ML20236L069
| ML20236L069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/02/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| References | |
| SP-98-057, SP-98-57, NUDOCS 9807100203 | |
| Download: ML20236L069 (4) | |
Text
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.L '? f.
- w. ' '
($
, ,[; p -- '
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2' . WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001
% #' July 2,1998 ALL AGREEMENT STATES
' OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA '
. TRANSMITl AL OF STATE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM INFORMATION (SP-98-057 )
Your attention is invited to the enclosed correspondence which contains:
INCIDENT AND EVENT INFORMATION..........
l PROGRAM MANAGEMENT INFORMATION... XX ' COMPATIBILITY l '
DESIGNATIONS FOR CERTAIN NRC RULES TRAINING' COURSE INFORMATION...............
. TECHNICAL INFORMATION. ..........................
l OTH E R I N CORMATION...................................
Supplementary Information: In SECY-97-156," Application of Federal Government-Wide
! . Conflict of Interest Requirements and NRC Enforcement Policy of Licensee Integrity issues to -
l -- Agreement State Programs'," the NRC staff identified issues for Commission consideration l '
concerning the application of Federal conflict of interest or ethics requirements and NRC's Enforcement Policy on licensee integrity issues to Agreement State programs. As directed by the Commission in a September 3,1997 Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM), this SECY
. was transmitted to the Agreement States, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania on September 10, ,
p 1997 with a request for written comments. in addition, these issues were discussed and I t
comments received at the All Agreement States meeting on October 17,1997 in Los Angeles, California. The Commission further directed the staff, upon receipt and consideration of
{[
comments, to submit final recommendations to the Commission for approval.
LUpon analysis and consideration of the comments received, the staff submitted its final i recommendations to the Commission in SECY-98-068 (enclosed) dated April 3,1998. In SECY.-98-068, the staff recommended that: 1) NRC should not require Agreeme'nt States to '
o . adopt conflict of interest or ethics regulations compatible with those of the Federal government
' and should continue to address on a case-by-case basis those issues where a nexus can be idrawn between protection of public health and safety and a State's approach to employee
, ' standards of conduct; 2) NRC, under IMPEP, should review the membership, statutory authority, and actions during the review period of State radiation control advisory or oversight 7 ' boards for potential conflict of interest concems; 3) NRC should adopt internal guidance for )
L' . consideration of integrity concerns in evaluating Agreement State programs; and 4) NRC should
} identify the deliberate misconduct rule as a compatibility category C.
~
The Commission issued a SRM dated June 12,1998 (enclosed) which, among other things, r
approved the staff's recommended approach to the issues raised in SECY-98-068. In the SRM, the Commission has determined that Agreement States should have provisions, whether by rule l or other legally binding requirements, which meet the objectives of NRC's deliberate iL . misconduct rule (10 CFR 30.10,40.10,61.9b,70.10). As such, the Commission decided to L
N007'00203990702 1
7~
PDR STPRO wwm. -
g -
](( MM- ]
1 i
l:
(
SP 057 JUL 2- 1998
~
designate NRC's deliberate misconduct rule as a ma'tter of Agreement State compatibility category C. Under category C, the essential objectives of the rule should be adopted by L Agreement States to avoid conflicts, duplication or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed by the Agreement States need not be the same as NRC provided the objectives are met. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the applicable NRC regulations.
In accordance with existing compatibility policy guidance, Agreement States should promulgate p regulations equivalent to NRC's deliberate misconduct rule or establish this requirement .
l through some other legally binding means, within 3 years from the date of this letter, if it does L not already exist.
In addition, the Commission has requested the staff to survey the Agreement States with j respect to the appropriate compatibility category of NRC employee protection rules (10 CFR l 30.7,40.7,61.9,70.7). The employee protection rules prohibit discrimination by a Commission j l licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a l
. Commission licensee or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected l activities. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the applicable employee protection regulations
- < which provide examples of protected activities. . Currently, NRC employee protection regulations are assigned a compatibility category D designation, i.e., the regulations are not required for compatibility purposes. We request Agreement State comments on the proper compatibility designation for this rule. We also request your comments on whether this rule should be !
adopted to assure public health and safety. : Please provide your comments by September 1, L
1998. The Office of State Programs (OSP) will be issuing a Federal Reaister notice to obtain public comment on this issue as requested by the Commission. We intend to analyze the l ' comments received from the Agreement States and the public and discuss this issue with you l' at the All Agreement States meeting in October in New Hampshire prior to submitting a recommendation to the Commission.
~
l This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration 04/30/01. The
- estimated burden per response to' comply with this voluntary collection request is 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
! Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records
_ Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC L 20555-0001, and to the Paperwor.k Reduction Project (3150-0029), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor,~ and a person'is not required to respond to, a collection of information.
If you have any questions regarding th,s correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below. ,
t-POINT _ OF CONTACT: Spiros Droggitis TELEPHONE: (301) 415-2367
. FAX: (301) 415-3502 INTERNET: SCD@NRC.
Mt datf St Rich'a L. Bangart, Director /
Office of State Programs
{
Enclosures:
As stated -
SP-98 057 _ . .
JUL 2- 1998 f
d:signata NRC's d: lib rate misconduct rule as a matter of Agreement State compatibility category C. Under category C, the essential objectives of the rule should be adopted by l Agreement States to avoid conflicts, duplication or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed by the Agreement States need not be the same as NRC provided the l objectives are met. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the applicable NRC regulations.
l In accordance with existing compatibility policy guidance, Agreement States should promulgate I
regulations equivalent to NRC's deliberate misconduct rule or establish this requirement through some other legally binding rneans, within 3 years from the date of this letter, if it does not already exist.
