ML20140J149
| ML20140J149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/30/1997 |
| From: | Newsome H NRC |
| To: | Droggitis S, Lohaus P, Maupin C NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140J128 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706190214 | |
| Download: ML20140J149 (2) | |
Text
._ _ .. _ _ _ . ._ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . - . _ _
}.
i c.
t I~ ;
! From: Hampton Newsome l L To: WNP9.PHL, WNP9. CHM, SCD !
Date: 5/30/9710:18am i L
Subject:
Wrongdoer Rule Proposal i I just got thethe Compatibility / Wrongdoer Proposal. I have the following 4 comments: I l
! -(I apoligize for the length - this one got away from me) l
- 1. Agreement State Statutory Authority l The statutory provision that provides the basis for the Wrongdoer rule is the i Commission's general enforcement and regulatory powers in section 161 of the AEA '
- l. (more specifically 161b,1611, etc.). These provisions do not say anything specific about
- wrongdoing ( from the FR notice "...section 161b confers uniquely broad and flexible j authority on the Commission"). l I
As such, all agreement states should have these (or similar) provisions already in their ;
statutes and should, therefore, already have authority to promulgate a wrongdoer rule. )
7_ This makes the proposal to require Agreement States to adopt a new statutory provision 4
- l. kind of a dead letter- such provisions should already be there. l Instead, it seems that if we want Agreements States to exercise this power, we should tell them to do what we did - put it in the regulations. j Complications may arise if, for instance, the Agreement State legal staffs did not agree with NRC that the powers in 161 support the wrongdoer rule. In addition, there may be some concern that the jurisdictional reach of a particular Agreement State was not as ;
broad as that of the Commission (for the purposes of issuing a wrongdoer rule). I don't !
know the answer to that question, in theory, Agreement States should have the same authority to regulate the AEA material in their Agreement that NRC does. When you get down to specific questions like this, however, we may get some different opinions.
This may be more than a remote concern. As is apparent by the FR notice for the wrongdoer rule (56 FR 40664), NRC's legal basis to issue the rule in the first place was a major concern of commenters (and, apparently, a major source of handwringing for !
the NRC). My understanding is that this issue is being litigated currently on the
- Thermo-Lag issue.
I g
l BOTTOM LINE: If we think it is a good idea for Agreement States to have the l wrongdcar rule - I think we should require it of them and let them tell us if they think
- they have a statutory problem. The insert for Spiros' paper should be reworked to
! eliminste the focus on statutory requirements.
t 9706190214 970612 PDR STPRG ESOGEN PDR
- . - . - - . - . _ _ . . - .. ..- .- _ .-.-.-- =_..- --..-..-.
l j' .
l*
- The language is confusing as it stands now. It appears that NRC would only require the l Agreement State to have statutory authority for wrongdoing regulation - this will not get l us far since, as I've indicated above, it is likely that they already have that authority (but are just not exercising it). If we want resu!ts, we should ask for regulations.
- 2. Coordination Once OSP decides what direction it wants to take - this issue should really be aired out j thoroughly with OE and the lawyers that worked on the rule. I was surprised to find absolutely no mention of Agreement State compatibility in the FR for the rule - I would be interested in finding out why this wasn't considered.
l
- 3. SOC Support for Category C After looking at the SOC for the wrongdoer rule I have to say I agree with the Category C designation < wipes egg from face >.
The SOC (56 FR 40664) says ".... "After becoming aware of such conduct by an employee, a licensee may dismiss the employee either by its own decision or because i the NRC formally orders removal of the employee from licensed activity However, the wrongdoer may seek other employment in the same field at another NRr or Agreement State-license facility, often without the knowledge of the NRC or knowle@se by the new employer of the employee's prior conduct."
Enough said.
4.19.20 involves whistleblower protection, not the wrongdoer rule.
CC: FXC l
_,. ,. . _ , - , , , . . . _ . . _