820 2 December 1999 Or Secretary of the Commission DOCKET BER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Au..;l
- Washington, DC 2055S:-000 l PETITIO RULE PR 3o-- "a,
(~t/FR.511Y6) To Whom It May Concern: It is my understanding that we are currently in the public comment period for two proposed rules, which I urge you to support and enforce*. While, In the past, the NRC has acted more as the Nuclear Industry Protection Commission, than fulfilling Its mandate to
- regulate the Industry and protect workers and consumers from the great dangers posed by nuclear plants that are operated without regard for anything but profit.
Such *outrages Include allowing owners to demand long overtime shifts of their operators, despite the fact 17 hours of wakefulness has the same effect on the body as a blood alcohol level of .05%. Your own regulations prohibit a blood alcohol level of .04%. It Is as If you permit and encourage drunkenness on the job. (Perhaps this should not be sur-prising~since it Is well known hefe - In Seabrook Station's backya"rd - that when that plant was being built, workers were returning from lunch drunk.) This allowance of exces-sive overtime must be stopped, for the safefy of all. True, you have guidelines that llmlt workers to 16 hours per day and 72 hours per week. But these guidelines only speclfically apply to control room ope*rators and key maintenance personnel. Managers, safety In-
- spectors, engineers, and other plant workers are not explicitly covered by these guide-lines. Moreover, you seem to lack the ability to enforce these limits because they-are "Just guidelines;" and guidelines that apply only when the plant Is running. Plant owners force workers to put In 12 to 16 hour days for weeks on end during refueling. ALL of the mainte-nance on jet airliners is performed when the planes are on the ground. But the FM would not permit this maintenance to be performed by drunken maintenance crews. Federal law places working hour limlts on safety related jobs, like truck driver and airline pilot to protect the public -from fatigued workers. Employees at nuclear power plants should have the same enforceable limlts, whether plants are running or not.
The second rule pertains to whlstleblowers; who In the absence of effective over-sight from your commission, and from owners whose incentives often run directly counter over.. .
~knwl gd
to safe1y concerns; are the best means of determining when a plant Is operating outside the bou-nds of safety. For over twen1y years and In mdny, many Instances; these -brave souls have alerted the public, and you, to grave danger. On the basis of their reports, actions have been taken which hds Included the closing of some plants. Yet they are themselves In danger of retribution from the plant owners and operators who see their profits threatened.-Whlle regulations are In place, they are woefully Inadequate. You will, perhaps, sanction the company In an amount equal to a third to a half a day's profit -- hardly-an Incentive at all. Yet those Individuals who Intimidate and worse are lef off scot free. Even those limited sanctions I spoke of may not be Imposed If the operator claims not to have known about It - and Ji.Jst how easy Is It to lie about such things? especlally when there Is money at stake? The new rule would remove this Ignorance claim, and you should support and enforce It. After all, Ignorance of the law Is no excuse anywhere else In our system. Personal accountablll1y will go a long way to clean up this mess! Sincerely,
- C. Alexander Cohen lJ S NUCLEAfi RE:llULAI UH~ l,U lb 0~
RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics F- JS mark Oate _ _....._,,__,_~ - - - Copies RaeelVed _ _ _ __ Add'I Coples Reproduced _ _ _ __ s . .
to safefy concerns; are the best means of determining when a plant Is operating outside the bouhds of safefy. For over twenfy years and In mdny, many Instances; these-brave
**souls have alerted the public, and you, to grave danger. On the basis of their reports, actions have been taken which ha*s Included the closing of some plants. Yet, they are themselves In danger of retribution from the plant owners and operators who see their profits threatened.-Whlle regulations are In place, they are woefully Inadequate. You wlll, perhaps, sanction the company In an amount equal to a third to a half a day's profit-hardly an Incentive at all. Yet those lndlvlduals who Intimidate and worse are let' off scot free. Even those limited sanctions I spoke of may not be Imposed If the operator claims not to have known about It - and Just how easy Is It to lie about such thlhgs? especially when there Is money at stake? The new rule would remove this Ignorance claim, and you should support and enforce It. After all, Ignorance of the law Is no excuse anywhere else
- In our system. Personal accountablllfy will go a long way to clean up !his messl Sincerely, v :,'.£;£Lc::;;?L C. Alexander Cohen
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE ~RM 30-h_:Z. Tr,'fF~ s11ss) December 2, 1999 *99 0[~ -6 P 3 :l 7 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0, Washington, DC 20555-0001 ADJl
Dear Secretary:
Please support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense against a nuclear disaster is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. The following two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident These two rules are:
Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants: This rule will make the NRC guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s. With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. Human performance problems contributed to the nuclE?ar accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite this evidence, the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency's overtime guidelines .
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors: The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRC's regulations are supposed to protect these workers from harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately, the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't know that these actions are illegal. The rule removes this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations.
Thank you for your time and for helping to ensure that the world we have is free from destruction. Sincerely, Ph~ l,~ 1207 Lauderdale Drive Apt. A Richmond, VA 23233-5046 EC 2 o19 9
.f\cknowledged by card - - * - - - - -
u.~. NUCLEAR Rl::lllJU\t "1 v,.M11 ... RULEMAKINGS & ADJUDICATIONS ST OFF C O HE SECRETARY OFT E vOMMISSIO D r.1 e ' i stmarkDat Cupi ReceiVed _;~/~/99 ./ dd'I Copies Roproduced--L-_,;_..- pecia\ Distribution,_ _ _ _ _ __
DOCKET B PETITION RULE PRM 3o - b:2. .,
<ol/t=R '!;7785,1 or, r 1 Barbara Curtis l' 647-A Nutley Drive Monroe Twp., NJ 08831 Q,
Secretaiy of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission AO. Washington, DC 20555-0001 December 2, 1999
Dear Secretary,
There have been accidents to nuclear power plants in the past that have
- endangered the public. I urge the Nuclear Regulatoiy Commission to protect Americans from fatigued workers and those afraid to voice safety concerns. Please enforce these rules:
- 1. Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. Pressure to cut costs must not force plant owners to reduce staffing levels or force workers to increase working hours.
- 2. Protect "Whistleblowers" from harassment and intimidation from supervisors and managers.
Hopefully these measures will increase safety at nuclear plants in the United States. Thank you for your consideration.
- Yours truly,
~~~
.\cknowledged by card *-
UlJ\TOR COMMI ADJUDICATI TAF TH C 0 Docu F Date c .,1es Received _ _ _-:. dd'I Coples Reproduced_ Special Distribution._ _ _ _ _ _ ~,
DOlr l D DOCKET ER r I , PETITION RULE PR 30- ~~ [i;i/FR511SS) _ 99 302 Nedellec Drive, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663-5135 Tel: (20tY791-5014 Fax: (201) 791-1901 P." E-mail: Eceardley@aol.com December 2, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Commissioner:
I am urgently concerned about the safety of the millions of Americans who live near nuclear plants. A nuclear power plant accident threatens the environment, the humans and animals, and the genetic make up of all living things near it. It has come to my attention that nuclear plants in competition with other power sources are cutting costs at the risk of our lives. Staffs have been cut, and remaining wWorkers and managers are working up to, and sometimes more than 72 hours a week, jeopardizing their alertness. I understand that being awake for 17 hours has the same effect as .05% alcohol in the blood. That's not good enough for nuclear workers or the rest of us. There are regulations for airline pilots, truck drivers, and train engineers. We need these regulations for nuclear plant workers too. I have also learned that supervisors intimidate, harrass and fire workers who try to change their working conditions. This is illegal, but the supervisors plead "ignorant of the law" and the company is merely fined $110,000. This is a cheap price for them to pay, so they continue to do it. Please protect us all by:
- 1. Insisting that nuclear plant owners educate their supervisors in the law about employees. Then hold the plant owners responsible for any harrassing, intimidation or illegal firing of nuclear workers who "blow the whistle" on their difficult and dangerous working conditions.
(And, plain and simple, stop the firing of nuclear plant workers who raise safety issues.)
- 2. Reduce the allowed working hours and conditions to insure that full alertness is available to employees.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my opinion. Sincerely, ~ ElizabethC~ ... tl C 2 1999 cknowledged by card ____..-.-,
.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICJ, J FU.EMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics
~ O l 1 t Date Cq&Recelved :i,/.:i/..9 _ / _____tf__ ... _ Add'! Copies Reproduced_ Special Distribution._ _ _ __ __
DOCKET NUMBER pET1110N RULE PRM .3 o - ~ :l.- 7<P~FP,51785) DO C't
- f D I,) 1; Dr. Walter Grant German-English Translations 24 Holton Street, Boston, MA 021 34, USJ\:)
PHONE: (617) 254-1118 FAX: (617) 254-2112 E-MAIL: wjgrant@com ntric.net December 2, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
I am writing concerning proposals soon to be acted on by the NRC, designed to protect Americans from misoperation by fatigued nuclear workers and from the intimidation of such workers to voice safety concerns. A nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and cause long-lasting harm to the environment. The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the consequences of an accident. In the next few months, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will reach decisions on two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are
- an effective line of defense.
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants: This rule will make the NRC guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s. With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have concluded that ~ * ' ~ * "
- fatigue impairs human performance. Human performance problems co ntributed
- to¥ the.., f , * ~*
nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite this evidence, the NRC has no regulations against excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when ,* 1 plant owners abuse the agency's overtime guidelines.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors: The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistle, blowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRC's 2 199 9
\cknowledged by card - -- - - -
u.S. NUClEAR REGUlAfOH y vVl~l~II IU..EMMGNG6 & ~ st OFACE ~"AE SECRETARY
~TIE COMMl88ION Doatmn81!1111tfcs k?/4/99 Add'I SpaiiJla&llblb,.___ _ __ _
regulations are supposed to protect these workers from harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately, the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistle blowers don't know that these actions are illegal. The rule removes this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and manager son the employee protection regulations. These two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a
- shield for their illegal actions
- protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident A report released in March 1999 on the nuclear industry's overtime problems.
documented that scientific studies have shown that being awake for 17 hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05%. This report is available on the web at http://www.tirednukes.org. Regulations implemented by the NRC in the 1980s ban workers with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.04% from nuclear power plants. The NRC introduced guidelines on working hour limits in 1982. The NRC's guidelines limit workers to 16 hours per day and 72 hours per week. But these guidelines only
- specifically apply to control room operators and key maintenance personnel. Managers, safety inspectors, engineers, and other plant workers are not explicitly covered by these NRC's guidelines. In addition, the NRC lacks the ability to force plant owners to adhere to these working hour limits - for control room operators and other workers -- because they were issued as mere guidelines.
Worse still, the NRC recently opted to consider the guidelines to apply only when a nuclear power plant is running. Thus, plant owners force workers to put in 12 and 16 hour days for weeks on end during refueling outages. The NRC allows fatigued workers during outages because the plants are shut down at the time. The NRC's logic is dumbfounding. ALL of the maintenance on jet airliners is performed when the planes are on the ground. But the FAA would not permit this maintenance to be performed by drunken maintenance crews. Further information on nuclear worker fatigue is available at www.tirednukes.org. The Federal government imposes working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. It is time for the federal government to
impose working hour limits on employees at nuclear power plants that can be enforced whether plants are running or not. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 1,1999. WHISTLE BLOWER PROTECTION: From Karen Silkwood in 1974 to George Galatis in 1996, there is a long history of nuclear workers stepping forward to raise safety concerns. Their efforts forced repairs to broken safety equipment at nuclear powerplants such as Millstone, Watts Bar, Vermont Yankee, DC Cook, Nine Mile Point, Vogtle, Palo Verde, WolfCreek, Diablo Canyon, Perry, South Texas Project, and Susquehanna. Safety concerns raised by whistleblowers led to the premature closure of the Yankee Rowe and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants. The NRC's regulations protect nuclear workers from harassment and intimidation. When these regulations are violated , the NRC can take actions against the worker's employer and also against the responsible individual(s). Unfortunately, the NRC is only doing half its job. After determining who harassed and intimidated nuclear worker for raising a safety concern, the NRC limits its sanctions to the company. In 1999 alone, the NRC imposed fines of $110,000 on the owners of the Perry and Zion nuclear plants and $80,000 fines on the owners of the Seabrook and Millstone plants. In each of these cases, and in very few of the dozens of similar cases since 1996, the NRC elected not to take sanctions against the individuals doing the illegal actions. By regulation, the NRC can take actions against individuals up to and including banning them from the nuclear industry. By practice, the NRC rarely holds individuals accountable for breaking employee protection regulations. The NRC maintains that it cannot impose sanctions against the people it determines
- have broken the employee protection regulations unless it can prove that these individuals knew that their actions were illegal. Thus, "ignorance of the law," which is not a viable defense in any other US legal proceeding, is a valid excuse in the NRC's short-sighted eyes.
By claiming to be ignorant of the employee protection regulations, nuclear power plant supervisors and managers can fire workers who raise safety concerns --and thereby silencing all surviving workers in the future -- with the implicit blessing of the NRC. If caught taking illegal action against a whistleblower, the NRC will -- at worst -- impose a
$110,000 fine on the company. Considering that each day that a nuclear power plant is shut down can cost the company $249,000 to $330,000 in lost revenue, a $110,000 fine is hardly an effective deterrent. Today, the risk/reward balance is heavily tilted towards law-breaking managers at the expense of law-abiding workers. That's nonsensical.
The NRC has been petitioned to adopt a rule requiring supervisors, managers, and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee protection regulations. This
new rule would eliminate once and for all the "ignorance of the law" excuse. In the future, the NRC would have no reason to set aside sanctions against individuals breaking the employee protection regulations.The proposed new rule was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999. Personal accountability will be far more effective in reducing harassment and intimidation against nuclear workers than the NRC's past practice of the occasional fine against companies. Sincerely, --, ~ IV~ G VvV Walter Grant
(J) DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PR 30-"~ 122 Walhalla Rd. {(,'/FR5"77'65) Columbus, Oh. 43202 December 2, 1999 *99 DEC -6 PJ :22 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
I write with regard to the proposed rules for making safer nuclear power in this country by making some basic changes in the work place. Please work for the adoption of the following rules: Rule # 1, limiting the number of hours employees may work in a week. People who have responsibility for operating nuklear plants need to be in an alert condition, so that mistakes are less likely to happen which could endanger our population and our environment. Rule #2, training on employee protection regulations for supervisors, managers, and directors to prevent fear from whistle blowing in the industry. We believe these to be essential elements of a safe nuclear industry. Thank you. Sincerely, Bonnie L. Wigen C 2 0 l99i cknowtedged by card ,..-...- ....- -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOHY UJMMlbtilO, RUlEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE OFTH SECRETARY OF THE CO ISSI
I 923 ~ (]/,,,.ck,
~,MS386t4
~(601)6.27-7.267 ""-, (601)6.27-4496 '99 Off -6 PJ :25
""1CIJl, 1 . 2 4 e e ~.~
~-.2. fj99 DOCKET NU BEA PF \Tl N RULE PAM 3D-" 2.
(lo'IFR 51785)
~Ml/,.~,
- 11,u,ktt&z,uu,,~o/,tlte~'Uded,b,,~a ~ ~ p l m d
~ - hot b,,do1-<> ~ /,e ~ once Ute~ u ~ <<&.
Slw<</d, tluue ~ /,e ~ r.uJ, a11- ~ OCCWJ; a& a 'U!&<<it,,tlte ~ o/, tkMe ~ ~ 1,e cltaw;ed fYl' Ute~~- Pleade do Ute HMi
~tluwf.
U 2 1999 cknowledaed by card ..........- ..- ~
IWJ.t:MMl!'ruS& OFTH OFTHE OM~AIS~W - Docwnent 1 11
DOCKET UMBER p TIT ULE PAM 3o - it,~ ( fl'IFR~1165) DOC/'_ T[D Secretary of the Commission J;>u. 2-., ,,,1 r, <' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'99 Er -6 P3 :25 Washington, DC 20555-0001 RE: Proposed rules for nuclear power plant workers o:
Dear Sir:
I am writing as a concerned citizen requesting that you support issuance and implementation of the proposed rules that will: 1). Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants and 2). Require training on employee protection regulations for supervisors, managers, .and directors. The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistle blowers" - the plant
- workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns.
I believe both proposed rules are necessary to ensure that the first line of defense from accidents at nuclear power plants is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. A nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and cause long-lasting harm to the environment. The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the consequences of an accident. Yours truly, C~=~ 7020 Burt St. Omaha, NE 68132 C 1 Ol 9
,cknowted~ed by card ** 04 . . _ , _ , _ __
NUClEAR REGULATORY COMMISSluN RUl.l:MAIUM:15 &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OFM SECRETARY OFTHE ISSIO Docianent s tistics
Nicholas Harmon DOC/ -TFD 53 Leroy Ave us Darien, CT 06820 December 1, 1999 *99 OG' -6 P3 :22 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on I '- Washington, DC 20555-0001 AO._, Re: two proposed rules intended to make sure DOCKET BER that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense PETITION RULE PR 3o-, ;t [IP'I f ~S178S)
Dear Sir,
I support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. I believe that these two rules are essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Thank you for your time and consideration.
With light, D 2 a1999 cknowt . ed by card ............. uu2 ....... ~
lJ.S. NUCLEAR REGULA I UHYvU1~1a. , i IU.EMAKIHG& &ADJUDICATIONS S7 . - OFACE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMISSI0~1 Document Statistics Pn***Qele ~Aawed _ __ 1~faf99 I Mn~~~ ~ ~~ 7? 11:l>
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PR 3 t>-to:L
* ( {,,'/F/<. 51185) Department of Physics gte Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3890 412-268-2740 504 Glen Arden Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15208 1 December 1999 0
Secretary of the Cgission U.S. Nuclear Regulfilory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Commisioners:
For many years I have felt that nuclear power should play some role irt our energy balance, especially with the greenhouse implications of fossil fuels. However, I have been unwilling to advocate this position because I have little confidence in the degree of training of nuclear power plant operators. With laissez-faire economics, it is just a matter of time until concern for profit will drive the safety factor too low. I am therefore encouraged to see that there are two proposed rules that will partially alleviate my concern. The rule limiting working hours and the rule protecting whistle-blowers are badly overdue. I urge you to pass them forthwith and to enforce them vigorously. I would also urge that an nuclear power workers have graduated from accredited degree programs and that they be members of an independent nuclear guild, analogous to the American Medical Association (not a union), but I understand that this issue is not on the table. I do hope you will move favorably on the two proposed rules .
- Yours sincerely,
,nFNaf 9ft rofessor of Physics and Biological Sciences Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA 412-268-2764 (Office) 412-681-0648 (FAX) nagle@andrew.cmu.edu http://bilay~r.p~ys.cmu.edu ,"1 *ot !* I ' y..y .. ' .. t '
ttnn ., C. I ' '*
DOCKET NUMBER 0[ ., r_ PETITION RULE ..30- (,,;l. ur (f#'/-FP,S1185)
*99 OEr -6 P 3 :18 Qe~mber 1, 1999
~ 17 Maple Ridge o, Ann Arbor, Ml 48103 To the Secretary of the Comm~~sion:
I strongly urge you to support both the working hour limits and the employee protection training rules that have been prqposed. Both are needed in order to reduce the possibility of nuclear ~ccidents, a frigh t ening potential of our nuclear facilities .