In addition, the Commission has requested the staff to survey the Agreement States with respect to the appropriate compatibility category of NRC employee protection rules (10 CFR 30.7,40.7,61.9,70.7). The employee protection rules prohibit discrimination by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the applicable employee protection regulations which provide examples of protected activities. Currently, NRC employee protection regulations are assigned a compatibility category D designation, i.e., the regulations are not required for compatibility purposes. We request Agreement State comments on the proper compatibility designation for this rule. We also request your comments on whether this rule should be adopted to assure public health and safety. Please provide your comments by September 1, 1998. The Office of State Programs (OSP) will be issuing a Federal Reaister notice to obtain public comment on this issue as requested by the Commission. We intend to analyze the comments received from the Agreement States and the public and discuss this issue with you i at the All Agreement States meetinn in October in New Hampshire prior to submitting a recorrnendation to the Commission.
This information request has been approved by OMB 3150-0029, expiration 04/30/01. The estimated burden per response to comply 'with this voluntary collection request is 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Forward any comments regarding the burden estimate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0029), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If a document does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information.
If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
DlQ hd M By RICHARD L BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director i OHice of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated .
l l
1 Distribution: I DIR RF (8S182) DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis E-Mailed to States: PDR (YES_{} (NO_)
A/S File 7/2/98 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SCD\SP98057.WPD *See previous concurrence. .
To receive a copy of this documenMndicate in the bor: "C" = Cog weout BNachrnent/endosure "E" = Cory with anachment/enctnsure "N" = No copy i OFFICE OSP l OSP:Dpm ,
OSP:D /'. M / l NAME SDroggitis:nb:KK PLohaus IT 'y RBangart %fb DATE 07/02/98* 07/02/98* I 07/ p /98 l OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4 ,
SP !
d::signate NRC's deliberate misconduct rule as a matter of Agreement State compatibility category C. Under category C, the essential objectives of the ru should be adopted by ,
Agreement States to avoid conflicts, duplication or gaps. The nner in which tne essential 1 objectives are addressed by the Agreement States need not be the same as NRC provided the objectives are met. Enclosed for your information is a copy of ie applicable NRC regulations.
In accordance with existing compatibility policy guidance, Agr ment States should promulgate regulations equivalent to NRC's deliberate misconduct rule or establish this requirement through some other legally binding means, within 3 years fro the date of this letter, if it does not already exist.
In addition, the Commission has requested the staff to surv y the Agreement States with respect to the appropriate compatibility category of NRC er 1ployee protection rules (10 CFR
} 30.7,40.7,61.9,70.7). The employee protection rules pr ibit discrimination by a Commission j licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a con actor or subcontractor of a f Commission licensee or applicant against an employee f r engaging in certain protected activities. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the appl' able employee protection regulations which provide examples of protected activities. Current! , NRC employee protection regulations are assigned a compatibility category D designation, i.e , the regulations are not required for compatibility purposes. We request Agreement State omments on the proper compatibility designation for this rule. Please provide me with your omments on the proper compatibility designation by September 1,1998. The Office of Sta e Programs (OSP) will be issuing a Federal Reaister notice to obtain public comment on is issue as requested by the Commission. We intend to analyze the comments r ceived from the Agreement States and the public and discuss this issue with you at the All Agr ment States meeting in October in New Hampshire prior to submitting a recommendation to the Commission.
This information request has been approved by O B 3150-0029, expiration 04/30/01. The estimated burden per response to comply with thi voluntary collection request is 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
Forward any comments regarding the burden es mate to the Information and Records Management Branch (T 6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Re ulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the Paperwork Reduction P Ject (3150-0029), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. If a documen does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, nd a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information.
If you have any questions regarding this corr ;pondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated Distribution:
DlR RF (8S182) DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis PDR (YESj_) (NO_)
A/S File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SCD\ASLETTER.WP To receive a copy of this document. indicate in th > bar: *C" = Copy v thout s'tachment!enclosum *E' = Copy with attachment /encfosure "N' = No copy OFFICE M OSP l nOSP:Dj. OSP:D l
< NAME SDroggitis:nb:KK FCsWAhFf*- /4 RBangart DATE 03/d 498 07/cl//98 07/ /98
j.. :
p* "%, ~ l
? -
. 1 i I
%,...../,i POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote)
' April 3.1998 SECY-98-06'8 EQH: The Commissioners FROM: L Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-WIDE CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ETHICS REQUIREMENTS AND NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY CN LICENSEE INTEGRITY ISSUES TO AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAMS PURPOSE.
To obtain Commission approval of staff recommendations to address issues conceming the consideration of State employee ethics and licensee integrity matters in Agreement States.
BACKGROUND in SECY-97-156, " Application of Federal Govemment-Wide Conflict of Interest Requirements and NRC Enforcement Policy on Licensee Integrity issues to Agreement State Programs," the NRC staff identified issues for Commission consideration concoming the application of Federal
( conflict of interest or ethics requirements and NRC's Enforcement Policy on licensee integrity issues to Agreement State Programs. The paper included preliminary staff proposals to address the issues identified in the paper.
On September 3,1997, the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) which approved the staffs plans to summarize the preliminary recommendations in the paper, transmit the information to the Agreement States, and make the paper available for public l-review and comment. The Commission further directed that after receipt and resolution of comments, the staff should submit final recommendations to the Commission for approval. The Commission also approved the staffs plans to contact the Agreement States to confirm that conflict of interest requirements are in place in each Agreement State.
Contact:
Spiros Droggitis, OSP NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 415-2367 WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE h,(6s/-s,/+n//~7
) v w q (/ v i "
~
{. .
.] e ' .
. The Commissioners .-
The Commission directed the staff to inform the Commission of the results of the survey and to identify any concems that result from the survey. In addition, the SRM directed the staff to modify one of the questions posed in the paper and to consider and make a recommendation to the Commission on whether Agreement State conflict of interest rules and their enforcement thould be reviewed routinely under IMPEP rather than addressed only "as they arise on a caseby-case basis."
