ML20206J349
| ML20206J349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/09/1998 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC |
| To: | Virgilio R NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206J330 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905120199 | |
| Download: ML20206J349 (1) | |
Text
, - . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . .
' {Rosettp virgilio - Fwd: Utah response to 11 August info - enforcement coordination
. Paga 1l
?,
From: Richard Bangart To: rov Date: Wed, Sep 9,1998 3:59 PM
Subject:
' Fwd: Utah response to 11 August info - enforcement coordination Rosetta, FYi, please see attached response from Bill Sinclair. I sent Bill an electronic acknowledgment of receipt of his comments.
CC: PHL I
i i
4 9905120199 990430 PDR STPRO E % N
- . . bc0 {} Pol) ALBu 94 -.
St p 5<
PO Lawton Chiles Governor gg .
Jarnes T. Howell, M.D., M.P.H.
Dmspspo secretary September 8,1998 m co No Richard L Bangart, Director Office of State Programs O
7 ie:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission =
1 White Flint North 1155 Rockville Pike o
. Rockville, MD 20852 2735 "
Dear Mr. Bangart:
This letter is in response to requests for comments regarding SP-98-070 entitled *NRC AND AGREEMENT STATE COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION ON INSPECTIONS, INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENTINFORMATION."
- 1. Communication involvina investiaations Activities
- 1. Yes. We agree with the NRC staff conclusion number 1.
- 2. Yes and no. If certain state agencies become involved with the investigation, then NRC may be notified 3.flgt the investigation, should no immediate health amJ safety issues exist. Should potential health and safety issues exist, NRC is notified of these issues but not the nature of the investigation. When the investigation is completed, a full reportis available upon request. '
- 3. What's currently happening is sufficient. , l
- 11. Communications involvino Insoection and Enforcement Activities
- 1. Yes. I agree with NRC staff conclusion that current NRC guidance and practice with respect to NRC communications with Agreement States about NRC inspection and enforcement activities appear sufficient.
- 2. No. We do not want routine telephone or e-mail notification.
I
.s P- A - 4 n- n e -6 Phone (850)487 2437 Bureau of Radiation Control
- Radioactive Materials Section Fax (850) 921-6364 (SC) 277-2437 2020 Capital Circle, SE. Bin # C21
- Tallahasan. FL 32399-1741 , (SC) 291-6364
& l? 2$ C C4'J- 2N
c .,. . - . _ _ . . . , . , . . _ - . _ _ _ _ - .
'f Richard L Bang:rt, Director 9 September 8,1998
. Page 2 Staff Condusions.
- 1. NRC staff believes that the general exchange of information that oocurs between A0reement ,
States and NRC has been and will continue to be sufficient to provide NRC with information I about significant Aeroement State inspedion and enforcement activities
- 2. In order to ' address the recommendations in the June 12,1998 SRM, NRC is interested in States' abil#y to prohits individuals from involvement in licensed edivities and, if so , whether States can provide NRC with information on individuals prohibited from involvement in licensed activities. '
l 1. Yes. I agree with the NRC staff conclusions listed above.
- 2. No. Agreement States should not routin' elv provide NRC information that indudes the names of prohibited individual and significant actions taken against Agreement States l
Ill. Communications on Sionificant Public Health and Safety lasues
- 1. Yes. I agree with NRC staff conclusion that NRC and Agreement States existing guidance and practice appear sufficient to mutually inform Agreement States and NRC of information having significant or immediate public health and safety guidance.
l l hope this provides the information you need. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely, f
Michael N. Stephens Environmental Administrator l Fax and e-mail to: Rosetta Virgilio l ROV @NRC. GOV (301) 415 3502 l cc: William Passetti, Bureau Chief 6
. , . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ . - _ _ _ . . - . . . . 1
'. Geora_ia Deo. artment of Natural Resources g -
4244 Intemational Parkway, Suite 114, Atlanta, Georgia 30354
, Lonice C. Barrett Cornmissioner MS
- Environrnental Protection Division ;
Harok1 F. Reheis, Director }
(404)362 2675 l August 20,1998 Mr. Richard L. Bangart, Director 00 ice of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 l
Dear Mr. Bangart:
l 1 am writing in response to All Agreement States letter SP-98-070,"NRC and Agreement State Coordinationand Communicationon inspection,investigationend EnforcementInformation."