- Yours Sincerely, Susan B. Miller, Ph.D .
tl C 2 ,g ckf't'wledned
NUCLEAR REGULATORY GOMMIS I til}Jtt~-~--0$ &ADJUDICATIONS S1i
..,.,....,,UL:.QFTH SECRETAR THE COMMISSIO Dor stmark Date / :i_/?h 9 _ _
Coples ecelved__ Sz-
~ I R ~ --
p 10** ~ Ds
ewesselman@ucsusa.o, 05:20 PM 12/1/99, URGENT ACTION ALERT FROM UCS G) L,Q _, From: ewesselman@ucsusa.org Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:20:19 -0500 PETITION RULE PRM 3o- '1:L To: <UCS_LIST@ucsusa.org> it>t/Ff(571fl5)
Subject:
URGENT ACTION ALERT FROM UCS
*99 DE"-6 ~ Q , y '
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part Q_c_
....,.. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS ACTION ~~T __.
TELL NRC TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FATIGU ~ U~LEAR WORKERS AFRAID TO VOICE SAFETY CONCERNS '-- THE ISSUES: A nuclear power plant accident can hurt thousands of people and cause long-lasting harm to the environment. The workers at these plants are the first line of defense against such a disaster. The workers test and
~~~
inspect safety equipment and follow emergency procedures when equipment malfunctions to lessen the consequences of an accident. In the next few months, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will reach decisions on two proposed rules intended to make sure that nuclear workers are an effective line of defense.
~(_~
- Proposed Rule #1 - Establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants:
~~ +P~~
This rule will make the NRG guard against human performance degradation from fatigue just as it has done for drug and alcohol use since the mid 1980s.
~~
With the onset of electric utility restructuring, nuclear power plant owners face pressure to slash operating costs, forcing plant owners to reduce
;). ~
staffing levels. The remaining staff members must work longer and longer hours. Numerous studies have \M \, vv--~ "-- Gv concluded that fatigue impairs human performance. Human performance problems contributed to the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Despite RJ--pfv~ c~ ..... or ~-va3 this evidence, the NRG has no regulations against s,7~~~~ excessive overtime and frequently looks the other way when plant owners abuse the agency's overtime guidelines.
- Proposed Rule #2 - Training on employee protection regulations to supervisors, managers, and directors:
( 5(JJW-e_ a.d/ol,.u ~ __) The second proposed rule will protect nuclear "whistleblowers" - the plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns. The NRC's regulations are supposed to protect these workers from harassment and intimidation. Unfortunately, the agency consistently fails to enforce these regulations based on the flimsy rationale that the individuals who fire and discriminate against whistleblowers don't know that these actions are illegal. The rule removes this "ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring nuclear plant owners to train supervisors and managers on the employee protection regulations. ACTION : Please write the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and tell them to support both proposed rules to ensure that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal 2 0 1999 discrimination. Tell the NRC that these two rules are Printed for Penny Hanna <phanna@cruzio.com> 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAI UHY t;UM1V11u RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STA OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION
ewesselman@ucsusa.o, 05:20 PM 12/1/99, URGENT ACTION ALERT FROM UCS essential to:
- prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance - prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down - prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems - prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions - protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident Additional information about these proposed rules is provided at the end of this message.
TIMING: We need to act soon! The public comment period for the proposed rule on employee protection training ends January 10, 2000. The public comment period for the proposed rule on overtime ends February 14, 2000. Even if you miss these deadlines, please contact the NRC with support for these rules. HOW TO CONTACT: UCS encourages you to support both the working hour limits and the employee protection training proposed rules via formal comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Comments supporting the proposed rules can be mailed to: Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 BACKGROUND: WORKING HOURS UCS released a report in March 1999 on the nuclear industry's overtime problems. This report, which is available on the web at http://www.tirednukes.org, documented scientific studies which have shown that being awake for 17 hours has the same adverse effect on human performance as having a blood alcohol level of 0.05%. Regulation implemented by the NRC in the 1980s ban workers with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.04% from nuclear power plants. The NRC introduced guidelines on working hour limits in 1982. The NRC's guidelines limit workers to 16 hours per day and 72 hours per week. But these guidelines only specifically apply to control room operators and key maintenance personnel. Managers, safety inspectors, engineers, and other plant workers are not explicitly covered by these NRC's guidelines. In addition, the NRC lacks the ability to force plant owners to adhere to these working hour limits - for control room operators and other workers - because they were issued as mere guidelines. Printed for Pennv Hanna <phanna@cruzio.com> 2
ewesselrnan@ucsusa.o, 05:20 PM 12/1/99, URGENT ACTION ALERT FROM UC$ Worse still, the NRC recently opted to consider the guidelines to apply only when a nuclear power plant is running. Thus, plant owners force workers to put in 12 and 16 hour days for weeks on end during refueling outages. The NRC allows fatigued workers during outages because the plants are shut down at the time. The NRC's logic is dumbfounding. ALL of the maintenance on jet airliners is performed when the planes are on the ground. But the FM would not permit this maintenance to be performed by drunken maintenance crews. Further information on nuclear worker fatigue is available at www.tirednukes.org. The Federal government imposes working hour limits on truck drivers and airline pilots to protect the public from fatigued workers. UCS believes it is time for the Federal government to impose working hour limits on employees at nuclear power plants that can be enforced whether plants are running or not. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 1999. WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION From Karen Silkwood in 1974 to George Galatis in 1996, there is a long history of nuclear workers stepping forward to raise safety concerns. Their efforts forced repairs to broken safety equipment at nuclear power plants such as Millstone, Watts Bar, Vermont Yankee, D C Cook, Nine Mile Point, Vogtte, Palo Verde, Wolf Creek, Diablo Canyon, Perry, South Texas Project, and Susquehanna. Safety concerns raised by whistleblowers led to the premature closure of the Yankee Rowe and Maine Yankee nuclear power plants. The NRC's regulations protect nuclear workers from harassment and intimidation. When these regulations are violated, the NRC can take actions against the worker's employer and also against the responsible individual(s). Unfortunately, the NRC is only doing half its job. After determining who harassed and intimidated a nuclear worker for raising a safety concern, the NRC limits its sanctions to the company. In 1999 alone, the NRC imposed fines of $110,000 on the owners of the Perry and Zion nuclear plants and $80,000 fines on the owners of the Seabrook and Millstone plants. In each of these cases, and in very few of the dozens of similar cases since 1996, the NRC elected not to take sanctions against the individuals doing the illegal actions. By regulation, the NRC can take actions against individuals up to and including banning them from the nuclear industry. By practice, the NRC rarely holds individuals accountable for breaking employee protection regulations. The NRC maintains that it cannot impose sanctions against the people it determines have broken the employee protection regulations unless it can prove that these individuals knew that their actions were illegal. Thus, "ignorance of the law," which is not a viable defense in any other US legal proceeding, is a valid excuse in the NRC's short-sighted eyes. Printed for Penny Hanna <phanna@cruzio.com> 3
ewesselman@ucsusa.o, 05:20 PM 12/1/99, URGENT ACTION ALERT FROM UCS By claiming to be ignorant of the employee protection regulations, nuclear power plant supervisors and managers can fire workers who raise safety concerns - and thereby silencing all surviving workers in the future - with the implicit blessing of the NRC. If caught taking illegal action against a whistleblower, the NRC will - at worst - impose a $110,000 fine on the company. Considering that each day that a nuclear power plant is shut clown can cost the company $249,000 to $330,000 in lost revenue, a $110,000 fine is hardly an effective deterrent. Today, the risk/reward balance is heavily tilted towards law-breaking managers at the expense of law-abiding workers. That's nonsensical. UCS petitioned the NRC to adopt a rule requiring supervisors, managers, and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee protection regulations. This new rule would eliminate once and for all the "ignorance of the law" excuse. In the future, the NRC would have no reason to set aside sanctions against individuals breaking the employee protection regulations. UCS's proposed new rule was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999. UCS believes that personal accountability will be far more effective in reducing harassment and intimidation against nuclear workers than the NRC's past practice of the occasional fine against companies. For more information about nuclear safety, visit the UCS web page at http://www.ucsusa.org or contact Dave Lochbaum at (202) 332-0900 ext. 112, dlochbaum@ucsusa.org. Please let us know when you contact the NRC. This allows us to monitor how well our action alerts are working. You can send a copy of your comments via mail, fax, or e-mail to our Washington, DC office: Eric Wesselman Energy Field Coordinator Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 332-0905 fax ewesselman@ucsusa.org Thank you for taking the time to contact the NRC about this important nuclear safety issue Printed for Penny Hanna <phanna@cruzio.com> 4
DOCKET NUMBER PETITION RULE PRM 3 0 2-( 6 '1 F f< S?7~S) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSl&JF~v 10 CFR Part 30 ADJ 1 [Docket No. PRM-30-62] Employee Protection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated August 13, 1999, that was filed with the Commission by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petition was docketed by the NRC on August 18, 1999, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-30-62. The petitioner requests that the N~C amend its regulations concerning deliberate misconduct to require licensees to provide specific training to management, i.e., first line supervisors, managers, directors, and officers; on their obligations under the employee protection regulations. The petitioner believes that the amendment would prevent nuclear energy management from using "ignorance of the law" as an excuse for a violation and allow the NRC to take enforcement actions against individuals who violate the employee protection regulations.
~ 101 ,;l Ot:Jt:J DATE: Submit comments by t;75 dttys after J:lUBlisatieR in th9 Federal Register)., Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m*. Federal workdays. For a copy of the petition, write to David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail: cag@nrc.gov). The Petition and copies of comments received may be inspected and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. FOR Fl.JtffHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll Free: 1-800-368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Petitioner The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has had a nuclear safety program for over two qecades and continue to work with nuclear workers - including employees of the Nuclear 2
Regulatory Commission - who raise safety concerns. The UCS notes examples of anonymous concerns received by its organization that have led to significant improvements in safety levels, e.g., concerns that UCS forwarded to the State of Maine in December 1996 that led to the identification of faults in the safety analyses for the Maine Yankee plant. Other concerns received by UCS and presented to the NRC in January 1998 led to the discovery of serious defects in the ice condenser containment at the Donald C. Cook nuclear plant. Grounds for Interest The petitioner states that on May 14, 1996 (61 FR 24336) the NRC issued a policy statement that set forth its expectation that licensees and other !3mployers subject to NRC authority will establish and maintain a safety-conscious environment in which employees feel free to raise safety concerns;both to their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. The responsibility for maintaining such an environment rests with each NRC licensee, as well as with contractors, subcontractors and employees in the nuclear industry. This policy statement is appucable to NRC regulated activities of all NRC licensees and their contractors and subcontractors. The petitioner also notes that Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations contains regulations to protect such conscientious workers from discrimination. The petitioner asserts that these regulations are frequently violated, yet the individuals determined by the NRC staff as being responsible for these illegal activities are seldom held accountable. Fitness-for-Duty Rule The petitioner states that 10 CFR Part 26 that contains the "Fitness-For-Duty" regulations requires nuclear workers to be free from impairment by drugs and alcohol. The 3
_) petitioner stat9s that of the 111 individual enforcement actions listed in Attachment 1 to the
- petition, 17 involved violation of the fitness-for-duty rule. The petitioner stated that the NRC did not take actions against the licensees for these cases, but limited its sanctions to those individuals responsible for the violations.
To the contrary, the petitioner states that NRC treats violations of employee protection regulations differently. A 9 an example, in Attachment 2 to the petition, the petitioner states that when the NRC establishes that a violation of an employee protection regulation has occurred such as the May 20, 1999, enforcement act!on that the NRC imposed against FirstEnergy, the NRC seldom takes enforcement action against-the individuals responsible for the violations, but
- limits its enforcement actions to the licensees.
The petitioner believes that nuclear safety demands that workers not be impaired by drug and alcohol and that when any worker violates the fitness-for-duty rule, that individual should .be held accountable. The petitioner believes it is equally important that nuclear workers feel free to raise safety issues without fear of discrimination and believes that when a nuclear worker violates the employee protection regulations, that individual should be held accountable. The petitioner offers that the NRC holds individuals who violate the fitness-for-duty rule accountable. However, the agency is not holding individuals who violate the employee protection regulations accountable. The petitioner is attempting to remedy this inequity by this petition for rulemaking. The petitioner believes that by requiring licensees to train management on their obligations under the employee protection regulations, the NRC staff would no lor;,ger be able to claim that individuals were unaware'that their actions were illegal. 4
Supporting Information The petitioner states that "1 O GFR Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 110, and 150 each contain a regulation against deliberate misconduct by employees and/or contractors of NRG licensees." The petitioner specifically set out in the petition the text from 1O GFR 50.5 to reflect the scope and content of the deliberate misconduct regulations. The petitioner included three attachments to the petition that summarize the enforcement actions that NRG imposed against individuals, nuclear power plant owners, and non-nuclear power plant licensees between March 1996 and August 5, 1999. The enforcement data contained in the attachments were obtained from the website of the NRG Office of
- Enforcement, http://nrc.gov.OE/.
Sanctions Against Individuals Attachment 1 to the petition indicates that NRG took enforcement action against individuals 111 times between March 1996 and August 5, 1999. The petitioner notes that only four cases involved enforcement actions taken by the NRG because the Individual discriminated against nuclear workers raising safety concerns. The petitioner states that Federal regulations
- protect nuclear workers from being discriminated against for raising safety concerns and cites as an example the text of 10 GFR 50.7, Employee Protection, that applies to workers at nuclear
' power plants. The petitioner further states that 1O GFR cor::itains equivalent regulations that apply to workers at non-power nuclear facilities.
The petitioner specifies that the four cases listed in Attachment 1 to the petition where NRG imposed enforcement action against individuals for their discriminatory actions against nucrear workers clearly demonstrate that the NRG can take such actions. However, according to the petitioner, the evidence is just as clear that the NRC seldom imposes enforcement 5
actions against individuals even when it concludes that individuals were responsible for illegal discriminatory actions. Sanctions Against Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Licensees Attachment 2 to the petition lists eighteen enforcement actions imposed against nuclear power plant owners for discrimination against nuclear power plant workers. The petitioner states that in 12 of the 18 enforcement actions against the owners, the NRC also imposed a cMI penalty. The penalties ranged between $55,000 and $200,000 with the average being
$1,04,417 .
Attachment 3 to the petition lists five enforcement actions imposed against non-nuclear power plant licensees for discrimination against workers. The petitioner states that in four of the five enforcement actions against non-nuclear plant licensees, the NRC also imposed a civil penalty. The penalties ranged between $4,400 and $10,000 with the average being $7,800. The petitioner states that from March 1996 to August 5, 1999, the NRC took 23 enforcement actions against licensees for discriminating against nuclear workers. The petitioner notes that before taking the enforcement actions and imposing the fines, the NRC staff's investigations determined who did what to whom. According to the petitioner, the NRC concluded that the what violated the employee protection regulations of 10 CFR. The petitioner states that despite identifying whon was responsible for violating Federal regulations in the 23 cases, the NRC staff only took enforcement action against indMduals on four occasions. The petitioner further adds that the fact that the NRC took actions against four individuals demonstrates that it has the statutory authority to do so and in fact revised its regulations on January 13, 1998 (63 FR 1890) to extend the Deliberate Misconduct Rule to six categories of persons. These categories included applicants for NRC licenses; applicants for, 6
or holders of, certificates of compliance; applicants f:,r, or holders of, early site permits, standard design certifications, or combined licenses for nuclear power plants; applicants for, or ( holders of, certificates of registration; applicants for, or holders of, quality assurance program approvals; and the employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants of the above five categories of persons. 10 CFR 2.206 Petition On May 25, 1999, the petitioner filed a petition with the NRC under 10 CFR 2.206. The petition requested that the individual who was the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant be banned by the NRC from participation in licensed activities at and for any nuclear power plant for a period of at least five years. An NRC News Announcement Rlll-99-31 dated May 24, 1999, stated that an NRC investigation found that the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant discriminated against a supervisor in 1997 for testifying in a United States Department of Labor hearing involving possible discrimination against another plant worker. The Announcement stated that the NRC has banned individuals in the recent past for five years for retaliation .
- By letter dated June 23, 1999, the NRC denied the petition. According to the letter, the NRC stated that while consideration was given to taking enforcement action against the manager, it detennined that the manager was not familiar with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7. The NRC issued the manager a letter sta'.ting that the manager's actions contributed to the enforcement action against FirstEnergy. Additionally, the letter informed the manager that involvement in a future discrimination violation could result in enforcement action against the manager. The NRC proposed a $110,000 fine against FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, for violation of the employee protection requirements of 10 CFR 50.7.
7
Conclusion The petitioner states NRC's decision regarding its 2.206 petition makes little sense. The petitioner asserts that NRG inaction endorses the view that ignorance of the law is an excuse - at least when it comes to violating regulations promulgated to protect nuclear workers from discrimination. The petitioner noted that when the NRG revised the Deliberate Misconduct rule in January, 1998, it stated-- The objective of the rule is to explicitly put those persons encompassed by this modification of the Dell berate Misconduct Rule on notice that enforcement action may be taken against them for dellberate misconduct or deliberate submission of Incomplete or Inaccurate Information, in relation to NRC licensed activities. Under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission may Impose clvil penalties on any person who violates any rule, regulation, or order issued under any one of the enumerated provisions of the Act, or who commits a violation for which a license may be revoked. The enforcement actions that may be taken, lncludlng orders limiting activities of wrongdoers In the future and civil penalties, will serve as a deterrent to others throughout the Industry. [emphasis added by* Petitioner]
- The petitioner states that the NRG staff believes that people will be aware that the deliberate misconduct regulation was expanded to apply to them, but that these same people will be oblMous to all of the other regulations that define proper conduct. Further, the petitioner believes that rather than debating whether the NRG staff can really excuse illegal activities of nuclear industry management based on their ignorance of Federal regulations, UCS, the petitioner, is opting for this petition for rulemaking change to disallow the ignorance excuse.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2- l day of October, 1999/. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/ I
(~~ ,Lcp.;-~ Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. 8
0OCKFf NU BER PETITION RULE PAM 3o .. b:l..- f,,'-/fR. 5 118S) UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS August 13, 1999 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING - EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINING
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:
Pursuant to §2.802 of Title 10 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, I hereby submit the enclosed petition for rulemaking. This petition for rulemaking seeks to require NRC's licensees to provide specific training to management (first-line supervisors, managers, directors, and officers) regarding the federal regulations for employee protection. UCS feels that this rulemaking is required based on the NRC staffs position that they are unable to take enforcement actions against individuals who violate the employee protection regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 50.7) unless they can explicitly prove that these individuals knew that their actions violated these important regulations. UCS strongly feels that nuclear industry management should no longer be allowed to use "ignorance of the law" as an excuse for violating employee protection regulations. These illegal activities will only stop when the NRC holds wrong-doers personally accountable. Sincerely,
!JWh1o~
David A. Lochbaum Nuclear Safety Engineer Union of Concerned Scientists
Enclosure:
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training Washington Office: 1616 P Street NW Suite 310
- Washington DC 20036-1495
- 202-332-0900
- FAX: 202-332-0905 Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square
- Cambridge MA 02238-9105
- 617-547-5552
- FAX: 617-864-9405 California Office: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203
- Berkeley CA 94704-1567
- 510-843-1872
- FAX: 510-843-3785
ill- l
- ."'**.. ~.
~
- RECflVE
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training According to gmdance posted on the NRC's website (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/R.ULES/petirule.html), the petitioner must, as a minimum: Set forth a general solution to the problem or present the substance or text of any proposed regulation or amendment or specify the regulation that is !o be revoked or amended; State clearly and concisely your grounds for and mterest m the action request; and Include a statement m support of the petition that sets forth the specific issues involved; your views or arguments with respect to those issues; relevant techmcal, scientlfic, or other data mvolved that is reasonably available to you; and any other pertment mformation necessary to
- support the action sought.
- UCS will address these three cnteria in the folloWlilg sections.
