ML20206J326
| ML20206J326 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1999 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL, MINNESOTA, STATE OF, OHIO, STATE OF, OKLAHOMA, STATE OF, PENNSYLVANIA, COMMONWEALTH OF, WISCONSIN, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206J330 | List: |
| References | |
| SP-99-028, SP-99-28, NUDOCS 9905120190 | |
| Download: ML20206J326 (3) | |
Text
<
j g-APR 3 01993 ALL AGREEMENT STATES.
MINNESOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCCNSIN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION ON INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION (SP-99-021)
All Agreement States letter SP-98-070 (August 11,1998) and discussions held during the October 17,1997 and October 30,1998 All Agreement States Meetings (transcript pages 336-359 and 483-505, respectively) provide background information on issues, comments and conclusions relating to NRC and Agreement States sharing of inspection, investigation and enforcement information. Based on the above discussions, and six comments received in response to SP-98-070, we plan to better define what constitutes a significant or immediate threat to public health and safety and add clarifying language to both NRC's Management Directive 8.8, Management of Allegations, and NRC's Inspection and Enforcement Manuals.
Through SP-99-004 (January 29,1999), we informed you of a new OSP Home Page link to access the NRC's compilation of Escalated Enforcement Actions issued to Material Licensees and Escalated Enforcement Actions issued to individuals. Please note that in response to SP-98-057 (July 2,1998), the majority of States responding did not support their routinely
- providing NRC with information which includes the names of individuals prohibited from using radioactive materials in their States. We are also continuing to work to address your request that we provide a 24-hour posting delay to the Internet for significant Agreement State event notifications reported to the NRC Operations Center. We will communicate separately with you on a proposed approach to resolve this issue.
l There appears to be general agreement that current guidance and practice on how we ,
' collectively coordinate and exchange information regarding inspection, investigation and j enforcement activities are adequate to meet our respective needs and do not require additional I
specific guidance at this time, if you have additional comments or further information on these ;
topics, please provide them to me. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
POINT OF CONTACT: Rosetta O. Virgilio INTERNET: ROV @ NRC. GOV TELEPHONE: (301) 415-2307-FAX: (301) 415-3502 Original 81gnedW.
PAUL H. LOHAUS
- Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
l :DIR RF DCD (SP03) . SSalomon, OSP GCaputo, Ol b
SDroggitis, OSP. PDR (YES), ; WHutchison, Ol FCongel, IRO
, CMaupin, OSP ~ RHogan, IRO '. PMLarkins, OSP EBaker, AAA I l STraby, OGC HNewsome, OGC JLieberman, OE z
- DOCUMENT NAME: G:\
' nr h,.. w m.e R0V ni.ine \SP99028.WPD .. in in. nom*See previous c c-ed concurrence.
anachrn nvencwur. r - copy en a OFFICE OSP l OSP4' /l l l l NAME RVirgilio:kk PHLohatM GP\
DATE 04/30/99* 048 @99
-nn'> r OSP FILE CODE: SP-A-4 9905120190 990430 l PDR STPRO LNBC FR5 M
7 p uzm p % UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS310N g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4001
% April 30, 1999 ALL AGREEMENT STATES MINNESOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCONSIN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION ON INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION (SP-99028)
All Agreement States letter SP-98-070 (August 11,1998) and discussions held during the October 17,1997 and October 30,1998 All Agreement States Meetings (transcript pages 336-359 and 483-505, respectively) provide background information on issues, comments and conclusions relating to NRC and Agreement States sharing of inspection, investigation and enforcement information. Based on the above discussions, and six comments received in response to SP-98-070, we plan to better define what constitutes a significant or immediate threat to public health and safety and add clarifying language to both NRC's Management Directive 8.8, Management of Allegations, and NRC's inspection and Enforcement Manuals.
Through SP-99-004 (January 29,1999), we informed you of a new OSP Home Page link to -
access the NRC's compilation of Escalated Enforcement Actions issued to Material Licensees and Escalated Enforcement Actions issued to Individuals. Please note that in response to SP-98-057 (July 2,1998), the majority of States responding did not support their routinely providing NRC with information which includes the names of individuals prohibited from using radioactive materials in their States. We are also continuing to work to address your request that we provide a 24-hour posting delay to the Internet for significant Agreement State event notifications reported to the NRC Operations Center. We will communicate separately with you on a proposed approach to resolve this issue.
There appears to be general agreement that current guidance and practice on how we collectively coordinate and exchange information regarding inspection, investigation and enforcement activities are adequate to meet our respective needs and do not require additional specific guidance at this time. If you have additional comments or further information on these topics, please provide them to me. If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named below.
