ML20140J124
| ML20140J124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/12/1997 |
| From: | Maupin C NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Fletcher R, Godwin A, Telford J ARIZONA, STATE OF, MARYLAND, STATE OF, NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140J128 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706190200 | |
| Download: ML20140J124 (5) | |
Text
l*
nau ye & UNITED STATES 4 )~ E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555-0001 k...../ June 12, 1997 I
i MEMORANDUM TO: Adequacy and Compatibility Working Group (WG):
1 Aubrey Godwin, AZ Roland Fletcher, MD John Telford, RES Hampton Newsome, OGC Richard Woodruff, Rll y FROM: Ca I
SUBJECT:
FOLLOW-UP ON COMPATIBILITY AND THE WRONGDOING RULE l
In a memorandum dated April 18,1997, it was requested that you provide your views on the matter of the compatibility category on the wrongdoing rule and associateo wrongdoing procedures by April 25,1997. It was also requested that you provide your views on the issue of whether Agreement States should have conflict of interest requirements.
We have received responses from all WG members. Copies of responses on the issue from WG members are attached; one WG member responded by telephone. The responses indicate that two WG members support Option 2. One member supports Option 1 ss his first choice and would support Option 3 as a second choice. Three WG members would support Option 3. Mr. Lohaus, resource person to the WG, would support Option 3.
These responses indicate that the majority of the WG members would support Option 3, change the categorization for the wrongdoing requirements to Compatibility Category C and, consistent with the categorizt, tion for 10 CFR 40.10, retain the current C categorization for procedures for investigation of wrongdoing. In view of the above responses, we willinclude the following draft paragraph in the staff's paper being developed on the issues of wrongdoing and conflict of interest.
"The Adequacy and Compatibility Working Group in its ' Supplemental Report of the Joint NRC-Agret. ment State Working Group for Development !
of implementing Procedures for the Final Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility of Agreement State Programs,' dated January 29,1997, provided t' hat requirements dealing with wrongdoing in 10 CFR 30.10 and 70.10 be designated as a Compatibility Category D, not a matter of compatibility, and wrongdoing procedures be designated as a Compatibility Category C (10 CFR 40.10, which was inadvertently categorized as a Category C, would also be a Category D). The Working Group concluded that each State should have flexibility to determine the level or definition of 69 M
9706190200 970612 PDR STPRG ESGG her f { {I b h h
l .~
l Adequscy and Compatibility l. Working Group (WG) AJN 12 s l
l wrongdoing which they might reflect in their implementing procedures based on how wrongdoing is defined and handled in individual State statutes. The Working Group concluded, however, that each State should have procedures in place for addressing licensee wrongdoing given its potential transboundary significance and potential gap that might be created between the NRC and Agreement State Programs, if deliberate misconduct and wrongdoing issues involving Agreement State licensees were not pursued and closed. For example, an Agreement State licensee who is determined to have carried out l activities involving misconduct in an Agreement State's jurisdiction if not j properly handled, could potentially carry out the same activities in NRC or another Agreement State's jurisdiction under reciprocity.
Staff requested re-evaluation of the compatibility category of 10 CFR l . 30.10,40.10, and 70.10 by the Working Group. The majority of the Working Group members would support changing the designation for the l wrongdoing requirements to a Compatibility Category C, and retaining wrongdoing procedures as a Compatibility Category C. The staff agrees with
, the suggested revision to the wrongdoing requirements compatibility l categorization.
I I Given the concept of legally binding requirements (LBRs), the State could address this area either in statutes, regulations, or another form of LBR.
Therefore, identifying that States need to adopt the essential objectives of the NRC's wrongdoing requirements would assure that each State had l established a LBR providing a basis for the implementing procedures, in j addition, requiring Agreement States to adopt compatible rules or LRBs l would provide greater assurance that States adequately address this area i and would help assure greater consistency in the nationwide program for the
! regulation of Agreement materials."
in addition, only two WG members responded to whether conflict of interest requirements should be made a matter of compatibility. I have received one abstention in terms of votes. I would stilllike to hear from the remaining members of the WG on this issue.
Attachments:
As stated Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis PDR (YES/)
Compatibility File
, DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \COMPAT\WRONGDOI.NG3 it W I lh
- See pr vious concurrence.
4 To fictive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: 'C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD l OSP:Ql l l NAME CMaupin:nb/gd PHLohaus RLBangad\l)f DATE 05/07/97* 05/08/97* 06////97 OSP FILE CODE: S P-C-6 L
l' l
l l-1 .
Adequacy and Compatibility hDN 121997 Working Group (WG) wrongdoing which they might reflect in their implementing procedures based on how wrongdoing is defined and handled in individual State statutes. The Working Group concluded,.however, that each State should have procedures in place for addressing licensee wrongdoing given its potential transboundary l significance and potential gap that might be created between the NRC and Agreement State Programs, if deliberate misconduct and wrongdoing issues involving Agreement State licensees were not pursued and closed. For <
example, an Agreement State licensee who is determined to have carried out activities involving misconduct in an Agreement State's jurisdiction if not properly handled, could potentially carry out the same activities in NRC or another Agreement State's jurisdiction under reciprocity.
Staff requested re-evaluation of the compatibility category of 10 CFR 30.10,40.10, and 70.10 by the Working Group. The majority of Wa Working Group members would support changing the designation for the wrongdoing requirements to a Compatibility Category C, and retaining wrongdoing procedures as a Compatibility Category C. The staff agrees with the suggested revision to the wrongdoing requirements compatibility categorization.
