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 ,,
~ - - - -- _ __ __
w l
. - 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 l
have-imposed a new requirement on li:.ensees or contractors.
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 1.
how the prohibition on restrictive agreements is to be implemented ' ...., 1 7 guiren. cow -.m. .g wun io uvia, mMM q i
. With the requirement to-develop procedures-removed,'the rule merely prohibits potential barriers to communication with NRC. As such'it does not
' y fall within the definition-of backfit in 50.109. 'The backfit rule coes not 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.
.