Set forth a general solution to the problem or present the substance or text of any proposed regulation or amendment or specify the regulation that is to be revoked or amended The regulations concernmg deliberate rmsconduct m 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, ~1, 70, 71, 72, 110, and 150 should be revised to require licensees to provide tralillilg to management (first-line supervisors, managers, directors, and officers) about therr obligations with respect to employee protection regulations m 10 CFR. State clearly and concisely your grounds for and interest in the action request On May 14, 1996, the NRC 1Ssued a policy statement applicable to employee protection regulations: The Nuclear Regulatory CoIDID1ss10n (NRC) is 1Ssumg this policy statement to set forth its , expectat10n that licensees and other employers subject to NRC authority will establish and mamtam safety-consc10us environments in which employees feel free to raise safety concerns, both to their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. The responsibility for mamtaming such an envrronment rests with each NRC licensee, as well as with contractors, subcontractors and employees m the nuclear industry. This pohcy statement is applicable to NRC regulated activities of all NRC licensees and therr contractors and subcontractors. UCS has had a nuclear safety program for over two decades. We have in the past, and continue, to work with nuclear workers - including employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - who raise safety concerns. The issues raised by nuclear workers have led to sigmficant 1mprovements m safety levels. For example, anonymous concerns received by UCS and forwarded to the State of Mame in December 1996 led to the identification of faults in the safety analyses for the Mame Yankee plant. Another whistle-blower's concerns received by UCS and presented to the NRC in January 1998 led to the discovery of senous defects m the ice condenser conta1nment at the Donald C. Coo~ nuclear plant. Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations contains regulations to protect such conscient10us workers from discrimination. The record mdicates that these regulations are frequently violated. Yet the mdividuals determmed by the NRC staff as bemg responsible for these illegal activities are seldom held accountable. August 13, 1999 Page 1
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training In the mid 1980s, the NRC promulgated its Fitness-For-Duty rule (10 CFR Part 26). The regulations in 10 CFR Part 26 reqmre nuclear workers to be free from 1mpaITil1ent by drugs and alcohol. When it is determined that a worker has not complted wrth these regulations, enforcement actions can and will be taken agamst the individual. At least 17 of the 111 md1vidual enforcement actions listed on Attachment 1 mvolved v10lat10n of the fitness-for-duty rule. The NRC did not take enforcement action agarnst the licensees for these cases. It lirmted its sanctions to those mdividuals responsible for the vio,lations. The NRC treats violations of employee protection regulations differently. When 1t establishes that a violation of an employee protection regulation has occurred, such as rn the May 20, 1999, enforcement action rmposed against FirstEnergy (see Attachment 2), the NRC seldom takes enforcement action agalllSt the mdivtduals responsible for the violations. Instead, the NRC limits its enforcement actions to the licensees. UCS strongly believes that nuclear safety demands that nuclear workers not be imparred by drug and
- alcohol. When any worker violates the fitness-for-duty rule, that individual should be held accountable.
UCS also strongly believes it is equally rmportant that nuclear workers feel free to raise safety issues without fear of discrimination. When an worker violates the employee protection regulations, that individual should be held accountable. The NRC is holdrng rndivtduals who violate the fitness-for-duty rule accountable. The agency is not holding rndividuals who v10late the employee protect10n regulations accountable. UCS is attempting to remedy this rnequity by this proposed rulemakrng. By requrrrng licensees to train management on their obhgat10ns under the employee protection regulations, the NRC staff would no longer be able to claim that indivtduals were unaware that therr actions were illegal. Include a statement in support of the petition that sets forth the specific issues involved; your views or arguments with respect to those issues; relevant technical, scientific, or other data involved that is reasonably available to you; and any other pertinent information necessary to support the action w~t ~ 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 110, and 150 each contam a regulation agarnst deliberate misconduct by employees and/or contractors ofNRC licensees. The following section from 10 CFR Part 50 reflects the scope and content of these deliberate rmsconduct regulations:
§50.5 Deliberate misconduct.
(a) Any licensee, applicant for a license, employee of a licensee or applicant; or any contractor (includmg a supplier or consultant), subcontractor, employee of a contractor or subcontractor of any ltcensee or applicant for a license, who knowingly provides to any licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor, any components, equipment, matenals, or other goods or services that relate to a licensee's or appltcant's activtties rn this part, may not: (1) Engage rn deliberate misconduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee or applicant to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order; or any term, condition, or lirmtation of any license issued by the Comrmssion; or (2) Deliberately subrmt to the NRC, a licensee, an applicant, or a licensee's or applicant's contractor or subcontractor, rnformat10n that the person subrmtting the August 13, 1999 Page 2
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training information knows to be incomplete or rnaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. (b) A person who violates paragraph (a)(l) or (a)(2) oftlus section may be subject to enforcement action m accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B. (c) For the purposes of paragraph (a)(l) ofthis section, deliberate m1Sconduct by a person means an mtentronal act or omission that the person !mows: ( 1) Would cause a licensee or applicant to be rn Vlolation of any rule, regulation, or order; or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Comm1ssion; or (2) Constitutes a violation of a reqmrement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order, or pohcy of a licensee, applicant, contractor, or subcontractor .
- The NRC took enforcement action agalilSt rndividuals 111 times between March 1996 and August 5, 1
1999 (source: http://www.nrc.gov/OE/rpr/ia.htm). Attachment 1 summarizes these rndividual enforcement actions. Only four (4) cases mvolved enforcement action taken by the NRC because the rndividual discnmrnated agamst nuclear workers raising safety concerns. Federal regulations protect nuclear workers from being discriminated against for raisrng safety concerns. For example, §50.7, Employee protection, of 10 CFR Part 50 applies to workers at nuclear power plants: (a) Discnmmation by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a CoI11ID1ssion license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected actiV1ties is prohibited. Discnmination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The protected activities are established m section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a reqmrement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act. Equivalent regulations within 10 CFR apply to workers at non-power nuclear facilities. The four (4) cases listed on Attachment 1 where NRC took enforcement action agarnst rndividuals for their discnmrnatory actions agalilSt nuclear workers clearly demonstrates that the agency can take such actions. However, the eV1dence is Just as clear that the agency seldom imposes enforcement actions agamst individuals even when it concludes that mdiV1duals were responsible for illegal discriminatory actions. Attachment 2 lists the eighteen (18) enforcement actions imposed agalilSt nuclear power plant owners between March 1996 and August 5, 1999, for discnmmation against nuclear workers (source: http://www.nrc.gov/OE/rpr/rx.htm). Attachment 3 lists the five (5) enforcement actions imposed against non-nuclear power plant licensees between March 1996 and August 5, 1999, for discrimination against workers (source: http://www.nrc.gov/OE/rpr/mat.htln). In 12 of the 18 enforcement actions agarnst nuclear power plant owners, the NRC also imposed a civil penalty. The penalties ranged between $55,000 and $200,000 with the average bemg $104,417. In four of 1 The NRC has also issued Letters of Reprimand to mdividuals during tlns tune penod. However, the,NRC staff must not consider such sanctions to be enforcement actions smce they are not mentioned in the annual report issued by the Office of Enforcement UCS agrees that Letters of Repnmand do not constitute enforcement action. Au~st 13, 1999 Page 3 I
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training the five enforcement actions against non-nuclear plant licensees, the NRC also imposed a c1vtl penalty. The penalties ranged between $4,400 and $10,000 with the average being $7,800. Thus, from March 1996 to August 5, 1999, the NRC took 23 enforcement actions against licensees for discrimmating against nuclear workers. In 16 of these 23 cases, the NRC staff also rmposed a civil penalty.2 Before taking these enforcement actions and rmposing these fines, the NRC staffs investigations determrned who did what to whom. The NRC concluded that the "what violated the employee protection regulations of 10 CFR. However, despite identifying "who" was responsible for violating federal regulations m these 23 cases, the NRC staff only took enforcement action agamst md1v1duals on four occasions. That they took actions against four mdividuals demonstrates that the NRC has the statutory authority to do so. In fact, the NRC revised 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 110, and 150 m January 1998 to expand its statutory authonty:
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to extend the Deliberate Misconduct Rule to six categones of persons: applicants for NRC licenses; applicants for, or holders of, certificates of compliance; applicants for, or holders of, early site perrmts, standard design certifications, or combmed licenses for nuclear power plants; applicants for, or holders of, certificates ofregistration; applicants for, or holders of, quality assurance program approvals; and the employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants of the above five categories of persons. ThlS amendment would subject these categories of persons to enforcement action for deliberate misconduct. Deliberate misconduct may mvolve proVIdmg mformation that 1s known to be incomplete or maccurate m some respect matenal to the NRC, or 1t may involve conduct that causes or would have caused, if not detected, a licensee, certificate holder, or applicant to be m violation of any of the Comm1ss10n's requirements.
On May 25, 1999, UCS filed a petition with the NRC pursuant to §2.206 of 10 CFR: The Umon of Concerned Scientists (UCS) submits this petition pursuant to the 'other actions' prov1s10n of 10 CFR 2.206. Specifically, we request that the individual who was the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant be banned by the NRC from participation m licensed act1v1ties at and for any nuclear power plant for a period of at least five (5) years. Accordmg to NRC News Announcement RIII-99-31 dated May 24, 1999, the NRC proposed a
$110,000 fine agamst Frrst Energy Nuclear Operating Company for violation of the employee protection requrrements of 10 CFR Part 50.7. The announcement stated that an NRC investigation found that the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant discriminated against a supervisor in 1997 for testifying in a United States Department of Labor hearing involving possible d1scrimmation against another plant worker. The NRC has banned 3
individuals in the recent past for five (5) years for retaliation. 2 It must also be noted that fining a nuclear plant owner $110,000 for an employee protection violation has little rmpact. The GAO, in report GAO/RCED-97-145 dated May 1997, reported that a nuclear plant shut down costs its owner $249,000 to $310,000 each day. A manager who discriminates agamst a worker and prevents a four-day shut down thus saves the company nearly $1 rmllion at the mere risk of $110,000 - a prudent business dec1S10n. 3 Nuclear Regulatory Commiss10n, Press Release No. II-97-08, NRC Staff Proposes $100,000 Fine Agamst Tenne~'see Valley Authonty- NRC Staff Also Prolub1ts TVA Executive from Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities," January 14, 1997. August 13, 1999 Page4
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training By letter dated June 23, 1999, the NRC denied the UCS petition: As part of our internal deliberations during the enforcement process, consideration was given to talang enforcement action agamst the Manager. The NRC determined, however, that the Manager was not famtliar with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7. In your submittal, you argued that even if tins is accurate, that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The NRC agrees that knowledge and understanding of the law are not necessary elements in determining whether a violation of 10 CFR 50.7 occurred. These elements are relevant, however, in determining whether enforcement action can be taken agamst the mdiVIdual based on a v10latJ.on of 10 CFR 50.5, the rule on deliberate misconduct. Therefore, no formal action was taken against the Manager. The NRC issued the Manager a letter stating that the Manager's actions contnbuted to the enforcement action agamst FirstEnergy. Additionally, the letter mformed the Manager that involvement m a future discrinnnation violation could result in enforcement action against the Manager. In tins case, the NRC rmposed a $110,000 civil penalty - the maximum permitted by law - against the owner of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant because its Radiation Protection Manager violated the employee protection requirements of 10 CFR 50.7. However, the NRC claimed it could take no action agamst the manager who violated 10 CFR 50.7 because that mdiVIdual may not have known that his actions were illegal. In other words, ignorance of the law is indeed an excuse - at least when it comes to VIolating regulations promulgated to protect nuclear workers from discrimination. The NRC's decis10n regardmg UCS's petition makes little sense. When they revised 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 110, and 150 m January 1998, the NRC stated: The objective of the rule is to explicitly put those persons encompassed by this modification of the Deliberate Misconduct Rule on notice that enforcement action may be taken against them for deliberate misconduct or deliberate submission of incomplete or inaccurate information, in relation to NRC licensed activities. Under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission may impose civil penalties on any person who violates any rule, regulation, or order issued under any one of the enumerated provisions of the Act, or who commits a violation for which a license may be revoked. The enforcement actions that may be taken, including orders limiting activities of wrongdoers in the future and civil penalties, will serve as a deterrent to others throughout the industry. [emphasis added] For some unfathomable reason, the NRC staff believes that people will be aware that the deliberate misconduct regulation was expanded to apply to them, but that these same people will be oblivious to all of the other regulations that define proper conduct. Rather than debating whether the NRC staff can really excuse illegal activities of nuclear industry management based on their ignorance of federal regulations (which, of course, begs the question why NRC is not concerned about people runnmg nuclear facilities who profess ignorance of federal safety regulations), UCS is opting for trus proposed rule change to take away the ignorance excuse altogether. August 13, 1999 Page 5
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Act,ion No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction A. Abdulshafi IA 98-058 March 31, 1999 Transferred moisture d~ity gauges contaimng byproduct material to a person not authorized to possess such material. Shasln K. Agarwal- IA 97-006 September 12, 1996 Operatlng without RSO or authonzed user as required by license. Robert C. Allen IA 96-065 October 18, 1996 Deliberate violation of approved, detailed written procedures for the venting of the Unit 1 pressurizer relief tank.
- Steven R. Allent IA 96-050 Deliberate exposure of a coworker to a bot particle.
Steven M. Alhson IA 99-010 September 5, 1996 March 25, 1999 Violation ofNRC requirements governing fitness-for-duty as a licensed operator. Randall Allmon IA 98-061 January 27, 1999 Submitted maccurate information. John T. Altman IA 97-085 October 29, 1997 Tested positive for illegal drug m random FFD test. Firus Scott B,andy ~ IA 97-087 November 19, 1997 False statement to licensee with respect to prior criminal record; altered documents.
\
Jeffrey Barnhart IA 97-049 June 23, 1997 Falsification of access authorization information. Darnel R. Baudino IA 97-032 May 27, 1997 Deliberately falsified personal history information. Robert Beltran IA 96-074 November 21, 1996 Submitted false employment information claiming employment with an employer for five years, when in fact, he had never been employed by said employer.
\,
Aharon Ben-Haim, Ph.D. IA 97-065 July 31, 1997 Inaccurate st,atement on license application. Aharon Ben-Haim, Ph.D. IA 97-068 August 27, 1997 Inaccurate statement on license application.
! Sue A. Blacklock IA 97-059 August 5, 1997 Coerced chemistry technician to falsify reactor enclosure cooling water sample documentahon I
John Boschuk Jr. IA 98-019 April 10, 1998 August 13, 1999 Page 1
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Deliberate matenal false statements, destruction of records. Lourdes T. Boschuk IA 98-020 Apnl 10, 1998 Deliberate matenal false .statements, destruction of records. David Branham IA 99-016 Apnl 30, 1999 Falsifying the record of the release rate calculation ven:fications. William E. Breen IA 96-049 August 27, 1996 Pru.led a chemical test for drugs. Leland H. Brooks IA 98-024 July f4, 1998 Deliberately falsified information which you provided on an apphcation to obtam unescorted access to Pacific Gas & Electnc's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Samuel L. Brooks IA 96-030 June 12, 1996 Deliberately recorded dosages in the dose administration records that were not accurate. Sheila N. Bums IA 98-067 April 29, 1999 Conducting radiography without a radiation survey instrument. Joseph~ Bynum . IA 96-101
- January 13, 1997 Deliberately violated Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.5 (Deliberate Misconduct). the deliberate misconduct caused the licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50. 7 (Employee Protection)
Kirk H. Carroll IA 96-051 September 6, 1996 Deliberately violated procedures by entenng a yellowcake packaging enclosure without wearing a full face respirator. John Chmielorz IA 99-011 June 17, 1999 Deliberate failure to allow use of nuclear gauge without proper certification and dosimetry. William H. Clark IA 98-045 December 21, 1998 Deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5 of the Commission's regulations when false information was provided to two NRC licensees. Gary L. Cowan IA 98-008 March 11, 1998 Stole source contammg licensed material Charles W. Davis IA 99-.009 March 29, 1999, Deliberate. violation of the NRC-required fitness for duty (FFD) program. James S. Dawson IA 99-002 April 29, 1'999 ConductJ.ng radiography without a radiation survey instrument August 13, 1999 Page2
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Erle DeBarba IA 99-012 April 6, 1999 Discrimination against two supervisors. Steven DeNise IA 97-077 October 10, 1997 Fitness for Duty. Mark D. Diehl IA 96-031 June 14, 1996 Tested positive for marijuana and was terminated. Kent Dvorak IA 97-079 November 17, 1997 Deliberate faihn:_e to ensure workers completed operator safety training pnor to possy5srng and operatrng gauges. Bryan Eccelston IA 96-032 June 17, 1996 Tested positive for cocarne use and was terminated. Magdy Elamir, M.D. IA 97-064 July 31, 1997 Inaccurate statement on license applicatlon. Magdy Elarnir, M.D. IA 97-070 September 15, 1997 Inaccurate statement on hcense application. M. El Naggar IA 98-059 March 31, 1999 Transferred moisture density gauges containing byproduct material to a person not authorized to possess such material. Kenneth F. Enoch IA 99-036 July 23, 1999 Deliberate falsification of surveillance procedure. Neil Everson IA 99-031 July 20, 1999 Deliberate violation of the procedwes implementrng the NRC-approved security plan for the Zion Statton. Edwrn S. Feemster IA 99-007 June 7, 1999 Failure to maintam an accurate training attendance record. Richard Fentiman IA 96-061 September 27, 1996 Failure to follow access authorization procedures. Joseph M. Foley IA 98-055 May 12, 1999 Ip.accurate information provided. Jose R. Garza IA 97-038 July 30, 1997 Operations supervisor failed to disclose two arrests and convictions for DUI. Richard M. Gracin IA 96-052 December 19, 1996 August 13, 1999 Page3
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Deliberately provided mformat10n to an NRC mspector and to licensee representatives that was maccurate. Juan Guzman IA 96-020 April 19, 1996 Provided false information about identity* and cnminal background. Charles H. Hardison, Jr. IA 98-012 March 13, 1998 Senior Radiation Protection Technician falsified error activity data sheet David Harris IA 96-062 October 22, 1996 Submitted urme sample that had been altered or tampered with. Tunothy Hartnett IA 98-056 November 19, 1998 Left the controls of the reactor unattended. Jeffrey W. Holybee IA 97-072 September 12, 1997 Violations of license conditions. Nathan Hougas IA 97-080 February 4, 1998 Deliberate false statement m a security report regarding an unlocked vital area. Donald T. Hughes, Jr. IA 99-028 June 10, 1999 Failure to comply with Fitness-for-Duty requirements. Harvey J. Hyde, Jr. IA 98-036 July 10, '1998
- Fitness-for-Duty Violation.
