ML20044A762
| ML20044A762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/02/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Wylie C HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A763 | List: |
| References | |
| CCS, NUDOCS 9007020201 | |
| Download: ML20044A762 (2) | |
Text
-
UNITED STATES
'c'f
+'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
a g*..... jl
- 3..
WAnmNGf ON, D. C 20bbb l
tiay 2,1990 The Honorable Chalmers P. Wylie Member, United States House of Re)resentatives 200 North Hig1 Street Columbus, Ohio 43215
Dear Congressman Wylie:
I am responding to your letter of April 6,1990, in which you enclosed a letter from one of your constituents, Mr. W. Gordon Dick, concerning " abuses and narrow l
(mis) applications" of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Our review of the records indicate that Mr. Dick initially brought his concerns to the attention of our regional office in pennsylvania in January 1985. Our staff met wih him, inspected the installations of Gould electrical equipment about whic',. had expressed concern and advised him by letter dated July 9, 1985, ths allegations were not substantiated. We had previously advised Mr. Dick
- r many of the issues he expressed to us related not to safety matters but~to business practices that fell under the domain of the New York l
State public Service Commit. ton. We had also informed Mr. Dick that issues relating to dismissal and harassment of employees under the provisions of Section210mustbebroughttotheattentionoftheDepartmentofLabor(DOL) within 30 days of the violation, in response to Mr. Dick's letter of September 26, 1986, which expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which we addressed his concerns, we requested by letter dated October 22, 1986, that he provide us with specific information supporting his position.
By letter dated November 3,1986 Mr. Dick expressed dissatisfaction with our request.
Our letter to Mr. Dick, dated January 20, 1987, expressed regret that he was i
not satisfied with our responses, but stated that we planned no further action because he declined to provide us with specific supporting information.
As you may know Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended,prohibItsanyemployer,includinganuclearpowerplantlicensee, applicant, or the contractor or subcontractor of a licensee or applicant, from discriminating against any employee with respect to his or her compensation, terms conditions, or privileges of employment for engaging in certain protected activities.
Protected activities are defined in Section 210 to include the l
commencing of, or causing to be connenced, a proceeding under the Energy l
Reorganization Act or the Atomic Energy Act; testifying in such a proceeding; 4
or any other action to carry out the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act l
or the Atomic Energy Act. We note that Mr. Dick requests redress for " personal, professional and monetary damages" that he alleges that he has sustained, in r
Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, Congress has explicitly given to i
00L the authority and responsibility to provide the traditional, labor-related l
remedies such as compensation for individual losses while reserving to the NRC its authority under the Atomic Energy Act to take enforcement action against its licensees for violations of NRC requirements.. This statutory system has been implemented through a Pemorandum of Understanding between the two agencies.
$f*E
- M $2 FULL TEXT AScil SCAN PDC gs7 M
9' The lionorable Chalmers p. Wylie
-2 Although issues of alleged discrimination must be reported to DOL witSin 30 days of occurrence or within 30 days of the time an employee becomes aware of the alleged discrimination, the NRC examines issues of alleged discrimination for raising safety concerns without regard to the time of occurrence.
Furthernore, if the NRC determines that prohibited activities have occurred at a licensee's fecility, the NRC will tale action within our authority to ensure that cor-rective actions are undertaken by the licensee, and we may initiate enforcement actions against the licensee as decred appropriate.
Item 10 of the Factual i
Sununary attached to fir. Dick's letter indicates a misunderstanding of this issue. We hope this letter provides clarification.
In February 1985, ftr. Dick filed a complaint with DOL. The DOL issued an Order to Show Cause in llay 1985 because the complainant failed to attend a hearing on the complaint.
As a result, on June 19, 1985, 00L dismissed the complaint.
The NRC also concluded that no additional action was warranted on this issue.
Let me again assure you that the NRC conducts a thorough review of each issue concerning violations of its regulations for nuclear power plants and coordinates its efforts with other agencies as appropriate. We will continue to ensure that appropriate corrective action is taken and enforcement action implemented, when warranted.
Sincerely.
l Ja es M. Tay r
ecutive D rector for Operations
.