ML20207C563
| ML20207C563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/18/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Herman A LABOR, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906030063 | |
| Download: ML20207C563 (1) | |
Text
DL UNITED STATES i
/
y' 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 e
May 18, 1999 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Alexis M. Herman Secretary of Labor Washington, D.C. 20210
Dear Madam Secretary:
A number of years ago, we raised a concern with the Department of Labor (DOL) regarding the inclusion, in settlement agreements and the like, of provisions which may restrict an individual's right to bring safety information to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This was reflected in a letter from Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr., to Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole, dated May 3,1989, a copy of which is enclosed. In response to these concerns, NRC regulations were revised to prohibit such provisions. In a similar vein, the DOL issued a decision in Polizzi v. Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Case No.
87-ERA-38 (1989), which declared such provisions to be void as contrary to public policy.
It has come to our attention that, in one proceeding currently before the DOL in which an NRC licensee is a party-respondent, the presiding Administrative Law Judge has issued a discovery order approving a provision which may be viewed as restrictive. Foley v.
Boston Edison Co., ARB Case No. 99-0222, ALJ Case No. 97-ERA-56. The restriction provides "[c]omplainant shall not disclose to any person or entity the contents of the documents in whole or in part." See Post-Hearing Order No. 6 (May 13,1998). Without intimating a view on the validity of the claim that the provision was impermissibly restrictive, a claim which has been disputed by the licensee in correspondence with the NRC, we wish to apprise you of the matter.
Sincerely, b
=
Enclosure:
Letter from Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr.,
to Secretary of Labor, E. Dole, dated i
May 3,1989
)
f cc: Douglas W. Foley Robert P. Morris, Esq., Counsel for BECo.
9906030063 990518 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
y h
- 0
)
- /. ** ** % e,'g UNITED STATES j
- g",, f g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j W A$HINGTON. O, C,20555 o'
g k * *:.. * /
May 3, 1989 cx4:a uAN The Honorable. Elizabeth Dole Secretary of Labor Washington,.0.C.
20210 Re:
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Nuclear Regulatory Comission ano the Department of Labor; Employee Protection
Dear Madam Secretary:
I am writing-you concerning the referenced Memorandum of Understanoing which provides for cooroination and cooperation concerning Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amenced.-
The Commission recognizes that, in many cases, employees and their employers redch settlement of -the issues' raised in Department of Labor (00L) proceedings
~
before completion of the formal process and a finoing by you.
The Comission supports settlements as they provide remedies to employees without the need for litigation.
Nevertheless, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) has an interest in those agreements because the undcrlying purpose of-Section 210 is to assure that the NRC obtains information necessary to carry out its regula-tory responsibility to protect the public health and safety. While settlement agreements in Section 210 proceedings are matters within the jurisaiction of
{
the Department of Labor and require your approval, the Comission, in view of j
its health ano safety responsibilities, has a significant interest in.a.ssuring that any such 6greements entered into by licensees and their contractors provide an opportunity to the settling party to bring safety issues directly i
to the attention of the Commission.
Section 210 dnd 10 CFR 50.7 of the Comission's regulations make it clear that no Comission licensee or its contractors may, through discrimination, such as j
througn discharge and other actions related to the terms of employment, restrict the freeoom of any employee or former employee to testify or otherwise i
participate in licensing and regulatory proceedings under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Obviously, settlement agreements which are a subterfuge for, or result from such discrimination and which impede these avenues of com-munication with the NRC, are clearly contrary to the policy objectives of the Atomic Energy Act and Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act.
Accordingly, we_ request that DOL assure, in its approvals of any settlement agreement involving a Section 210 case, that such agreements provide an 4
opportunity for the settling party to bring safet'y issues directly to the attention of the Commission.
4 7
9
s
~'e honorable Elizabeth Dole ne hRC, for its part, is taking actions to minimize any chilling effects from pst as well as future agreements.
First, our Executive Director for Opera-t cr.s has sent letters to the Chief Executive Officers of the major licensees ci the Commission nd their principal contractors reminding them of their res;cnsibilities to assure employee freedom to contact the NRC. The letter, a sample copy of which is attached, among other things, directs them to review past settlement agreements to ensure that such agreements provioe an opportunity to the settling party to bring safety issues directly to the attention of the Commission.
Our second action is to institute a rulemaking to ensure that future settlement agreeunts entered into by licensees and their contractors provide an opportunity for the settling party to bring safety issues directly to the attention of the Comission.
If your staff have questions concerning these NRC actions or our request to cencition your future approvals of settlement agreements, please have them contact James Lieberman,. Director, Office of Enforcement, at 492-0741.
Sincerely, O b-A.
Lando W. Zech r.
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/ encl.:
Service List (next page)
..