24336 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

1Throughout this Policy Statement the terms

‘‘concerns,’’ ‘‘safety concerns’’ and ‘‘safety

problem’’ refer to potential or actual issues within

the Commission’s jurisdiction involving operations,

radiological releases, safeguards, radiation

protection, and other matters relating to NRCregulated activities.

8. An estimate of the total number of hours

needed annually to complete the requirement

or request: 3,519.

9. An indication of whether Section

3507(d), Pub.L. 104–13 applies: Not

applicable.

10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 9 establishes

information collection requirements for

individuals making requests for records

under the Freedom of Information or Privacy

Acts. It also contains requests to waive or

reduce fees for searching for and reproducing

records in response to FOIA requests. The

information required from the public is

necessary to identify the records they are

requesting or to justify requests for waivers

or reductions in searching or copying fees.

A copy of the submittal may be

viewed free of charge at the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street NW,

(lower level), Washington, DC. Members

of the public who are in the

Washington, DC, area can access this

document via modem on the Public

Document Room Bulletin Board (NRC’s

Advanced Copy Document Library),

NRC subsystem at FedWorld, 703–321–

3339. Members of the public who are

located outside of the Washington, DC,

area can dial FedWorld, 1–800–303–

9672, or use the FedWorld Internet

address: fedworld.gov (Telnet). The

document will be available on the

bulletin board for 30 days after the

signature date of this notice. If

assistance is needed in accessing the

document, please contact the FedWorld

help desk at 703–487–4608. Additional

assistance in locating the document is

available from the NRC Public

Document Room, nationally at 1–800–

397–4209, or within the Washington,

DC, area at 202–634–3273.

Comments and questions should be

directed to the OMB reviewer by June

13, 1996: Peter Francis, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(3150–00043), NEOB–10202, Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503.

Comments can also be submitted by

telephone at (202) 395–3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda

Jo. Shelton, (301) 415–7233.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of May, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gerald F. Cranford,

Designated Senior Official for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 96–12041 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear

Industry To Raise Safety Concerns

Without Fear of Retaliation; Policy

Statement

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Statement of policy.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is issuing this policy

statement to set forth its expectation

that licensees and other employers

subject to NRC authority will establish

and maintain safety-conscious

environments in which employees feel

free to raise safety concerns, both to

their management and to the NRC,

without fear of retaliation. The

responsibility for maintaining such an

environment rests with each NRC

licensee, as well as with contractors,

subcontractors and employees in the

nuclear industry. This policy statement

is applicable to NRC regulated activities

of all NRC licensees and their

contractors and subcontractors.

DATES: May 14, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Lieberman, Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, (301) 415–2741.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NRC licensees have the primary

responsibility to ensure the safety of

nuclear operations. Identification and

communication of potential safety

concerns 1 and the freedom of

employees to raise such concerns is an

integral part of carrying out this

responsibility.

In the past, employees have raised

important issues and as a result, the

public health and safety has benefited.

Although the Commission recognizes

that not every concern raised by

employees is safety significant or, for

that matter, is valid, the Commission

concludes that it is important that

licensees’ management establish an

environment in which safety issues are

promptly identified and effectively

resolved and in which employees feel

free to raise concerns.

Although hundreds of concerns are

raised and resolved daily in the nuclear

industry, the Commission, on occasion,

receives reports of individuals being

retaliated against for raising concerns.

This retaliation is unacceptable and

unlawful. In addition to the hardship

caused to the individual employee, the

perception by fellow workers that

raising concerns has resulted in

retaliation can generate a chilling effect

that may discourage other workers from

raising concerns. A reluctance on the

part of employees to raise concerns is

detrimental to nuclear safety.

