ML20148C284

Comments on NRC Proposed Strategies in Addressing Need for Licensees to Establish & Maintain Safety Conscious Work Environ

ML20148C284
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	05/08/1997
From:	Cruse C BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-62FR8785, RULE-PR-MISC 62FR8785-00008, 62FR8785-8, NUDOCS 9705150282
Download: ML20148C284 (5)

Text

-

, OSpy 62 FA' 8787 7.Debsmhurg M 2k /PP7 y Curoixs II. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Vice President U,f@ Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Nuclear Ener 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Lusby. Maryland 20657 7 84Y llj f.y g: I 2 4io 495-4455 RULESiu. % r.u,;,u,"

USliRC May 8,1997 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

)

Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Rules Review and Directives Branch

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Comments on Proposed Strategies in Addressing the Need for Licensees to Establisit and Maintain a Safety Conscious Work Environment

REFERENCE:

(a) Federal Register Notice 62FR8785, dated February 26, 1997, Safety-Conscious Work Environment; Request for Public Comment The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is pleased to provide comments on the subject proposed strategies. We have reviewed the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute and we endorse them. Our specific responses to the seven questions listed in Reference (a) are attached.

We feel that maintaining a safety conscious work environment is not only a legal requirement, but also good business. Our record of dealing promptly and appropriately with safety issues as they arise illustrates this feeling. We currently review data on internally-identified issues as well as data provided by the NRC. We do not feel that additional regulations in this area would be useful.

The proposed requirement for all licensees to institute a holding period policy is potentially troublesome.

The policy would restrict an employer from reducing pay or benefits of an employee who believes they have been discriminated against for raising safety concerns. The NRC even points out in their request that one drawback of requiring a holding policy is the potential for abuse. Requiring a holding policy could actually encourage abuse, and thereby discourage legitimate use of the existing systems.

We are disappointed when the NRC continues to consider use of enforcement to establish a

" standardized approach." Use of enforcement to establish a " standardized approach" makes it very difficult for licensees to do business in what can appear to be a constantly changing regulatory environment.

> \

ll ll ll -llllll-llll 1riGo30 9705150282 970508 PDR PR [.d-U.$ML, d"< U l MISC 62FR8785 PDR

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

)

- Rul;s Review and Directives Bruich j May 8,1997

/

Page 2 l .

i Finally, the NRC should consider whether their resources are best utilized in attempting to establish  ;

detailed industry-wide standards for such a subjective area. We do not feel any additional regulations in l

this area are useful or appropriate.

Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

( Very truly yours,  ;

l i f l I CIIC/SJR/ dim #'

/

Attachment f

cc: Document Control Desk, NRC II. J. Miller, NRC i R. S. Fleishman, Esquire Resident Inspector, NRC J. E. Silberg, Esquire R. I. McLean, DNR ,

Director, Project Directorate 1-1, NRC J.11. Walter, PSC l A. W. Dromerick, NRC i

l 1

r i l l

i ATTACHMENT (1)  !

l i

! l i

t i

i 4

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's i Comments on Proposed Strategies in Addressing the Need for Licensees to Establish and Maintain a Safety Conscious Work Environment Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 & 2 May 8,1997

, ATTACHMENT (1) l

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED STRATEGIES IN ADDRESSING TIIE NEED FOR LICENSEES TO ESTABLISil AND MAINTAIN A SAFETY CONSCIOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT

l. Should the Commission proceed with establishing a standardi:ed approach to ensuring that licensees establish and maintain a safety-conscious work environment?

No, the existing policy statement published in May 1996 titled, " Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns Withota Fear of Retaliation" provides adequate

_ insight as to the NRC's views on maintaining a safety-conscious work environment without

{ being overly prescriptive.

I

2. Ifsuch an approach were adopted, would it be most effective as: (a) A proposed rule making that would amend Part 50; (b) A revision to the NRC enforcement policy: or (c) A separately issued Commission policy statement?

l 1

A proposed rule making that would amend Part 50 is more appropriate; however, we do not feel

, rule making is necessary or constructive.

3. What additions or deletions to the Draft language ofsuch a regulation orpolicy, as presented in section IXbelow, wouldincrease its effectiveness?

The entire section on holding policy should be deleted because it would be extremely difficult to implement in a fair and consistent manner Reference to subjective attributes, such as " attitude,"

in (a) (1), (a) (4) and (a) (5) should be deleted. Attitude cannot be consistently measured or correlated to Nuclear Safety. We feel subjective attributes, such as attitude, are not appropriate subjects for regulation.

Again, we do not feel rule making is necessary or constructive.

4. What are the advantages or disadvantages ofimplementing such a standardized approach?

(Comments are specifically requested as to whether the use of a holding period would achieve the objective ofreducing the potentialfor a chilling effect in the work environment.)

The May 1996 Policy Statement provides various approaches for maintaining a safety-conscious work environment. Licensee's should be allowed the flexibility to implement the elements that best fit their situation. There is no basis to show that a standardized approach would bring about any improvements. As to the use of a holding period, institution of a holding period could have the effect of reducing the potential for a chilling effect in the work environment; however, the potential for abuse, as recognized by the NRC in this request for public comment, is real.

5. What other means or indicators might the NRC use to evaluate licensee performance in this area other than the indicators mentir.ned in the language ofSection IX, below?

, The current indicators are adequte.

4 1

ATTACHMENT (1)

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S COMMENTS ON PROPOSED STRATEGIES IN ADDRESSING TIIE NEED FOR LICENSEES TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A SAFETY CONSCIOUS WORK ENVIRONMENT

6. What would be the advantages or disadvantages ofimplementing the alternative approach to requiring the holdingperiod, as described in Section VIofthe requestfor comment? .

There is no performance data to suggest that the mandatory institution of a holding period by all licensees would provide any specific benefits that would offset the disadvantages pointed out in the request for comment.

7. What other approaches not considered here would be more effective in ensuring that licensees establish and maintain a safety-conscious work environment.

We do not believe any additional regulations are required in this area.

l l

l l

l l

l L

I i

2