ML20217A906
| ML20217A906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1990 |
| From: | Curtiss 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 AD21-2-65, NUDOCS 9011300240 | |
| Download: ML20217A906 (2) | |
Text
- - - . - - - - . - . - - - - -- - . _ . . . . - - . - - - .
l
~~
1e
^ AFFIRM AD21-2 (Public) 65 ,
RESPONSE SHEET L
L TO: SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: C0tHISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-013 - FINAL RULE TO PROHIBIT L AGREEMENTS RELATED TO EMPLOYMENT THAT WOULD .
RESTRICT THE-FREE FLOW 0F INFORMATION TO THE COM4ISSION APPROVED X w/commentDISAPPROVED ABSTAIN Nor PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMENTS: -i
- Comments are attached.
1 i
a
{ .
g SIGNATURE
" 2/12/90 RELEASE VOTE / //
, DATE WITHHOLD VOTE / /
ENTERED'ON "AS" YES / No g23g240901120 30 54FR3OO49 PDR
,A Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-90-013:
While I am-reluctantly prepared to support the approach recommended in SECY-90-013, particularly in view of the fact that the Department of Labor has adopted the argument that the NRC championed 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 draft final rule.
Specifically, I am not persuaded that a logical case has been --
or can be -- made to copport the distinction between settlement agreements arising out of an employer-employee relationship and settlement agrecrants where no employer-employee relationship exists. If we are troubled by the imposition of ADY restriction on an indiviPaal's right to communicate with the Commission --
even where the individual nevertheless retains the right to communicate in some manner with the Commission -- the fact that those' restrictions arise out of the settlement 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-Commission's ability, unencumbered, to obtain information'on health and safety matters.' Indeed, in view of the-decision that the Commission has reached here, I find it most improbable that the Commission would -- or could -- accept a settlement agreement that restricted in any way an individual's ability to communicate with the Commission, on the ground that the settlement agreement did not involve an employer-employee relationship. In short, the logic of this rula. appears.to compel the conclusion that any restriction on an individual's right to communicate with the Commission contained in a settlement agreement -- whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists -- is unacceptable. While this rule, by its terms, does not address this situation, we nevertheless should recognize that our action here moves us in that direction.
' If the Commission is seeking to ensure that the channels of communication 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 Commission, 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.
mi. , , , , , , ,
f a:
v LN .. fpano,% u PLEASE
- 3, AD21-2.(Public) 00215B
' ' ' ,ji v .
NUCLEAR RE>
- y. t W ASH teiv e viv. w.w. .. .,
s b# j to
,.? March 2, 1990 SS .
OFFICE OF THE -'
SECRETARY 4
' MEMORANDUM FOR: William C. Parler, General Counsel !
..^
(L, 3G
({$ramuelJ. Chilk, Secretary FROM:-
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION / DISCUSSION
.( AND VOTE, 11:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1990, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE,-. MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 4 I. SECY-90-013 - Final' Rule to Prohibit Aareements Related to Emolovment That Would-Restrict the-Free Flow of Information to the Commission The-Commission, by a'4-1 vote, approved a final rule which
. prohibits' agreements,related'.to-employment.that'would prohibit, restrict or. discourage'. employees who have performed or are >
performing work related to licensed activities-from bringing safety'information to'the Commission.
Commissioners Roberts. disapproved the rule. Commissioner-l Curtiss provided additional-commentsLto:be: published with-the ruleT(copy attached)..
The1 final rule.should be rev.ised to include Commissioner Curtiss' comments priorLto the Environmental Impact Section on page.25, reviewed by.the Regulatory Publication Branch,'ADM,.
for: consistency with Federal-iRegister requirements, and
. forwarded ~ forosignature and publication.:. !
(OGC) (SECY Suspense: 3/23/90)
,1 s
Attachment:
As stated.
cc: ChairmaniCarr i
- t
. Commissioner Roberts t Commissioner Rogers 9001004 Commissioner Curtiss
. Commissioner-Remick
- j. EDO
- GPA L
(;
L pesgrzny zy-
TZi l ll l l Ill f'"
y
..i;.**
N Additional Comments of Commissioner Curtiss While I am reluctantly supporting the approach adopted in this rule, particularly in view of the fact that the Department _of Labor has adopted the argument that the NRC championed in our letter of May 3, 1989, I nevertheless remain concerned'about theLpotential 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-distinction between settlement agreements arising out of an employer-employee relationship and settlement agreement where no employer-employee relationship exists. If we are troubled by-the imposition of ADY restriction on'an individual's right to communicate with the. commission -- even where the individual nevertheless retains the right to communicate in some manner with the Commission -- the fact that those restrictions.arise out of the settlement 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 thel Commission's ability, unengumbered, to obtain information on health and safety matters.
Indeed, in view of the: decision that the Commission has reached here,-I find it y . most improbable that-the commission would -- or-could -- accept.
- a. settlement agreement that restricted in any way an individual's-ability to1 communicate with the commission,.on the ground that the settlement' agreement did not involve an employer-employee relationship.- In short, the logic of this rule appears to
- compeltthe conclusion.that any restriction on an individual's
. right to_ communicate with the-Commission contained'in a -
settlement-agreementi-- whether-or not an employer-employee.
relationships _ exists -- is-unacceptable. -While thiscrule, by itsiterms, does not address this situation, we:nevertheless should recognise :thatiour action -here moves us in -that direction.
1-:If1the Commission is seeking to ensure-that-the channels of Jcommunication for. health and safety information remain unencumbered, the ' fact: that one individual 11s 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 Commission, even thoughLit 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.
_ , , , _ , . . . . . . . . .