Gary Isakoff Fabricated records. DaV1d Johns IA 98-006 IA 97-026 February 24, 1999 May 15, 1997 Deliberate use of licensed matenal followmg suspension ofhcense. Mark Jenson IA 96-042 July 16, 1996 Deliberately V1olated 10 CFR 30.10 by failmg to utilize trained and qualified indiV1duals for the conduct of rad10graphic operations. Thomas C. Johnson IA 98-002 April 28, 1998 Willful manipulation of Fitness-For-Duty computer program. Roger E. Jones IA 96-073 November 19, 1996 Licensed operator failed a chemical test for drugs. Stephen M. Jozwiak IA 97-086 November 7, 1997 Licensed operator failed a cheinical test for drugs. August 13, 1999 Page 4
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Subhash Khullar IA 97-031 March 21, 1997 Abandoning licensed material and providing false inform~t10n to the NRC. Peter Kint IA 99-001 March 1, 1999 Deliberately failed to wear his alarm.mg ratemeter. David Kirkland IA 97-010 April 1, 1997 1 Deliberate violation of 10 CFR 35.25(a)(2) by admimstering 6.6 millicuries of iodine-131 to a patient without first obtaining the signature of an authonzed user on a wntten directive. Michael S. K.irzmanich IA 97-014 February 18, 1997 The act10n was based on a violation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27. Specifically, the licensee's utilizatlon logs maintained at the licensee'.s Wexford, Pennsylvania, office were inaccurate because they were neither "current nor created on the date of use of the source, but in fact, were created at a later time m order to address. questions asked by the NRC during a previous NRC inspection. This mformation was material because it had the capability to influence NRC action and, m fact, was presented to the NRC as mdication that PI had completed the logs on the date of use. Krishna Kmnar IA 97-011 February 18, 1997 Deliberate falsification of NRC-required records Lee LaRocque IA 98-065 February 24, 1999 Misadmmistration. John Maas IA 96-100 December 12, 19,96 Abandoned sourc*es used in gauge plant. Emil McCormic IA 99-008 March 25, 1999 Violation ofNRC requirements covering fitness-for-duty as a licensed operator. Donald J. McDonald, Jr. IA 96-018 March 27, 1996 Provided incomplete and maccurate information on applications made for access authorization at Illinois Power Company. Julian McGriff IA 97-067 February 23, 1998 Falsification ofEP records. Darryl D. McNeil IA 97-001 March 24, 1997 Security violatio~. Lee Meyers IA 97-017 March 7, 1997 Violation of a license requirement by allowing patient treatments to continue witho1:1t monthly calibration checks of the high dose rate afterloader, even though he knew that the checks were August 13, 1999 Page 5
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction required. David Milas IA 98-047 September 18, 1998 Deliberate misconduct at nuclear power facilities and the compromise of the integrity of NRC exammations. Michael Muszynski IA 96-067 December 20, 1996 Falsification of dose calibrator constancy record.
- James Mulkey IA 97-012 February 18, 1997 The action was based on an mspection and rnvestigation which concluded that Mr. Mulkey engaged in deliberate rmsconduct by: (1) submitting to NRC licensees maccurate information concerrnng eddy current quahlication certification examination results and personnel certification summaries; (2) providrng to the NRC a letter which contained rnaccurate information relating to whether corrective actions had been taken in response to a preVIous Notice of Violation; and (3) providing false information to the NRC durmg a telephone discussion with a representative of the NRC.
Charles J. Naivar IA 98-035 July 17, 1998 Dehberately failed to follow plant procedures while conducting an inspection of the diesel generator building and falsified the corresponding procedural documentation. Albert M. Nardslico IA 98-001 Apnl 28, 1998, Willful manipulation of Fitness-For-Duty computer program .
- James C. Nelson IA 97-004 Wrongdomg - use of gauge when under order not to do so.
Robert J. Nelson IA 97-033 Falsification of quality assurance document. January 27, 1997 August 18, 1997 Steven F. Nevm IA 97-060 August 5, 1997 Involved with falsification of reactor enclosure cooling water sample documentation. Michael Perry IA 98-048 September 18, 1998 Deliberate nnsconduct at a nuclear power facility and the comproID1se of the rntegrity ofNRC examinations. Jesus Osorio IA 96-043 July 16, 1996 Failure to provide training for radiographers and provided false information to the NRC concerning radiographers certification. Cectl Ray Owen IA 96-103 January 2, 1997 False statements regardmg pnor drug use. August 13, 1999 Page 6
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Gary Pageau IA 99-003 August 3, 1999 Deliberate misconduct involving discrimination against an electrician for raising safety concern. John R. Raskovsky IA 97-037 June 18, 1997 Dehberately falsification of personnel background secunty forms. Michael Redlin IA 97-088 December 8, 1997 Falsifymg access authonz.ation regardmg drug use. Darrel T. Rich IA 97-074 January 5, 1998 Falsified radiation survey. Todd Ripplinger IA 98-057 February 24, 1999 Deliberate rmsconduct. Bnan K. Rogers IA 98-062 January 27, 1999 Submitted inaccurate information. Kelly N. Ross IA 97-075 September 12, 1997 Falsification of access authonz.ation record. Randall Rumley IA 97-071 September 12, 1997 Deliberately transfered an unauthorized quantity ofUO2 powder and attempted to conceal the action. Kipp Rustenholtz IA 96-040 July 17, 1996 Deliberately received material at unauthonzed location. James P. Ryan IA 97-007 January 31, 1997 Licensed operator failed a chemical test for drugs. Stephen W. Ryan IA 98-015 July 10, 1998 Falsification of Surveillance Test. Roy Sadovksy (DVM) IA 97-024 May 1, 1997 Deliberate use of licensed material at an unauthonzed location. Bradley K. Sherwm IA 99-030 July 8, 1999 Deliberate failure to secure and control licensed material and deliberate failure to provide the NRC with complete and accurate mformatlon regardmg the licensed matenal (moisture density gauge). Marvm Shook IA 97-073 September 12, 1997' Falsification of access authorization records. August 13, 1999 Page 7
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Allen J. Simoneaux IA 97-076 September 16, 1997 Falsification of access authonzatlon records. Donald Srmth IA 97-056 July 23, 1997 Deliberately provided false information regarding tamper alarms. Richard A. Speciale IA 99-091 July 21, 1999 Deliberate nusconduct to secure and control licensed material without proper certification and tralllilg and deliberate failure to provide NRC with accurate information regardmg the licensed material (portable gauges) .
- Derek Stevens Deliberate v10lations of NRC reqmrements.
George W. Stewart IA 97-008 IA 97-015 Apnl 15, 1997 February 18, 1997 The action was based on a v10lation of 10 CFR 30.9 and 10 CFR 34.27. Specifically, the licensee's utilization logs mamtained at the licensee's Wexford, Pennsylvania, office were inaccurate because they were neither "current" nor created on the date of use of the source, but m fact, were created at a later time m order to address questions asked by the NRC dunng a previous NRC inspection. This mformation was matenal because it had the capability to influence NRC action and, m fact, was presented to the NRC as mdication that PI had completed the logs on the date of use. Ronald Stewart IA 97-018 April 4, 1997 Deliberate failure to provide complete and accurate information during the pre-employment process. Jarornir Stipek IA 98-007 July 6, 1998 Deliberate misconduct. Lanny R. Tillman IA 97-089 December 1, 1997 Work performed on wrong component. Jack D. Taylor IA 98-010 July 2, 1998 ) Violation ofNRC reqmrements. Michael Thomas IA 98-064 May 12, 1999 Deliberately attempted to conceal the release of the contaminated video equipment. Dale Todd IA 98-066 March 31, 1999 Conducted NRC-hcensed activities without a specific or general licer:ised issued by the NRC. Frank A. Warriner IA 96-015 March 7, 1996 Discrimination against a ~ontract employee based on the employee's engaging in protected activities. August 13, 1999 Page8
Attachment 1 NRC Sanctions Against Individuals 1996 to August 1999 Name Action No. Date Issued Reason for Sanction Leslie Weibley IA 98-003 March 4, 1998 Willful transportation violation. False rnformahon to OI mvestigators. A. Davey Wells IA 98-004 January 5, 1998 Deliberately provided an NRC inspector with information that was mcomplete and inaccurate. Kenneth Wierman IA 99-021 , May 10, 1999 Deliberate falsification of training records. Lonme Randall Wilson IA 97-050 June 26, 1997 Deliberately falsified background information. Leo C. Zell IA 98-016 July 10, 1998 Falsification of Surveillance Test. August 13, 1999 Page 9
Attachment 2 NRC Discrimination Sanctions Against Reactor Licensees 1996 to August 1999 Licensee Name Plant Name Action No. Size of Fine Date Issued Reason for Sanction North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Seabrook Stab.on, New Hampshire EA 98-165 $55,000 August 3, 1999 ViolatJ.on involving discrimination against an electncian for raisrng safety issues FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant, O4-io EA 99-012 $110,000 May 20, 1999 Discnminated against a Radiation Protection Supervisor (RPS) as a result of the RPS engagrng in protected activities. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Station, Connecticut EA 98-325 None April 6, 1999 DiscrumnatJ.on agamst two supervisors. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Stab.on, Connecticut EA 97-461 $88,000 March 9, 1999 Violation mvolving the discrumnatJ.on against two contractor employees. Anzona Public Service Company Palo Verde Nuclear GeneratJ.ng Stab.on, Anzona EA 93-159 $100,000 March 7, 1996 ActJ.on based on discrinunation against a contract mstrumentation and control technician. Bartlett Nuclear, Incorporated Plymouth,Massachusetts EA 96-060 None June 4, 1996 DiscrinunatJ.on agamst mdividual. Cleveland Electric IllummatJ.ng Company Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Ohio EA 96-253 $160,000 October 9, 1996 DiscruninatJ.on agamst 5 msulators who sued licensee after they were contaminated while workmg m plant. Flonda Power and Light Company Turkey Point, Florida EA 96-051 $100,000 July 16, 1996 Discrimination against an individual when he was fired for engagrng in protected actJ.vities. August 13, 1999 Page 1
Attachment 2 NRC Discrimination Sanctions Against Reactor Licensees 1996 to August 1999 Licensee Name Plant Name Action No. Size of Fine Date Issued Reason-for Sanction Georgia Power Company Vogtle Electnc Generating Plant, Georgia EA 95-171 and EA 95-277 None May 29, 1996 Discrimmation against former seruor manager. Houston Light and Power Company South Texas ProJect, Texas
- EA 96-133 and 96-136 Discrimination.
McEnany Roofing, Inc. Tampa, Florida EA 96-336
$200,000 None
- September 19, 1996 December 12, 1996 This action was based on violation of 10 CFR 50.7 whtch prohibits, m part, discrunmation by a contractor of a Co1Ililllss10n licensee agamst an employee for engaging m certam protected activities. Specifically, the discrunmation included the discharge of a secunty escort as a result of the escorts reporting a violation of security escort requirements rmposed pursuant to the Atonnc Energy Act.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nme Mile Pomt Nuclear Statton, New York EA 96-116 $80,000 July 24, 1996 Discrimination against employee. Northeast Nuclear Energy Company Millstone Nuclear Power Statton, Connecticut EA 96-059 $100,000 June 4, 1996 Discrimination against individual. Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Nuclear Generating Station, New Jersey EA 96-177 $80,000 December 9, 1996 The licensee, through its former manager ofNSR, discrimmated m December 1992 against a Safety Review Engineer (SRE) and m November 1993 and May 1994 agamst a former Onsite Safety Revtew Engineer (OSRE). Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Philadelphia, Pennsylvama EA 96-137 None September 19, 1996 Discrimmation. August 13, 1999 Page2
\_ Attachment 2 NRC Discrimination Sanctions Against Reactor Licensees 1996 to August 1999 Licensee Name Plant Name Action. No. Size of Fine Date Issued Reason for Sanction STP Nuclear Operating Company STP Nuclear Generating Station, Texas EA 97-341 None '~ June 9, 1998 Discrimination against su~sor and engmeer for reporting safety concerns. Tennessee, Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Alabama 1 EA 95-252 $80,0004 February 20, 1996 Discnmination. Tennessee Valley Authority Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Tennessee EA 95-199 $100,000 January 13, 1997 Chemistry manager was threatened with termination for raising safety concerns. 4 Subsequently withdrawn August 13, 1999 Page 3
Attachment 3 NRC Discrimination Sanctions Against Materials Licensees 1996 to August 1999 Licensee Name Plant Name Action No. Size of Fine Date Issued Reason for Sanction Coriell Institute for Medical Research Camden, NJ EA 99-060 $4,400
- )
Jtme 2, 1999 Thscnminatlon against an employee for raising safety *concern. Honolulu Medical Group Honolulu, Hawan EA 95-006 None January 23, 1997 Discrimination Koppel Steel Corporation Beavers Fall, Pennsylvania EA 96-498 $8,800 March 19, 1997 The action was based on discrimination against a former Radiation Safety Officer after he provided information to an NRC inspector during an Apnl 1996 mspection .
.Mattingly Testing Services, Inc.
Billings, Montana EA 97-180 $10,000 5 October 31, 1997 Discrimination
- V. A., Department of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania EA 96-182 $8,000 6 Discrimination against RSO for contacting NRC September 18, 1996 5
Subsequently withdrawn 6 Subsequently withdrawn
\_
August 13, 1999 Page 1
NRCR!i!P - Discrimination Task Grou Pa e 1 l: PETITION RULE PRM 3 o - h ~ (b'ffR. ?1185) From: Kevin R. Doody <krdoody@yahoo.com> To: <nrcrep@nrc.gov> Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 12:14 PM
Subject:
Discrimination Task Group *oo Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by Kevin R.Doody(krdoody@yahoo.com) on Friday, September 29, 2000 at 12:13:47 l'l Affiliation: Self-Alleger Comments: As noted on the NRC Web Site:
"Submittal of Petition for Rulemaking, "Employee Protection Training," submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) on August 13, 1999. This petition for rulemaking requested that NRC's licensees be required to provide training of first line and above supervisors of their responsibilities in implementing the employee protection regulations.
Federal Register notice announcing the receipt of UCS's petition for rulemaking on employee protection
- training published on October 27, 1999. The announcement for the NRC Discrimination Task Group stated that the Group would consider the issues raised in this rulemaking petition."
I would like to express my support for this petition, although I do not personally believe that it solves the real problems that resulted in the generation of this petition by UCS. It appears to me that UCS is attempting to remove the 'I did know about the law' excuse used by the licensee, specifically the RPM, in EA 99-012 to avoid personal liability for his actions. I think it is a shame that such a requirement is necessary given the clarity of the issue. In my opinion, such action is necessary because the NRC did not want to do its job with regards to the referenced violation. In May 1996, the Commission issued a policy statement on the "Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation" [FR 24336). This policy statement had first been published in draft in February 1995 [FR 7592), and was based on modified recommendations of the Allegation Review Team report published as NUREG-1499. The basic thrust of the policy statement was to clarify the Commission's expectation that licensees and other employers subject to NRC authority will establish and maintain a safety- conscious work environment in which employees feel
- free to raise concerns both to their management and the NRC without fear of retaliation. (Source: NRC web site)
With this document, the following statements were made:
"Initial and periodic training (including contractor training) for both employees and supervisors may also be an important factor in achieving a work environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns.
In addition to communicating management expectations, training can clarify for both supervisors and employees options for problem identification. This would include use of licensee's internal processes as well as providing concerns directly to the NRC.5 Training of supervisors may also minimize the potential perception that efforts to reduce operating and maintenance costs may cause supervisors to be less receptive to employee concerns if identification and resolution of concerns involve significant costs or schedule delays. (emphasis added). The previous statement is full of very good recommendations that were presented to the licensees in the form of permissions. Obviously, licensees did not take the hint. Thus, I support UCS's petition. However, I go one step f urther and fully support the NRC statement that "Initial and periodic training (including contractor training) for both employees and supervisors may also be an important factor in achieving a work environment in which employees feel free to raise concerns." Thus, I recommend that Acknowledged by card on 10/30/00
INRCR~P - Discrimination T!~~ Group :::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Page 2 I it is time to remove the permission and to regulate the requirement that initial and periodic annual training (including contractor training) on 10CFRS0. 7 and harassment and intimidation for engagement in protected activity be give to both employees, supervisors, and managers of licensees (including appropriate corporate management). Additionally, it should be required that evidence of the training be documented and retained by the licensee. Submit2: Submit comments
Ic:\WINDOY;l$\TEMP\GWjooog§}MP :::::::::: : Mail Envelope Properties (39D4BFDA.0A6 : 2 : 16550)
Subject:
Discrimination Task Group Creation Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 12: 13 PM From: Kevin R. Doody <krdoody@yahoo.com> Created By: GWIA:krdoody Recipients Post Office TWFN_DO.twf2_po NRCREP Domain.Post Office Route TWFN_DO.twf2_po TWFN_DO.twf2_po Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4124 Friday, September 29, 2000 12: 13 PM Header 544 Options Expiration Date: None Priority: Standard Reply Requested: No Return Notification: None Concealed
Subject:
No Security: Standard
389 Belmont #111 Oakland CA 94610 510-835-2334 December 8, 1999
*oo Ee 1s PJ :: 9 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 AI.r I
Dear Sir:
The following are formal comments to the Nuclear Regulatory OCKET NUMBER Commission supporting the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999 regarding training ETITION RULE PRU 30'-,:z, for supervisors, managers, and directors related to employee "1'/FR 71ts"'
)
protection regulations C r egulations supposedly protect nuclear workers from ras sment and intimidation. When these regulations e v iolated, I gather that the NRC can take actions against both the worker's employer and also against the responsible individual, including banning them from the nuclear industry . . However, in practice after determining who has harassed and intimidated a nuclear worker for raising a safety concern, I gather that the NRC mostly limits its sanctions to the company alone, and in most cases takes no legal action against the individuals doing the illegal acts. By claiming to be ignorant of the employee protection regulations, nuclear power plant supervisors and managers have been able to fire workers who raise safety concerns. - i s serves to effectively silence all other workers. 1llllllf rule requiring supervisors, managers, and directors in the nuclear industry to be trained on employee protection regulations would eliminate this "ignorance of the law" excuse. It is simple and obvious. When people are personally responsible, I suggest that we will see much less harassment and intimidation, and therefore safer nuclear power plants, which is to the benefit of everyone. Thank you very much. Sincerely ,
~~-' ~
MAl1 10
\cknowfeap d IWHUII HIUI illl *W...,-/P.I
u , .vv ...c.An 111:uul.Al UliY COMMl:SSION R , EMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF 1FFICE OFTHESl!CRE'mRY
')F THE COMMISSION Document S1atlstlcs 1mark Date ----=--=-+~--r---'- - -
1pies Received _ _ __._____ _
- ~d'I Copies Reproduced _ ___ __
')oecial Distribution._ __ _ __ _
MA: Box 83 Shelburne Falls, MA 01370 P/F: 413-339-5781/8768 CT: 54 Old Turnpike Road, Haddam, CT 06438 P/F: 860-345-2157 VT: C/O Box 566 Putney, VT 05346 P/F: 802-387-4050 NH: 9 Evens Road, Madbury, NH 03820 P/F: 603-742-4261 NY: 162 Cambridge St, Syracuse, NY 13203 P/F: 315-472-5478/ 7923 February 14, 2000 DOCKET PETITION RULE P 3 o- ~ ~ USNRC f#'IFRS-778'5) Secretary of the Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Re: CAN's comments on two proposed rules: 1) establishing limits on employee working hours at nuclear power reactors and 2) training supervisors, managers and directors on employee protection regulations To Whom It May Concern: By this letter, the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) formally submits comments on the two proposed rules referenced above. CAN is a volunteer, grassroots organization with chapters in reactor communities in MA, CT, VT and NY. We have over 2,000 supporting members. The Citizens Awareness Network agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists in that it is time for the Federal government to impose enforceable working hour limits for employees at nuclear power stations. These limits, which are needed to prevent worker fatigue and performance problems, must be applicable whether the nuclear reactor is running, shutdown such as in a refueling or other maintenance outage or decommissioning. We request that your agency act as quickly as reasonable possible to establish employee working hour limits before utilities trim their workforces to dangerous levels in their haste to be competitive in a deregulated electricity market.
- The Citizens Awareness Network also supports the Union of Concerned Scientist's proposed rule to mandate the training of supervisors, managers and directors on employee protection regulations. Employee protection regulations training will allow individuals to be held responsible should they break the law by harassing workers.
