ML20012F637
| ML20012F637 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR30049, RULE-PR-150, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-60, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 NUDOCS 9004170199 | |
| Download: ML20012F637 (48) | |
Text
poc il30.Wh50 60 U 76}?4Yl5 s
s (SifMSceVf) l wuen USNRC i
110 MAR 20 P2:07 e 8 tcr 3 ncmAriv (7590 01) i vocKrMG A wvir.I i:RAl C6t i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0mlS$10N 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 72 and 150 t
RIN:
3150 A021 s
Preserv1hg the Free Flow of Information to the Comission t
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
i ACTION:
Final Rule, i
t
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is revising its rules governing the conduct of all Comission licensees and license applicants.
The final l
rule prohibits the imposition of conditions in settlement agreements under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, or in other agreements affecting l
employment, that would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage any l
l employee or former employee from providing the Commission with information on potential violations or other hazardous conditions.
This rule is necessary to prohibit the use of provisions which would inhibit the free flow of
)
infonnation to the Comission in agreements related to employment.
l W
l9lj 9004170199 900315 i
pst0
p 't. L s
)
2 EFFECT!YE CATE:
april 20, 1990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATICN CONTACT: Stuart A. Treby, Assistant General Counsel, Rulemaking and fuel Cycle Division, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Telephone (301) 492 1636.
SUFFLEMENTARY INFORitAT;0N:
===.
Background===
Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amenced, was added as a new section to that Act in 1978 (Pub. L. 95 601).
Section 210 offers protection to employees of a Commission licensee, or of a centractor or a subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant.
The protection afforded is to those who have been fired or discriminated against as a result of the fact that, among other things, they have testified or given evidence on potential violations, or brought suit under Section 210 of the Energy Aeorgan.
ization Act. Employees who have been oiscriminated against for raising safety or other issues have the right to file complaints with the Department of Labor for the purpose of obtaining a remedy for the personal harm caused by the discrimination. Following the filing of a complaint, the Department of Labor performs an investigation.
If either the employee or the employer is not 4
9 l
l l
I 3-
}
t satisfiec with the outcome of the investigation, a hearing can be held before i
I en Administrative Law Judge, with review by the Secretary of Labor.
The I
Secretary of Labor can issue an order for the employee to be rehired, or j
otherwise compensateo if the employee's case is justified.
'n rany cases, the employee and the employer reach settlement of the i
issues raised in the Department of Labor proceeoing before completion of the l
t formal process and a finding by the Secretary of Labor.
In ger.eral the l
(crnission supports settlements as they may provide appropriate remedies 5
to employees without the need for litigation.
However, & recent case has j
brought to the Commission's attention the potential for settlement agreements negotiated under Section 210 to impose restrictions upon the freedom of employees or former erployees protected by Section 210 to testify or participate in NRC licensing and regulatory proceedings or to otherwise l
provide information on potential violations or other hazardous conditions to t
i the Comission or the NP.C staf t.
See Texas Utilities Electric Co., (Comanche Feak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2), CLI-8812, 28 NRC 605 (1988h l
~
Texas Utilities Electric Co., (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2), CL189-06, 29 NRC 348 (1989).
The Connission's follow-up to the above case has confirmed that other instances of questionable restrictions do 3
exist in a variety of settlement agreements, not limited to section 210 proceedings.
t The Comission has concluded that a Section 210 settlement agreement, or any other agreement affecting employment, which restricts the freedom of an i
employee or former employee from freely and fully connunicating with the
~-
j i
l
)
4 I
Huclear Regulatory Ccmission about potential violations or other hazares i
falling within NRC's regulatory responsibility is unacceptable. These l
provisions may have a chilling effect on cousunications about nuclear safety, security, or other matters, and woule restrict, impece, or frustrate full and l
candid disclosure to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission about matters of regulatory significance. Any such agreement under which a person contracts to i
withhold safety significant information or testimony from the Nuclear Regulatory Consission could itself be a threat to safety and therefore i
jeoparcizv the execution of the Agency's overall statutory duties. The j
same would be true of other information bearing on NRC's regulatory respons1-l bilities, for exemple information regarding security or safeguards issues.
1 Accordingly, on July 18,1989 (54 FR 30049), the Comission published a I
proposeo rule amending its regulations to reovire licensees and license applicants to ensure that neither they, nor their contractors or subcontrac-tors, impose conditions in settlement agreements under section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, or in other agreements affecting employment, that would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from providing the Consission with information on potential violations or hazardous l
conditions.
The NRC has received 43 comunents on the proposed rule from a variety of Commission licensees, private individuals, and inoustry organizations. A summary of those comments and the Conunis61on's responses to those cosments tollows.
Before discussing those comments, however, two additional events n
1 have occurred which, along with the coments, have resulted in changes in the content of the final rule.
i Tirst, on July 18,1969, the Secretary of Labor issued a cecision in a I
case filed under Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act which addressec l
restrictive settlement agreements.
See Polliti v. Gibbs & Hill, Inc.,
87 ERA-38 (July 18, ISE9).
In that cecision, the Secretary of Labor found unenforceable a clause in a settlement agreement which had the effect of crying-up charrels of comn.ur>ication which were essential for Government agencies to carry out their responsibilities.
Specifically of significance for this rulemaktr.g, the Secretary founo that Department of Labor Administra-
[
tive Law Judges had a duty to review parties' settlement agreements before cisn.issing cases and that a restriction en voluntary appearance as a witness in an NRC proceeding was against public policy and, therefore, unenf orceable.
[
i Particularly notable is the f act that the Secretary found the restrictive provision of the Pnlliri settlemert agreement unenforceable in spite of the f
fact that the provision'in question explicitly stated that, other than appearing voluntarily as a witness in an NRC proceeding, Mr. Po11121 could bring all his safety concerns to the NRC.
i The second event of significance to this rulemaking is that the 2
Cc.nnission has receiven the replies of various licensees to the Commission's April 27, 1989, letter to nuclear power plant licensees, their contractors, I
and major nuclear materials and fuel cycle facility licensees concerning the existence of other settlement agreements with restrictive clauses. Although
m l
6-some licensees were expancing the scope of their reviews and inay toentify accitional agreert.ents in the future, initially more than a dozen agrements were identifico thdt containec either restrictive language or questionable larSt,49e concerning the provision of information to tM NRC. The responses incluced not only agreements settling Section 210 complaints, but also other agreements settling law suits in State and Federal Courts.