I Given the concept of legally binding requirements (LBRs), the State could i address this area either in statutes, regulations, or another form of LBR.
Therefore, identifying that States need to adopt the essential objectives of the NRC's wrongdoing requirements would assure that each State had ,
established a LBR providing a basis for the implerr enting procedures, in j addition, requiring Agreement States to adopt compatible rules or LBRs '
l would provide greater assurance that States adequetely address this area and would help assure greater consistency in the nationwide program for the .
regulation of Agreement materials." l in addition, only two WG members responded to whether conflict of interes1 requirements I should be made a matter of compatibility. I have received one abstention in terms of votes. I would stilllike to hear from the remaining members of the WG on this issue.
Attachments:
As stated i
I l
Ad::qu::cy and Compatibility ,. Working Group (WG) wrongdoing which they might reflect in their implementing procedures based on how wrongdoing is defined and handled in individual State statutes. The Working Group concluded, however, that each State should have procedures in place for addressing licensee wrongdoing given its potential transboundary significance and potential gap that might be created between the NRC and Agreement State Programs, if deliberate misconduct and wrongdoing issues involving Agreement State licensees were not pursued and closed. For f example, an Agreement State licensee who is determined to have carried out activities involving misconduct in an Agreement State's jurisdictionJf not properly handled, could potentially carry out the same activities in'NRC or another Agreement State's jurisdiction under reciprocity. ,/
Staff requested re-evaluation of the compatibility category,of 10 CFR 30.10,40.10, and 70.10 by the Working Group. The majority of the Working Group members would support changing the de'signation for the wrongdoing requirements to a Compatibility Category,C, and retaining wrongdoing procedures as a Compatib!!ity CategoryjC. The staff agrees with the suggested revision to the wrongdoing requirements compatibility categorization.
/
Given the concept of legally binding requirements (LBRs), the State could address this area either in statutes, regulations, or r2nother form of LBR.
Therefore, identifying that States need to adopt the essential objectives of the NRC's wrongdoing requirements would assure that each State had established a LBR providing a basis for,the implementing procedures. In addition, requiring Agreement States,to adopt compatible rules or LRBs would provide greater assurance that States adequately address this area and would help assure greater co,nsistency in the nationwide program for the regulation of Agreement materials."
In addition, only two WG member r,eslponded to whether conflict of interest rl !
should be made a matter of compatibility. I have received one abstention in terms of votes. I would stilllike to hear from the remaining members of the WG on this issue.
Attachments:
As stated /
/
Distribution:
DIR RF DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis > j PDR (YES/)
Compatibility File
'See previous concurrence l
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \COMPAT\WRONGDOI.NG3 To rIcovo a copy of this document. indicate an the box:
- C' = without attachment / enclosure *p = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N* = No copy l OFFICE py [p/lly] OSP:$ , y OGCf l OSP:D l l NAME CMd@irl:ri$/gb PHLohaut blll T) FCemgr6n RLBangart DATE 05/07/97* 05/08/97# /067N(7 05/ /97 OSP :lLE CODE: SP-C-6 1
P.
2 k Stats ststut:s. The Working Group concluded, howaver, tha each Stato should f, "
have procedures in place for addressing licensee wrongdoin given its potential l
transboundary significance and potential gap that might b created between the NRC and Agreement State Programs, if deliberate miscon uct and wrongdoing issues involving Agreement State licensees were not pu ued and closed. For example, an Agreement State licensee who is determin to have carried out activities involving misconduct in an Agreement Statefurisdiction if not properly i
! handled, could potentially carry out the same activiti s in NRC or another l
Agreement's jurisdiction under reciprocity.
]
t l l
Given the potential significsace of this area, staff isagrees with the Working Group I and believes that the requirements set out in 10 pFR 19.20,30.10,40.10, and l 70.10 should be adopted by the Agreement Sta es as a matter of compatibility (i.e.,
i both the wrongdoing requirements and implem ting procedures should be designated as a Compatibility Category C.) Sta#ff believes this is not a significant change from that recommended by the Worki g Group.
l Under the approach suggested by the Work g Group, the details of State legislation would need to be examined during IMPEP r# e views to assure that the State had adequate authority to implement wrongdoing procedures, which are required for compatibility. (Staff does not believe a , State could adopt and implement compatible procedures to investigate wrongdoing vnthout having a supporting statutory I
requirement in place.)
l Given the new concept of legally birhing requirements (LBR's), the State could address this area either in statutes,jtegulations, or another form of LBR. Therefore, identifying that States need to adppt the essential objectives of the NRC wrongdoing requirements would,dssure that each State had established a LBR l l
providing a basis for the implergenting procedures. Finally, requiring that Agreement States adopt comp'atible rules would provide greater assurance that States adequately address this area and would help assure greater consistency in the nationwide program for t6e regulation of Agreement materials."
Please provide me with your ents cornm/
on the paragraph above by c.o.b. May 9,1997.
/ \
In addition, only one WG member responded to whether conflict of interest requirements should be made a matter of cdmpatibility. I have received one abstention in terms of l votes. I would stilllike to hefe from the remaining members of the WG on this issue, j
/
Attachment:
As stated ;
I \
/
/
/
Distribution: ,
l SDroggitis / PDR (YES NO ) )
Compatability ile l DOCUMENT NAME: GI\ CHM \COMPAT\W NGDOI.NG2
- To receive a copy of this documen't, indicate in the boa: "C"h y without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with ettschment/ enclosure "N" = No copy l OFFICE gy OQi p OSP:D NAME CMat(pijVr 6" PHLohnus RLBangart DATE ,05/' /97 05/K /97 05/ /97
, l I