Consider that key managers and supervisors at the Millstone nuclear complex who were responsible for systematically thwarting a safety conscious work environment for years, went unpunished and in some cases, continue to work at the Millstone complex. Regulation that allows the latter to occur defies logic, is ineffective and leaves workers disheartened and silenced. Accountability is the only way to bring an end to chilled workforces. Nuclear reactor workers are our first lines of defense in the protection of our communities and the environment from nuclear mishaps and accidents. We request that you protect them by implementing both of the proposed rules referenced above. Sincerely,
'CJ_µ_,- l @
Deb Katz
~
Executive Director
\ckn ectped by ca
U.S. NUC1.....At ..:1.:1u1.AIUHY l,UM1~1::,,... ,C, RULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date e:i/ti/oo Coplea Racalwed ' 7 I Add'I Cqa Repoouced _ _ _ _ SpeclalDlallilJHlb.._ _ _ _ ___
913 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, NY 14850
'OD rr.*-, IO p J .,:: 9 February 7, 2000 v
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio L 0 CK Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 PETITION RULE PRM 3 o- ".2.
Dear Sir:
r~ tfFRS11Bs) I am writing to comment on two issues related to nuclear power plant safety which I understand are now being considered for rule changes. First, I support the proposal to establish mandatory limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants. I understand that the NRC long ago recommended guidelines that limit workers to
- 16 hours per day and 72 hours per week, but these guidelines did not apply to all personnel and in any case, applied only when the power plant is in operation. In the current competitive climate for energy production, I understand that economics make it tempting for power plant managers to hire as few workers as possible and work them extraordinarily long hours when necessary, especially when the power plant is off line because of maintenance, refueling or repairs. The guidelines should be made mandatory and should apply to all workers all of the time. We cannot afford to have fatigued workers set off another Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. I used minute quantities of gamma-emitting radioisotopes in biological experiments for many years and have a healthy respect for the havoc which could be caused in a nuclear power plant by a fatigued worker in any position. It is, if anything, even more important to have alert workers doing the maintenance, refueling or repairs than when the plant is up and running normally. The system is only as safe and effective as the weakest link - in the present context, the possibility of an error made by a fatigued worker. The power plant operators will tend to cut corners wherever they can within the law, especially in tight economic conditions. It is up to the NRC to establish clear and reasonable regulations to protect the workers from unreasonable work schedules, and to protect the public from a nuclear power plant disaster which could easily have been avoided by mandating reasonable work schedules.
I also support a related rule which I understand is being considered, one which would require nuclear power plant owners to train supervisors and managers in employee protection regulations. This would protect plant workers who conscientiously raise safety concerns from illegal harassment and intimidation by supervisors who can now claim "ignorance of the law." Again, it is important to encourage every worker who responsibly questions a condition or a practice which might adversely affect the safe operation of the plant to bring the issue to the attention of her/his supervisor or whoever is in a position to correct the problem without fear of reprisal. Sincerely,
~~\N~
Elizabeth M. Wien, Ph.D. Retired
u.S. NUCLEAR HEuULAI OHYWMM~ION RULEMAKINGS &AtlUICMICNITAFF OFFICE 0FMIIDEfARY OF T H E ~ DocumentSlatlslics ostmark Date - ,opies ~ - -- - - - -
~
/~ i. oo dd'I Coples Rapool,ced _ _ __
s1ecial otstrbllion._ _ _ _ __
TXU Electric C. Lance Terry Comanche Peak Senior Vice President & Principal Nuclear Officer Steam Electric Station P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose, TX 76043 Tel: 254 897 8920 Fax: 254 897 6652 lterryl @txu.com Log# TXX-00030 File# 883 January 31 , 2000 Annette L. Vietti-Cook DOCKET NUMBER Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff PETITION RULE PAM 3o-, ~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (t,<fFRs1185) Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES) ENDORSEMENT OF NEI COMMENT LETTER on "Petition for Rulemaking to Require Employee Protection Training" (64 Fed. Reg. 57785; October 27, 1999) REF: 1) 64 Fed. Reg. 57785; October 27, 1999
- 2) Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter, addressed to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated December 30, 1999
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook:
This letter is in response to the request for comment (Reference 1) on the subject petition for rulemaking to require that licensees provide management with training regarding the NRC's employee protection regulations. NEI has established an Executive Task Force to gain valuable insight from its member nuclear utilities. The results of the NEI Executive Task Force review are being submitted per the NEI comment letter (Reference 2). TXU Electric has reviewed and endorses the NEI comment letter. TXU Electric agrees with the NEI discussed issues, responses, and rationale with the addition of the following comment: On February 26, 1997, in a document published in the Federal Register (62 FR 8785), the NRC requested public comment on a proposal for a standardized approach to
- edby
~ *'- '-' n/1 Ht:uULAIOHY ~UMi111 ->Iv, RUI EMAKINGS&ADJUOICAllONS STAFF OFACE 0FlHE SEaETARY OF THE COAUSSION Document Statistics
.;tmark Date 1 3 1 OO pies Received _ _ ____, d'I Copies Reproduced _ _h *- - ecial Distribution_ _ __
. TXU TXX-00030 Page 2 of2 ensuring that licensees established and maintained a safety-conscious work environment. That proposal, among other provisions, established certain remedial actions that the Commission could require when it determined that a particular licensee had failed to establish and maintain a safety-conscious work environment.
On February 6, 1998, the NRC published in the Federal Register (63 FR 6235) a notice of withdrawal of the previously published proposal along with summaries of comments received from, among others, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Union of Concerned Scientists concerning the proposal. In responding to the request for comment on the proposal to establish a standardized approach to ensuring that licensees established and maintained a safety-conscious work environment the Union of Concerned Scientists had stated that it believed that the Commission's May 1996 Policy Statement on the "Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation" (61 FR 24336; May 14, 1996), as well as rigorous and consistent enforcement of existing regulations, is sufficient to achieve the NRC 's objectives. In light of the Union of Concerned Scientists earlier position as evidenced by opposition to the proposed standardized approach and avowed confidence in existing regulations, the current petition for rulemaking to require licensees to provide management with training regarding the NRC's employee protection regulations is perplexing and cannot be supported by TXU Electric. This communication contains no new licensing basis commitments regarding CPSES Units 1 and 2. Sincerely, t,S.~ C. L. Terry By: fl,~ ic;g~Walker iJ,lfV~ Qt, Regulatory Affairs Manager RAS/grp c- Ellen Ginsberg, NEI
DOCKET N.J11B1 PETITION RULE eRU 30-~:2- [~J/~5"7785) DOC TD us Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
*oo JAN 24 P4 :31 Washington,D.C. 20555-0001 0
Dear Secretary,
I write to you today to encourage you to enact 2 needed Proposed rules. The first being the rule to establish limits on employee working hours at nuclear power plants.I realize I am tardy in making my public comment on this rule and I apologize .This proposed rule is one I support heartily and feel is absolutely vital to the operation of our nation's nuclear power plants.Worker fatigue is dangerous and compromises safety and speed of reaction to emergencies
- as I have witnessed repetedly in my work as a state Correction Officer of 21 years exptenence.
I also wish to support proposed rule 2 which would afford protection to "whistle blowers" who report or raise safety concerns.Safety,where large numbers of people's well-being and health are concerned should be the foremost concern.It is vital that the jobs of those conscientious employees who alert thier supervisors to safety issues be protected and the supervisors be trained in employees protection requirements. I THANK YOU for the opportunity of commenting as a private citizen on these matters and pray that you will have the knowledge and wisdom to enact the proper rules and regulations that insure the safe,efficient running of our nation's nuclear power facilities. Safety First, a~y-Thomas V. Connor 17 DuBois street Wallkill,NY 12589-3113-6
~cknowfedoad £8 15 le '
- r I ,., , D JDICATION sI
; 0 THE SECRETA v n-lE c; MMISS!ON 1, mp "tRti hi
~ ~te ___Lp /.-oo _ 1 A Rapft)dlloeci _ _ __ _ s **-------
DOCKET NUMBER OOCKFT[D
,. ~)"
Lj .) *~ '". l, PETITION RU1.E PAM 30 .. ~~ 7~I/Fie S778.5) *oo JAN 24 P4 :28 Peter Muise 42 Creighton Street or I\ Cambridge, MA 02140 ADJ! I January 18, 2000 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir,
I am writing regarding two new rules the Commission is considering, which would establish limits on employee hours at power plants and provide employee protection training to supervisors. Please support both of these. Neither tired workers or workers afraid to discuss problems at their plants are strong line of defense against potential disasters. The U.S. has happily been without any nuclear disaster for many years. Please support these rules and ensure that it will continue to be so in the future. Peter Muise
. f B I 5 7otffl
--cknoWted!:led by can:I ---* .,. ..... ....-,,
11-Jll.., di ADJUDICATIONSSTAFF
,FFICE 0FTHE SECRETARY 0FTHE COMMISSION Document Statistics P .:tmark ate /F/~ / */ 00 C )()teSRecaived _ _ _ __ _ _
Acta'ICopialRapooucecj _ _ _ __ Special llltlbllb'l_ _ _ _ _ __
1111i.svruuk Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen. Virginia 23060 oor.1J 1 o us @
*oo J N 24 A1 :57 January 10, 2000 0-AD.'
VIRGINIA POWER GL99-076 0 K :T NUMBER David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services ITION RULE PRM 3 0 _ ":L Office of Administration (I~~ S7~"9 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
- 10 CFR PART 30-EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINING; RECEIPT OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Virginia Power appreciates the opportunity to comment on the petition for rulemaking regarding employee protection training that was filed with the Commission by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petition was docketed by the NRC on August 18, 1999, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-30-62. Notice of the petition was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 64, No. 207) on Wednesday, October 27, 1999, and appeared on pages 57785-57787.
We endorse the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) .
- If you need further information, please contact:
Gwen Newman Gwen_Newman@vapower.com or (804} 273-4255 arthy, Manager sing and Operat ons Support
~cknowf_,ed by cam FEB 15 2009
1,ul-1..1..1-1,*, rlt:u\JLAI CJHY CO ltjSIQN 1ULEMAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFICE GFTHE SB:RETARY OF THE CCMflSSION Docllnent Statiallcl Postmmlc Date coi&-Aecowad _ _ __,__ __
/ )
/II lo{)
j Ad<fl ~Repoduced-~ -- S~CldlbJlion,_ _ _ _ __
ADRIAN DOM INICAN SISTERS 1257 East Siena Heights Drive uoc,; r fJ Adrian , Michigan 49221- 1793 517-266-3400 Phone j I~ I~ 517-266-3507 Fax Office of the General Council
*oo JAN 2I P2 :41 January 17, 2000 DOCKET NUMBER Secretary of the Commission PETITION RULE PRU 30 ... ,.:i.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission G,'IFRS 778's_) Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir or Madrun:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support for the two proposed rules that are before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at this time. The first rule limits the number of working hours for employees at nuclear power plants. As there is scientific research that backs up the direct connection between worker fatigue and the degradation of performance by these employees, all consideration should be given to keeping their working hours at a reasonable and safe limit. The second rule protects the nuclear "whistleblowers" from harassment and intimidation. Both of these issues require considerable attention to detail to be certain of fairness and logic. I am asking that the NRC support both of these rules to ensure that the first line of defense at our nuclear facilities is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination .
- Sincerely, Molly Giller OP General Council MG/ts C!l'd ,..., FEB I 5 2881 I ........ . ~
- u. . UCLf:AH REGULATORY COMMlt;SION RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOICATION8RW OFRCEOFTHESEaETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statlsticl Postmark Data __J It/ fp_o___
Copies-~--- -*-- Add'I ~ R8plOduced - - - - Speclal Dl8trbltkJtl,_ _ _ _ __
30-lr,~ (i, 'IF~~77f55) Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555-0001 *oo JAN 21 p 2 :59 01
Dear Mr. Secretary,
F I'm writing urge you to support both recently proposed rules to ensure that workers are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. These two rules are essential to prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance. They will prevent fatigued workers from repairing , inspecting , and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down . The rules would prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety
- problems . Supervisors , managers, and directors should be prevented from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions. These rules are needed to protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident.
Thank you for your attention.
,~
Sincerely, Jim Mosser 467 SW 191 Terrace Pembroke Pines , FL 33029 FEB I 5 100D
~mmwf8ffi'.led by cani * *JO * * - I C
.... ilJ 1..i::Ah rlt:1.:iULATOR COM . ION RULEMAKI S& UDICATIONS STAFF OFRCE 0FTff SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSKIN Doctlnent Smtistics Poslmalk Date I/;3 / 00 Copial-Reoeived I /
Add'! Coples Reproduced __ Special Distribution._ __
DOCKETED US RC Joseph A. Y~rin~ Fairfield Views, Apt. lOB 3103 Fairfield Avenue *oo JAN 21 P2 :41 Bronx, New York 10463 January 9, 2000 I.. AD Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKET ~Mi~ Washington, DC 20555-0001 PET/TJONRUI.E rt ~ :i. R5"778s) R.e; Limits on employee working hours; employee training
Dear NRC:
I am writing to request that you support both proposed rules that govern limits on the amount of hours a nuclear power plant employee can work and also the rule that protects employees who speak out about safety concerns at the plant. The public needs to be assured that the first line of defense is staffed by workers who are free from both fatigue and fear of illegal discrimination. It is essential to prevent fatigue from impairing nuclear plant worker performance and to prevent fatigued workers from repairing, inspecting, and testing safety equipment when nuclear power plants are operating or shut down, We must prevent fear from causing nuclear plant workers to remain silent about safety problems and to prevent supervisors, managers, and directors from using "ignorance of the law" as a shield for their illegal actions. Please protect the public and the environment from a nuclear power plant accident buy supporting these two proposed rules. I will be awaiting your response to this letter. Thank you very much for your concern and your time. Sincerely,
~ ::in~
HB 5 1
U.S. NUCU:AR REGULATORY C:OMMIIWIJN RULEMAKINGS &AOJlJDICATDt8 RIIF OFACE0FTHESEaEARV OFTHECCM1118$10N Document Stallstlcs Postmark Data CopiesRecelved _ _ I I /; 8 I LO 0 Addi Coples Reproduced _ _ __ SpeclmDtstrbJtion_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Station Support Department PECO NUCLEAR PECO Energy Company Nuclear Group Headquarters A UNIT OF PECO ENERGY 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard Wayne, PA 19087-5691
'00 JAN L'. I P2 :48 January 7, 2000 AC,J Secretary DOCKET NUMBER U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PETITION RULE PRU 3o-6:z.
Attn : Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Washington , DC 20555-0001 {6tf~,fS778'6)
Subject:
Comments Concerning "Employee Protection Train ing; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking" (64FR57785, dated October 27, 1999)
Dear Sir/Madam :
This letter is being submitted in response to the NRC's request for comments concerning "Employee Protection Training ; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking," which was published in the Federal Register (i. e., 64FR57785, dated October 27, 1999). The NRC published for comment a notice of receipt of a petition for a rulemaking dated August 13, 1999, that was filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations concerning deliberate misconduct to require licensees to provide specific training to management (i. e., first line supervisors, managers, directors, and officers) , on their obligations under the employee protection regulations . The petitioner believes that the amendment would prevent nuclear energy management from using "Ignorance of the law as an excuse for a violation and allow the NRC to take enforcement actions against individuals who violate the employee protection regulations .
- PECO Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment on the petition for rulemaking involving "Employee Protection Training ." PECO Energy believes this regulation is not required , in that management and the industry are aware of employee protection regulations , and raising safety concerns is encouraged .
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, ames A. Hutton, Jr. Director - Licensing FEB t 5 ?81JD
~~bycard I** I I Q&-
LI.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIIIIIOIOH RULEMAKINGS &ADJWICA1DIJIDl'F FFICE 0f.'RfE 9IDWIMY OFTHECOMBSO DocumentSldlllcs ~oete Cople&-RecQlved _ _ 1/1:i/oo
, _ 1----'--_ __
Adcrt ~ Raproduced - - - - Soedal Oi6tributfon_ __
PECO ENERGY
- Nr AI'l'L
*** .AC'!ICII Rl!OJ]!iS'.t ***
- SL RlQ *BBT .DM'E: 10Ji0v99 1tU)B9r.BD BY:_LI=(=::R'=*=*x_T ________
A. Maintenance Unit Related Information. COMP-------- FEX;: ID: DESC: ------------------- E'rr/ED'l'=-=-----=E=1~---*1=m=T=,.,,...:__,,,0.,,..0O"""o"""o,..,,o...,,.o.,,..o-T-'.AG---LOCAT----I-ON-:-_- MAIN CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCY TAG LOCATION: TASK TYPE: _ _ _ MOD NCJMBER: RW INPUT: SCHED CODE/WINIX)N: ------- ALTERNATE: FACILITY: CB UNIT: SYSTEM: - - - EQUIPMENT LOCATION:----,:-------,:--- B. Detail Description and Review of the Problem.
SUMMARY
DESC: 10CFR30 - PETITION RULEMAKING: EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINI:00 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 64FR57785, DATED OCTOBER 27, 1999 TXLl 10NOV99 SSOED A PETITION FOR RULEMAKING WHICH WAS FILED BY TXLl 10:00V99 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTIST IX>CKET PRM-30-62. THE TXLl 10RJV99 ITION THAT THE NRC AMEND ITS RmlJLATIONS TXLl 10NOV99 CONCERNI:00 DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT TO REJJ{JIRE LICENSEES TO TXLl 10NOV99 PROVIDE SPECIFIC TRAINING TO MANAGEMENT, I.E., FIRST LINE TXLl 10NOV99 SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, DIRECTORS, AND OFFICERS, ON THEIR TXLl 10NOV99 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE PROl'ECTION RroULATIONS. TXLl 10NOV99 THE PETITIONER BELIEVES THAT THE AMENr>>mNT WOULD PREVENT TXLl 10NOV99 NUCLEAR ENERGY MANAGEMENT FROM USI:00 "IGNORANCE OF THE TXLl 10NOV'99 LAW" AS AN EXCUSE FOR A VIOLATION AND ALLOW THE NRC TO TXLl 10mv99 TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WHO VIOLATE TXLl 10mv99 THE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS. TXLl 10NOV99
*** TXLl 10NOV99 THE NRC IS REQUESTING COMMENTS ON THIS PETITION FOR TXLl 10NOV99 RULEMAKING BY JANUARY 10, 2000. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO TXLl lON0\199 SUPPORT THIS RN,JEST, PLEASE PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS TO THE TXLl 10NOV99 ICENSING SECTION BY JANUARY 2 2000. TXLl 10NOV99
PECO ERBRGY lifa:- nPB : A'R Al'fL
'"* .AC'tIOR R.QlBS'.r *** A/R JIJNRBR : Al238186 PIGB: 02 RIU*Df 08G :* SL A/R S'J!M'OS : P.l'JANBD*
Rl!(JOBSl' DnB: 1011Jv9, S'lWl'OS DAB: J.oiiiv§§ RIQ*BS'l'BD BY: LIGBft T LAST UPDM!B: .1.0IIN9!i PRDIT DATE: lON0\199 DATE lmJUIRED: SUPERVISOR -----
- HELKER OP RECOMMENDATION: A DATE: 1000V99 A/R PACKAGE N B R - - = - - - - - - - - - - COMMITMENT NBR:-
RECURRING TASK NBR: REG DOC CODE: ENTRANCE DATE: NRAR 30 __ OTHER: EXIT DATE: ISSUE DATE: SYSTEM/TOPIC: -----
- c. Failure Determination: E. ACTION REQUEST PLAN INFORMATION MRULE/EPIX SCOPE: REPEAT MA.INT: PEPI:
FUNC FAILURE: TECH SPEC OPERABLE: UPDATED BY: OUTAGE REQD : POrENTIAL REPT DATE: SSV OOTIFIEO: NAME: DATE: Rl!QJIREO IN t<<>OES: ----- TIME:
- o. Quality Evaluation Checklist. SAFE SHOT l)()'NN:
QA CLASS :_ CLF.ARENCE lmJD: QE REQOIRED:_lL _ _ _ _ _ _ __ A/R APPROVED BY: -=Af=:l=,f<ER==O=P;;;...___ _ _ __ OPHl DATE: 1000V99 ASSIGNED ORG: SL ASSIGNED INV:=L=I=GH=T='i._T=------ PRI/CTO: _ _
SUMMARY
PLAN OESC: ASSIGN
-....;....=--------------------
A/R COMPLETED BY: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DATE: FILM IO: _ _ _ _ _ BLIP NBR: _ _ _ BOX NBR: _ _ __
PECO BRERGY A/R 'l'!PB : AT AI'l'L
*** ACr!Cli E6'l' ***
R RS'1' ORG : SL R DATE: 1011)'199 R BY:....;LI=(=2=t=*x_T.;;;;.__ _ _ __ E.VALUATION NBR: 05 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED: - - - - - E.VALUATim ORG: SLE EVAL DUE DATE: lOJANOO EV.AL ASIGND TO: LIGHTY T DATE ASSIGNED: 10NOV99 E.VAL REQUEST ORG: SL EVAI., REXJ{JESTOR: LIGHTY T EV.AL STATUS : ACCEPT EVAL RETCJRNED BY: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ IMPORTANCE CODE:
- OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE:
--- DATE FIXED: F EVAL DESC: SUBMIT COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT
=================END OF ACTION REQ1]FST====================
WAIS Document Retrieval Page I ofS [Federal Register: October 27, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 207)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 57785-57787] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27oc99-9]
=---===== =
Proposed Rules Federal Register This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. [ [Page 57785) J
- =
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 30 [Docket No. PRM-30-62] Employee ?rotection Training; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: ~uclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: ?etition for rulemaking; notice of receipt .
