ML20149J523
| ML20149J523 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/31/1991 |
| From: | Remick NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J520 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-93-606, FOIA-94-A-3 NUDOCS 9501050410 | |
| Download: ML20149J523 (2) | |
Text
N 0 T A T I 0'N V 0 T E' 1
a l
~
.J.
RESPONSE SHEET TO:
SAMUEL J. CHILx, SECRETARY OF THE COM4ISSION FROM:
C0MISSIONER REMICK
SUBJECT:
SECY-91-327 - PROPOSED. RULE REGARDING CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN 10 CFR CHAPTER I y/a~~/-
APPROVED,N DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN Nor PARTICIPATING REcuEST DISCUSSION C0letENTS:
See aYCb i
W/ SIGNATURE RELEASE VOTE
//
N#
Y/
DATE WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
NTERED ON "AS" YES / NO 10 0 940406 LARI94-A-3 PDR
.f d uaissioner Remick's comments on SECT-91-327:
I approve publication of this proposed rule.
Clearly, the staff has made considerable efforts to add scas clarity and consistency to the regulations, and the increased clarity and consistency should lead to increased fairness and efficiency in the government's handling of criminal penalties for willful violations of the NRC's substantive regulations.
I would suggest, however, that the staff add to the draft statement of considerations a discussion of whether rec[uirements for technical information in applications are substantLve and therefore enforceable by means of criminal penalties.
In its present form, the draft statement doesn't mention requirments for technical information, but the proposed rule is somewhat confusing on this point.
It treats some requirements for technical information as substantive, 55 50.34 and 52.45 for example, but others not, 55 52.47 and 52.79 for example.
Yet the SECY paper seems to treat as substantive all regulations which say "what information must be provided in a license application" (p. 3).
A good argument can be made that deficiencies in applications, be they willful or not, are more properly corrected by requests for more information than by threats of puninhamnt.
Therefore, I am not advocating that regulations which say what information must be in applications should be enforceable by means of criminal penalties.
I only believe that readers would be in a better position to comment if the Commission were clearer about what it is proposing.
I would also suggest that publication of the proposed rule be delayed until after Part 54 is promulgated, so that the proposed rule can contain a criminal penalties section for Part 54.
Some sections of Part 54 will carry criminal penalties, and Part 54 should give clear notice of this fact.
.