As will be oiscussed in responding to specific coments ano suggested changes, the above two events, in combination with the comments received by the Commission, have resulteo in roodifications to the proposed rule, while at the same time confirming the Comission's view that a specific rule concerning settlenient agreements shoulo be adopted.
Sumary of Public Comments Of the 43 cements received by the Commission on the proposed rule, no one indicated satisfaction with the rule as written.
Thirty six comenters specifically opposed the rule for a variety of reasons. Seven connenters favored the rule subject to certain modifications.
It is noteworthy that virtually all coesnenters indicated their support for the Cosnission's goal of assuring the free flow of information to the Commission. A suusary of coments with the Consnission's responses appears below.
I
f*
f 7
1.
The Proposed Rule As Draf ted is Much Too Broac in Scere.
Almost half the commenters complained that the scope of the rule was s.uch too broad, rencering its implementation both unnecessary and iropractical. The two areas most frequently mentienec as being too broadly written were the rule's reference to " contractors ano subcontractors' and the applic6 tion of the rule to "all settlerrent agreements." Each of those issues is indivicually ocdressed below.
4.
Application of the rule to contractors and subcontractors.
Comenters that exhibited the most concern for the applicaticn of the rule to contractors and subcontractors were materia 13 licensees, such as hospitals, whose overall activities involve only a small percentage of licensed activities.
Given the extensive use of contractors in the conduct licensed activities, a rule that applied only to conduct by licensees, of and not to licensed activities carried out on their behalf by their contractors or subcontractors, would be of little value. Accordingly, the rule prohibition is broadly worded to cover all persons conducting licensed activities.
A separate but related concern is that, as proposed, the rule would require that licensees have procedures to oversee employee / employer agreements for hundreds of contractors and subcontractors that had nothing to do with their limited licensed activities.
It is well established in Commission precedent that an applicant or licensee cannot avoid responsibility for compliance with the Atomic Energy Act or the Comission's regulations by
i 8-i l
celegation of perf ormance of license related activities to inderencent agents or contractors.
See Virginia Electric anc Power Company, (North Anna Fower l
Station Units 1 ano 2) ALAB-324, 3 NRC 347 (April 15,1976); 1111 nots Fever I
i Company, (Clinton Power $tation, Unit 1) LBP-8161,14 NRC 1735 (Dacomber 16, j
t 1981).
In fact, the Commission has specifically noted the responsibility of licensees for the conduct of their contractors with respect to cases of baressment by contractors of contractor employees. Metropolitan Edison Company et. al. (Three Mile Island Station, Unit 1) CL! 85-2, 21 NRC 282, 329 i
(February 25,1985).
Therefore, it is not necessary for the Comission to specifically require licensees to have procedures for assuring that their contractors and subcontractors comply with the Comission's regulations.
Enforcement actions can be, anc have been, taken against licensees for the misconouct of their I
contractors and subcontractors which results in violations of the Comission's regulations, including violation by contractors of 6mployee discrimination regulations. Thus, the Comission need not require that formal proceeures be
{
t developed to monitor contractor and subcontractor activity in order for licensees to be responsible for their contractors' and subcontractors' I
actions.
j i
The Commission did hot intend to create an unwieldy system which would require some licensees performing limited licensed activities to establish a system to monitor the employer / employee relations of hundreas of contractors and subcontractors who are not directly involved in licensed activities.
?
l l
j i
I i
l 9-l f
Acccraingly, the final rule has been modified to etrectly prchibit agreements
{
which prohibit, restrict, or otherwise oiscourage an employee from enpging in
{
protected activity as defined in the Comission's employee protection regu.
\\
14ticts. Although the final rule requires that licensees notify contractors t
t and subcontractors of this regulation's restrictions, the final rule has not t
retained the reovirement that licensees develop specific procedures to assure I
compliance by contractors or subcontractors.
However, the Commission i
i reenthas12e5 the preceovnt r.oted ebove with respect to licentres' responsi.
{
bilities for cenduct of licenseo activities by their contractors and 3
subcontractors. The Comistion will hold licensees responsible for violations of HRC regulatory requirements by contractors and subcontractors performing work related to the activities which are the responsibility of the licensee uncer the applicable statutes, regulations, orders, or licenses.
The selection of means to ensure that violations do not occur, which could include cevelopment of written procecures, will be left to licensees.
l I
b.
Application of the rule to all settlement agreements.
The second area in which consnenters were concerned with the scope of the preposed rule was in its application to all
- agreements af fecting the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment." A number of.
comenters believe that the rule should be limited to settlement of complaints alleging violations of Section 210 of the Ene py Reorganization Act. The Comission finds no merit in this criticism of the proposed rule.
4
(
. On April 27, 1969, the tiRC staf t reovested nuclear power plant licensees and treir contractors, and rajor nuclear mterials and fuel cycle facility licensues, to review all settlement agreements or other agreements related to compensation, terms, concittens, and privileges of employment to which they were a party for potentially improper restrictive clauses. Although several of the licensees hac not fully completed their review of all such agreements, initial responses to the (cnaission's inouiry identifiec more then a dozen agreements that containeo language that was either restrictive in nature or was at least ouestionable concerning the provision of information to the NRC.
These agreements were not, in fact. limited to Section 210 cosplaints.
They coritained several settlements of cases filed on a variety of grounds before State and Federal Courts.
The Comission has concludes that these agreements 60ecuately demonstrate the potential f or,1mpeding the flow of information to the Comission through avenues other than Section 210 agreements.
The Commission is, therefore, m intaining in the final rule the application of its prohibitions to all agreements affecting the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
2.
The Rule Is Unnecessary Because 1t is Redur. dant.
Commenters advancing this position generally cited the already existing restrictions in the Commission's regulations concerning Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
These incluoe the requirement in 10 CFR Part 19 that a " Form 3" be posted at all work sites informing employees of their right
i 11 -
l to bring safety concerns to the NRC ene the recuirement in 10 CFR Fort 21 creating an cbligation on directors end responsibit of ticers of licensees 6no vencors to report ceftets to the HFC.
The commenters believe that it would be f
t recundant to acc a restriction on settlement agreements to the regulations.
t l
The courts have not t*Plicitly addressed the issue of whether Section 210 of thit Energy Reorganization Act would prohibit restrictive settlement I
agreements ano the Comission's own regulations co not specifically accress j
the issue either.
- n the Pollizi case the Secretary of Labor did not specifically find that the restrictive provisions in the settlement agreements violatec Section 210. Rather, the Secretary indicated that the agreement's provisions were invalic because the provision was against public policy anc was, therefore, unenforceable.