As a result of questions raised about

NRC’s efforts to address retaliation

against individuals who raise health and

safety concerns, the Commission

established a review team in 1993 to

reassess the NRC’s program for

protecting allegers against retaliation. In

its report (NUREG–1499, ‘‘Reassessment

of the NRC’s Program for Protecting

Allegers Against Retaliation,’’ January 7,

1994) the review team made numerous

recommendations, including several

recommendations involving issuing a

policy statement to address the need to

encourage responsible licensee action

with regard to fostering a qualityconscious environment in which

employees are free to raise safety

concerns without fear of retribution

(recommendations II.A–1, II.A–2, and

II.A–4). On February 8, 1995, the

Commission after considering those

recommendations and the bases for

them published for comment a proposed

policy statement, ‘‘Freedom of

Employees in the Nuclear Industry to

Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of

Retaliation,’’ in the Federal Register (60

FR 7592, February 8, 1995).

The proposed policy statement

generated comments from private

citizens and representatives of the

industry concerning both the policy

statement and NRC and Department of

Labor (DOL) performance. The more

significant comments related to the

contents of the policy statement

included:

1. The policy statement would

discourage employees from bringing

their concerns to the NRC because it

provided that employees should

normally provide concerns to the

licensee prior to or contemporaneously

with coming to the NRC.

2. The use of a holding period should

be at the discretion of the employer and

not be considered by the NRC in

evaluating the reasonableness of the

licensee’s action.

3. The policy statement is not needed

to establish an environment to raise

concerns if NRC uses its authority to

enforce existing requirements by

pursuing civil and criminal sanctions

against those who discriminate.

4. The description of employee

concerns programs and the oversight of

contractors was too prescriptive; the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24337

2Throughout this Notice, the term ‘‘licensee’’

includes licensees and applicants for licenses. It

also refers to holders of certificates of compliance

under 10 CFR Part 76. The term ‘‘contractor’’

includes contractors and subcontractors of NRC

licensees and applicants defined as employers by

section 211(a)(2) of the Energy Reorganization Act

of 1974, as amended.

3An employee who believes he or she has been

discriminated against for raising concerns may file

a complaint with the Department of Labor if the

employee seeks a personal remedy for the

discrimination. The person may also file an

allegation of discrimination with the NRC. The NRC

will focus on licensee actions and does not obtain

personal remedies for the individual. Instructions

for filing complaints with the DOL and submitting

allegations can be found on NRC Form 3 which

licensees are required to post.

expectations concerning oversight of

contractors were perceived as the

imposition of new requirements without

adherence to the Administrative

Procedure Act and the NRC’s Backfit

Rule, 10 CFR 50.109.

5. The need for employee concerns

programs (ECPs) was questioned,

including whether the ECPs fostered the

development of a strong safety culture.

6. The suggestion for involvement of

senior management in resolving

discrimination complaints was too

prescriptive and that decisions on

senior management involvement should

be decided by licensees.

In addition, two public meetings were

held with representatives of the Nuclear

Energy Institute (NEI) to discuss the

proposed policy statement. Summaries

of these meetings along with a revised

policy statement proposed by NEI were

included with the comments to the

policy statement filed in the Public

Document Room (PDR).

This policy statement is being issued

after considering the public comments

and coordination with the Department

of Labor. The more significant changes

included:

1. The policy statement was revised to

clarify that senior management is

expected to take responsibility for

assuring that cases of alleged

discrimination are appropriately

investigated and resolved as opposed to

being personally involved in the

resolution of these matters.

2. References to maintenance of a

‘‘quality-conscious environment’’ have

been changed to ‘‘safety-conscious

environment’’ to put the focus on safety.

3. The policy statement has been

revised to emphasize that while

alternative programs for raising

concerns may be helpful for a safetyconscious environment, the

establishment of alternative programs is

not a requirement.

4. The policy statement continues to

emphasize licensees’ responsibility for

their contractors. This is not a new

requirement. However, the policy

statement was revised to provide that

enforcement decisions against licensees

for discriminatory conduct of their

contractors would consider such things

as the relationship between the licensee

and contractor, the reasonableness of

the licensee’s oversight of the

contractor’s actions and its attempts to

investigate and resolve the matter.