. Tne staff transmitted the discussion of the issues arid the preliminary staff proposals to the Agreement States, Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania on September 10,1997 and requested written comments by October 31,1997. A press release was issued on September 12,1997 announcing the availability of the information for public review and comment. This information was also placed in the Public Document Roorn. In addition, these issues were discussed and comments received at the All Agreement States'. meeting on October 17,1997 in Los Angeles, Califomia.
DISCUSSION-The NRC staff received written comments from 11 Agreement State agencies. No other comments were received. The staff has reviewed the written comments and the transcript of the comments made at the All Agreement States meeting and proposes the following in addressing the issues identified in SECY-97-156:
ISSUE 1:
e ' Does the NRC have any authority to require Agreement States to adopt conduct of employee regulations or policies, similar to those applicable to NRC employees? Or, does the NRC have a basis to require an Agreement State to have conflict of interest regulations or policies, without the reqeirament that those regulations or policies be similar to those of NRC7 The first issue concemed whether NRC should require Agreement States to adopt compatible Federal conflict of interest or ethics regulations. The preliminary staff analysis was that NRC has generally not required State radiation control programs to adopt administrative requirements that are not promulgated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and are dictated by the States' own administrative laws. In the staffs preliminary proposal, this position was considered prudent and the staff did not propose to change it.
However, the staff did note that in those cases where a nexus between protection of public health and safety and a State's approach to employee standards of conduct exists, the staff proposed to address those conflict of interest issues on a case-by-case basis.
This issue generated the most comments from the Agreement States. None of the Agreement States which provided written comments on the issues in SECY-97-156 l
supported NRC requiring Agreement States to adopt compatible Federal conflict of interest or ethics regulations. One State commented that the NRC did not have the authority to impose conflict of interest regulations or policies on Agreement State employees and questioned the constitution!ity of the Federal govemment's authority to mandate general l
The Commissioners ethics standards on State officers and employees. The Organization of Agreement States, at the October All Agreement States meeting, unanimously adopted a resolution recommending to NRC that Agreement States not be required to adopt compatible conflict of interest / ethics / disclosure requirements. Many of the individual Agreement State comments either endorsed this resolution, took a position similar to the views expressed in the resolution, or identified the existence of applicable ethics laws or regulations in their individual States.
The staff indicated in SECY-97-158 ts belief that most, if not all, Agreement States were subject to individual State conflict of interest laws and regulations and indicated its plans to contact th6 Agreement States to confirm this understanding. In its September 3,1997 SRM, the Commission approved the staffs pian and directed the staff to inform the Commission of the results of the survey and to identify any cor.ccrr,& th9t result from the survey.
In conducting the survey to determine the existence of ethics rules for State employees, the staff reviewed individual State laws and regulations and consuhid with various organizations including the N ational Conference of State Legislatures, the Cc;.acil of Governmental Ethics Laws, Common Cause and a Council of State Govemments/American Society for Public Administration publication on public integrity. In some cases, the staff contacted Agreement State officia!s to confirm information. Preliminary resulta of this search were discussed at the
- All Agreement States meeting. As a result of this survey, the staff has determined that all Agreement States (as well as the States in the process of becoming Agreement States --Ohio, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania) have, to varying degrees, ethics laws or some other State policy, executive order or tegulation. All the States included certain financial conflict of interest requirements for State officials. Many States have established State Ethics Commissions or Boards which oversee State ethics issues and enforce ethics laws and regulations, in other States, this responsibility is left to the Secretary of State or Attomey General to oversee and enforce. As a result of this confirmation of the existence of State ethics requirements in Agreement States and comments provided by the Agreement States, the staff recommends that Agreement States not be required to adopt ethics regulations compatible with those of the Federal govemment.
The Commission, in its SRM, requested that the staff consider and make a recommendation on whether Agreement State conflict of interest or ethics rules and their enforcement should be reviewed routinely under IMPEP rather than addressed only as they arise on a case-by-case basis. Most of the Agreement States that commented agreed that con @ct of interest issues
!- should only be addressed as they arise on a case-by-case basis when a nexus can be drawn between protection of public health and safety and a State's standard of conduct. One Agreement Stato commented that the routine review of States' conflict of interest regulations l- 'and their enforcement under IMPEP would be a waste of time. The staff has considered the Commission's request and the State comments and recommends that Agreement State -
conflict of interest or ethics rules and their enforcement continue to be reviewed on a case-by-
~
case basis as issues arise. There is little likelihood that States will relax or remove existing conflict of interest or ethics ruks, and thus, review under IMPEP is not warranted. Further, ,
enforcement is necessary only when e specific violation of these requirements is identified. j Thus, staff believes that review of specific conflict of interest issues in Agreement States j l
L ___
.' /; /
l l
The Coramissioners
]
L where a nexus can be drawn between the ethics issue and adequacy of the program, perfomied on a case-by-case basis, would result in any performance issues in this area being identified and addressed, in addition, as discussed below under lasue 2, staff plans to develop guidance on the actions NRC will take when an intagrity issue may have an impact on the
. program's ability to maintain an adequate program.-
An issue which was identified during discussions with the Agreement State oftels at the All
- q Agreement States meeting was the potential conflicts of interest with the membership and statutory authority of State radiation control advisory or oversight boards, particularly when E EAgreement State licensees serve on those boards and those boards have hiring and firing
, authority of State radiation control program directors. This was an area identified by the Agreement State representative as one where additional NRC review may be appropriate. l Staff believes that board authoiity to hire and dismiss radiation control program directors is l
- not inherently a conflict of interest, However, potential conflicts could exist if licensee {
. representatives on such a board are not prohibited from decision-making involvement on i regulatory issues that could impact licensed operations. Therefore the staff recommends that the membership and statutory responsibilities of State radiation oversight boards and the boards' actions during the review period be examined for the potential of conflict of interest
'during IMPEP reviews.