See Pollitt v. Gibbs & Hill. Inc., 87-IRA-38, Slip Opinion at 7 Guly 18,1989),
in addition, based on the number of l
agreements already identified which contain questionable provisions, it would i
i not appear that current regulaticns have prevented potentially improper agreements from being executed.
Rather than relying on the judgment of a variety of individuals t
i attempting to determine which clauses might violate public policy, the i
Comission believes it is prudent to specifically prohibit by regulation all settlement agreements or other agreements affecting the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment from restricting employees from bringing safety concerns to the attention of the NRC.
t i
1 1
._.~.
12 3.
Coments Concerning The Reporting Ana Moniscring Aspects Of The Proposed Rule.
A number of commenters raised problems with the requirements in the proposec rule that contractors and subcontractors infom licensees of each Section 210 complaint filed against the contracter or subcontractor, and that the licensee or license gplicant have prior review of Section 210 settlement agreements.
Comenters generally felt that this procedure was unnecessary and wuld make St raore dif ficult to settle cases. Given that settlements are generally encouragee, actions traking it more difficult te settle cases would be detrimental to all parties involved in these disputes.
The Comission has determined that.,as a result of the Secretary of Labors' oectsien in the Polliri case, these requirements should be dropped.
The reason for the Comission dropping this aspect of the proposed rule primarily results from two parts of the Polliri decision. First, the Secretary in that case reiterated a.cecision in Funcko and Yunker v. Georcia Power Co., 89. ERA 9,10 (Secretary's Order to submit Settlement Agreement issued March 23,1969, at 2), that it was error for en Administrative Law Juoge in a Department of Labor case to dismiss a case without reviewing a propcsed settlement agreement. Polliri slip op, at 2.
In addition, the Secretary found that an agretment that restricted voluntary participation in NRC proceedings, even though it specifically noted that Mr. Polliri was not in any manner restricted from providing information to the Comission on safety concerns, was against public policy and would not be enforceable. As a result
~. - -...
y__m
l t of these two fincings it is evident that the Department of Labor will be gning close scrutiny to Section 210 settlement agreements.
Licensees will be teld responsible for contractor violations of the rule. All settlement agree.
ments by contractors will te subject to the restrictions the Comission is adopting today.
Licensees may use a variety of methods, such as notification to licensees of all contractor settlement agreements, placing requirements in contracts with inolvicual contractors to prohibit restrictive egreements, or other procedural rechanisrs to assure that their contractors comply with this requirement.
The Comission is not specifying the method or motheos that litersees should use. The Comission emphas12es, however, that licensees will be held responsible for violations associated with their licenses activities, whether or not they are specifically aware of a contractor's failure to comply with regulatory requirements.
The Comission does not believe that the rule needs to prescribe procedures whereby contractors will report on, and licensees will monitor the filing and settlement of Section 210 cases.
Although the primary motive for.these modifications to the proposed rule results from the folliti decision, a nusber of comenters icentified teattional problems created by the proposed requirement which support the modifications to the proposee rule.
The Comission is including below a brief summary of those comments.
t l
I i
a.
The aoministrative burden to monitor hundreds of contractors and subcontractors is onerous, i
l i
l
l i
.u.
}
l b.
Small contractors may cease nuclear work rather than taking on the acottional noministrative burcen.
i e
The Comission has removed the most bureensome administrative aspects of l
l the proposee rule.
Although the Commission does not necessarily egree with
{
some coseenters views of the magnitude and affect of the burden that would l
[
have been tr. posed under the proposed rule, the Po11121 decision reouces the l
l rted to impose a monitoring burden on licensees and license applicants, or a reporting requirement on contractors and subcontractors, with respect to lection 210 settlement agreements.
However, the cosatssion reminds licensees t
and 11 cense applicants that the final rule will prohibit all agreements which j
restrict the bringing of safety or other concerns to the NRC. They are still l
t responsible for assuring that regulates activity is performed in accordance i
with Comission regulatory requirements.
The hiring of contractors or subcontractors to perform work will not relieve licensees or license 40plicants of that burden.
t c.
The NRC is exceeding its authority by forcing licensees to become l
involved in third party contracts.
l t
d.
The requirement that licensees and license applicants become involved i
in third party contracts will result in Itcensees fully litigating claims i
rather then settling claims.
This will be estrimental to the employee.
t
[.
15 -
t.
It is inappropriate to reoutre licensees to intrude into contractor cuployet nepotiations.
The Consnitsion does not agree that it is beyond its authority or it is improper to require licensees to be responsible for the actions of third parties, which they directly or incirectly cause to be involved in licensed activity.
As noted previously, it is well established that licensees and 11cese applicants cannot celegate away their responsibility to comply with Connission requirentots for performance of licensed activities.
The Consnis-s1on coes not telieve that the final rule intrudes into third party activities such that it will significantly, if at all, affect the ability of employees to cbtain settlenents in Section 210 or similar cases.
f.
Contractors and subcontractors who are also licensees should not be coverto by the rule's monitoring requirements because they will already be coverte by the principal licensee.
The Cosnission does not agree that contractors or subcontractors who are also licensees should have a reduced burden by virtue of the f act that they are being employed by another licensee. The final rule has eliminated the requirements for licensees to review settlement agreements in Section 210 cases prior to their being executed. Nevertheless, licensees are responsible for assuring that regulated activities they are performing under their license are in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements and this responsibility
l
'l l
I i cannot be celegated away.
The fact that several entities within the chain of l
i l
responsibility may be licensees does not relieve any of them from the l
responsibility cf assuring that activities performed under their licenses are
)
\\
performed in accordance with NRC regulatory requirements.
[
9 Contractor working f or multiple licensees might require multiple approvals to execute a settlement agreement.
The Commission agrees that, as originally drafted, the proposed rule i
could have resultec in a contractor having to obtain multiple reviews of 1
proposed settlement agreements.
This could have been a hindrance to en employec cbtaining a satisfactory settlement.
The Commission's desire was not to restrict the ability of employees to reach satisfactory settlement l
l agreements with their employers. The Commission believes the objective of assuring that settlement agreements do not contain improper restrictions on i
employees bringing information to th_e NRC can be obtained without the need for i
multiple entities reviewing Section 210 settlement agreements.
The final rule has eliminated the requirement that licensees have a prior review of their l
contractors' section 210 settlement agreements.