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking dated August 13, 1999, that was filed with the Connnission by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petition was docketed by the NRC on August 18, 1999, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-30-62. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its regulations concerning deliberate misconduct to require licensees to provide specific training to management, i.e., first line supervisors, managers, directors, and officers, on their obligations under the employee protection regulations. The petitioner believes that the amendment would prevent nuclear energy management from using ignorance of the law as an excuse for a violation and allow the NRC to take enforcement actions against individuals who violate the employee protection regulations.
DATES: Submit comments by January 10, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for corrnnents received on or be:ore this date. ADDRESSES: Sublll.1.t written comments to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=898797725+o+o+o&WA I S ~ e v e
WAIS Document Retrieval Page2of5 At.;tention: RuJ.emakings and Adjudications staff. Band deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. For a copy of the petition, write to David L. Meyer, Chief, RuJ.es and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site provides the capability to upload cormnents as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 (e-mail: cag@nrc.gov) . The Petition and copies of comments received may be inspected and copied for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7162 or Toll Free: 1-800-368-5642. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Petitioner The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has had a nuclear safety program for over two decades and continue to work with nuclear workers--including employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--who raise safety concerns. The UCS notes examples of anonymous concerns received by its organization that have led to significant improvements in safety levels, e.g., concerns that UCS forwarded to the State of Maine in December 1996 that led to the identification of faults in the safety analyses for the Maine Yankee plant. Other concerns received by UCS and presented to the NRC in January 1998 led to the discovery of serious defects in the ice condenser containment at the Donald C. Cook nuclear plant. Grounds for Interest
- The petitioner states that on May 14, 1996 (61 FR 24336) the NRC issued a policy statement that set forth its expectation that licensees and other employers subject to NRC authority will establish and maintain a safety-conscious environment in which employees feel free ta raise safety concerns, both to their management and to the NRC, without fear of retaliation. The responsibility for maintaining such an environment rests with each NRC licensee, as well as with contractors, subcontractors and employees in the nuclear industry. This policy statement is applicable to NRC regulated activities of all NRC licensees and their contractors and subcontractors.
The petitioner also notes that Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations contains regulations to protect such conscientious workers from discrimination. The petitioner asserts that these regulations are frequently violated, yet the individuals determined by the NRC staff as being responsible for these illegal activities are seldom held accountable. Fitness-for-Duty Rule The petitioner states that 10 CFR Part 26 that contains the
Fitness-For-Duty regulations requires nuclear workers to be free from impairment by drugs and alcohol. The petitioner states that of the 111 individual enforcement actions listed in Attachment 1 to the http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdoclD=898797725+o+o+o&WAIS~eve
WAIS Document Retrieval Page3 of5 p~tition, 17 invoived violation of the fitness-for-duty rule. The petitioner stated that the NRC did not take actions against the licensees, for these cases, but limited* its sanctions to those individuals responsible for the violations. To the contrary, the petitioner states that NRC treats violations of employee protection regulations di~ferently. As an example, in Attachment 2 to the petition, the petitioner states that when the NRC establishes that a violation of an employee protection regulation has occurred such as the May 20, 1999, enforcement action that the NRC imposed against FirstEnergy, the NRC seldom takes enforcement action against the individuals responsible for the violations, but limits its enforcement actions to the licensees. The petitioner believes that nuclear safety demands that workers not be impaired by drug and alcohol and that when any worker violates the fitness-for-duty rule, that individual should be held accountable. The petitioner believes it is equally important that nuclear workers feel free to raise safety issues without fear of discrimination and believes that when a nuclear worker violates the employee protection [ [Page 57786)) regulations, that individual should be held accountable. The petitioner offers that the NRC holds individuals who violate the fitness-for-duty rule accountable. However, the agency is not holding individuals who violate the employee protection regulations accountable. The petitioner is attempting to remedy this inequity by this petition for rulemaking. The petitioner believes that by requiring licensees to train management on their obligations under the employee protection regulations, the NRC staff would no longer be able to claim that individuals were unaware that their actions were illegal. Supporting Information The petitioner states that 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 40, 50, 52, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 110, and 150 each contain a regulation against deliberate misconduct by employees and/or contractors of NRC licensees. The petitioner specifically set out in the petition the text from 10 CFR 50.5 to reflect the scope and content of the deliberate misconduct regulations. The petitioner included three attachments to the petition that summarize the enforcement actions that NRC imposed against individuals, nuclear power plant owners, and non-nuclear power plant licensees between March 1996 and August 5, 1999. The enforcement data contained in the attachments were obtained from the website of the NRC Office of Enforcement, http://nrc.gov.OE/. sanctions Against Individuals Attachment 1 to the petition indicates that NRC took enforcement action against individuals 111 times between March 1996 and August 5, 1999. The petitioner notes that only four cases involved enforcement actions taken by the NRC because the individual discriminated against nuclear workers raising safety concerns. The petitioner states that Federal regulations protect nuclear workers from being discriminated against for raising safety concerns and cites as an example the text of 10 CFR 50.7, Employee Protection, that applies to workers at nuclear power plants. The petitioner further states that 10 CFR contains equivalent regulations that apply to workers at non-power nuclear facilities. The petitioner specifies that the four cases listed in Attachment 1 to the petition where NRC imposed enforcement action against individuals for their discrimJ.natory actions against nuclear workers clearly demonstrate that the NRC can take such actions. However, according to the petitioner, the evidence is Just as clear that the NRC http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=898797725+-0+0+o&W A I S ~ e v e
WAJ.S Document Retrieval Page4 ofS se,1..dom imposes enforcement actions against individuals even when it concludes that individuals were responsible for illegal discriminatory
. actions.
Sanctions Against Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Licensees Attachment 2 to the petition lists eighteen enforcement actions imposed against nuclear power plant owners for discrimination against nuclear power plant workers. The petitioner states that in 12 of the 18 enforcement actions against the owners, the NRC also imposed a civil penalty. The penalties ranged between $55,000 and $200,000 with the average being $104,417. Attachment 3 to the petition lists five enforcement actions imposed against non-nuclear power plant licensees for discrimination against workers. The petitioner states that in four of the five enforcement actions against non-nuclear plant licensees, the NRC also imposed a civil penalty. The penalties ranged between $4,400 and $10,000 with the average being $7,800. The petitioner states that from March 1996 to August 5, 1999, the NRC took 23 enforcement actions against licensees for discriminating against nuclear workers. The petitioner notes that before taking the enforcement actions and imposing the fines, the NRC staff's investigations determined who did what to whom. According to the petitioner, the NRC concluded that the what violated the employee protection regulations of 10 CFR. The petitioner states that despite identifying who was responsible for violating Federal regulations in the 23 cases, the NRC staff only took enforcement action against individuals on four occasions. The petitioner further adds that the fact that the NRC took actions against four individuals demonstrates that it has the statutory authority to do so and in fact revised its regulations on January 13, 1998 (63 FR 1890) to extend the Deliberate Misconduct Rule to six categories of persons. These categories included applicants for NRC licenses; applicants for, or holders of, certificates of compliance; applicants for, or holders of, early site permits, standard design certifications, or combined licenses for nuclear power plants; applicants for, or holders of, certificates of registration; applicants for, or holders of, quality assurance program approvals; and the employees, contractors, subcontractors and consultants of the above five categories of persons. 10 CFR 2.206 Petition On May 25, 1999, the petitioner filed a petition with the NRC under 10 CFR 2.206. The petition requested that the individual who was the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant be banned by the NRC from participation in licensed activities at and for any nuclear power plant for a period of at least five years. An NRC News Announcement RIII-99-31 dated May 24, 1999, stated that an NRC investigation found that the Radiation Protection Manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant discriminated against a supervisor in 1997 for testifying in a United states Department of Labor hearing involving possible discrimination against another plant worker. The Announcement stated that the NRC has banned individuals in the recent past for five years for retaliation. By letter dated June 23, 1999, the NRC denied the petition. According to the letter, the NRC stated that while consideration was given to taking enforcement action against the manager, i t determined that the manager was not familiar with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.7. The NRC issued the manager a letter stating that the manager's actions contributed to the enforcement action against FirstEnergy. Additionally, the letter informed the manager that involvement in a future discrimination violation could result in enforcement action against the manager. The NRC proposed a $110,000 fine against http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=898797725+o+o+o&WAIS~eve
WAIS Document Retrieval. Page 5 of5 Fi~,tEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, for violation of the employee protection requirements of 10 CFR 50.7 . Conclusion The petitioner states NRC's decision regarding its 2.206 petition makes little sense. The petitioner asserts that NRC inaction endorses the view that ignorance of the law is an excuse--at least when it comes to violating regulations promulgated to protect nuclear workers from discrimination. The petitioner noted that when the NRC revised the Deliberate Misconduct rule in January, 1998, it stated-- The obJective of the rule is to explicitly put those persons encompassed by this modification of the Deliberate Misconduct Rule on notice that enforcement action may be taken against them for deliberate misconduct or deliberate submission of incomplete or inaccurate information, in relation to NRC licensed activities. Under Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act, the Commission may impose civil penalties on any person who violates any rule, regulation, or order issued under any one of the enumerated provisions of the Act, or who commits a violation for which a license may [ [Page 57787]) be revoked. The enforcement actions that may be taken, including orders limiting activities of wrongdoers in the future and civil penalties, will serve as a deterrent to others throughout the industry. [emphasis added by Petitioner] The petitioner states that the NRC staff believes that people will be aware that the deliberate misconduct regulation was expanded to apply to them, but that these same people will be oblivious to all of the other regulations that define proper conduct. Further, the petitioner believes that rather than debating whether the NRC staff can really excuse illegal activities of nuclear industry management based on their ignorance of Federal regulations, ucs, the petitioner, is opting for this petition for rulemaking change to disallow the ignorance excuse. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October, 1999 .
- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 99-28050 Filed 10-26-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=898797725+o+o+o&WAIS~eve
PECO ENERGY A/R TYPE
*** ACTION Rl!QJES'l' *** PAGE: 01
- AT AITL A/R lillMBER: A1238186 RJQIEST ORG : SL A/R STATUS: PLNNED RJQIEST DATE: 10mv99 STATUS DATE: 101EV99 RQJESTED BY: LIGHTY T LAST OPDM'E: 03.JANOO
---------- PRINT DATE:: 07JANOO A. Maintenance Unit Related Information.
FEG: COMP-ID: DESC: ------------------- ETT/EDT: ETT/EDTI: 00000000 TAG LOCATION: MAIN CONTROL ROOM DEFICIENCY TAG LOCATION: TASK TYPE:-,----- MOD NUMBER: RW INPUT: SCHED CODE/WINIX)W: ------ ALTERNATE: FACILITY: CB UNIT: SYSTEM: - - - mJ(JIPMENT LOCATION:_-:_-:_=---- B. Detail Description and Review of the Problem.
SUMMARY
DESC: 10CFR30 - PETITION RULEMAKING: EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINING FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 64FR57785 DATED OCTOBER 27 1999 TXLl 10NOV99 SSUED A PETITION FOR RULEMAKING WHICH WAS FILED BY TXLl 10NOV99 UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTIST DOCKET PRM-30-62. THE TXLl 10NOV99 PETITION REQUESTED THAT THE NRC AMEND ITS REGULATIONS TXLl 10NOV99 CONCERNING DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT TO RE}JUIRE LICENSEES TO TXLl 10NOV99 PROVIDE SPECIFIC TRAINING TO .MANAGEMENT, I.E., FIRST LINE TXLl 10NOV99 SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS, DIRECTORS, AND OFFICERS, ON THEIR TXLl 10NOV99 OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS. TXLl 10NOV99 THE PETITIONER BELIEVl!:S THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD PREVENT TXLl 10NOV99 NUCLEAR ENERGY MANAGEMENT FROM USING "IGNORANCE OF THE TXLl 10NOV99 LAW" AS AN EXCUSE FOR A VIOLATION AND ALLOW THE NRC TO TXLl 10NOV99 TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WHO VIOLATE TXLl 10NOV99 . THE EMPLOYEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS. TXLl 10NOV99
*** TXLl 10NOV99 THE NRC IS REQUESTING COMMENTS ON THIS PETITION FOR TXLl _l0NOV99 RULEMAKING BY JANUARY 10, 2000. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO TXLl 10NOV99 SUPPORT THIS ST PLEASE PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS TO THE TXLl 10NOV99 ICENSING SECTION BY JANUARY 2 2000. TXLl 10NOV99 DWM3 18NOV99 FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 64 NlJBMER 207 DWM3 18NOV99 PROPOSED RULES 10 27 99 PAGE 57785-57787. DWM3 18NOV99 AVAILABLE FROM THE FEDERAL REGISTER ONLINE VIA GPO ACCESS DWM3 18NOV99 (WAIS.ACCESS.GPO.GOV) DWM3 18NOV99 DOCID; FR270C99-9 DWM3 18NOV99 DOCKET NO; PRM 30-62 DWM3 18NOV99
PECO ENERGY A/R
*** ACTION REO')EST *** P.AGE: 02 TY.PE : AT AITL A/R NUMBER : Al238186 R1QJEST ORG : SL A/R STATUS : PLNNED R1QJEST DATE: 10NCW99 STM."US DATE: 10RJV99 REU]ESTED BY:_L=I=c=;s=**=*y:.....;;;;T_ _ _ _ __ LAST DPilATE: 03.JANOO PRINT DATE: 07JANOO DATE REQUIRED: _ _ _ __
SUPERVISOR : ==A=Ha---,KER=---=D=P______ RECOMMENDATION: A DATE: 10NOV99 A/R PACKAGE NBR : COMMITMENT NBR:- RECORRING TASK NBR: REG OOC CODE: -NRAR
- - -30 OTHER: ENTRANCE DATE: ----
EXIT DATE: ISSUE DATE: _ _ _ __ SYSTEM/TOPIC: C. Failure Determination: E. ACTION REXJOEST PLAN INFORMATION MRULE/EPIX SCOPE: REPEAT MAINT: PEP#: FUNC FAILURE: TECH SPEC : _ OPERABLE: _ UPDATED BY: OUTAGE REXJD: _ POTENTIAL REPT _ DATE: SSV NOTIFIED: NAME: DATE: TIME: REQUIRED IN MODES: - - - - - D. Quality Evaluation Checklist.' SAFE SHUT DOWN: QA CLASS : CLEAR.ENCE REQD: _ _ _ __ QE REQUIRED:_]L _ _ _ _ _ _ __ A/R APPROVED BY: _HEL _ _KER _ _D_P_ _ _ _ __ DPHl DATE: 10NOV99 ASSIGNED ORG: SL _ _T_ _ _ _ _ _ PRI/CTD: _ _ ASSIGNED INV:_L_IG_HTY
SUMMARY
PLAN DESC:_AS;;.;;.;;;..;S=I___G~N_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ A/R COMPLETED BY: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DATE: FILM ID: BLIP NBR: BOX NBR:
PECO ENERGY
*** ACTION RQJEST *** PAGE: 03 A/R TYPE : AT AITL A/R NOMBER: A1238186
~ ORG : SL A/R STATUS: PLNNED
~'DATE: -10MJV99 -- STATUS DATE: 10MJV99 RJU)ESTED BY: LIGHTY T
---------- LAST UPDATE: 03JANOO PRINT DATE: 07JANOO EVALUATION NBR: 01 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:
EVALUATING ORG: s'Et EVAL DOE DATE: -0"""'3=-J-AN__,,,O..,,.O-EVAL ASIGND TO: HELKER DP DATE ASSIGNED: 10NOV99 EVAL REQUEST ORG: SL EVAL REQOESTOR: LIGHTY T EVAL STATUS : RETURN EVAL RETURNED BY: HELKER DP IMPORTANCE CODE:
\
OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE: - - - DATE FIXED: EVAL DESC: PROVIDE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT NO SPECIFIC COMMENTS. SIMILAR TRAINING IS ALREADY DPHl 03JAN00 PROVIDED IN G.E.T. DPHl 03JAN00 DPHl 03JANO0
PECO ENERGY A/R TYPE
*** ACTION R.JQJES'r *** PAGE: 04
- AT AITL A/R NUMBER: Al238186
.,I REQUEST ORG : SL A/R STATUS : PLNNED RQJESrED BY: LIGHTY T _
REOUEST_...,...,.mim: 10RJV99 _;.;.;;;~;,..._;;; ______ STATUS mTE: 10!DV99 LAST OPDA.TE: 03.JANOO PRINT mTE: 07JANOO EVALUATION NBR: 02 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED: EVALUATI'NG ORG: ~ EVAL DUE DATE: -03JAN0O EVAL ASIGND TO: LOOM.IS, T. DATE ASSIGNED: 10NOV99 EVAL REJ;)UEST ORG: SL EVAL REJ;)UESTOR: LIGHTY T EVAL STATUS : RETURN EVAL RETURNED BY:_LOOM. _ _I~S~,_T_._ _ _ __ IMPORTANCE CODE: OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE: - - - DATE FIXED: T EVAL DESC: PROVIDE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT NO COMMENTS. SEE EVAL RESPONSE FROM TRAINING FOR MORE TRL2 03JAN00 DISCUSSION. TRL2 03JAN00 EVAL 3 TRL2 03JAN00
PECO ENERGY
*** ACrION REQJEST *** PAGE: 05 A/R T!PE : AT AITL A/R NUMBER: Al238186 RQJEST atG : SL A/R STATOS : PLNNm>
DATE: 10R:J'l199 RQJEST...,._.......... STATOS DATE: 10Jl:N99 RlQJESTED BY: LIGHTY T LAST UPDATE: 03JANOO
---------- PRINT DATE: 07JANOO EVALUATION NBR: 03 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:
EVALUATING ORG: r:;§E ----- EVAL DUE DATE: 02JANOO EVAL ASIGND TO: GAMBLE DATE ASSIGNED: 22NOV99 EVAL REQUEST ORG: SL EVAL REQUESTOR: LIGHTY T EVAL STATUS : COMPLT EVAL RE'TURNED BY:_GAMB.;;;....;...~LE~------ IMPORTANCE CODE: OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE:___ DATE FIXED: T EVAL DESC: PROVIDE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT THIS TRAINING IS NOT REQUIRED. STGl 22NOV99 MANAGEMENT IS AWARE OF EMPLOYEE PROTECTON REGULATIONS. STGl 22NOV99 ISING SAFETY CONCERNS IS ENCOURAGED. STGl 22NOV99
PECO ENERGY
*** ACTION RQJEST *** PAGE: 06 A/R TYPE : AT AITL A/R NUMBER : Al238186 RQJESTORG:SL --::--,~-
A/R STATUS : PLNNED RQJEST DM'E: 10?<<JY99 STA'l'US IlM'E: lORJ\799 B.IQmSTED BY: LIGHTY T LAST UPDATE: 03JAN00
---------- PRINT IlM'E : 07JAN00 EVALUATION NBR: 04 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED: ---,,-,,------,---
EVALUATING ORG: PSE EVAL DUE DATE: 03JAN00 EVAL ASIGND TO: WINTER, A DATE ASSIGNED: 18NOV99 EVAL R,EXJUEST ORG: SL EVAL R,EXJUESTOR: LIGHTY T EVAL STATUS ACCEPT EVAL RETURNED BY: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ IMPORTANCE CODE: OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE: - - - DATE FIXED: T EVAL DESC: PROVIDE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED ROLE ON DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT
PECO ENERGY
*** ACTION REJJ{JEST *** PAGE: 07 A/R TYPE : AT AITL A/R NUMBER: A1238186 RJQJEST cmG : -::'-'::----
SL A/R ST.ATOS : PLNNED RJQJEST DA.TE: 10RN99 STATUS MTE: 10:t<<JV99
~ BY: LIGHTY T
------------ LAST UPDATE: 03JAN00 PRINT DA.TE: 07JAN00 EVALUATION NBR: 05 ORIG DATE ASSIGNED:
EVALUATING ORG: sLE EVAL DUE DATE:~l~0~J~AN-=-o~o-EVAL ASIGND TO: LIGHTY T DATE ASSIGNED: 10NOV99 EVAL REQUEST ORG: SL EVAL REQUESTOR: LIGHTY T EVAL STATUS ACCEPT EVAL RETURNED BY: IMPORTANCE CODE: OEAP: SCHEDULE CODE: - - - DATE FIXED: F EVAL DESC: SUBMIT COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT
===================END OF ACTION REQUEST=======================
OCKETNU rm PETITION RULE PAM 3o - {:, .2. [i, o/'.c-tf 51785) Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
*oo JAN 18 ~.11 :24 January 10, 2000 Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) - PETITION FOR RULEMAKING: EMPLOYEE PROTECTION TRAINING (VOLUME 64 FEDERAL REGISTER 57785, OCTOBER 27, 1999) TVA appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the subject petition for rulemaking publ ished in the October 27, 1999 Federal Register. TVA participated in an industry effort with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to review the subject petition and endorses the comments transmitted to the NRC by NEI. TVA recognizes that it is important to handle employee safety concerns properly. To ensure effective handling of concerns, TVA has provided staff training on the statutory and regulatory requirements related to permitting employees to express any concerns, safety-related or otherwise, without retaliation or the threat of retaliation. The training provided practical tips on properly addressing concerns expressed by employees. TVA also provides training that describes the agency's policy prohibiting discrimination and encouraging employees to promptly report safety conditions. TVA recognizes that this is of critical importance to the continued success of our nuclear program. However, TVA feels strongly that training on this important matter should not be the subject of federal regulation. TVA trains its managers and employees on a variety of topics related to the safe operation of its nuclear plants, and does so without NRC-imposed training requirements. Segregating and prioritizing topics for mandatory training is at best, unwise, and at worst, counterproductive. Consistent with the views of NEI, we believe it is far better public policy to let licensees develop and implement training on regulatory and other topics bearing on safe plant operation. FEB 14 2llll
~IOWl9fbtdby Printed on recycled paper
lJ.S. NUCLl::AH Hl:uULAIORY COM~IOi RULEMAKINGS &ADJUOCRIONS STAFF OFRCE GFlHESEaEARY OF THE COMMISSfON Oocument ~ Pot111191k Dele CqllelRaeat,oo _*_
/ /11/ 00 Add'l ~ Repoouced - ._ - -
Specl!llllatllbutlon._ _ __ _ _
I' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 January 10, 2000 For the reasons expressed above as well as those submitted by NEI, we believe the petition for proposed rulemaking should be denied. If you have questions regarding this response, please contact me at (423) 751-2508. Sincerely,
-'1rk J. Burzynski Manager Nuclear Licensing cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
~ .0 NUCLEAR ENERGY INS T ITUTE 2(ffi Jl1 I l f~M\Q: 2Ll RULES & Di1\. C.,dN icH Robert Willis Bishop US NRG January 10, 2000 VICE PRESIDENT &
GENERAL COUNSEL Mr. David L. Meyer, Chief DOCK NUMB Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services PETITION RULE PAM 3o - '- :i., Office of Administration ?r,~r-:1< S7785) Mail Stop: T6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Washington, DC 20555
SUBJECT:
Petition for Rulemaking: Employee Protection Training (64 Fed. Reg. 57785; October 27, 1999).
