NRC, Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry To Raise Safety Concerns Without Fear of Retaliation; Policy Statement, 61 Fed. Reg. 24336 (May 14, 1996)
[Federal Register: May 14, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 94)]


[Page 24336-24340]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access []



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.



    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


    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


    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


    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


    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


    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



    \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.

anagement 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



    \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


    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


    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



    \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-



    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.


    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


    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]