4 One Instance Is Not A $ufficient Basis For Adopting A Rule.
1 Several conenenters believed that the one instance that was noted by the Commission in the proposed rulemaking was not sufficient to justify modifying i
A
i m
j
)
< 1 i
l the regulations.
In fact, at the time the proposes reg 614 tion was publishec, i
u the Comission bac already learned that other agreements, appartntly l
centaining restrictive clauses, might have been executes. Concurrently with f
I the proposeo rulemaking, nuclear power plant licensees, their contractors, ane j
i major nuclear materials anc fuel cycle licensees were requested pursuant to an i
April 27, 1989, letter f rom the NRC staff to review existing agreements to t
determir.e if they centained possibly imper 1r.issible restrictions. As a result of that review licensees iratially identified more than a cozen additional agreements with language which could be interpreted as restricting l
ccmunications with the hRC.
!.i The Comission believes that the inferination received as a result of the staff's April 27, 1989, letter confirns the Comission's original belief that
[
the problem of restrictive settlement agreements is serious enough to be directly addressed in our regulatinns.
l 5.
The Proposeo kule Coulo Abrogate Proprietary Agreements.
i The Cosmission understands this comment to have been concernea with the l
rule's provisions requiring licarnsees to review proposed settlement agreements of their contractors and with concerns about employee communications with the NRC. The NRC has regulations to specifically protect proprietary infor1 nation received by the Commission.
See 10 CFR 2.790, 9.17, and 9.104 Thus, the Comission sees little merit to the concern that employees must be made to i
i
t I
! f I
t follt'w certain protecures before they can bring propriettry information to the i
Comission, in fact, such a restriction would be likely to inhibit en i
i ymployee frori coming to the MC.
With respect to communications with the NRC, l
t vmployers should do no more than require employees to inform the NRC that inforr.ation being provided may be proprietary so that the NRC can appropri.
l i
ately handle the information to prevent any inapprcpriate public disclosure.
I
{
l With respect to concern over lic.ensees reviewing contractor /efaployee
{
settlement agreer.wnts that may contain proprietary information, the final rule has eliminated the specific rtouirement for such reviews.
But, to the extent that, in a licensee's judgment, co.npliar.ce with the rule requires that it obtain access to proprietary information from its contractors, then 3ccess j
i rust be provided.
In NRC's view, assuring free flow of safety information f
overrides comenters concerns about disclosure of proprietary information to i
1 licensees.
i l
6.
A Backfit Analysis Is Required.
As originally drafted, the proposed rule specifically required that licensees develop procedures to ensure that licensees' contractors and j
subcontractors cia not place in settlement agreements any restrictions on
)
employees coming to the NRC with information. This included specifically requiring that licensees have procedures to require contractors to notify them if a Section 210 eteplaint was filed with the Department of Labor and that any r
- -. - - + ~ - ~ -,
.r
.--------..-----v-r-
-y---
n, l
l
.}g.
I e
r treposec settletent te forwarceo to the licensee prior to its executien, f
Several ccraienters tt11eved that this requirement for changes In trotecures f
emounted to 6 L6CLfit rtquiring a backfit analysit. Given the !veretary of l
Labor's etcision in the Po11121 case that such agreements are against public I
policy, there 15 sorte cuestion as to whether the proposed reguletten would have imposed a new rroutrement on licensees or contractors.
In any event, the final rule has eliminateo any trecific requirement f or procedural changes.
The final rule ceclares, consistent with the Polli:1 decistun, that agreemerts which pl6ce restrictions on employees communicating information with the NRC are prohibitec.
Licensees may or may not choose to modify pisting procecures to assure compliance with the final rule's requirements.
Some licensees ney, it, f act, already have proceoures in place addressing these issues as a result of the staff's April 27, 1989, letter notifying them of the l
t NRC's concerns.
It is for licensees themselves to decice how the prohibition f
on restrictive agreemerits is to be implementec.
H l
Uith the requirement to develop procedures removec, the rule merely prohibits potential barriers to communication with NRC. As such it cows not l
fall within the definition of backfit in i 50.109. The backfit rule does not
[
L apply to hRC information requests (see i 50.54(f)) anc it would be anomalous to apply the backf)t rule to similar NRC measures to ensure that information is brought to its attention.
r
}
l l
l
i
. to -
7.
The Cemission $t.culd Issue A Policy $taterent Instead Of A Rule.
l
\\
\\
One comenter suggested that a policy statement was sufficient to
{
necomplish the Comission's purposes anc that the rule was unnecessary.
The Commission oces not agree that a policy statement would be appropriate in this instance.
This is not en area in which the Comission needs to gain L
Experience with application of a policy stateraent before a fir.a1 rule can be ceveicted.
The Comerissicn is net aware of ary other reason that might mke a
[
t policy staternent preferable to a rule in this case. The Comisstun concludes t
l thtt it is appref riate to proce;rd with forinal ruler.aking to accress this i
issue.
i i
P.
Ado Language To The ilRC Form 3 Concerning Settitaent Agreements, i
Under 10 CFR Part 19, licensees are required to post an liRC Form 3 at ell work sites. This form informs employees of their rights ano protections in 4
bringing safety infore4 tion to the NRC. One consnenter has suggestes that the hRC add language to this form telling workers that settlement agreements may not impose restrictions on their bringing safety information to the NRC.
The NRC will cor.sioer adoing such language to the NRC Fom 3 in future revisions of the form to reflect the restrictions contained in this rulesesking.
?
)
t
^
m
.)
l
{
{
21
\\
9.
The Proposto Rule kculd Interfere With The Duty Of Empleytes To Inform Their Management Of Safety Issues, i
The Comission telieves it is preferable for employees to bring safety or other concerns to the attention of their management.
It is the employees' management that can r.ost promptly act to address these issues. Thus, if an employee lacks conficence in his management and feels compelled to cone to the i
14C first, e celay in accressing a safety issue will inevitably result.
]
however, in those reses where employees co not feel that they can talk about a I
i setely problem With their fahnaf tment, they must be free Of any restr1Ction
[
which woulo prevent their raising the issue with the NRC.
The proposed rule does not introcuce my urwarranted intrusion into the employer / employee relationship.
The rule does not prchibit esiployees from going to mal.agement first with their safety ccnctrns.
It is up to licensees to create a work i
etinosphere in which eng,1cyees feel confident in bringing safety concerns cirectly to their nanapment.
i l
~
- 10. Responses To The Ovestions In The Proposed Rule.
t The majority of commenters did not specifically consent on the two i
i questions posed by the Consission in the proposed rule.