Dear Mr. Meyer:
On behalf of the nuclear energy industry, the Nuclear Energy Institute 1 is pleased to submit the attached comments on the petition for rulemaking filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, published in the Federal Register October 27, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 57785). The petition requests that the RC amend its regulations concerning deliberate misconduct to require that licensees provide their management with training on the NRC's employee protection regulations . The industry believes that the petition should be denied. In sum, we oppose the petition for the following reasons:
- The proposed rule is unnecessary. Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR 50.7 set out the requirements that licen sees and their contractors must meet in the area of employee protection. Further, licensees already train their workforce on the principles underlying Section 211 and 10 CFR 50. 7 and how to ensure that employees freely air safety concerns.
1 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operation al and technical issues. El's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities , nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. 1776 I STREET , NW SUITE 400 WASHINGTON , DC 20006 3708 PHONE 202 73Q 81 39 FAX 202 785 40 I 9 WWW, nei . erg
-
- Ut1) Cvwm1wo.>IOi Ar<.INGS & UDfCATIONS ST~
)FFICE OF THE SECRETARY
,FTHEC MMISSION Document SC8tJBti:s I /I(. 00 ies R8C8ived /
d'I COpi8s
.ial Distribution ,___
roduced _ {-,
Mr. David L. Meyer January 10, 2000 Page 2 RULES & o:R. m1.PNCH US NRG
- The proposed rule would be inconsistent with the NRC's longstanding regulatory approach, which does not contemplate promulgation of a training requirement for each substantive regulation with which licensees must comply.
- The petition does not provide adequate justification for requested agency action.
- The request for a training rule on employee protection requirements is, in reality, an effort to prompt the NRC to expand enforcement against individuals for potential 50. 7 violations. Such an expansion would have serious policy implications and the NRC should continue to have the discretion to consider all relevant evidence before taking the extraordinary step of enforcement against an individual.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this petition for rulemaking and would be happy to discuss our comments with NRC staff. Sincerely,
Attachment Comments by the Nuclear Energy Institute on Petition for Rulemaking to Require Employee Protection Training A. The proposed rule is unnecessary. The legal requirements applicable to employee protection are set out in Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act and 10 CFR § 50.7. The NRC has emphasized the importance of ensuring that nuclear industry employees feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation by issuing a policy statement on this subject (Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation, 61 Fed. Reg. 24336, May 16, 1996). Although the NRC has considered further regulation in this area, the agency withdrew the proposal for additional regulatory action based on its express acknowledgement that its current regulations are sufficient. See 63 Fed. Reg. 6235, February 6, 1998. In light of the requirements of Section 211 and 10 CFR 50.7 and the potentially severe consequences that may result from a related violation, as well as every licensee's interest in promptly identifying and resolving potential safety issues, licensees already have implemented training programs for supervisors and managers to inform them of their responsibility to handle employee safety concerns properly. Although training programs vary from licensee to licensee, site access training and supplemental supervisor training usually cover employee protection requirements. Training typically provides an overview of Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act as well as the NRC's implementing regulations, and emphasizes individual licensee policies that prohibit discrimination and encourage employees to promptly report safety conditions. Licensees also generally provide supervisors with practical suggestions for properly addressing safety-related concerns expressed by employees. Some training programs include role play opportunities and discussion of vignettes designed to hone those skills that tend to be useful in dealing with employee concerns (listening skills, communication techniques, awareness of the need to provide fee dback on the steps taken to address the potential safety issue, to name a few). In sum, contrary to the implication of the petition, licensees already train their staff in an effort to equip managers with a basic understanding of the law prohibiting discrimination, its objectives, and practical ways to address employee concerns. Training on this topic, like training on so many technical and operational matters that are also the subject of regulatory requirements, is conducted because licensee management believes it is valuable. Licensees recognize their obligation to comply with employee protection laws and believe that training is an effective mechanism to convey that obligation to the nuclear work force. Adding a requirement for
training on employee protection requirements is duplicative, given the training activities already under way. B. A stand-alone training rule on employee protection requirements would be inconsistent with the NRC's approach to training. Longstanding NRC policy has been to place on licensees the burden of providing workers with sufficient training to perform work consistent with the applicable substantive regulations. See 10 CFR, Part 19. NRC has not, and should not now, establish detailed, prescriptive training requirements to correlate to its many substantive requirements. A licensee's decision of when and how to provide training, and the scope of training, should not be the subject of prescriptive federal regulation (and enforcement). Such decisions are necessarily based on a host of management considerations, including the need to train various sectors of the work force, the benefit of training versus resources consumed, and whether issues of the
- sort addressed by the training have arisen at the site in the past. Licensee management is in the best position to tailor training to the needs and experience of individual sites.
Further, imposing a requirement to train employees on issues of discrimination would inappropriately elevate 10 CFR 50. 7 (and corresponding regulations prohibiting discrimination in Subpart 10) over many other regulations that also could be considered sufficiently important to be subject of specific training. 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.59 are compelling examples of regulations important to safety but for which the NRC has not imposed a specific, stand-alone training requirement. The NRC correctly determined that it was not necessary or appropriate to issue separate training requirements for substantive regulations important to safety, and no justification has been presented to take such action now. It is far better public policy to let licensees develop training on regulatory and other topics bearing on compliance and safe plant operation. C. The justification provided in the petition does not support the requested agency action. The justification provided in support of the petition for rulemaking (i.e., the need for additional agency action holding individuals liable in 50. 7 cases) does not withstand scrutiny. An explicit requirement for training will not necessarily improve the existing training, guarantee compliance with employee protection requirements, or increase individual "accountability." In this area, involving issues of human interactions and personalities, painted in shades of gray, it is too simplistic to argue that training will solve all perceived problems. As an example, the analogy between the NRC's enforcement action for fitness for duty violations and violations of employee protection regulations is inapt. Violations of fitness for duty requirements involve engaging in specific prohibited action (e.g., drug or alcohol use). By 2
contrast, enforcement action for a 10 CFR 50. 7 violation often is based on circumstantial evidence, where there may be widely differing accounts of how and why a manager took particular actions later characterized as discriminatory. Further, there may have been legitimate business reasons for the adverse employment action intertwined with the alleged improper motivation. We also note that licensee managers act on behalf of their employer, which is precisely why licensees and other employers have become liable for the acts of their employees. Individual managers, in recommending personnel actions, usually intend to implement the policies and expectations of more senior management, and these decisions are seldom made without some form of organizational review and concurrence. Again, by contrast, for fitness for duty violations, the individual is and should be held accountable for actions for which he or she has sole control and responsibility. The petition also cites as justification for the training rule the NRC's failure to take individual enforcement action in certain cases where discrimination was found. Other than representing a difference of opinion as to whether individual enforcement should have been taken in specific cases, the petition does not demonstrate that there is a widespread problem with individual or licensee accountability in those few cases in which discrimination is found. The petition incorrectly posits that because a licensee is the subject of enforcement action rather than an individual, there is no impact (and therefore no accountability) on the individual manager involved. In fact, individuals accused of discrimination may find it more difficult to progress in a nuclear career because of the stigma of having been accused of discrimination. D. The petition should be denied as an attempt to expand enforcement of 10 CFR 50.5. The petition should be rejected because it is, in effect, nothing more than an indirect and misguided attempt to expand enforcement of 10 CFR 50.5 in the area of employee protection. The petitioner argues that the training rule is necessary in order to prevent individuals from claiming ignorance of the law as an excuse for a violation. However, there is no basis for the premise underlying the proposal - that the NRC automatically take enforcement action against individuals in cases where discrimination is found. The NRC should not accede to this attempt to expand enforcement of the deliberate misconduct rule. The NRC already has considered the circumstances under which it will take the extraordinary step of proposing enforcement action not only against a licensee, but also against an individual. Appropriately, the NRC does not lightly commence enforcement actions against individuals. The criteria for initiating an enforcement action against an individual have already been considered and published in the 3
Enforcement Policy, NUREG-1600, Rev. 1. The Enforcement Policy carves out those criteria and lists factors and examples warranting "closely controlled and judiciously applied" 2 actions against individuals. The proposed rule indirectly attacks these well-developed principles. In making a judgment on whether a supervisor deliberately retaliated against an individual there is no substitute, nor should there be, for a careful weighing of all the evidence. For many reasons, including the subjectivity involved in finding Section 50.7 violations as discussed above, considerable discretion must be allowed to enable the NRC to weigh the facts and fas hion an appropriate enforcement response. Indeed, the petitioner's supporting information admits that current regulations already allow the NRC to sanction individuals for discriminatory actions against nuclear workers and, in some cases, the NRC has exercised its authority to do so .
- E. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the petition for rulemaking should be denied .
2 NUREG-1600, Rev. 1, at 15. 4
& SCI ENC E rn NEW YORK UNI VERSITY
- FACULT Y OF ART
',J tC C.V. STARR CENTER FOR APPLIED ECONOMICS William Baumol
*oo J N 14 P2 :41 Director January 7, 2000 (212) 998-8943 0!1 Douglas Gale Secretary of the Commission r-AO.H Co-Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (212) 998-8944 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Tracy M. Ryan D CKET NUMBER Administrator (212) 998-8936
Dear Mr. Secretary:
PETITION RULE PAM 3o - b .1 7&:. ctF~5?7B'~) I should like to express my strong support for new rules for the prevention of nuclear accidents that have been proposed by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Of course, I *ter's phone #: there can be no rules that are absolutely fool proof in the prevention of accidents. 998-_ However, it seems to me that there are, under current arrangements, a number of needless dangers. Considering the magnitude of the resulting peril, it seems to me that the proposed rules are moderate, reasonable, and promise to contribute materially to containment of the problem. Sincerely,
~ tA -
William J. B .........v, Professor of Economics, New York University Professor Emeritus, Princeton University
- WJB:jrl FEB t ~ -
- *- -
- rt ...
269 Mercer Street* New York, NY 10003-6687
- Telephone: (212) 998-8936
- Fax: (212) 995-3932
,~uL,Lt:AI, REGULATORY CClllliSION U EMAKINGS & ~ STAFF OFRCE OFTIESECRETA OF THE COMIM'IISSIC>N Doetanent St8tlstlcs Postmark Deis Cor>iesReceMa<j
/
t
/t (ooI l
- Add'I ~ Aaprodoced _
i:. cialOlntlution._ __
P.O. Box 1001 Norwich, Vt. 05055 January 5, 2000
*oo Jn 14 A;~ :29 Secretary of the Nuclear R~ alatpry Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C~ssion :>OCKET UMBER Washington, D.C. 20555-001 PETITIO AUL fRM 3o - '=> ~
(~'IFRS7785)
Dear Mr. Secretary:
We are writing concerning the work conditions of employees at our Nation's nuclear power plants. There are two proposed rules, which will be discussed shortly. The first establishes limits on the number of hours an employee may work at a nuclear power plant. These workers are the first lines of defense against a nuclear accident. If they are incapacitated do to fatigue, all of our safety may be compromised. We know that human error has contributed to accidents in the past. Present NRC guidelines limiting workers to 16 hrs per or 72 hrs per week, are not mandatory. The Federal government already imposes work limits on pilots and truck drivers; you should do the same for these workers. The second proposal will protect individuals who conscientiously raise safety issues. Presently supervisors who claim that they were uninformed about the rights of employees can harass these workers. The proposed rule would remove the" ignorance of the law" excuse by requiring mandatory training of managers and supervisors of the rights of their employees Please support both proposals so as to better assure the safety of our nation' s nuclear power plants S~ere~ yours,
'(/t({Z a.,,._j ~ n ,II /I l'L ,;,/l4 Paul and Wendy Manganiello , *~ u ---.. . . . ,u
,J \.#OMMltiSION MAKINGS &ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFACE 0FTHE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISStON Document S18tlstlcs Poslmmk oete Copia8 Racaac1
' /1 /oo /
Add'I Cqa R8plodlx:ed _ _ __ Specl!IDlltlbllb'l._ _ _ _ __
DOCKET NUM David Shelton PETITION RULE PRM 3o-t:,::i-1932 Sterling Rd Charlotte NC 28209 {i'l~.f57785") *oo JAN 12 P4 :c 1 704 375 0672 smytor@yahoo.com AD Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir or Ms.,
I am writing to express my support for the two proposals concerned with limiting working hours and protecting ' whistleblowers' from reprisals by management. As a private citizen, I feel it is bad enough to have this unwanted industry scattered about the landscape that worries quite a number of people (myself included) who are afraid of being in the way of the next nuclear power plant ' event' without the added concern that power plant employees are working too much overtime and are apt to make errors of judgment. Therefore I feel that it is certainly in the best interest of the American people to be as sure as possible that these employees are alert and competent at all times. Further, I feel that it is imperative that every employee have the right to voice his/her concerns about possible mismanagement of these facilities without the fear of reprisals. Please approve both proposals. Sincerely
!ku:)~
David Shelton
_ u1.,L.CAM Hl:uULATORY COMMk;SIO
~ULE AKINGS&ADJUOICA1IONSSTAFF OFFICEOFM!IERETAAY OF THE COMMISSfON DocumentSmtJatics Postmark Date I ~P- 8/ q q CopiesReoeMKi_ /,
fidd'I ~Reproduced_-=- Sp ialll&trlbution,_ _ _ - -
DOCKET BER PETITION RULE PAM 3o-b_:i-j
'1iri(57785)
Conni :B. Xu[as *oo JA~ 12 A7 :29 840 Watson 'Roacf (J 1Jeerfie[cf, OJ{ 44411 AC, 1 December 9, 1999 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 To Whom It May Concern: I am a concerned U.S. Citizen requesting your support of Proposed Rules #1 and #2. As we all know nuclear energy is essential to today's economy. However, if proper safety measures are not in place, "today's economy" will no longer exist. The though of a fatigued and job-scared employee being responsible for operation and repair of a nuclear power plant is quite frankly, terrifying. It is imperative that nuclear power plant staff be properly trained in safety measures. Please consider the magnitude of your responsibility when making your decision on these rules. Thank you for your time. Very truly yours,
.f!f<<,IOWfemed . . ..,
EB l ~ - COJIIMH -
"~
cJ.S. NlJCLt:AH tit:uULATORY co *s10 RlllllAXINGS&ACW>ICATIONSSTAFF OFFfCEOFMSf£RETARY OFTHE~N a::-~~ r:r; &:,,-TJ ~ J-,._j. ~ Add'I CqJl9s Reproduced _ .=-- -,pactal Distribution_ __
WINSTON & S TRA-w1/4-35 WEST WACKER DRIVE 1400 L STREET, N.W. fl\
- CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601-9703 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3502 *oo J~
1 1 I I ' ' \
, J ,ZAVENUE VICTOR HUGO 75 116 PARIS, FRANCE 200 PARK AVENUE 43 RUE DU RHONE (202) 371-5700 NEW YORK, NY 10166-4193 1204 GENEVA, SWITZERLAND FACSIMILE (202) 371-5950 DONN C. MEINDERTSMA A.*
(202) 371-5783 dmeinder@winston.com January 10, 2000 DOCKET NUMBER By Hand PETITION RULE PR 3o - C,:2-
-b</FR57785)
Mr. David L. Meyer, Chief Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration Mail Stop: T6D59 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Petition of the Union of Concerned Scientists for Rulemaking on Employee Protection Regulations (64 Fed. Reg. 57785)
Dear Mr. Meyer:
Enclosed are the comments of W inston & Strawn on the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists, as noticed in the Federal Register on October 27, 1999. UCS petitions for a rule that would mandate training of licensee supervisory and management personnel concerning the NRC's employee protection regulations. For the reasons set forth in the enclosed comments, no rulemaking is justified or appropriate. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Donn C. Meindertsma Encl.
