ML20203J942
| ML20203J942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1996 |
| From: | Goldberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bishop R NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203J328 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-97-384 NUDOCS 9712220135 | |
| Download: ML20203J942 (2) | |
Text
. . - - - .. . . _ . - . -. .- -- .-
UNITS 0 STc.Tss l
/GA $8eg'e, NUCLEAR REGl'LATORY COMMISSION
) *
,, WA$HINGToN. O C 206n-000t Y...../
othCi of THE August 23,1996 ct NrRAL CoVN$tL Roberg W. Bishop, Esq. :
i Vice President and General Counsel Nuclear Energy institute i 1776 i Street N.W. I Suite 4000 '
Washington, D.C., 20006 3708
Dear Mr. Bishop:
This is in response to your letter to me dated August 5,1996, regarding the public meeting held on July 23,1996, at NEl's request, to discuss NEl's concerns about the Secretary of Labor's decision in the Diar Mobainas case, in your August 5th letter, you indicate that you are writing to document your understanding of the NRC's poLition on issues raised by the decision and NEl's resulting concoms.-
in your letter, you express your view that the Secretary has interpreted the NRC's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 26 in a manner different than that provided in Part 26 and that the NRC, by apparently deferring to DOL, has in this instance abdicated its responsibility under Part 26. You further state that you would ' appreciate discussing further . , , possible avenues
- for the resolution of issues raised by this case.
The concerns that you raise in your letter are essentially the same as those that you expressed during the July 23d meeting As we stated during the meeting, our position is that the Secretary has not established new criteria regarding fitness for duty evaluations or otherwise changed NRC requirements. Rather, the Secretary was simply identifying factors that would be considered by DOL in making its determination as to whether an employer had a non discriminatory basis for referring an employee for psychological evaluation or testing. In this particular case, the Secretary considered these factors and found that Florida Power 9nd Light Company, the licensee, did not have a non-discriminatory basis for referring Cr. Diar Robainas for psychological evaluation but that the referral was made solely in retaliation for, and to prevent, his engaging in protected i activity, in response to our questions during the meeting, you agreed with the principle of the Diar Mobs /nas case that, if an objective determination can.be made that an er1ployee j has been ordered to submit to psycnological evaluation solely as a result of the employee's i protected activity, this would constitute discrimination. It appears, therefore, that your i disagreement is not with that principle, but with the specific facts of the Diar Mobainas case.
in sum, we emphasized that we do not agree that the NRC has " abdicated its responsibility under 10 CFR Part 26,* nor do we agree that licensees must now comply with NRC regulations differently as a result of differing interpretations of the regulations in g22g]5971217 LEONNIG97-384 PDR ATTAct MENT 5 -
Qb 7174 % (- - _ _ _ _ _ _
l
(
.4 s R W. Bishop Esq. 2 I
Aw *i6 by the NRC and the Secretary of Labor. Your August 5,1996, letter does not i-^
rAie any new issues not discussed at the July 23 meeting. Therefore, while we are t
sensitive to your concerns, we believe that there is no need to hold an additional meeting on this same tubject.
' Sincerely,
'ack P. Goldberg Deputy Assistant General ounsel 3 for Enforcement
.