To a large extent their conenents en the proposed rule itself superseded any need to specifically l
i t
a l
I
, adoress the questions preposed.
The Commission summarizes below the specific comments thct were received on the questions presented in the proposed rule.
Should the rule prohibit all restrictions on information to the a.
Commission,~or should limitations on an individual appearing before a Commission adjuoicatory beard (e.g., requiring an individual to resist a subpoena) be permissible as lorg as other evenues for previoing information to the (comission are availetle?
4 Five commenters believeo that some restrictions should be allowed if there is at least one avenue open to communicate with the NRC. Four commenters believed that.o restrictions on communications should be allowec.
The Commission believes that no restrictions on bringing information to the Commission should be allowed.
In the.Pollizi decision the Secretary of Labor noted that, even when e provision specifically included a statement that
~'~
safety information coulo be brought to the NRC's attention, restrictions on voluntarily appearing as a witness in NRC proceedings woulo be against public policy. Given the numerous possible restrictions that could be put into 9'ctiement agreements, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to design guicance which could differentiate between a "gooc" restriction and a " bad" restriction, even if the Commission were inclined to oc so. The Commission has chosen to ban all restrictions on coming to the NRC with information bearing on its regulatory responsit111 ties rather than engaging in that attempt.
t.
f I
U-l
$bould the rule impose on aeditional requirement that licensees ano b.
i license applicants tsust ensure that all agreernents affecting employment, i
4rcluding thcse of their contractors or subcontractors, ccntain a provision I
stating thdt the agreertent in no way restricts the employee trom providing informatinn to the Commission?
l s
Of the comments receiseo on this question, four commenters opposed rtquiring an affirmat15e statement ir all settlement agreements ano four conenenters favored requiring such a statement.
For the most part, those opposing the requirettert felt it wes unduly burcensome aric would unnecessarily interfere with the employee /empic>er relattenship. Those in favor of this requirement felt that it would be beneficial in clarifying for employees what their rights were and it would also remo.ve any ambiguity caused by other parts of the settlernent agreement.
The Comission has decided not to require a specific clause in settlement agreements.
The utility of such a c1ause is somewhat suspect given that a
~
clause specifically providing that the employee had the right to bring safety l
{.
concerns to the NRC was not sufficient to make the restrictive clause in the l
Pollizi case acceptable.
In addition, given that the Comission already L
requires that employees be notifica through the posting of an NRC form 3 that they have the right to come to the NRC, it is not evident that the benefit to be gained by requiring such a clause in settlement agreements would justify this type of intrusion into the employer / employee relationship.
i l
1
24 -
i
- 12. Additional Correrts And Revisions.
One corsnenter provided a detaiien discussion of the Comission's policies f with respect to enforcernent of the current NRC regulations on employee protection.
Those coments, although related, go beyond the scope of the specific 6ction being considered in this.rulemaking.
However, those specific colmnents have teen forwarded to the NRC Of fice of Enforcement for its consideration.
- n adoit1on, comments iticluded suggestions to file all settlement agreements in the docket for the facility in question; to recuire that the ban on restrictions apply to comunications by an employee with anyone, rict Just' HRC; and to require that all future contracts by a licensee with contractors cr subcontractors contain contractual obligations to prohibit restrictive agreeu nts.
J The Comission has considered these suggestions and has concluced that 1
the most efficient methoo of achieving the goal of the rulemaking, which involves the minimum necessary intrusion on the employee / employer relatio 1
and the relationship between licensees and their contractors or subcontrac-tors, is to simply prohibit provisions in a settlement agreement with an employee which would in any way restrict that employee frosi coming to the NRC with safety information bearing on NRC regulatory responsibilities.
The Comission is not convinced that requiring the filing of agreements in the NRC docket files, prohibiting restrictions on communications with entities other
i i
25 -
than the flRC, or requiring specific clauses in licensee /cuntractor contracts would significartly improve the Commission's ability to achieve the goals of this rulemaking, The last line of the first paragraph being added to Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, bl. 70, ano 72 of the regulations has been mocified by referencing the cefinition of " protected ectivity" which appears in each part of the regula tions.
This was cone to assure thet the en.ployee protection provisions censistently protect the same employee conduct.
Finally, in publishing the proposed rale, comparable revisions to i
10 CFR Part 61 were inadvertently not included in the proposed rule.
Part 61 s
contains, at 961.9, comparable restrictions with respect to employee protections as appear in the other Parts of the Commission's regulations.
Accordingly, the appropriate revisions to Part 61 are incluoed in this final t
rulera king.
Adoitional Comments of Commissioner Curtiss While I am reluctantly supporting the approach adopted in this rule, particularly in view ot' the fact that the Department of Labor has adopted the argument that the NRC championec in our letter of May 3,1989, I nevertheless remain concerned about the potential precedential scope of this approach and of the rationale that underpins the final rule.
Specifically, I am not persuaded that a logical case has been -- or can be -- made to support the
m l
L 26 -
distinction between settlement agreements arisir.g out of an employer-employee relationship ano settlement agreements where no employer-employee relationship exists.
If we are troubled by the imposition of g restriction on an individual's right to communicate with the Comission -- even where the i
inoividual nevertheless retains the right to communicate in some manner with the Comission -- the fact that those restrictions arise out of the settlemen of an employer-employee dispute seems to me to be irrelevant to the ultimate objective that we are seeking to accomplish in this rule -- preserving the Comission's ability, unencumbered, to ebtain information en health and safety natters.1/ Indeed, in view of the decision that the Commission has reached bere, I fine it most improbable that the Commission would -- or could --
accept a settlement agreement that restricted in any way an individual's ability to comunicate with the Comission, on the ground that the settlement agreement did not involve an employer-emplo'yee relationship.
In short, the logic of this rule appears to compel the conclusion that any restriction on an l
inoividual's right to comunicate with the Comission contained in a settlement agreement -- whether or I1ot an 6mployer-employee rel6tionship i
exists -- is unacceptable. While this rule, by its terms, coes not address this 1/
If the Commission is seektng to ensure that the channels of comunication
~
for health and safety information remain unencumbered, the fact that one individual is an employee and another is not should have no bearing on whether we would countenance any restrictions on the communication of such information to the Comission, even though it may ultimately turn out that the employee's information is more accurate or valuable because of the special access that such an individual might have.
4
j I
l h
, l situation, we revertheless should recognize that our 6ction here moves us in i' that cirectior.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The f!RC has determined that this final rule falls within the scope of the actions cescribec ir categoriedi exclusion 10 CFR 51.10(d).
