[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24336-24340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12028]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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 <SUP>1 and the freedom of employees to raise such 
concerns is an integral part of carrying out this responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout 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 NRC-regulated activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 quality-conscious 
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

[[Page 24337]]

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 safety-
conscious 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,<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 24338]]

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.<SUP>4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The NRC and DOL have entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding to facilitate cooperation between the agencies. (47 FR 
54585; December 3, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 well-developed 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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Training 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' <SUP>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 safety-
conscious 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 ``safety-related'' activities covered by 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix B. For example, concerns relating to 
environmental, safeguards, and radiation protection issues should 
also be captured.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 24339]]

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, non-
discriminatory 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 on-site 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.<SUP>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 non-
prohibited 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

[[Page 24340]]

will enhance the effectiveness and safety of the licensee's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ When 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responsibilities of Employers and Employees

    As emphasized above, the responsibility for maintaining a safety-
conscious 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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 <SUP>9 so that licensees can address them before 
an event with safety consequences occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 well-founded, 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 safety-
conscious 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