ML20207M962
| ML20207M962 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/17/1999 |
| From: | Dicus D NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207M940 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-002-C, SECY-99-2-C, NUDOCS 9903190307 | |
| Download: ML20207M962 (2) | |
Text
_ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . .._..-__ _ _._ _ _____ _.__. __-_.
- - :~ .
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET x .
TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary .
FROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-99402 - AGREEMENT STATE COMPATIBILITY DESIGNATION FOR NRC EMPLOYEE PROTECTION REGULATIONS Approved Disapproved Y Abstain .
Not Participating . _
COMMENTS:
th On ~
l~ , n S
TURE V Q t b rs u n n , D / T9 9 DATE ] ' -
Entered on "AS" Yes Y No PJ '!8 2; E8!22 CORRESPONDENCE PDR
~ $?0"$/ $f39 7
I Commissioner Dicus' comments on SECY-9g-002 : -
I am not prcpared at this time to approve the staff proposal to change the compatibility category for employee protection regulations but may do so in the future if staff can show that a regulatory ;
N performance gap exists that puts Agreement State licensee employees at a higher risk than <
i NRC licensee employees. ,
I NRC has made great stndes in moving towards a risk informed performance based regulatory i approach. This approach shou!d apply to our Agreement State pogram as well. NRC adopted :
the regulations in 10 CFR 19.20, 30.7, 40.7,61.g, and 70.7., etc. to enable enforcement action
{
against licensees who violate Commission requirements who discriminate against employees ;
engaged in protected activities. In a supplemental note '.o my staff, NRC staff asserts that such l provisions act as a deterrence, foster a safety conscious work environment and reduces l possib!e chilling effects on employees. NRC's requirements are in addition to the USDOL l
regulations which provide for sanctions against employees who discriminate against employees. i Staff believes that the lack of Agreement State requirements similar to those of the NRC '
- threatens to jeopardize" an orderly pattern of regulation on a nationwide basis in accordance with Commission policy.
I do not disagree that NRC's requirements could have some positive effect upon NRC licensees and I recognize the possible application of the Commission's policy to this case. However, the application of this Commission policy should be balanced with a recognition that many of the Agreement States, notwithstanding the flexibility allowed in category C, will need to implement the requirement through rulemaking. Rulemaking is not cost-free. If a risk-informed, ,
performance based regulatory approach is applied to this case, the following question emerges: !
Is there a regulatory performance gap such that Agreement State licensee employees are at a ;
greater risk than NRC licensee employees, keeping in mind that USDOL requirements already !
provide for sanctions against employers in all States who discriminate against whistleblowers? !
Staff's assertion that the present circumstances " threatens to jeopardize" an orderly regulatory i pattem does not answer this question and so there is no basis to make a risk-informed, performance based decision. There, I must disapprove the proposal at this time but leave open the possibility to be persuaded otherwise should staff provide addiffonal information to show that the proposal would be in keeping with our risk-informed performance based regulatory approach.
P
~ w , ,,re . ., --r- -. - e. -- - - - - - - - - -