This amensment provides the Commission with the ebility to t6te enforcement action for agreements which have alreacy been declared to be against public policy.
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.
Paperwork Recuction Act Statement i-1 This final rule does not contain a new or amended information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management ano Budget approval numbers 3150-0017, 3150-0020, 3150-0011, 3150-0127, 3150-0009, 3150-0131, and 3150-0032.
Pegulatory Analysis The final rule prohibits provisions in agreements affecting employment that restrict employees from providing information to the Commission.
The 4
- +--
I objtetives of the final rule are to ensure that such agreements do not i
restrict the free ficw of safety or other information to the Commission and that the intent of Section E10 of the Energy Reorganization Act is not frustrated.
The Ccemission believes that the clearest and most effective methoo of achieving these objectives, and avoiding potential uncertainty and conflict regarding the interpretation cf specific provisions, is to prohibit provisiens in these agreements that in any way restrict the flow of informat1on to the Con 11ssion, the Commission's acjudicatory boards, or the NRC staff.
The elternative of imposing an additional requirement on licensees and licerse applicants to require any agreement affecting employment to include a provision stating that the agreement in no way restricts the employee from providing information to the Commission was rejected as unnecessary to achieve the objectives of,the rule.
The final rule will not impose any substantial costs on licensees or license applicants.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
\\
l 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant L
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the proposeo rule would have imposto procedural requirements on a wide range of Commission licensees of varying size, the final rule prohibits agreements that restrict employees who are performing or have performed work relatec to licensed activities from providing information to the Commission on potential violations cr hazards.
The final rule does not require licensees to develop
...o
- ceu.iled procecures for review of all centractor and subcontractor settlement agreem nts.
The Con.1ssion believes that the final rule does not impose a significant economic impact on Consission licensees who would be considered-
"small entities."
Backfit Analysis The llRC has ceterminec that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule ano, therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this fint1 rule because these amendments do not involve any
)
provisions which would inipose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 30 Byproduct material, Governr.ent contracts, Intergovernmental relations,
~
Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Raolation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
1 10 CFR Part 40 l
l Government contracts, Hazarcous materials - transportation, Nuclear l
materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Uranium.
- 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Fire protection, Inccrporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power pl6nts ano reactors, Fenalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting anc recorokeeping recuirements,
- 0 CFR Part 60 High-level waste, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Nuclear raterials, Fenalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements Waste treatment ano i
disposal.
10 CFR Part 61 Low-level waste, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recorckeeping
~
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
Hazarcous materials - transportation, Nuclear materials, Packaging and containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific eouipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
l i
I !
Nanpower tra1ning programs, fluclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recorckeeping reeuirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.
10 CFR Part 150 hazarcous materials - transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materidis, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures. Source naterial, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble ano under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is acopting the following aroendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 72 and 150.
~
t PART 30 - RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENS MATERIAL 1.
The authority citation for Part 30 is reviseo to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sees. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as amende6, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
n
')
, i Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 4
U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also is w ed under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as:
i amendeo (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 elso issued ur.cer sec.187, 68 Stat.
955(42U.S.C.2257).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 66 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
il30.3,30.7(g),30.34(b),(c)and(f),.30,41(a)and(c),and30.53areissut under secs. 161b, 1611, and 1610, C8 Stat. 948, S49, and 950 as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(b), 2201(1), aro 2201(o)); one il 30.6, 30.9, 30.36, 30.51, 30.52, 30.55, and 30.56(b) anc (c) are issueo unaer sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.2201(o)'.
9 2.
In i 30.7, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised and a new paragraph (g) is adoed to read as follows:
i 30.7 Employee protection.
(c) A violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (g) of this section by a L
Conunission licensee, an applicant for a Cosmission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounds for--
(g) No agreement affecting the compensation, tersas, conditions and privileges of employment, including an agreement to settle a complaint filed j
i i
f by en employee with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of th t
Energy Reorganizatico Act of 1974, may conta,in any provision which would pronibit, restrict, or otherwise ciscourage, an amployee fror participating in protectecactivityasdefineainparagraph(a)(1)ofthissection, including, but not 11mttec to, providing information to the NRC on potential violations l
nr other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
PART 40 - 001-lESTIC LICEKSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
'1 3.
The authority citation for Part 40 is revised to reso as follows:
I l
AUTHORITY: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948. 953, 954, 955, asamendec, secs.11e(2),83,84, Pub.L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended. 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amenced (42U.S.C.2014(e)(2),2092,2093,2094,2095,2111,2113,2114,2201,2232 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021) secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 o
l U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amendea by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec.187, 68 Stat.
955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
1 l'
l-l'
.3 i i
For the purposes nf sec. 223, 68 Stat. 058, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22 i
6540.3, 40.7(g), 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d) and (f), 40.41(b) and (c),
i 40.46, 40.51(a) ano (c), eno 40.63 are issued under sec.161b,1611 ano l
66 Stat. 948. 949, ano 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(1), and 1
2201(o)); and 1540.5, 40.9, 40.25(c), (d)(3), and (4), 40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e 40.a2, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64, and 40.65 are issued under sec. 161c, 68 Stat.
j l
950, as amenceo (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
4.
In i 40.7, the introductory text of paragraph (c) 15 revised and a new paragraph (g) is added to read as folicws:
l
$ 40.7 Employee protection.
l (c) A violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (g) of this section by a Comission licensee, an applicant for a Comission license, or a contractor or i
subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounds for--
l (g) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employee r, including an agreement to settle a complaint filed by an employee with W Department of 1. abor pursuant to Section 210 of the L
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, may contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise oiscourage, an employee from participating in l
I i
35 -
i i
protected activity as cefined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, including, but not linited to, proviaing information to the itRC on potential viol 6tions i
or other natters within llRC's regulatory respcnsibilities.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICEN5111G OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
+
l E.
The author 1t) (1tation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows:
\\
AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 169, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, es amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, l
as amencea (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended,'1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 f.
U.S.C. 5651). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936,
~
955, as amendeo (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd) and 50.103 also issueo uncer sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections r
50.33a, 50.55a ena Appendix 0 also issued under sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issueo under sec.