£13 1 4 'lUlffi
~bycmtl 4, - - - -*
,J. . Uv .::hM ntulJLATORY COMMltiSION RULEMAKINGS &AOJllllCATION81rAff OFFICE OF1lfE91!UETARY OFTHECOMMISSK)N Document St8tlab Postmark Date _ __ _____
Copies Received _ _ _ _ _ __ A.dd'I Copies Reproduced~- _ __ 3pecial Distribution _ _ _ _ _ __
COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRAWN ON TIIE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS' PETITION FOR RULEMAKING MANDATING EMPWYEE PROTECTION TRAINING January 10, 2000 Winston and Strawn submits these comments on the petition for rulemaking filed on August 13, 1999 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). See 64 Fed. Reg. 57785 (October 27, 1999). The petition requests that the NRC amend its rules to require that all licensees provide a specific form of training _to supervisors and managers-namely, training on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) regulations that prohibit discrimination against an employee because the employee raised a safety concern. For the reasons that follow, the petition should be rejected. First, UCS fails to offer any meaningful justification to support its petition. In addition, amending the NRCs rules to mandate a specific form of training would be inconsistent with the NRCs approach that, while licensees are expected to foster safety conscious work
- environments at their licensed facilities, they should have flexibility in determining how to achieve that objective. Indeed, the NRC has already indicated that licensees may use training as a tool to foster safety ,conscious work environments. A rule mandating training is neither warranted nor appropriate.
BACKGROUND Licensees have already taken significant steps to assure that workers feel fre~ to raise nuclear safety concerns without fear of retaliation. In tailoring their efforts to foster safety conscious work environments (SCWE), licensees have taken into account site-specific needs and circumstances. For example, some licensees have established formal employee concerns programs as safety nets to assure that an avenue for voicing safety concerns is available to all employees, .even those who may be reluctant to utilize, or have not been satisfied in using, the "chain of command" for reporting concerns. While no NRC rule requires licensees to foster SCWEs, the NRCs 1996 Policy Statement does set forth the agency's expectations in this regard. Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation: Policy Statement, 61 Fed. Reg. 24336 (May 14, 1996). Moreover, 10 C.ER. § 50.7 and similar NRC employee protection regulations have long made clear that discrimination against an employee because the employee engaged in protected
activity is prohibited and will lead to enforcement penalties. The Policy Statement and regulations provide clear incentives to licensees to promote safety conscious workplaces and to implement measures designed to minimize the risk that discrimination will occur. The NRC in the past has-quite properly in our view-refrained from attempting to prescribe specific workplace policies and practices to foster safety conscious workplaces. In the Policy Statement, the NRC conveyed its policy expectation that licensees should promote a SCWE. Rather than prescribe specific SCWE measures, the Policy Statement identified "attributes" of a SCWE and identified voluntary tools that "may" contribute to a safety conscious*workplace. For example, the NRC chose not to mandate that all licensees establish employee concerns programs (ECPs). Rather, the NRC concluded that each licensee should be free to consider the factors specific to their sites, including "the number of employees, the complexity of operations, potential hazards, and the history of allegations made to the NRC or licensee." Id. at 24338. As a result, a variety of ECPs have matured. Each program has been structured to accommodate a site's particular workforce and is designed and staffed in light of the frequency with which concerns are raised. Because the NRC has not been prescriptive with regard to ECPs, licensees remain free to fine-tune their ECP's as circumstances warrant-and even to eliminate such a program if another mix of "SCWE tools" would more effectively foster the desired work environment. The NRC specifically addressed training in its Policy Statement. The NRC recognized that initial and periodic training of employees and supervisors could serve as a tool to foster a SCWE. As with ECPs, however, the NRC did not mandate or prescribe
- training. Nor did the NRC suggest that "required" training would necessarily promote a SCWE better than voluntary training. Rather, the NRC recognized, as a general matter, that "the most effective improvements to the environment for raising concerns will come from within a licensee's organization." Id. at 24337 (emphasis added).
In sum, in adopting its policy in this area, the NRC expressly rejected the notion of a mandated approach to fostering a SCWE and in minimizing the risk of incidents of discrimination: The intent of this policy statement is to emphasize the importance of licensee management taking an active role to prompt"!J resolve situations involving alleged discrimination. Because of the complex nature of labor-management relatio-ns, COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRAWN ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE2OF10
any extemal[y-imposed resolution is not as desirable as one achieved internaUy. 61 Fed. Reg. 24339. The NRC's rationale should not be disturbed, as licensees are best suited to establish and promote safety conscious workforces and workplaces, and to determine how discrimination, perceived or actual, can best be avoided. THE UCS PETITION Notwithstanding the NRC's consistent regulatory approach in this area, the UCS petitions the NRC to amend its regulations to mandate training of first-line supervisors, managers, officers and directors "about their obligations with respect to employee protection regulations," such as Section 50.7. This request should be denied as it represents an unnecessary departure from the NRCs approach in setting SCWE expectations. As a basis for the proposed rule, the UCS petition generally contends that the NRC fails to hold employees who engage in discrimination "accountable" for their actions. In an attempt to support this, the petition asserts that only four out of more than a hundred recent enforcement actions against individuals were based on employee protection violations. (In its petition, UCS concedes that less than a quarter of these one-hundred-plus enforcement actions involved discrimination claims in the first place. UCS also discounts Letters of Reprimand in this statistical "analysis.") From this data, UCS concludes in its petition that "the agency seldom imposes enforcement actions against individuals even when it concludes that individuals were responsible for illegal discriminatory actions." In an effort to demonstrate that more frequent individual enforcement is desirable, the petition compares discrimination enforcement actions and enforcement sanctions for fitness for duty violations. According to the petition, the NRC typically issues a Notice of Violation (NOV) to' the licensee (but not the individual 'wrongdoer") in discrimination cases, but issues an NOV to the individual (but not the licensee) in fitness for duty cases. Beyond its statistics, the immediate basis for the UCS's broad conclusion that the NRC "is not holding individuals who violate the employee protection regulations accountable" appears to be the NRC's decision not to take individual enforcement action against a manager in connection with a recent Se,ction 50. 7 violation cited against FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company for an incident of discrimination at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRA mY ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE3OF10
Plant), EA 99-012 (May 20, 1999). After the NRC declined to cite the manager for "deliberate misconduct," UCS filed a Section 2.206 petition requesting that the manager be banned from participating in licensed activities for five years. In denying that petition, the NRC noted it had considered taking enforcement action against the manager but decided not to do so because the manager lacked knowledge of Section
- 50. 7. While in the NRC's view such knowledge did not preclude enforcement action against FirstEnergy under Section 50.7, it did preclude action against the manager under the deliberate misconduct rule, Section 50.5, because "knowledge and understanding of the law are relevant factors in determining whether deliberate misconduct occurred. As explained below, neither this isolated incident nor UCS's other arguments justify the rulemaking for which UCS petitions.
COMMENTS
- I. UCS Fails to Present Justification for the Proposed Rule.
A. The r:m.c has clearly and effectively communicated its expectations regarding the prohibition against discrimination. The NRC's prohibition against discrimination, as reflected in Section 50. 7 and elsewhere in the regulations, coupled with the NRCs Policy Statement regarding the freedom of employees to raise safety concerns, together have sent a clear message to licensees. Based on our experience, senior officers and managers at licensed plants are well aware of the NRC's expectation that employees who raise safety concerns are not discriminated against for doing so~ These officers and managers have taken extensive actions to. minimize the risk of discriminatory actions, including communicating to workers the rights and responsibilities respecting employee concerns. 1
- Nothing in the UCS petition challenges the effectiveness of the NRC's regulations in this area. For example, the petition does not point to any rise in discrimination allegations, much less an increase in the number of findings of discrimination, based on a lack of workplace knowledge about employee protection requirements. The petition offers no evidence that significant percentages of licensee workplace populations are ignorant of the prohibitions on discrimination. The petition does not contend that acts of discrimination go undiscovered or unpunished. Instead, the External requirements, such as required posting of information concerning the NRCs employee protection regulations (Form 3) and the posting of the terms of the federal statute prohibiting discrimination (Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act), also communicate expectations in this area to the workforce.
COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRAWN ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE4OFJ0
petition focuses only on who receives enforcement sanctions after discrimination has occurred. Indeed, the petition is based primarily on the isolated situation involving a single manager at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant. This is not a meaningful showing that the NRCs regulatory requirements on employee protection have not been effectively communicated to and within licensee workforces. Accordiµgly, the rule that UCS now demands is simply not warranted. B. UCS fails to present any policy justification for the additional "accountability" that it contends could be achieved through the proposed rulemaking. The petition should also be denied on the ground that it advances no specific policy justification for its objective: more frequent enforcement sanctions against individuals who are found to have discriminated against employees for engaging in protected activity. While UCS generally notes that* just four of twenty-odd discrimination actions in recent years included enforcement action specifically directed to individuals, UCS fails to explain why this "rate" of individual enforcement action is problematic or how the Commission's policy objectives under Section 50. 7 and parallel employee protection provisions would be furthered by more frequent individual enforcement actions. Instead, UCS offers only an unsubstantiated assertion that discrimination will be abated only if individuals are held "accountable." Notably, that assertion runs counter to the most significant federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which have the objective to prevent discrimination based on race, gender and other characteristics, but under which individual managers and supervisors do not have personal liability. UCS's petition appears designed only to serve the objective to encourage additional "punitive" actions against individuals by the NRC when discrimination findings are made. In our view, this objective is misguided. Enforcement actions citing discrimination typically are based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In many instances where it is inferred that a personnel action was taken due to an employee's protected activity, it is apparent that the action was also motivated by legitimate reasons. See 10 C.F.R. § 50.7(d). It is also important to note that, where actions are based on NRC investigatioris, the individual accused of discrimination has had no prior opportunity to cross-examine his or her "accuser" and is otherwise deprived of COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRA mY ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE5OF10
the due process rights normally guaranteed through a system of on-the-record adjudication. Enforcement actions against individuals impose a burden on the individual
'wrongdoer" that is altogether different than the burden on corporate licensees, including the threat of lost job opportunities and the personal stigma of having been accused of discrimination. Particularly where the action is based on circumstantial evidence, the NRC should. proceed with deliberateness in taking individual enforcement action.
UCS's argument that the NRC should pursue individual enforcement actions in discrimination cases because the NRC does so in fitness for duty cases fails to account for important differences in context. A fitness for duty violation is usually "cut-and-dried" and is not based on circumstantial evidence. Fitness for duty violations may also stem entirely from individual behavior not connected with workplace responsibilities or actions (e.g., off-the-job activities). Discrimination findings, however, depend on inferences and circumstantial evidence. Discrimination cases also flow from actions that are inherently related to workplace decisionmaking (such as performance evaluations and termination decisions). Thus, when an individual engages in proscribed drug use, he or she does so apart from any workplace authority he or she may have. In taking action found to be discriminatory, in contrast, a supervisor or manager is exercising authority granted to that person only by virtue of his or her status within the licensee's organization. For these reasons, taking action against individuals in fitness for duty cases and against licensees in discrimination cases is a logical practice. Finally, in any given case, enforcement action may not be warranted against an individual supervisor or manager based on the totality of the circumstances. For example, despite \a finding that a manager was motivated to take employment action in part by an employee's protected activity, the circumstances contemplated by 10 C.F.R. § 50.?(d) may be in play, or the manager may otherwise have a history of being receptive to employee concerns and may have been a strong contributor to a SCWE. For that reason and many others, enforcement action against the individual may not be the appropriate course of action. In sum, UCS's premise that the NRC does not frequently enough impose individual enforcement sanctions in discrimination cases is itself flawed. Certainly, UCS's petition does not provide justification for more frequent individual enforcement action. COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRA ffiV ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE6OF10
C. As a general matter, licensees already offer appropriate training. As already noted, )t is the NRCs expectation that licensees will foster safety consciousness through voluntary efforts, including training programs and ECPs as warranted, specific to their facilities. The industry has closely followed both NRC enforcement practices in this area and events such as the NRC's 1996 Order to Northeast Utilities requiring third-party review of employee concerns resolution at Millstone. Although training on employee protection issues is by no means new, these events, coupled with individualized assessments by licensees of their workforces, have inspired training as one of several tools used to foster safety conscious workplaces. For instance, although training is not required, it is our experience that most licensees offer training for supervisors and managers on the freedom of employees to raise safety concerns and on the prohibition against discrimination, when it is appropriate to do so. Many licensees offer a training segment on these matters in connection with General Employee Training. Many licensees also provide special supervisory training courses designed to address employee rights and responsibilities regarding employee concerns. Other licensees may choose to offer this training on particular occasions and/or to particular departments on an as-needed or "just-in-time" basis. The variety of voluntary measures demonstrates that a broad prescriptive measure in response to isolated incidents of discrimination is unwarranted. It is also our experience that the voluntary provision of training programs itself signals to the workforce that senior management places a high priority on employee concern resolution and the avoidance of discrimination. Were the NRC to mandate training, it would run the risk that employees would perceive management as
- providing the training only because it was "forced to" by regulation-not because the licensee has a sincere resolve to foster a workplace culture that is safety conscious.
D. UCS's fustification"for the proposed mandatory training would apply to any NRC regulation. UCS's argument that training will prevent an employee who causes a violation of NRC requirements from avoiding citation for deliberate misconduct should also be rejected because it "proves too much." Presumably every violation of NRC requirements by a licensee is attributable to the act or omission of some individual(s). Taken to its logical conclusion, UCS's argument is that every individual should receive training on every specific NRC regulation so that when a violation of the COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRA JfJV ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE7OF10
regulation occurs, the responsible individual(s) may be cited for "deliberate misconduct."
\
Such a scheme would mark a dramatic change in NRC enforcement policy-a change not warranted by anything that appears in the UCS petition. Further, if it is not the intent of UCS to promote such a drastic re-focus in enforcement policy, UCS has not identified why employee protection rules should be singled out for a special training requirement and more frequent "deliberate misconduct" enforcement. The NRC has appropriately set forth its expectations regarding non-discrimination in its rules, and UCS has failed to provide a sufficient basis for mandating special training on that rule. II. Mandated Training Is Inconsistent with the NRC's Regulatory Approach in the SCWE Arena. A. The NRC should not mandate training because it is something best achieved through a licensee-designed program to address concerns specific to the licensee's organization. AB the NRC has already recognized, the licensee is in the best position for deciding how to foster a SCWE and for making periodic adjustments to enhance safety consciousness. UCS proposes a mandated tool-a proposal that should be rejected because it is in~onsistent with the NRC's position that SCWE efforts are most effective if they develop from within the licensee's organization and are tailored to meet the licensee's needs. Licensees are best able to identify the scope of training, the substance of the training, and the target "audience" for training, taking into account "the number of employees, the complexity of operations, potential hazards, and the history of allegations made to the NRC or licensee"-the same factors that the NRC cited as justifying a licensee-based approach to a SCWE. For these reasons, licensees should retain their discretion to determine when, how, and to whom they offer training on employee protection issues. AB noted above, most (if not all) licensees already have voluntarily initiated training programs in this regard. An NRC mandate likely would cause these licensees to tailor their programs not to fit their specific needs, but rather with an aim to prevent enforcement action under a new training' rule. This risk would be particularly significant were the NRC to adopt a rule containing detailed training requirements. Licensees might ,thus consider abandoning existing training efforts-even if those COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRAWN ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGES OF JO
efforts have been entirely satisfactory-to meet NRC requirements that, by their nature as a rule, would not be tailored to the specific needs of an individual workplace. In short, a training rule would add unnecessary regulatory burdens, as well as financial burdens, without a clear benefit and possibly diminishing the effectiveness of existing programs. B. Mandated training would not necessarily address the types of discrimination that may occur. UCS's petition offers no basis for its assumptions that training will prevent findings of "discrimination" and, in the event that discrimination is found to have occurred,
\
will render such action "deliberate" within the meaning of Section 50.5. While licensees undoubtedly offer training with the expectation that it will minimize
- the risk that discrimination might occur, discrimination enforcement actions increasingly are not based on simple fact situations in which a manager or supervisor is angered by an individual's protected activity; instead, such actions often flow from more complex situations where the employment action was not clearly motivated by discriminatory animus, where there may have been dual motives for the emplo~ent action (including legitimate reasons), or where it was not clear until *enforcement action was taken that protected activity was an issue in the case. Discrimination findings arising from complex circumstances may not be foreseeable and cannot be addressed in training programs. 2 For example, in an enforcement action against a contractor foreman at Seabrook earlier this year, the NRC determined that the foreman had selected an electrician for layoff at least "in part" because the electrician had notified one of *the licensee's Quality Assurance (QA) representatives of a safety concern. North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. (Seabrook), EA 98-165 (Aug. 3, 1999). Yet as the NRC acknowledged in its correspondence in that case, "legitimate reasons supporting the layoff may [have existed]." To the extent the foreman believed he had a legitimate basis for the layoff, training on the employee protection regulations would not necessarily have produced 2
This is not to say that training programs are without benefit. Training on employee protection regulations can provide important information about licensee and NRC expectations in this regulatory arena. The concern addressed here is that even with training, a manager or supervisor may find himself or herself facing a difficult personnel issue, the circumstances of which are unique enough that training could not have contemplated it. For example, a manager or supervisor may be called on to address an employee who raised safety concerns in a caustic or insubordinate manner. Even with training, the supervisor might conclude that discipline against the employee is in order, only to be told later that an inference was drawn that he was acting "in part" with retaliatory motive-in violation of Section 50.7. COMMENTS OF WINSTON & STRA rnY ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE!JOFJ0
\ '
a different outcome. Notably, according t9 the. NRCs correspondence to the foreman in the case, he had a history of being "supportive of workers raising safety concerns" to him. ' For the same reasons, the fact that an employee has received employee protection training q.oes not and should not transform every case in which the NRC finds that discrimination occurred into a case of "deliberate misconduct." The "gray' lines often involved in discrimination cases, the presen~e of a legitimate basis for an employment decision, and other factors may merit a determination that a Section 50.5 violation did not occur. Accordingly, the premise of UCS that mandatory training will justify more frequent individual enforcement action is not a valid one. ..,
/
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the NRC should decline to engage in rulemaking as UCS requests. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. WINSTON & STRAWN COMMENTS OF WJN.S'TON & S1'RA. mY ON UCS PETITION TO MANDATE TRAINING PAGE10OF10}}