5. To avoid the possibility suggested

by some commenters that the policy

statement might discourage employees

from raising concerns to the NRC if the

employee is concerned about retaliation

by the employer, the statement that

reporting concerns to the Commission

‘‘except in limited fact-specific

situations’’ would not absolve

employees of the duty to inform the

employer of matters that could bear on

public, including worker, health and

safety has been deleted. However, the

policy statement expresses the

Commission’s expectation that

employees, when coming to the NRC,

should normally have provided the

concern to the employer prior to or

contemporaneously with coming to the

NRC.

Statement of Policy

The purpose of this Statement of

Policy is to set forth the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s expectation

that licensees and other employers

subject to NRC authority will establish

and maintain a safety-conscious work

environment in which employees feel

free to raise concerns both to their own

management and the NRC without fear

of retaliation. A safety-conscious work

environment is critical to a licensee’s

ability to safely carry out licensed

activities.

This policy statement and the

principles set forth in it are intended to

apply to licensed activities of all NRC

licensees and their contractors,2

although it is recognized that some of

the suggestions, programs, or steps that

might be taken to improve the quality of

the work environment (e.g.,

establishment of a method to raise

concerns outside the normal

management structure such as an

employee concerns program) may not be

practical for very small licensees that

have only a few employees and a very

simple management structure.

The Commission believes that the

most effective improvements to the

environment for raising concerns will

come from within a licensee’s

organization (or the organization of the

licensee’s contractor) as communicated

and demonstrated by licensee and

contractor management. Management

should recognize the value of effective

processes for problem identification and

resolution, understand the negative

effect produced by the perception that

employee concerns are unwelcome, and

appreciate the importance of ensuring

that multiple channels exist for raising

concerns. As the Commission noted in

its 1989 Policy Statement on the

Conduct of Nuclear Power Plant

Operations (54 FR 3424, January 24,

1989), management must provide the

leadership that nurtures and maintains

the safety environment.

In developing this policy statement,

the Commission considered the need

for:

(1) Licensees and their contractors to

establish work environments, with

effective processes for problem

identification and resolution, where

employees feel free to raise concerns,

both to their management and to the

NRC, without fear of retaliation;

(2) Improving contractors’ awareness

of their responsibilities in this area;

(3) Senior management of licensees

and contractors to take the

responsibility for assuring that cases of

alleged discrimination are appropriately

investigated and resolved; and

(4) Employees in the regulated

industry to recognize their

responsibility to raise safety concerns to

licensees and their right to raise

concerns to the NRC.

This policy statement is directed to all

employers, including licensees and their

contractors, subject to NRC authority,

and their employees. It is intended to

reinforce the principle to all licensees

and other employers subject to NRC

authority that an act of retaliation or

discrimination against an employee for

raising a potential safety concern is not

only unlawful but may adversely impact

safety. The Commission emphasizes that

employees who raise concerns serve an

important role in addressing potential

safety issues. Thus, the NRC cannot and

will not tolerate retaliation against

employees who attempt to carry out

their responsibility to identify potential

safety issues.3

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, the NRC has the authority

to investigate allegations that employees

of licensees or their contractors have

been discriminated against for raising

concerns and to take enforcement action

if discrimination is substantiated. The

Commission has promulgated

regulations to prohibit discrimination

(see, e.g., 10 CFR 30.7 and 50.7). Under

Section 211 of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974, as

amended, the Department of Labor also

has the authority to investigate

complaints of discrimination and to
24338 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

4The NRC and DOL have entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate

cooperation between the agencies. (47 FR 54585;

December 3, 1982).

5Training of supervisors in the value of raising

concerns and the use of alternative internal

processes may minimize the conflict that can be

created when supervisors, especially first line

supervisors, perceive employees as ‘‘problem

employees’’ if the employees, in raising concerns,

bypass the ‘‘chain of command.’’

6 In developing these programs, it is important for

reactor licensees to be able to capture all potential

safety concerns, not just concerns related to ‘‘safetyrelated’’ activities covered by 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix B. For example, concerns relating to

environmental, safeguards, and radiation protection

issues should also be captured.

provide a personal remedy to the

employee when discrimination is found

to have occurred.

The NRC may initiate an investigation

even though the matter is also being

pursued within the DOL process.