L 204, 88 Stat.1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also 1
issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also 1ssued unoer sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80 l
36 -
I through 50.81 aise issued under sec. 184, ES Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2234). Appendix F also issuad unoer sec.187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
l For the purpcses of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
il50.7(f), 50.4f(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued uncer.sec. 161b, 1611, and 161n, 68 Stat. ?48. 949, and 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(1),
ano 2201(o)); il 50.7(e), 50.10(a)-(c), 50.04(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c),
50.46(a) ano (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c), (d), ano (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a),
(i), (i)(1), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v). and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a),
(c)-(e), (g), er.d (h), 50.SS(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(c), 50.64(b), and 50.00(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1611, 60 ! tat. 949, as amended (4? U.S.C.
2201(1)); and il50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50.54(w)
(z), (bb), (cc), anc (dd),
50.55(e),50.59(b),50.61(b),50.62(b),50.70(a),50.71(a)-(c)and(e),
50.72(a),50.73(a)and(b),50.74,50.78,,and50.90areissuedundersec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
6.
In i 50.7, the introductory text of paragraph (c) 1s revised and a new para 9taph (f) is acded to read as follows:
~
t 5 50.7 Employee protectier..
l (c) A violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (f) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Comission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Comission licensee or applicant may be grounds for--
0-
l i
'l l I
I
}
(f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment, including an agreement to settle a complaint filec by an employee with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization t.ct of 1974, may contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, or ctherwise discourage, en employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, inclucing, but nct limited to, prov1aint information to the NRC on potential 51olations or other matters within i;RC's regulatory responsibilities.
pART 60 - DISPOSAL OF HIGH-LEVEL RADI0 ACTIVE WASTES IN GEOLOGIC REPOSITORIES 7.
The authority citation for Part 60 is revised to read as follows:
?
AUTHORITY: Sees. 51, 53, 62, 63. 65, 81,161,182,183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 935, 948 SS3, S54, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat.1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 5842, 5846); secs.10 and 14, Pub. L.95-601, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C.
2021a and 5851); sec.102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332);
secs.114,121, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 22139, 2228, as amended (42 U.S.C.
10134,10141).
. For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as anended (4? U.S.C. 2273);
bl60.9(f), 60,10, 60.71 to 60.75 are issued under secs,1611 and 161o, 68 Stat. 949 ano 950, as mended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1) and 2201(o)).
8.
In i 60.9, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised and a new p6ragraph (f) is added to read as fol. lows:
$ 60.9 Employee pr:'e tion.
(c) A violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (f) of this section by a Conaission licensee, an applicant for a Comission license, or a contractur _or subcontractor of a Consission licensee or a'pplicant may be grounds for--
l
~
(f) 110 agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conottions and privileges of employment, ine.luding an agreement to settle a complaint filed by an esployee with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, may contain any provision which teuld prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage, an employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, including, but not limited to, providing information to the i1RC on potential violations or other matters withir, hRC's regulatory responsibilities.
}
l, L
r t-l F :
?
r PART 61 LICEllSING REQUIREMENTS FOR LANO DISPOSAL OF RADI0 ACTIVE WA
- 9. - The authority citation for Part 61 is revised to read as follows:
i AUTHORITY: Sees. 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 81,161,182,183, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, as arnendeo (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, till, 2201, 2232, 2233); secs. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1244, 1246 (a2 ti.S.C.
5842,EE46);
secs.10 and 14, Fub. L.95-601. 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 2021a ano'56EI).
For the purposes cf sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273; Tables 1 anc 2, l!61.3, 61.9(f), 61.24, 61.25, 61.27(a), 61.41 through 61.43, 61.52, 61.53, 61.55, 61.56, and 61.01 through 61.63 are issued under secs.
161b, 1611 and 1610, 68 Stat. 948, 949, and 950 as amendec (42 ll.S.C.
2201(b), 2201(1) ano 2201(o)); 1961.5a, 61.10 through 61.16, 61.24 and 61.80 are issued under bec.1610, 68 Stat. 950, es amended (42 U.S.C. 2201 (o)).
10.
In i 61.9, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised ar'd I
a new paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
i b
$ 61.9 Employee protection.
i l,
l l
l L
1
I i
(c) A violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (f) of this Lection by a Commissicn licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounds for--
(f) ho agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions and i
privileges of employment, inclueing an agreement to settle a complaint filed i
by an employee with tre Cepartment of Labor pursuant to Secticn 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, may contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage, an employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, including, but not 11mited to, providing infornation to the NRC on potential violations or other matters within.NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
i PART 7C - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL tlVCLEAR HATEP.IAL
- 11. The authority citation for Part 70 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 52,161,182,183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948, 953, 954, 6s amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat.1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).
I
i I
i
. al -
Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a(b) also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.
3 57 425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 70.7 also insbed under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued unoer sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L.93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C.
1 2C77). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued unoer sec.184. 68 Stat. 954, as
(
amerceo (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.61 41so issued unoer secs. 186, 187, 68.
Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 70.62 also issued uncer sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as omended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
For the purposes uf sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
1670.3, 70.7(g), 70.19(c), 70.21(c), 70.22(a), (b), (d)-(k), 70.24(a) and (b),
70.32(a)(3), (5), (6), (o), and (1), 70.36, 70.39(b) and (c), 70.41(a),
70.42(a) and (c), 70.56, '70.57(b), (c), and (d), 70.58(a)-(g)(3), and (h)-(j) are issued under secs. 161b, 1611, and I610, 68 Stat. 948, 949, ano 950 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(1), and 2201(o)); if70.7, 70.20a(a) and (d),
t 70.20b(c) and (e). 70.21(c), 70.24(b), 70.32(a)(6), (c), (d),' (e), and (g),
70.36, 70.51(c)-(gi, 70.56, 70.57(b) and (d), and 70.58 (a)-(g)(3) and (h)-(j)
L are. issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and
$970.5,70.9,70.20b(d)and(e), 70.38, 70.51(b) and (1), 70.52, 70.53, 70.54, 70.55, 70.58(g)(4), (k), and (1), 70.59, and 70.60(b) and (c) are issued unoer l'
sec.1610, 66 Stat. 950, as amenced (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
L 12.
