ML20217A891
| ML20217A891 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/19/1990 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217A873 | List: |
| 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 AD21-2-63, NUDOCS 9011300222 | |
| Download: ML20217A891 (2) | |
Text
6 jo AFFIR
~
- AD21 (Public)
(33 RESPONSE SHEET /SS0 gfy,
4 io,,
T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:-
COMMISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-013 - FINAL RULE TO PROHIBIT AGREEMENTS RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT THAT WOULD
. RESTRICT THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSION APPROVED x*
DISAPPROVEo ABSTAIN
-NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COM4ENTS:
- APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CORRECTION.
/
g/ SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
/
/
/7
' @6 DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
. ENTERED ~0N "AS" YES' No
- gjt3cgaaa902120 30 54FR3oo49 PDR
~
l w
- 19'-
l l
= 7.:..
proposeo settlement be forwarded to the lionsee prior to its executior.
.Several commenters believed that this requirement for char.ges in procedures amounted to a' backf1t requiring a backfit analysis.
Given the Secretary.of Labor's decision in the Pollizi case that such agreements are esainst public policy, there is some question as to wheth :r the proposed regulation would In any event, the have-imposed a new requirement on li:.ensees or contractors.
l final rule has eliminatea any specific requirement for procedural changes.
The final rule declares, consistent with the Pollizi decision, that I
agreements which place restrictions on employees communicating information
.with the NRC are prohibited.
Licensees may or may not choose to modify existing procedurescto assure compliance with the final rule's requirements.
Some licensees may, in-fact, already have procedures in place addressing these issues as a result of the staff's April 27,1989, letter notifying them of the NRC's' concerns.
But, in a$y event, it is for licensees themselves to decide how the prohibition on restrictive agreements is to be implemented '....,
1.
1 mMM 7
guiren. cow
-.m.
.g wun io uvia, q
i
. ith the requirement to-develop procedures-removed,'the rule merely W
As such'it does not prohibits potential barriers to communication with NRC.
fall within the definition-of backfit in 50.109. 'The backfit rule coes not y
apply' to NRC -information requests (see 50.54(f)) anc it would be anomalous to apply the backfit rule-to similar NRC measures to-ensure that information is brought to its attention.
4