I To summarize, the staffs recommendations regarding issue 1 are:- 1) NRC shou:d not require '
Agreement States to adopt conflict of interest or ethics regulations compatible with those of the Federal govemment: 2) NRC should continue to address on a case-by-case basis those cases where a nexus can be drawn between protection of public health and safety and a State's
,. approach to employee standards of conduct, 3) NRC will, under IMPEP, review the membership, statutory authority, and actions during the IMPEP review period of State radiation ,
control advisory or oversight boards for potential conflict of interest concems. l ISSUE 2.
- Whether NRC should adopt intemal guidance for consideration of integrity concems in evaluating Agreement State programs.
The second issue identified in SECY-97-156 concemed whether the NRC should adopt intemal guidance for consideration of integrity concems in evaluating Agreement State programs. The staffs preliminary recommendation, as modified by the Commission, was that intemal guidance should be developed which would ask two questions:
- 1. Does the integrity issue have an impact on the adequacy of the current radiation control program, or dces it have the potential to have, an impact on the ability of n, the Agreement State to maintain an adequate and compatible radiation control program?
- 2. Does the integrity issue create significant doubt about whether NRC can consider the person trustworthy in communicating and coordinat:ng Agreement State program activities with NRC7
.s >. i .
i e The Commissioners !
I Under the preliminary proposal, the guidance would recognize that in most cases, the appropriate action will be referral to an appropriate State agency. It would also identify steps to be taken when, in NRC's judgment, an Agreement State's actions are not sufficient to resolve
~
potential adequacy and compatibility impacts on the radiation control program or to restore NRC's confklence in an Agreement State official.
Most of the Agreement' State comment' letters did not address this issue. The responses from most of those that did comment were that this was an intamal NRC matter and thus up to the l NRC to decide because these matters should be handled on a case-by-case basis and in most
- instances referred to the appropriate State officials. One Agreement State did comment that the first question was more pertinent and important and that it was not comfortable with the subjective nature of the second question of the " trustworthiness" of" communicating" with NRC.
A view was expressed at the All Agreement State meeting that it did not much matter what the intamal guidance was ~as long as it was documented for all to be aware and followed consistently by the NRC.
, After considering this matter further, the staff suggests eliminating the second question from the guidance because the first question adequately covers all matters relevant to NRC's concems, including issues raised by the second question. However, overall. the staff continues to believe that developing intemal guidance along tne lines outlined in SECY-97-156 is appropriate and 1 recommends that such intemal guidance be developed and implemented. l ISSUE 3.
e -l e Whether Agreement States should be' required to establish and implement a policy that would provide that an Agreement State would take action, similar to the type of action taken by NRC, when integrity issues are identified in a licensee's program or by an individualin a licensee's program.
~
The final issue identified in SECY-g7-156 was whether 10 CFR Parts 30.10,40.10 and 70.10 lJ (the deliberate misconduct or " wrongdoer" rule) should be a compatibility category C. The deliberate misconduct rule prohibits individuals from engsging in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused a licensee to be in violation of an NRC L requirement, it also prohibits the submission of false or incomplete information that is in some L' respect meterial to the NRC. Under compatibility category C, Agresment States would have to L adopt a legal requirement that meets the essential objectives of these NRC provisions. The staff preliminary recommendation was that this should be a compatibility category C because of
, the potential gap that might be created between NRC and Agreement State programs if l! deliberate _ misconduct and wrongdoing issues involving Agreement State licensees were not i
pursued and closed by Agreement States. To satisfy the category C designation, the
- Agreement States could address this area either in statutes, regulations, or another form of a legally binding requirement.
This issue generated a mixed reaction from the Agreement States that commented. Two Agreement States supported the adoption of this provision by the Agreement States. One
'.( e :
)
l.- ;The Commissioners -
State indicated that it would be an additional enforcement tool available to the State and would prefer to have NRC require it as a compatibility item rather than attempting to have the State adopt it at its own initiative. Five other Agreement States opposed requiring the deliberate l misconduct rule as a compatibility category C for a variety of reasons. Several Agreement States indicated that adequate State laws and regulations existed giving them authority to take action against a licensee's program or an individualin a licensee's program when there is a threat to public health and safety and thus additional requirements were not needed. A third i
' Agreement State indicated that while it had provisions similar to the deliberate mig, conduct rule -
in either State icw or regulation, it was concemed about making it a matter of compatibility ,
- because of the difference in the scope between the NRC and the State regulations. Examples l
of this difference in scope provided by the State were: a violation of the State rule may be
. , '. lim.ited to a civil penalty wherens it may be a civil or criminal penalty under NRC rules. Under
! the State regulation, a violator is subject to penalty only if that violation was one for which a license may be revokedc Under the NRC rule, non-licensees are subject to sanctions for L causing, or actions which may have caused, but for detection, any violation by a licensee of a
[ rule, regulation, order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Commission. The State could not guarantee that efforts tc obtain legislation to broaden the L scope of the State's authority to conform to the NRC requirements would be successful.
Another Agreement State objected to changing the compatibility category for several reasons.
The first reason cited was what it termed the imprecision of the NRC deliberate misconduct -
, rule. Specifically, the State claimed that under the deliberate misconduct rule, NRC may take L enforcement action regarding matters that Isise issues of integrity, competence, fitness-for-J- duty, or other matters that may not necessarily be a violation of specific NRC requirements.'
l- The Agreement State questioned whether it had, or.should have, the legal authority to impose l sanctions for an activity which does not violate a State statute or rule. The State also noted that the deliberate misconduct rule provides NRC with broad authority to impose sanctions ,
. against non-iicensed persons. The State commented that while such broad authority may not {
be feasible in the State, statutory provisions other than Agreement State licensing provisions provide a framework for actions against non-licensed persons who engage in improper conduct related to the use of radiation. The State went on to argue that because it had general authority to impose orders and penalties against licensees and specific authority regarding non-licensed r- persons, requiring adoption of the deliberate misconduct rule as a matter of compatibility i category C was not necessary. ;
The staff has reviewed the comments of the Agreement States on this issue. It appears that !
either the Agreement States endorse requiring the deliberate misconduct rule as a matter of This comment displayed a misunderstanding about the deliberate misconduct rule.