In i 70.7, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised and d new paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:
u 1
42 -
1 l
5 70.7 Employee protection.
l (c) A violation of peragraph (a) or paragraph (g) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission'iicense, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commisslu iicensee or applicant ney be grounds for--
(g) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conoitions and privileges et employnent, including an agreement to settle a complaint filed c
by an employee with the Department of Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, may contain any provision which would e
prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage, an employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) cf this section, including, but not limited to, providing information to the NRC on potential violations -
or other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
t 5
PART 72 - LICENSIhG REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SP FUEL AND HIGH-LEVEL RADIDACTIVE WASTE
- 13. The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as follows:
D
F.
o e
i
, I AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 166, 187, 189, fB Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 555, 8
ds dminced, sec. 234, 83 $ tat. 444, as amendec (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092,2093,2095,2099,2111,2201,2232,2233,2234,2236,2237,2238,2282);
l sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as asanded (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as er. ended, 202, 206. 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-t01, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, El Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 433I); Secs.131,132,133,135,-
j 137, ;41, Pub. L. 97-25, 96 St6t. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L.
I 100-203,101 Stat.1330 235 (42 U.S.C.10151,10152,10153,10155,10157, 10161,10168).
Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs.142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L.
100-203,101 Stat.1330-232,1330-236 (42 U.S.C.10162(b),10168(c), (d)).
Section 72.46 also issued under sec.189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134. Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C.10154).
Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec.145(g), Pub. L.100-203,101 Stat.1330-235 (42 U.S.C.
10165(g)). Subpart J elso issued under secs. 2(2),2(15),2(19),117(e),
~
141(h), Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2224 (42 U.S.C.
10101,10137(a),10161(h)).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
il72.E. 72.10(f), 72.22, 72.24, 72.26, 72.28(d), 72.30, 72.32, 72.44(a),
(b)(1), (4), (5), (c), (d)(1), (2), (e), (f), 72.48(a), 72.50(a), 72.52(b),
/2.72(b),(c),72.74(a),(b),72.76,72.78,72.104,72.106,72.120,72.122, 72.124,72.126,72.128,72.130,72.140(b),(c),72.148,72.154,72.156, 72.160, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.184, 72.186 are 1
l
.]
F I
. issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as emerced (42 U.S.C. 2201(b));
il72.10(a),(e),72.22,72.24,72.26,72.28,72.30,72.32,72.44(a),(b)(1),
(4), (5), (C), (d)(1), (2), (e)
(f), 72.48 (a), 72.50(a), 72.52(b),
72.90(a)-(o), 72.92, 72.94, 72.W. 72.100, 72.102(c), (d), (f), 72.104,
/2.106, 72.120, 72.122, 72.124, 72.126, '72.128, 72.130, 72.140(b), (c),
J 72.142, 72.144, 72.146, 72.148, 72.150, 72.152, 72.154, 72.156, 72.158, i
72.160, 72.162, 72.164, 72.166, 72.168, 72.170, 72.172, 72.176, 72.180, 72.182, 72.184, 72.166, 72.190, 72.192, 72.194 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 i
Stat. 949, as an; ended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and il72.10(e), 72.11, 72.16, 72.22,72.24,72.26,72.28,72.30,72.32,72.44(b)(3),(c)(5),(d)(3),(e),
1 (f),72.48(b),(c),72.50(b),72.54,(a),(b),(c),72.56,72.70,72.72, 72.74(a),(b),72.76(a),72.78(a),72.80,72.82,72.92(b),72.94(b),
72.14C(b),(c),(d),72.144(a),72.146,J2.148,72.150,72.152,72.154(a),
(b),72.156,72.160,72.162,72.168,72.170,72.172,72.174,72.176,72.180, 72.184, 72.186, 72.192 are issued under sec.1610, 68 Stat. 950, es emended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
1 14 In i 72.10, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised and a new paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
i 72.10 Employee protection.
L
^
+
.: i (c) A violation of paragraph (a) or paragraph (g) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounOS for--
(f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employmert, inclucing an agreement to settle a complaint filed I
by an employee with the Cepartment r,f Labor pursuant to Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, may contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, cr otherwise discourage, an employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, including, but not limited to, providing information to the NRC on potential violations or other matters withn NRC's regulatory responsibilities.
F PART 150 - EXEMPTICHS AND CONTINUED REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN AGREEMENT ST AND IN OFFSHORE WATERS UNDER SECTION 274 l
l 15.
The authority citation for Part 150 continues to reaa as follows:
l l
AUTHORITY: Sec.161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 St6t. 688 (42 1
U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat.1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
Sections 150. 3, 150.15, 150.15 a, 150.31, 150. 32 also issued under secs.
11e(2), 81, 68 Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 92 Stat. 3033, 3039 i
+
l i
.s I r
- f (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 150.14 alto issued unoer sec, 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amenced (42 U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued i
i under secs. 125,141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C.10155, j
10161). Section 150.17a also issueo unoer sec.122, 68 Stat. 539 (42 U.S.C.
j 2152). Section 150.30 also issuea unoer sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C.
2282).
i for the purposes of sec. E23, 68 Stat. 958, as 6 mended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
55150.20(b)(2)-(4) ano 150.21 are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as l
amenced (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); $150.14 is issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, j
as amended (4? ti.S.C. 2201(1)); anc if150.16-150.19 ano 150.20(b)(1) are is' sued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001(c)).
1 L
16.
In i 150.20, the introouctory _ text of paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
! 150.20 Recoonition of Agreement State licenses.
i t
(b) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any specific license 4
issueo by an Agreement State to a person engaging in activities in a non-Agreement State or in offshore waters under the general licenses provided in this section, the general licenses provided in this section are subject to the provisionsofil30.7(a)through(g), 30.9, 30.14(d), 30.34, 30.41, 30.51 to l
i 47 J
30.63, inclusive, of Part 30 of this chapter; il 40.7(a) through (g), 40.9, 40.41, 40.51, 40.61, 40.63 inclusive 40.71 and 40.81 of Part 40 of this chapter; and il 70.7(a) through (g), 70.9, 70.32, 70.42, 70.51 to 70.56, I
inclusive, il 70.60 to 70.62, inclusive, and i 70.7 of Part 70 of this chapter; knd to the provisions of 10 CFR Parts 19, 20 and 71 anc Subpart B of-Part 24 of this chapter.
In addition, any person engaging in activities in
[
non.Asreement States or in offshore waters under the general licenses provideo in this section:
' ye l
Dated at Rockville, ND, this (4 ' day of.MW,1990.
a for th Nuclear Regulatory Cormission.
~
\\
\\
Samuel J. C i1A, Secretary of the omission.
,v my-p-
e
- l \\
i Document Name:
}
FREE FLOW FINAL I.
Reouestor's 10:
COPELAND Author's Name:
)
Document Comments:
i e
N i
i fI 1'
l I
.i
+
.,