ML20078E709
| ML20078E709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1995 |
| From: | Denton R BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-59FR60697, RULE-PR-2 59FR60697-00006, 59FR60697-6, NUDOCS 9502010091 | |
| Download: ML20078E709 (2) | |
Text
~
ROBERT E. der. TON 00CKETED Baisimore oas and Electric Company US Mili' Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Vice President 1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway Nuclear Energy tusby, Maryland 20657 35 JAN 31 P12 :10 410 586 2200 Ext.4455 tocai 41o 260-4455 Baltimore
'f i ' ' E "
- DOCKETNUMBER PROPOSED RULE N A.
x cswumt)
Jarauy 26,1995 b
Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion Wachinotnn, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Docketing rad Services Branch
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50 317 & 50-318 Comments on Revision to 10 CFR Part 2, Policy Statement for Enforcement Actions on Discrimination (59FR60697)
The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is pleased to provide the following comments on the resision to i
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) General Statement of Policy and Procedure for Enforcement 1
Actions (Enforcement Policy) to address issues associated with discrimmation. We support the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute. We have the following conunents that emphasize our concerns regarding the issue of civil penalty adjustment for corrective action.
i In the revised policy statement, the NRC states their belief that a proposed penalty should be mitigated only if a personal remedy is provided. While therc are cases where settlements are an effective and efficient way 1
to resolve allegations, forcing a licensee to provide a personal remedy through a rapid settlement may not be the best resolution in a particular case. However, with this policy statement, the NRC has so heavily weighted the enforcen. nt policy in favor of settlement that licensees will now be at an extreme disadvantage in their efforts to resolve allegations of discriminadon. The result may be that licensees will j
have little choice but to provide a personal remedy, even for claims of questionable merit.
The following two examples illustrate concerns with the NRC's timing and escalation of enforcement action:
+
The NRC has not provided any evidence to show how a chilling effect is placed on the work force 1
simply because the licensee chooses to make no changes to its policies and procedures until after the Department of Labor has decided the case. Therefore, there is no basis to penalize the licensee I
a for awaiting the outcome of a proceeding, regardless ofits fmal outcome.
t 1
4 9502010091 950126 C
'7 '\\
PDR PR c
2 59FR60697 PDR
i f
Docketag and Services Branch January 26,1995 Page 2
+
Simdarly, there is no basis to escalate enforcement when " broad" corrective action is not taken until aAer a Secretary of Labor's decision upholds an Administrative law Judge's findmg of discrimmaten To conclude that a licensce's corrective' action may be untimely simply because they chose to await the outcome of the proceeding before takmg corrective action is unreasonable.
It shoukt be nasonable and appropriate for the licensee to take broad conective action aRer the W's decision.
Should you have questens regardag this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.
Very truly yours, l
l l
RED /JMO/dtm
{
J f
cc:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E. Silberg, Esquire L. B. Marsh, NRC D. G. Mcdonald, Jr., NRC T. T. Martm, NRC P. R. Wilson, NRC R. I. McLean, DNR J. H. Walter, PSC
.