POINT OF CONTACT: Rosetta O. Virgilio INTERNET: ROV @NRC. GOV TELEPHONE: (301) 415-2307 FAX: /301) 415-3502 an ,
w aul H. Lohaus, Dire:: tor Office of State Programs l
g ALL AGREEMENT STATES MINNESOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCO SIN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION: COORDINATION AND C MMUNICATION ON INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENT NFORMATION (SP ) >
All Agreement States letter SP-98-070 (August 11,1998) a d discussions held during the October 17,1997 and October 30,1998 All Agreement St es Meetings (transcript pages 336-359 and 483-505, respectively) provide background infor tion on issues, comments and l conclusions relating to NRC and Agreement States shari - of inspection, investigation and I enforcement information. Based on the above discussio s, and six comments receivea in response to SP-98-070, we plan to better define what c stitutes a significant or immediate threat to public health and safety and add clarifying lan lage to both NRC's Management Directive 8.8, Management of Allegations, and NRC's I spection and Enforcement Manuals.
Through SP-99-004 (January 29,1999), we informed . u of a new OSP Home Page link to access the NRC's compilation of Escalated Enforcem nt Actions issued to Material Licensees and Escalated Enforcement Actions issued to Individ als. This sits is available if you would like to post escalated State enforcement actions against censees or individuals. Please note that in response to SP-98-057 (July 2,1998), the majori of States responding did not support their routinely providing NRC with information which inci es the names of individuals prohibited from using radioactive materials in their States. W are also continuing to work to address your request that we provide a 24-hour posting delay to he Internet for significant Agreement State l event notifications reported to the NRC Operation Center. We will communicate separately with you on a proposed approach to resolve this i sue.
There appears to be general agreement that cur ent guidance and practice on how we !
collectively coordinate and exchange informatio regarding inspection, investigation and enforcement activities are adequate to meet ou respective needs and do not require additional specific guidance at this time. If you have add' ional comments or further information on these topics, please provide them to me. If you hav any questions regarding this correspondence, please contact me or the individual named be w. ,
POINT OF CONTACT: Rosetta O. Vir ilio INTERNET: ROV @ NRC. GOV TELEPHONE: (301) 415-P30 FAX: (301) 415-3502 Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs Distribution: Agreement State File CPaperiello, NMSS SPettijohn, NMSS DlR RF DCD (SP03) SSalomon, OSP GCaputo, O!
WHutchison,01 FCongel, IRO CMaupin, OSP RHogan, IRO PMLarkins, OSP EBaker, AAA STrtby, OGC HNewsome, OGC JLieberman, OE DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ ROV \070ACK Ta receive a coat of thle document, indleste in the boa: "C' = Copy attacnment/ enclosure "E' = Copy with attachment / enclosure *N' = No copy OFFICE OSP /Al OSP:D/ l l l l NAME- RVirgilio:kk N PHLohaus/ '
DATE 04/3d99 - 04/ //99 _
4Rosetta Virgilio - R2 SP-98-070 P ge 1l e a >
9 From: Rosetta Virgilio l To: "tef0303@doh.wa gov"@ GATED.ntcsmtp Date: Tue, Sep 1,1998 5:05 PM
Subject:
Re: SP-98-070 j Terry-Thank you for your e-mail response to SP-98 070 AND for the updated e. mall address.
Rosetta l
>>> "Frazee, Terry" <tef0303@doh.wa. gov > 09/01 1:55 PM >>>
This is in response to your request for comments on "NRC and Agreement State Coordination and Communication on inspection, investigation and Enforcement Information" as provided in Office of State Programs letter SP-98-070.
- 1. Communications involving investigation Activities Re: Question 1 - We agree that it is appropriate for NRC to protect the Integrity of its investigations. This is with respect to NRC licensees operating or located in the state of Washington. We support NRC's intended changes in its management directives and procedures manuals to 1 specify that States will be promptly notified of immediate health and safety issues, and will be provided a synopsis of all NRC investigations involving NRC licensee activities in the Agreement State (with a redacted version of the full report available on request).
Re: Question 2 -With regard to our investigations of State licensees, we have similar restraints on our ability to share sensitive investigationat information: you'll get nothing in advancs or during the investigation, with redacted information available upon request after the investigation is complete.
Re: Question 3 'We are not sure we understand what would be accomplished by a " reciprocal Agreement State exchange of Investigative information ...with NRC". Is this for specific intelligence gathering about an Individual licensee who might be operating in NRC Jurisdiction, ,
or for broadcasting of " lessons learned" to all states? During, and certainly upon completion of an investigation, any significant health and safety concems we find will be communicated to any other responsible agency. After the investigation, any broadly applicable " lessons loamed" could be shared with fellow regulators through presentations at the Organization of Agreement States Meeting, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Annual Meeting, written up for the CRCPD Newsbrief, etc. We would expect that routine communication with our Regional State Agreements Officer could be a useful mechanism for icientifying appropriate invest!gational highlights. The Integrated Materials Performance Evaluation Program should also capture worthwhile
" lessons leamed" during its review.
II. Communications involving inspection and Enforcement Activities Re; Question 1 - We agree that current NRC guidance and practice appears sufficient.
hvn h InrMain Q w
j[Rosetta Virgilio- Re: SP 95-070 Pege 2l 4
Re: Question 2 - We do not need telephone or e-mail notification in addition to the existing practice of sending hardcopy of enforcement correspondence pertaining to NRC actions taken against our licensees when operating under NRC jurisdiction.