.Under the deliberate misconduct rule, a deliberate act is required to have caused a violation, or but for detection wou'd have caused a violation, of NRC's requirements. The Enforcement Policy does address actions against a licensee that may impact a person for actions set forth
, above that may not be a violation, e.g. a radiographer not being fit for duty. The authority for such action is Section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which authorizes revocation for reasons the Commission would not issue a license under an original application; p
L
f+ .
. The Commissioners compatibility or oppose it, for the most part, oecause they believe that existing State laws and regulations give them the sufficient authority to carry out the intent of the rule. In t recommending the final deliberate misconduct rule to the Commission in 1991 (SECY-91-183),
the staff indicated that it was premature to decide the issue of Agreement State compatibility until the staff had experience in both the implementation and effectiveness of the rule. At that time, the staff stated its intention to distribute copies of the compilation of orders issued under the rule to all Agreement States. This compilation is now available to the Agreement States on the Office of Enforcement site on the NRC Homepage. For the reasons identified in SECY 156, because of potential significant safety issues associated veth deliberate misconduct and the potential gap which might be created between the NRC and Agreement State programs if deliberate misconduct issues involving Agreement State licensees were not pursued and closed, the staff continues to recommend that the deliberate misconduct rule be required as a -
compatibility category C rule. Under compatibility category C, an Agreement State must have a requirement which meets the essential objectives of the NRC rule to avoid conflicts, duplication or gaps, but does not need to be identical to that of the NRC. To satisfy this designation, the Agreement State can address this area either in statutes, regulations or another form of legally bindirig requirement. As such, Agreement States will have a large degree of flexibility in incorporating the deliberate misconduct concept into their program. The staff plans to find an
- Agreement State's approach to this issue compatible with that of NRC as long as the State ~ ,
,' indicates it has a legal mechanism in place to take enforcement action against unlicensed '
persons engaged in deliberate misconduct. For example, the approaches described by Agreement States in their comments (see above) would be acceptable under these criteria.
Administrative remedies may include, as appropriate, the issuance of notices of violation, orders requiring affirmative action or suspension or revocation of the right to possess and use materials, the impounding of materials, injunctive relief and the imposition of civil or criminal penalties. However, the staff strongly recommends that Agreement States have the authority to prohibit unlicensed persons engaged in deliberate misconduct from future involvement iri licensed activities within their jurisdiction.
A separate but related issue involves the question as to whether 10 CFR Parts 30.7,40.7 and
- 70.7 (Employee Protection) should be designated an Agreement State compatibility category C.
Under the current designation, these regulations are compatibility category D - not required for purposes of compatibility. Thomas B. Cochran, Ph.D., Director of the Nuclear Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council, identified the question of whether NRC's whistle-blower protection regulations should be made a matter of Agreement State compatibility in a 10 CFR 2.206 petition dated December 12,1997. The staff intends to review and assess this matter in detail and will provide the Commission with its assessment and recommendations in a separate
- paper.
l RESO. URGES: -
Implementation of the recommendations in this paper can be accomplished within budgeted resources for procedures development and IMPEP reviews.
GOORDINA'.DDB:
- The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper. The Office of the Chief
____-__._______._______m____ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
, ', s . .:
t .
L..
- l. The Commissioners .
Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the staff proposals to:
- 1. Continue to address on a case-by-case basis those issues where a nexus can be l drawn between protection of public health and safety and a State's approach to {
employee standards of conduct; I
- 2. Review, under IMPEP, the membership, statutory authority, and actions during the l review period of State radiation control advis.ory or oversight boards for potential conflict ofinterest concems;
- 3. Adopt intemal guidance for consideration of integrity concems in evaluating Agreement State programs; and i
- 4. Require the Agreement States to adopt NRC's deliberate misconduct rule as a l compatibility category C.
L. o eph h
- E utive Director for Operations Commissioners' completed vote sheets / comments should be provided directly to l the Office of the Secretary by COB Monday, April 20, 1998.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Monday, April 13. 1998, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review i= and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OIG OPA OCA CIO CFO EDO REGIONS SECY
! Action: Bangart, SP kR 2809 4' UNITED STATES CyS: Callan f 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thadani g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-000, Thompson g Norry June 12, 1998 g***** Blaha Collins, NRR seensTARY Lieberman. OE MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan EBaker. NRR Exec 'v DirectorforOperations /Droggitis.SP
/. .
FROM: Joh ' . Hoyle, ecretary
/
SUBJECT:
AFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-068 - CONSIDERATION i OF APPLICATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-WIDE l CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR ETHICS REQUIREMENTS AND l NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON LICENSEE INTEGRITY ISSUES TO AGREEMENT STATE PROGRAMS The Commission has approved the staff's recommended approach to the issues raised in the subject paper. The staff should move to implement the NRC's deliberate misconduct rule as a matter of compatibility category C, whether by rule or other legally binding requirements which meet the objectives of the deliberate misconduct rule. With respect to the need for determining l
, the compatibility category of employee protection rules, the staff should survey and discuss the issue with the Agreement States and appropriate organizations and provide an opportunity for public comment on this i.ssue. 9700226 Prospective Agreement States should be requested to submit documentation of State conflict of interest and ethics regulations or procedures applicable to those portions of the State radiation control program covered by the Agreement.