However, the NRC’s determination of

whether to do so is a function of the

priority of the case which is based on its

potential merits and its significance

relative to other ongoing NRC

investigations.4

Effective Processes for Problem

Identification and Resolution

Licensees bear the primary

responsibility for the safe use of nuclear

materials in their various licensed

activities. To carry out that

responsibility, licensees need to receive

prompt notification of concerns as

effective problem identification and

resolution processes are essential to

ensuring safety. Thus, the Commission

expects that each licensee will establish

a safety-conscious environment where

employees are encouraged to raise

concerns and where such concerns are

promptly reviewed, given the proper

priority based on their potential safety

significance, and appropriately resolved

with timely feedback to employees.

A safety-conscious environment is

reinforced by a management attitude

that promotes employee confidence in

raising and resolving concerns. Other

attributes of a work place with this type

of an environment may include welldeveloped systems or approaches for

prioritizing problems and directing

resources accordingly; effective

communications among various

departments or elements of the

licensee’s organization for openly

sharing information and analyzing the

root causes of identified problems; and

employees and managers with an open

and questioning attitude, a focus on

safety, and a positive orientation toward

admitting and correcting personnel

errors.

Initial and periodic training

(including contractor training) for both

employees and supervisors may also be

an important factor in achieving a work

environment in which employees feel

free to raise concerns. In addition to

communicating management

expectations, training can clarify for

both supervisors and employees options

for problem identification. This would

include use of licensee’s internal

processes as well as providing concerns

directly to the NRC.5 Training of

supervisors may also minimize the

potential perception that efforts to

reduce operating and maintenance costs

may cause supervisors to be less

receptive to employee concerns if

identification and resolution of

concerns involve significant costs or

schedule delays.

Incentive programs may provide a

highly visible method for demonstrating

management’s commitment to safety, by

rewarding ideas not based solely on

their cost savings but also on their

contribution to safety. Credible self

assessments of the environment for

raising concerns can contribute to

program effectiveness by evaluating the

adequacy and timeliness of problem

resolution. Self-assessments can also be

used to determine whether employees

believe their concerns have been

adequately addressed and whether

employees feel free to raise concerns.

When problems are identified through

self-assessment, prompt corrective

action should be taken.

Licensees and their contractors

should clearly identify the processes

that employees may use to raise

concerns and employees should be

encouraged to use them. The NRC

appreciates the value of employees

using normal processes (e.g., raising

issues to the employee supervisors or

managers or filing deficiency reports)

for problem identification and

resolution. However, it is important to

recognize that the fact that some

employees do not desire to use the

normal line management processes does

not mean that these employees do not

have legitimate concerns that should be

captured by the licensee’s resolution

processes. Nor does it mean that the

normal processes are not effective. Even

in a generally good environment, some

employees may not always be

comfortable in raising concerns through

the normal channels. From a safety

perspective, no method of raising

potential safety concerns should be

discouraged. Thus, in the interest of

having concerns raised, the Commission

encourages each licensee to have a dual

focus: (1) On achieving and maintaining

an environment where employees feel

free to raise their concerns directly to

their supervisors and to licensee

management, and (2) on ensuring that

alternate means of raising and

addressing concerns are accessible,

credible, and effective.

NUREG–1499 may provide some

helpful insights on various alternative

approaches. The Commission recognizes

that what works for one licensee may

not be appropriate for another.

Licensees have in the past used a variety

of different approaches, such as:

(1) An ‘‘open-door’’ policy that allows

the employee to bring the concern to a

higher-level manager;

(2) A policy that permits employees to

raise concerns to the licensee’s quality

assurance group;

(3) An ombudsman program; or

(4) Some form of an employee

concerns program.

The success of a licensee alternative

program for concerns may be influenced

by how accessible the program is to

employees, prioritization processes,

independence, provisions to protect the

identity of employees including the

ability to allow for reporting issues with

anonymity, and resources. However, the

prime factors in the success of a given

program appear to be demonstrated

management support and how

employees perceive the program.

Therefore, timely feedback on the

follow-up and resolution of concerns

raised by employees may be a necessary

element of these programs.

