ML20198L965
| ML20198L965 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/03/1997 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Knapp M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198L674 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-57FR1890, FRN-63FR1890, RULE-PR-110, RULE-PR-150, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-32, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52, RULE-PR-60, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-71, RULE-PR-72 AF35-2-013, AF35-2-13, NUDOCS 9801160160 | |
| Download: ML20198L965 (2) | |
Text
- . -- - . - .
-kFe cc: surony
. , f.
7[rp%,
p UNITED STATES
% g_ Bahadur Norian j W.A C. E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :01Palos a 31 4E wAssiwoToi,. o.c. osss-oooi FiIe )
%, *# September 3,1997 NG,.JR.
f MEMORANDUM TO: Malcolm R. Knapp, Acting Director-Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ;
r/ .
- I FROM: Richard L. Bancart, Director Office of State Programs N [AIIf [v de Q(d
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE: DELIBERATE MISCONDUCT BY UNLICEN$ED PERSONS We have reviewed the subject package. Compatibility category aesignations related to the 10 CFR sections that will be impacted by this final rule are currently in a state of transition.
Until the Commission issues a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on SECY-97-156, Application of Federal Government Wide Conflict of Interest Requirements and NRC Enforcement Policy on Licensee Integrity issues to Agreement State Programs, OSP recommends the paper not go forward to the Commission. Alternatively, the Commission paper could go forward with the note that the compatibility designation is dependent on Cornmission action on SECY-97156 and that compatibility will be addressed in a subsequent paper, if the Commission approves the staff recommendations in SECY 97-156, without significant change, OSP will recommend that the following text be inserted after the second paragraph in the discussion section of the Commission paper, if the paper is delayed until issuance of the SRM: ,
> In the proposed rule, applying the compatibility procedures that were in effect at that time, this rule was designated a Division 3 matter of compatibility with respect to Agreement State regulations. Agreement States are not required to adopt the regulatory approach identified in Division 3 regulations.
In a Staff Requirements Memorandum (on SECY 97-156), dated ,
1997, the Commission approved the staff's recommendation to provide the public and Agreement States an opportunity to review and comment on proposed compatibility category designations for deliberate misconduct requirements. The proposed change would require Agreement States to adopt the essential objectives of this program element as a matter of compatibility. A statement addressing the proposed clunge in compatibility category has been added to the section on Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations, in the final rule.
If this Commission paper is delayed until issuance of the SRM on SECY-97156 and the Commission approves SECY-97-156, we will recommend that the section in the final rule entitled " Compatibility of Agreement State Regulations" be revised as follows:
in the proposed rule, applying the compatibility procedures that were in effect at that time this rule was designated a Division 3 matter of compatibility with respect -
1)[ -9901160160 900114 PDR PR -
30 57FR1990 PDR
- ( r.r + _
e _-
f..
0 0 E ~ 3 100I Malcolm R. Knapp '2-to Agreement State regulations. Agreement States were not required to adopt the regulatory approach identified in Division 3 regulationis. i in SECY 97156, staff re evaluated the proposed compatibility category of Parts 30.10,40.10, and 70.10 set out in new implemenC~ nrocedures for the new Policy Statement on Adequacy and Compatibility.s w ement State Programs.
The staff and the NRC/ Agreement State Adequacy:and Compatibility Working Group.
supported changing the designation for these deliberate misconduct requirements -
from a compatibility Category D, not required for co_mpatibility, to a compatibility Category C, required for compatibility. Under Category C, Agreement States would have t6 adorilihlsir6giam~eleineiit, e the essential objectives of whicn should be-adopted by the State to avoid conflicts, duplications or gaps. The manner in which the essential objectives are addressed may be different from that used by NRC. The staff at.d Working Group concluded th. wrongdoing issues should be a matter of compatibility because of its potential transboundary significance and potential gap-that might be created between the NRC and Agreement State programs, if deliberate misconduct and wiongdoing issues involving Agreement State licensees were not pursued and closed. For example, without the Category C designation, an Agreement Stcte licensee could carry out activities involving misconduct in an Agreement State's jurisdiction without any specific legal prohibition. Thus, that licensee may not be deterred from carrying out the same misconduct in NRC or ,
another Agreement State's jurisdiction under reciprocity.
In a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated ,1997, the Commission approved the staff's recommendation to provide the public and Agreement States an opportunit'l to review and comment on proposed compatibility category designations for deliberate misconduct requirements.
Lloyd Bolling is the OSP staff contact and may be reached at 415-2327 or by e-mail address LAB.
1
- 5 a
N
-.-,,m_+.