The staff should coordinate with the Agreement States to determine whether they can provide the NRC with information on State actions to prohibit individuals - licensed or unlicensed -
from involvement in licensed activities for the purpose of sharing such information. The staff l should consider the feasibility of adding relevant Agreement State information to the l compilation of information on NRC actions currently available on the NRC Home Page. I cc: Chairman Jackson e Commissioner Dieus m l
I Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan k
l OGC U1
@3 CiO n
^
' OlG G Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
PDR DCS I- SECY NOTE: This SRM, SECY 98-068, and the Commission Voting Record will be made publicly available 5 working days after the date of the final SRM.
o Df'i' W O
10 CFR {}0.10 Deliberate misconduc+ http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/CFR/PART030/part030-0010.htm : 9
$30.10 Deliber:te mise:ndect.
(a) Any licensee or any employee of a licensee; and any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), subcontractor, or any employee of a contractor or subcontractor, of any licensee, who knowingly provides to any licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part; may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Commission, or (2) Deliberately submit to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information l that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect l material to the NRC. (b) A person who violates paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B. (c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows: (1) Would cause a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or 1 (2) Constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor. t [56 FR 40689, Aug.15,1991] [ CFR Index l Part 30 Index l NRC Home Page ] I I i 1 of1 6/19/981:43 PM x_ __
. _ -__ _ _ m _ _ _ .
540.10 Deliber:te mise:nduct. 1 (a) Any licensee or any employee of a licensee; and any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), ! subcontractor, or any employee of a contractor or subcontractor, of any licensee, who knowingly provides to any licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services, that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part; may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Commission, or (2) Deliberately submit to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information j that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. (b) A person who violates paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B. (c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows: (1) Would cause a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) Constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor. (.,6 FR 40689, Aug.15,1991] [ CFR Index l Part 40 Index l NRC Home Page ] I l 1 of1 6/19/981:44 PM
e 561.9b Deliberate misconduct. l l (a) Any licensee or any employee of a licensee; and any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), l subcontractor, or any employee of a contractor or subcontractor, of any licensee, who knowingly provides to any licensee, contractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials, or other goods or services,
. that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part; may not:
(1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by l the Commission, or (2) Deliberately submit to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. (b) A person who violat'es paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B. (c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional l' act or omission that the person knows: ! (1) Would cause a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) Constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor. [56 FR 4%91, Aug.15,1991] [ CFR Index 1 Part 61 Index i NRC Home Page ] l l l l l-i I i L r 1 of 1 6/26/98 1:44 PM
10 CFR $70.10 Deliberate misconduct. http://www.nrc. gov /l JRC/CFR/PART070/ pan 070-0010.html
$70.10 Deliberste misconduct.
1 (a) Any licensee or any employee of a licensee; and any contractor (including a supplier or consultant), subcontractor, or any em provides to any licensee,ployee of a contractor contractor, or subcontractor, or subcontractor, components, equipment, materials,of any licensee, or other gomis who knowingly or services, that relate to a licensee's activities subject to this part; may not: (1) Engage in deliberate misconduct that causes or, but for detection, would have caused, a licensee to be in violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation of any license, issued by the Conunission, or (2) Deliberately submit to the NRC, a licensee, or a licensee's contractor or subcontractor, information that the person submitting the information knows to be incomplete or inaccurate in some respect material to the NRC. (b) A person who violates paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section may be subject to enforcement action in accordance with the procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart B. (c) For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, deliberate misconduct by a person means an intentional act or omission that the person knows: (1) Would cause a licensee to be m violation of any rule, regulation, or order, or any term, condition, or limitation, of any license issued by the Commission, or (2) Constitutes a violation of a requirement, procedure, instruction, contract, purchase order or policy of a licensee, contractor, or subcontractor. [56 FR 40691, Aug.15,1991] [ CFR Index l Part 70 Index l NRC Home Page ] I of1 6/19/981:45 PM
( _ 10 CFR l 0.7 BEployee protection. http //www.nrc. gov /NRC/CFR/PART030/ pan 030-0007.html I E {30.7 Employee prstecti:n. l ! (a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or j : subcontractor of a Conunission licensee or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protecad activities is prohibited. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compmhtion, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in l l section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Ac: of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the i adrahnnration c~ enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganizaticu Act. 1 1 (1)'l he protected activities include but are not limited tm l. (O Prcviding the Conunission or his or her employer information about alleged violations of either of the ! statutes nanud in paragraph (a) intacductory text of this section or possible violations of requirements
- imposed under either of those statutes; 1
l (ii) Refusing ta engage in any practice made unlawful under either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) ! l introductory text or under these requirements if the ernployee has identified the alleged illegality to the l employer; ' (iii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; l (iv) Testifying in any Commission proceeding, or before Congress, or at any Federal or State proceeding . l regarding any provision (or proposed provision) ofcither of the statutes named in paragraph (a) l l introductory text. l (v) Assisting or participating in, or is about to assist or participate in, these activities. i (2) These activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the i employee assistance or participation. 1 L , (3) This section has no application to any employee alleging discrimination prohibited by this section ! who, acting without direction from his or her employer (or the employer's agent), deliberately causes a
~
l violation ofany requirement of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (b) Any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by ) any person for engaging in protected activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may seek a j l remedy for the discharge or discrimination through an admmistrative proceedin;; in !be Department of l ! Labor. The administrative proceeding must be imtiated within 180 days after an alleged violation occurs. ! . The employee may do this by filing a complaint alleging the violation with the Department of Labor, i l Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division. The Department of Labor may order ; reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages. { (c) A violation of paragraphs (a), (e), or (f) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a l Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be ' grounds for-- (1) Denial, revocation, or suspension of the license. l (2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the 'icensee or applicant. j (3) Other enforcement action. l (d) Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect an employee may be predicated ! upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The prohibition applies when the adverse action occurs because the 1of2 6/19/981:43 PM i i