This Policy Statement should not be

interpreted as a requirement that every

licensee establish alternative programs

for raising and addressing concerns.

Licensees should determine the need for

providing alternative methods for

raising concerns that can serve as

internal ‘‘escape valves’’ or ‘‘safety

nets.’’ 6 Considerations might include

the number of employees, the

complexity of operations, potential

hazards, and the history of allegations

made to the NRC or licensee. While

effective alternative programs for

identifying and resolving concerns may

assist licensees in maintaining a safetyconscious environment, the

Commission, by making the suggestion

for establishing alternative programs, is

not requiring licensees to have such

programs. In the absence of a

requirement imposed by the

Commission, the establishment and

framework of alternative programs are

discretionary.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices 24339

7When other employees know that the individual

who was the recipient of an adverse action may

have engaged in protected activities, it may be

appropriate for the licensee to let the other

employees know, consistent with privacy and legal

considerations, that (1) management reviewed the

matter and determined that its action was

warranted, (2) the action was not in retaliation for

engaging in protected activity and the reason why,

and (3) licensee management continues to

encourage them to raise issues. This may reduce

any perception that retaliation occurred.

Improving Contractors’ Awareness of

Their Responsibilities

The Commission’s long-standing

policy has been and continues to be to

hold its licensees responsible for

compliance with NRC requirements,

even if licensees use contractors for

products or services related to licensed

activities. Thus, licensees are

responsible for having their contractors

maintain an environment in which

contractor employees are free to raise

concerns without fear of retaliation.

Nevertheless, certain NRC

requirements apply directly to

contractors of licensees (see, for

example, the rules on deliberate

misconduct, such as 10 CFR 30.10 and

50.5 and the rules on reporting of

defects and noncompliances in 10 CFR

Part 21). In particular, the Commission’s

prohibition on discriminating against

employees for raising safety concerns

applies to the contractors of its

licensees, as well as to licensees (see, for

example, 10 CFR 30.7 and 50.7).

Accordingly, if a licensee contractor

discriminates against one of its

employees in violation of applicable

Commission rules, the Commission

intends to consider enforcement action

against both the licensee, who remains

responsible for the environment

maintained by its contractors, and the

employer who actually discriminated

against the employee. In considering

whether enforcement actions should be

taken against licensees for contractor

actions, and the nature of such actions,

the NRC intends to consider, among

other things, the relationship of the

contractor to the particular licensee and

its licensed activities; the

reasonableness of the licensee’s

oversight of the contractor environment

for raising concerns by methods such as

licensee’s reviews of contractor policies

for raising and resolving concerns and

audits of the effectiveness of contractor

efforts in carrying out these policies,

including procedures and training of

employees and supervisors; the

licensee’s involvement in or

opportunity to prevent the

discrimination; and the licensee’s efforts

in responding to the particular

allegation of discrimination, including

whether the licensee reviewed the

contractor’s investigation, conducted its

own investigation, or took reasonable

action to achieve a remedy for any

discriminatory action and to reduce

potential chilling effects.

Contractors of licensees have been

involved in a number of discrimination

complaints that are made by employees.

In the interest of ensuring that their

contractors establish safety-conscious

environments, licensees should

consider taking action so that:

(1) Each contractor involved in

licensed activities is aware of the

applicable regulations that prohibit

discrimination;

(2) Each contractor is aware of its

responsibilities in fostering an

environment in which employees feel

free to raise concerns related to licensed

activities;

(3) The licensee has the ability to

oversee the contractor’s efforts to

encourage employees to raise concerns,

prevent discrimination, and resolve

allegations of discrimination by

obtaining reports of alleged contractor

discrimination and associated

investigations conducted by or on behalf

of its contractors; conducting its own

investigations of such discrimination;

and, if warranted, by directing that

remedial action be undertaken; and

(4) Contractor employees and

management are informed of (a) the

importance of raising safety concerns

and (b) how to raise concerns through

normal processes, alternative internal

processes, and directly to the NRC.