Pertaining to Agreement States notification to NRC:
Re: Question 1 -We agree that the general exchange of information that already occurs between the Agreement States and NRC is sufficient.
Re: Question 2 - We do not believe it is appropriate to routinely provide NRC with information which includes the names of prohibited individuals and significant actions taken against our own licensees when NRC's intention is to " share" the information. This " broadcasting" could result in defamation of our licensee's business reputation, unwarranted increases in inspection frequency at our licensee's facilities in other states, and other negative attention which is " unfair" or falls outside "due process" for that jurisdiction. While we support broadcasting of
" lessons learned", we are concemed that requiring the Agreement States to provide names and specific actions taken against our own licensees is one step away from requiring or even < oecting us to take action against nicensees based solely on this same ini,1 nation from the other states or from NRC.
Ill. Communications on Significant Public Health and Safety issues Re: Question 1 - We agree that existing guidance and practice appears sufficient to mutually inform Agreement States and NRC of information having significant public health and safety significance.
This message from: Terry Frazee tef0303@doh.wa. gov
. Please note: a slight change in e-mail address.
You should update your address booki Quick ways to reach me:
Voice = 360 236-3221 FAX = 360 236-2266 ;
Also, visit our Home Page at
-> http://www.doh.wa. gov /ohp/rp CC: Bangart, Richard, Davis, Gwendolyn, Kerr, Kathle..
a-
QRosetta Virgilio - Nrconf.res Page 1 l Ok
?.
UTAH RESPONSES TO NRC AND AGREEMENT STATE COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION ON INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION, AND ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION September 9,1998 Communication Involving Investigation Activities
- 1. Do you agree with the above-stated conclusion (sharing info with states remains unchanged)?
No If not, provide recommendations for improvement. . .
There are investigative counterparts in State government that could be notified of a NRC investigation. In Utah, there is a dedicated investigator at the Utah Attorney General's Office for potential " environmental" crimes. Coordination with this investigator could help the NRC with I the investigation. For example, the state investigator could coordinate with the Radiation l Control program, without revealing an investigation is underway, to gather information and facts that may not be available to NRC investigators. It is also appropriate to coordinate with the Director of the Radiation Control program in all cases where NRC opens an investigation within the state borders. Here may be better handles under state law to prosecute, this is not known unless coordination occurs. The program may have information ofinterest to the investigator.
This is an issue of trust, it appears that NRC is not willing to " trust" state programs to treat investigations or information gathering as enforcement sensitive.
Here is no written guidance requesting Agreement State notification to NRC or Agreement States investigations that may be ofinterest to the NRC.
- 2. Given the sensitive nature ofinvestigations and specific internal State procedures governing the release ofinformation regarding State investigations, are States in a position to share this kind ofinformation with NRC7 States have a responsibility to share investigative information with appropriate federal agencies.
Utah has never balked at sharing information with investigators of other federal agencies. In fact, there is a responsibility to coordinate with whoever necessary in the case ofinvestigation of wrongdoing.
- 3. Should a reciprocal Agreement State exchange ofinvestigative infonnation take place with NRC. If so, through what mechanism?
We really don't think a formal mechanism is necessary, we will share information with the NRC.
If NRC believes a mechanism is necessary, a Memorandum of A'greement could be drafted and signed by appropriate parties, i
,JRosetts Virgilio o Nrconf.res Pcge 2 l l
l Communication Involving Inspection and Enforcement Actions
- 1. Utah agrees that at present there is sufficient communication regarding inspection and enforcement actions. NRC Region IV needs to be commended for tremendous improvement in this area. .
- 2. Do Agreement States want routine telephone or e-mail notification on certain activities (e.g, l escalated NOVs and civil penalties . . .)
Absolutely! E mail notification or a telephone call is sufficient.
General exchange ofinformation and ability to prohibit individuals from licensed activities and share such information.
- 1. Do we agree that a general exchange ofinformation occurs and is sufficient?
General exchange ofinformation is usually sufficient ifindividuals from each Agency are dedicated to an open communicative effort. It appears that there is less effort on the part of the .
1 NRC to exchange irformation and that varies depending on whether the state is dealing with the l
Region or Headquarters. l
- 2. Should Agreement States provide names of prohibited individuals to the NRC7 No provision exist currently in Utah law to prohibit individuals. When rulemaking authorizes such prohibitions, Utah will have no problem sharing names of prohibited individuals with the NRC. .
Sharing significant or immediate public health or safety threat information
- 1. NRC believes that the current practice is sufficient.
f ' g Is "significant" or "immediate" public health or safety information defined that may be shared
. with a state program? NRC has been often criticized for focusing on issues (e.g. 1
. mie=dministrations) that may be isolated incidents but big media events. -
Responses prepared by:
Bill Sinclair, Director l Utah Radiation Control Program
<