PLA-3019, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Announcements of Inspectors.Nrc Does Not Fully Appreciate Impact of Rule as Written.Encourages Commission to Abandon Rulemaking

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Announcements of Inspectors.Nrc Does Not Fully Appreciate Impact of Rule as Written.Encourages Commission to Abandon Rulemaking

ML20154G509
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	04/15/1988
From:	Keiser H PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR8924, RULE-PR-50 53FR8924-00015, 53FR8924-15, AC73-2-21, PLA-3019, NUDOCS 8805240405
Download: ML20154G509 (3)

Text

r 1

~ ' DOCKET NUMBER g' l PROPOSED RULE

@ Pennsylvania Power & Light CompanyC'.KtsteM3"E Two North Ninth Street e Allentown, PA 18101-1179 e 215/770 5151DW C

'88 APR 20 All :56 Harold W. Keiser Senior Vice President Nuclear ,.s -

215/770 4194 [.0 'I d'h;[U#'! -

BN SPR I 51988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn.: Docketing and Service Branch SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE LICENSEE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF INSPECTORS Docket Nos. 50-387 PLA-3019 FILES R41-2/A17-11 and 50-388

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Pennsylvania Power and Light provides the enclosed comments on a proposed rule involving licensee announcements of inspectors (53FR8924). We understand NRC's concerns which the proposed rule attempts to address, but we do not believe that NRC fully appreciates the impacts of this proposed rule as written.

I strongly encourage the Commission to abandon this rulemaking. If a rule is deemed necessary, it should be expanded to provide a number of qualifications.

The accompanying statements of consideration vill need to address all of the specific concerns provided in our detailed comments.

PP6L appreciates this opportunity to com=ent on the proposed rule.

Very truly yours, F

m H. W. Ka.iser W

Sr. Vice President - Nuclear . .; w . . v ,

Attachment 9 [,' T-],. -[ t

, a cc: NRC Document Control Desk (original)

NRC Region I Mr. F. 1. Young, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. M. C. Thadani, NRC Project Manager r ,

8805240405 880415 PDR PR 50 53FR8724 PDR jg

F DETAILED COMMENTS As written, the proposed regulation would prohibit any form of announcement or communicatien as to the arrival or presence of an NRC inspector. The only ex;eption would be where the inspector specifically requested that his arrival or presence be made known.

The proposed rule would inhibit station management in its responsibilities:

1. It has been a long-standing practice at Susquehanna for Security to notify the Plant Superintendent, Shift Supervisor, Compliance group and others upon the arrival of manager-level or higher personnel not stationed at the f acility, visiting VIPS, and NRC personnel other than the resident inspectors. The reason for these notifications is not to change the way we conduct business, but to keep responsible station management personnel abreast of activities at the facility. These individuals have a variety of actions to take to support an NRC inspection. These activities include arranging entrance and exit meetings, ensuring appropriate personnel attendance, and ensuring appropriate support for the inspector so that the inspection can proceed smoothly. These activities are appropriate ones but would be difficult to accomplish without violating the rule as proposed. Even if the consent uf the inspector has been obtained to perform these functions, there is a high risk of misunderstanding which could lead to violations.

2. The proposed rule would inhibit resolution of NRC concerns. Once a concern has been raised, the responsible employee may need to interface with any number of other employees to resolve the concern. He will also be obligated to inform his supervisor who may need to inform management, operations, compliance or others depending on the concern. To accomplish all this while protecting the presence of an inspector from disclosure may not be feasible and is not reasonable. Again, even if the consent of the inspector has been obtained to perform these functions, there is a high risk of misunderstanding which could lead to violations.

3. The proposed rule would require employees to lie to each other. If questioned about the presence of an inspector, the employee would be ,

required to deny his presenca. No regulations should require our employees to mislead each other.

4. The rule conflicts with other requirements. When an inspector enters the protected area, his presence is detected by the security computer. This information is accessible and represents a form of communication. Even the absence of the inspector's key card from its storage slot can communicate his presence to security personnel. In the event of a site evacuation, the inspector's name would be included on the list of personnel for accountability. This is necessary for his own safety.

The above examples represent only a sampling of our concerns. As a result, we strongly suggest that the proposed rule as written is unworkable and that compliance is not reasonable or possible. Therefore, the proposed rule should be abandoned.

l f

If NRC feels that some level of secrecy is necessary, and that the rule must l

be issued, then we recom=end the following:

o NRC should consider restricting only general announcements.

Communications between individuals should be exempted, o The rule should not apply to resident inspectors. The presence of the residents can be assumed by all employees. ,

o The specific problems identified above must be addressed so that the rule does not unnecessarily inhibit or impact activities at the facility or '

conflict with other requirements.

o The rule should be applicable only during of f-hours. If an NRC inspector feels secrecy is needed, he should arrive after normal working hours.

The rule should not restrict communication of his presence during normal hours the following day.

In summary, we understand and sympathize with the problem NRC is trying to solve. However, the proposed rule is a poor solution because it creates too many other problems.

t 1

2-1 i

.n, , , , - - ~ - , . -,,- n --,,.,._.---,,...-,,,.---,,,,,n~_.n, _, ,.,,,.,,n. , , - , _ - - , _ - ~ ,