Adoption of contract provisions

covering the matters discussed above

may provide additional assurance that

contractor employees will be able to

raise concerns without fear of

retaliation.

Involvement of Senior Management in

Cases of Alleged Discrimination

The Commission reminds licensees of

their obligation both to ensure that

personnel actions against employees,

including personnel actions by

contractors, who have raised concerns

have a well-founded, nondiscriminatory basis and to make clear

to all employees that any adverse action

taken against an employee was for

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

If employees allege retaliation for

engaging in protected activities, senior

licensee management should be advised

of the matter and assure that the

appropriate level of management is

involved, reviewing the particular facts

and evaluating or reconsidering the

action.

The intent of this policy statement is

to emphasize the importance of licensee

management taking an active role to

promptly resolve situations involving

alleged discrimination. Because of the

complex nature of labor-management

relations, any externally-imposed

resolution is not as desirable as one

achieved internally. The Commission

emphasizes that internal resolution is

the licensee’s responsibility, and that

early resolution without government

involvement is less likely to disrupt the

work place and is in the best interests

of both the licensee and the employee.

For these reasons, the Commission’s

enforcement policy provides for

consideration of the actions taken by

licensees in addressing and resolving

issues of discrimination when the

Commission develops enforcement

sanctions for violations involving

discrimination. (59 FR 60697; November

28, 1994).

In some cases, management may find

it desirable to use a holding period, that

is, to maintain or restore the pay and

benefits of the employee alleging

retaliation, pending reconsideration or

resolution of the matter or pending the

outcome of an investigation by the

Department of Labor (DOL). This

holding period may calm feelings onsite and could be used to demonstrate

management encouragement of an

environment conducive to raising

concerns. By this approach,

management would be acknowledging

that although a dispute exists as to

whether discrimination occurred, in the

interest of not discouraging other

employees from raising concerns, the

employee involved in the dispute will

not lose pay and benefits while the

action is being reconsidered or the

dispute is being resolved. However,

inclusion of the holding period

approach in this policy statement is not

intended to alter the existing rights of

either the licensee or the employee, or

be taken as a direction by, or an

expectation of, the Commission, for

licensees to adopt the holding period

concept. For both the employee and the

employer, participation in a holding

period under the conditions of a specific

case is entirely voluntary.

A licensee may conclude, after a full

review, that an adverse action against an

employee is warranted.7 The

Commission recognizes the need for

licensees to take action when justified.

Commission regulations do not render a

person who engages in protected

activity immune from discharge or

discipline stemming from nonprohibited considerations (see, for

example, 10 CFR 50.7(d)). The

Commission expects licensees to make

personnel decisions that are consistent

with regulatory requirements and that
24340 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 94 / Tuesday, May 14, 1996 / Notices

8The expectation that employees provide safety

and compliance concerns to licensees is not

applicable to concerns of possible wrongdoing by

NRC employees or NRC contractors. Such concerns

are subject to investigation by the NRC Office of

Inspector General. Concerns related to fraud, waste

or abuse in NRC operations or NRC programs

including retaliation against a person for raising

such issues should be reported directly to the NRC

Office of the Inspector General. The Inspector

General’s toll-free hotline is 800–233–3497.

9 Except for the reporting of defects under 10 CFR

Part 21 and in the area of radiological working

conditions, the Commission has not codified this

expectation. Licensees are required by 10 CFR 19.12

to train certain employees in their responsibility to

raise issues related to radiation safety.

10The Commission intends to protect the identity

of individuals who come to the NRC to the greatest

extent possible. See ‘‘Statement of Policy on

Protecting the Identity of Allegers and Confidential

Sources.’’

will enhance the effectiveness and

safety of the licensee’s operations.

Responsibilities of Employers and

Employees

As emphasized above, the

responsibility for maintaining a safetyconscious environment rests with

licensee management. However,

employees in the nuclear industry also

have responsibilities in this area. As a

general principle, the Commission

normally expects employees in the

nuclear industry to raise safety and

compliance concerns directly to

licensees, or indirectly to licensees

through contractors, because licensees,

and not the Commission, bear the

primary responsibility for safe operation

of nuclear facilities and safe use of

nuclear materials.8 The licensee, and

not the NRC, is usually in the best

position and has the detailed knowledge

of the specific operations and the

resources to deal promptly and

effectively with concerns raised by

employees. This is another reason why

the Commission expects licensees to

establish an environment in which

employees feel free to raise concerns to

the licensees themselves.

