ML20217A947
| ML20217A947 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/13/1997 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217A920 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-199-C, SECY-97-147-C, NUDOCS 9709230102 | |
| Download: ML20217A947 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ - ._ - .-. - - . - - .-.-_ .- -..- - .- -
NOTATIO N VOTE S
i RESPONSE SHEET i
TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ
SUBJECT:
SECY 97147 - RE EVALUATION OF SECY-96199 ISSUES; PLAN TO BETTER FOCUS RESOURCES ON HIGH PRIORITY DISCRIMINATION CASES mmmts Approved in F"f(w/cmnas isapproved in un bstain .
Not Participating Request scussion COMMENTS:
see auais emannt.
/
Ai i SIGNATUREQ [
ReleaseVote / x / b -\1 - %
DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes No _
W"!8AM ?8P CORRESPONDENCE PDR
COMMENTS OF COMMISSIONER DIAZ ON SECY-97-147 - RE EVALUATION OF SECY 96-199 ISSUES: PLAN TO BETTER FOCUS RESOURCES ON HIGH PRIORITY DISCRIMINATION CASES ,
For the most part, I approve the staff's proposal for focusing resources on high priority discrimination cases. l l approve in part and disapprove in part the recommendation in Appendix B regarding the allegation review and investigation processes. I support the staff's proposal that a second Allegation Review Bnard (ARB) meeting should determine whether to put cases on hold during the pendency of DOL proceedings after considering such factors as adverse discrimination findings. Likewise, it is reasonable that such factors as a recent history of adverse discrimination findings may lead to consideration of investigative or regulatory actions in addition to an investigat!on of the case under review.
l However, I believe that a few of the conditions that would permit a deferral to the DOL process are too vague and may be unduly restrictive. It appears that a case could not be put on hold pending DOL handling unless "the licensee does not have a history of previous discrimination allegations," or there are "no adverse trends or relevant performance characteristics suggest[ing] a lack of a safety-l conscious work environment." Sag SECY-97-147, App. B, Step 4a. The staff I
does not indicate what qualitative judgments or quantitative criteria might apply in determining that there is no history of discrimination allegations, or how far in the past such allegations should be considered, in my view, staff would have to exercise great care and judgment in reviewing trends in allegations or in settlements. I note that the existing Enforcement Poll:y addresses potential NRC actions when two or more investigative findings of discrimination by the same licensee are made within 18 months. Without further clarification of the use of the uncerta!n proposed factors, I recommend that the Cc mmission provide that the ARB would decide to defer to DOL., or supplement an 01 investigation, on the basis of whether the licensee has a recent history of adverse discrimination findings or there are a number of ongoing 01 investigations of harassment and intimidation.
The staff identifies a number of supplemental or alternative actions that could be considered when the ARB finds a history of adverse Ol or DOL discrimination findings, a history of settling discrimination issues, or other relevant performance characteristics which would indicate an environment not conducive to raising safety concerns. These actions include an " order that the licensee obtain an
Independent evaluation of their environment for raising safety concerns" and "an order to establish independent third-party oversight of the environment for raising concerns." Sea SECY-97147, App. B, Step 4c. The staff's proposal also indicates that these actions would be coordinated with appropriate levels of rranagement. I believe that the proposal should be modified to indicate that the Commission should be consulted before issuance of such orders. This would be consistent with the practice that was employed for issuanc.e of such an order regarding Millstone.
In its Policy Statement on Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Safety Concerns without Fear of Retallation, the Commission stated that it
" expects that NRC liceasees will establish safety conscious environments." The Commission made cle.fr that such responsibility rests with each licensee, its contractors and employees. The Commission has not required by regulation that licensees establish or maintain a " safety -conscious work environment." I am concerned that the staff's proposal moves in that direction despite questions as to whether such a requirement may lead to investigation of vague and unenforceable matters of culture or attitude. For instance, staff indicates that a primary consideration for itt proposal is " performing investigations necessary to take appropriate regulatory action to foster a safety-conscious work environment."
There is potential that use of such a standard will diffuse or diminish a focus on vigorous investigation and enforcement of individual cases of discrimination as well as identification of specific programmatic deficiencies that might warrant regulatory action. I would prefer to seek alternative statements of our goals in this area. For the present, however, I believe that the Commission should, at the very least, emphasize to staff, if it approves the proposal, that the approval does not predetermine Commission action, if any, in response to its recent request for public comment on establishing and maintaining a safety-conscious work environment.
I also agree with Commissioner Dicus that oudgetary constraints may limit the assignment of the requested resources to support the plan. Thus, OE and 01 may have to adjust budgeted resources so as to best accomplish the plan and other objectives.
. .. . -.