employee has engaged in protected activities. An employeds engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or from adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations. (e)(1) Each specific Bensee, each applicant for a specific license, and each general licensee subject to part 19 shall prominatly post the revision of NRC Form 3, " Notice to Employees," referenced m 10 CFR 19.11(c). (2) The posting of NRC Form 3 must be at locations sufficient to permit employees protected by this section to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of work. Premises must be posted not later than 30 days after an application is docketed and remain posted while the application is pending before the Commission, during the term of the license, and for 30 days following license termination. (3) Copies of NRC Form 3 may be obtained by writing to the Regional Administrator of the appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter or by calling the NRC Infonnation and Records Management Branch at (301) 415 - 7230. (f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terens, conditions, or privileges of employment, including ' an agreement to settle a complaint filed by an employee with the Department of Labor pu nmt to section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, may contain any provision which would prohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected activity as ; defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section including, but not limited to, providing information to the l NRC or to his or her employer on potential violations or other matters within NRC's regulatory I responsibilities. [58 FR 52408, Oct. 8,1993, as amended at 60 FR 24551, May 9,1995; 61 FR 6764, Feb. 22,1996] [ CFR Index l Part 30 Index l NRC Home Page ] l I
)
2 of 2 6/19/981:43 PM
540.7 Empl:yee protectica. s (a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act. (1) The protected activities include but are not limited to: (i) Providing the Commission or his or her employer information about alleged violations of either of the
]
statutes named in paragraph (a) introductory text of this section or possible violations of requirements imposed under citaer of those statutes; (ii) Refusing to engage in any practice made unlawful under either of the statutes named in p graph (a) 'I introductory text or under these requirements if the employee has identified the alleged illegal y to the j employer, (iii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements;
)
(iv) Testifying in any Commission proceeding, or before Congress, or at any Federal or State proceeding j regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) 1 introductory text. (v) Assisting or participating in', or is about to assist or participate in, these activities. (2) These activities are protected even if no forme! proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee assistance or participation. (3) This section has no application to any employee alleging discrimination prohibited by this section who, acting without direction from his or her employer (or the employer's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of the Energy Reorgamzation Act of 1974, as amended, or the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended. l (b) Any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person Ior engagmg m protected activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may seek a remedy for the discharge or discrimination through an admuustrative proceeding in the Department of l Labor. The administrative proceeding must be imtiated within 180 days after an alleged violation occurs. The employee may do this by filing a complaint alleging the violation with the Department of Labor, ! Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division. The Department of Labor may order 1 reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages.
]4
. (c) A violation of paragraphs (a), (e), or (f) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounds for--
l l' (1) Denial, revocation, or suspension of the license. (2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the licensee or applicant. (3)Other enforcement action. !
- (d) Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect an employee may be predicated i upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The prohibition applies when the adverse action occurs because the !)
i h I cf 2 6/19/981:44 PM i
employee has engaged in protected activities. An employee's engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or disciplme for legitimate reasons or from
, adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations.
. (e)(1) Each specific licensee, each applicant for a specific license, and each general licensee subject to part 19 shall prominently post the revision of NRC Form 3, " Notice to Employees", referenced m 10 CFR 19.11(c).
(2) The posting of NRC Form 3 must be at locations sufficient to permit employees protected by this section to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of work. Premises must be posted not later than 30 days after an application is docketed and remain posted while the application is pending before the Commission, during the term of the license, and for 30 days following license termination. (3) Copies of NRC Form 3 may be obtained by writing to the Regional Administrator of the appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Oflice listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter or by call.ing the NRC Information and Records Management Branch at (301) 415 - 7230. (f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including an agreement to settle a complaint filed by an employee with the Department of Labor pursuant to - l section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, may contain any provision which would prohibit, { restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected activity as defined m J
. paragraph (a)(1) of this section including, but not limited to, providmg information to the NRC or to Ids l or her employer on potential violations or other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities. *
- [58 FR 52409, Oct. 8,1993, as amended at 60 FR 24551, May 9,1995; 61 FR 6765, Feb. 22,1996]
[ CFR Index l Part 40 Index l NRC Home Page ] 1 i i I l l
- 2 of 2 6/19/981:44 PM
561.9 Employee protection.
. (a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or I subcontractor of a Commission licen.see or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act.
(1) The protected activities include but are not limited to: (i) Providing the Commission or his or her employer information about alleged violations of either of the s tatutes named in paragraph (a) introductory text of the section or possible violations of requirements l imposed under either of those statutes;
-(ii) Refusing to engage in any practice made unlawful under either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) introductory text or under these requirements if the employee has identified the alleged illegality to the employer; (iii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; (iv) Testifying in any Commission proceeding, or before Congress, or at any Federal'or State proceeding l
regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) . intr 6ductory text. (v) Assisting or participating in, or is about to assist or participate in, these activities. . l (2) These activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee assistance or participation. I i : (3) This'section has no application to any employee alleging discrimination prohibited by this section who, j acting without direction from his or her employer (or the employer's agent), deliberately causes a violation j of any requirement of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. l (b) Any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person for engaging in protected activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may seek a remedy for the discharge or discrimination through an administrative proceeding in the Department of Labor. The administrative proceeding must be initiated within 180 days after an alleged violation occurs. l_ The employee may do this by filing a complaint alleging the violation with the Department of Labor,
. Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division. The Department of Labor may order reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages.
l l (c) A violation of paragraph (a), (e), or (f) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a
- Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounds for --
! (1) Denial, revocat. ion, or suspension of the license.
- l of 2 6/26/981;43 PM
(2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the licensee or applicant. (3) Other enforcement action. (d) Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect an employee may be predicated upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The prohibition applies when the adverse action occurs because the employee
~
has engaged in protected activities. An empioyee's engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or discipline for legitimate reasons or from . adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations. , 1 L (e)(1) Each licensee and each applicant for a license shall prominently post the revision of NRC Form 3,
.."Notice to Employees," referenced in 10 CFR 19.11(c). This form must be posted at locations sufficient to
- permit employees protected by this section to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of work.