Employers have a variety of means to

express their expectations that

employees raise concerns to them, such

as employment contracts, employers’

policies and procedures, and certain

NRC requirements. In fact, many

employees in the nuclear industry have

been specifically hired to fulfill NRC

requirements that licensees identify

deficiencies, violations and safety

issues. Examples of these include many

employees who conduct surveillance,

quality assurance, radiation protection,

and security activities. In addition to

individuals who specifically perform

functions to meet monitoring

requirements, the Commission

encourages all employees to raise

concerns to licensees if they identify

safety issues 9 so that licensees can

address them before an event with

safety consequences occurs.

The Commission’s expectation that

employees will normally raise safety

concerns to their employers does not

mean that employees may not come

directly to the NRC. The Commission

encourages employees to come to the

NRC at any time they believe that the

Commission should be aware of their

concerns.10 But, while not required, the

Commission does expect that employees

normally will have raised the issue with

the licensee either prior to or

contemporaneously with coming to the

NRC. The Commission cautions

licensees that complaints that adverse

action was taken against an employee

for not bringing a concern to his or her

employer, when the employee brought

the concern to the NRC, will be closely

scrutinized by the NRC to determine if

enforcement action is warranted for

discrimination.

Retaliation against employees engaged

in protected activities, whether they

have raised concerns to their employers

or to the NRC, will not be tolerated. If

adverse action is found to have occurred

because the employee raised a concern

to either the NRC or the licensee, civil

and criminal enforcement action may be

taken against the licensee and the

person responsible for the

discrimination.

Summary

The Commission expects that NRC

licensees will establish safety-conscious

environments in which employees of

licensees and licensee contractors are

free, and feel free, to raise concerns to

their management and to the NRC

without fear of retaliation.

Licensees must ensure that

employment actions against employees

who have raised concerns have a wellfounded, non-discriminatory basis.

When allegations of discrimination arise

in licensee, contractor, or subcontractor

organizations, the Commission expects

that senior licensee management will

assure that the appropriate level of

management is involved to review the

particular facts, evaluate or reconsider

the action, and, where warranted,

remedy the matter.

Employees also have a role in

contributing to a safety-conscious

environment. Although employees are

free to come to the NRC at any time, the

Commission expects that employees

will normally raise concerns with the

involved licensee because the licensee

has the primary responsibility for safety

and is normally in the best position to

promptly and effectively address the

matter. The NRC should normally be

viewed as a safety valve and not as a

substitute forum for raising safety

concerns.

This policy statement has been issued

to highlight licensees’ existing

obligation to maintain an environment

in which employees are free to raise

concerns without retaliation. The

expectations and suggestions contained

in this policy statement do not establish

new requirements. However, if a

licensee has not established a safetyconscious environment, as evidenced by

retaliation against an individual for

engaging in a protected activity,

whether the activity involves providing

information to the licensee or the NRC,

appropriate enforcement action may be

taken against the licensee, its

contractors, and the involved individual

supervisors, for violations of NRC

requirements.

The Commission recognizes that the

actions discussed in this policy

statement will not necessarily insulate

an employee from retaliation, nor will

they remove all personal cost should the

employee seek a personal remedy.

However, these measures, if adopted by

licensees, should improve the

environment for raising concerns.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day

of May, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 96–12028 Filed 5–13–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of May 13, 20, 27, and June

3, 1996.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of May 13

Monday, May 13

2:00 p.m.

Briefing on Commonwealth Edison (Public

Meeting)

Wednesday, May 15

2:00 p.m.

Briefing on Performance Assessment

Program in HLW, LLW, and SDMP

(Public Meeting)

(Contact: Norman Eisenberg, 301–415–

7285)

3:30 p.m.