Premises must be posted not later than 30 days after an application is docketed and remain posted while l the application is pending before the Commission, during the term of the license, and for 30 days following f license termination. l (2) Copies of NRC Fomi 3 may be obtained by writing to the Regional Administrator of the appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter or by. l calling the NRC Information and Records Management Branch at 301 ~- 415 - 7230. l L (f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including an l agreement to settle a complaint filed by an employee with the Department of Labor pursuant to section 211 of the Energy Reorg:mization Act of 1974, as amended, may contain any provision which would prohibit, ; 1 restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected activity as defined in paragraph (a)(1) of this section including, but not limited to, providing information to the NRC or to his or ,
' her employer on potential violations or other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities. )
l [58 FR 52412, Oct. 8,1993, as amended at 60 FR 24552, May 9,1995; 61 Fli 6765, Feb. 22,1996) g [ CFR Index I Part 61 Index ! NRC Home Pane ] l o'
CFR FRiTEis_ployee protection._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _http://www.nrc. _ . _ - - - - - gov
- - -/NRC/CFR/PART070/part070
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0007.html s
{70.7 Employee protection. (a) Discrimination by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant against an employee for engaging in certain protected activities is prohibited. Discrimination includes discharge and other actions that relate to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The protected activities are established in section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and in general are related to the administration or enforcement of a requirement imposed under the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act. (1) The protected activities include but are not limited to: (i) Providing the Commission or his or her employer information about alleged violations of either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) introductory text of this section or possible violations of requirements imposed under either of those statutes; (ii) Refusing to engage in any practice made unlawful under either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) introductory text or under these requirements if the employee has identified the alleged illegality to the employer; (iii) Requesting the Commission to institute action against his or her employer for the administration or enforcement of these requirements; (iv) Testifying in any Commission proceeding, or before Congress, or at any Federal or State proceeding regarding any provision (or proposed provision) of either of the statutes named in paragraph (a) introductory text. (v) Assisting or participating in, or is about to assist or participate in, these activities. (2) These activities are protected even if no formal proceeding is actually initiated as a result of the employee assistance or participation. (3) This section has no application to any employee alleging discrimination prohibited by this section who, acting without direction from his or her employer (or the employer's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any requirement of the Energy Reorgamzation Act of 1974, as amended, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. (b) Any employee who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person for engaging in protected activities specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may seek a remedy for the discharge or discrimination through an admmistrative proceeding in the Department of Labor. The administrative proceeding must be initiated within 180 days after an alleged violation occurs. The employee may do this by filing a complaint alleging the violation with the Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division. The Department of Labor may order reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages. (c) A violation ofparagraphs (a), (c), or (f) of this section by a Commission licensee, an applicant for a Commission license, or a contractor or subcontractor of a Commission licensee or applicant may be grounds for - (1) Denial, revocation, or suspension of the license. (2) Imposition of a civil penalty on the licensee or applicant. (3) Other enforcement action. (d) Actions taken by an employer, or others, which adversely affect an employee may be predicated upon nondiscriminatory grounds. The prohibition applies when the adverse action occurs because the 1 of 2 6/19/981:45 PM
employee has engaged in protected activities. An employee's engagement in protected activities does not automatically render him or her immune from discharge or disciplme for legitimate reasons or from l t
- adverse action dictated by nonprohibited considerations.
(e)(1) Each specific licensee, each applicant for a specific license, and each general licensee subject to part 19 shall prominently post the revision of NRC Form 3, " Notice to Employees," referenced m 10 CFR 19.11(c). (2) The posting of NRC Form 3 must be at locations sufficient to permit employees protected by this 4 section to observe a copy on the way to or from their place of work. Premises must be posted not later than 30 days after an application is docketed and remain posted while the application is pending before the Commission, during the term of the license, and for 30 days following license termination. (3) Copies of NRC Form 3 may be obtained by writing to the Regional Administrator of the appropriate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office listed in Appendix D to Part 20 of this chapter or by calling the NRC Information and Records Management Branch at 301 - 415 - 7230. (f) No agreement affecting the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including ! an agreement to settle a complaint filed by an employee with the Department of Labor pursuant to , section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, may contain any proviim which ' would arohibit, restrict, or otherwise discourage an employee from participating in protected activity as definec in paragraph (a)(1) of this section including, but not limited to, providing mformation to the NRC or to his or her employer on potential violations or other matters within NRC's regulatory responsibilities. [58 FR 52413, Oct. 8,1993, as amended at 60 FR 24552, May 9,1995; 61 FR 6765, Feb. 22,1996] [ CFR Index l Part 70 Index l NRC Home Page ] l I l f l L i 2of2 6/19/981:45 PM L---_____________.__-.________
l j _- ___ EXECUTIVE TASK. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM , : l......
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>> l!
l TASK # - 8S182
~~~ --
x DATE- 06/22/98 h ; ,;- MAIL
~~~~~~~~~~
CTRL. - 1998 TASK STARTED - 06/22/98.
---~~~~~~~~
TASK DUE - 06/30/98
. -~~~ .
TASK COMPLETED -
-~~~~~ -~~ .
/ /
TASK DESCRIPTION - PREPARE ALL A/S LTR NOTIFYING STATES OF THE COMMISSION
.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ )
DECISION ON THE WRONGDOING RULE & REQUEST COMMENTS REQUESTING
-- . . -~~~~ .
OFF. - EDO REQUESTER
~~~~~~~~~-
- CALLAN- WITS -
0 FYP
- N I PROG.-
SCD PERSON - STAFF LEAD - SCD PROG. AREA -
----~~~~ . ~~~ .--
PROJECT
~~~~- -~~~~~~~
STATUS - REFERENCE'SECY-98-068 l ! PLANNED.ACC. - N LEVEL' CODE - 1 l l
.~~--_..a .__.a , - .-}}