The letter addressed the following primary issues: Prior notification to Agreement States of NRC investigations conducted in Agreement States; sharing investigative, inspection and enforcement information, when NRC licensees violate Agreement State requirements and when Agreement State licensees violate NRC requirements; and sharing information having immediate public health and safety significance.
I. Communications Involving Investigation Activities
} You asked if we agreed with the staff conclusion that because of the need to maintain investigation integrity,the NRC's position with respect to sharing investigative information with the Agreement States remains unchanged. Yes, we agree with this conclusion.
Since there is no written guidance requesting Agreement State notification to NRC of Agreement State investigations that may be ofinterest to NRC, you asked that given the general sensitive nature ofinvestigations and specific internal State procedures governing the release of informationsqvding State investigations,are States in a position to share this kind.ofinformation with NRC7 We have the same difficulty as the NRC when it comes to sharing sensitive investigative information about an ongoing investigation.
You asked should a reciprocal Agreement State exchange ofinvestigative information take place with NRC and if so, through wh.e.t mechanism? Sharing ofinvestigative information should occur at the conclusion of the investigation. Initial telephone contact followed by written communication would be appropriate.
II Communications Involving Inspection and Fnforcement Activities g Staff concluded that current NRC guidance and practice with respect to hC communications with Agreement States about NRC inspection and enforcement activities appear?
sufficient and we agree with that conclusion. g$
E.5 oowuwz za GP- A-+
W- AN A
n;..:.n g.n==-. . r - . r r :1 Page 2 Mr. Richard L. Bangart -
E August 20,1998 8
Also asked was whether Agreement States want routine telephone or e-mail notification of:
. Escalated notices of violation and civil penalties against Agreement State licensees operating under reciprocity in NRC jurisdiction?
. Non-escalated notices of violation?
. Predecisional enforcement conferences? Orders?
He answer to each of these questions is yes with e-mail notifications being preferred.
Two additional conclusions by NRC staff were stated regarding this item. Hey were:
NRC staff beheves the general exchange of information that occurs betwecn Agreement States and NRC has been and will continue to be sufficient to provide NRC with information about significant Agreement State inspection and enforcement activities; and .
In order to address the recommendations in the June 12, 1998 SRM, NRC is interested in the States' ability to prohibit individuals from involvement in licensed activities and, if so, whether States can provide NRC with information on individuals prohibited from involvement in licensed activities.
We agree with the above-stated conclusions. And where not prohibited by law, the Agreement States should routinely provide NRC inforrnationwhich includes the names ofprohibitedindividuals and significant actions taken against Agreement State licensees, especially those licensees who are authorized to use radioactive materials at temporaryjob sites.
Ill. Communientions on Sienificant Public Hen 1th and Safety Issuen Regarding communication of significant public health and safety issues, we agree with the NRC staff conclusion that NRC and Agreement State existing guidance and practice appear sufficient to mutually inform Agreement States and NRC ofinformation having significant or immediate public health and safety significance.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue of NRC and Agreement State Coordination and Communication.
Sincerely, Thomas E. Hill, Manager Radioactive Materials Program TEH/slb
. .. . .._m..,.._. .~ ._ , .
, D606sd g.x E
STATE OF NEW YORK
[y DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 1 DIVISION OF SAFETY AND HEALTH
- Radiological Health Unit n Building #12, Room 134-A State Office Building Campus Albany,NY 12240 e cm August 24,1998 g
Mr. Richard L Bangart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
$$ O 1 White Flint North 3
~~
11555 Rockville Pike Rockville,. Maryland 20852-2735 6
Dear Mr. Bangart:
We have reviewed SP-98-070 and have the following comments:
- We would appreciate receiving copies of synopses of NRC investigations involving NRC licensee activities, where those investigations involve New York State in any way.
- We would appreciate clarification of the mention on page 1 of the Enclosure to SP-98-070 to the effect that statements will be added to NRC documents to "specify that States will be informed ofimmediate health I and safety issues resulting from allegations." Does this refer to allegations about NRC licensees or Agreement State licensees, or both7 It would cause us grave concem ifit referred to Agreement State licensees, since
._ any person making an allegation to NRC about an A'greement State licensee should, of course, be referred to the appropriate State program.
Equally imponantly,NRC should immediately furnish to an Agreement State any and all correspondence or other information received by NRC that involves allegations about a licensee of that State, or about unlicensed persons within that state, concerning misuse ofradiation sources. This is the central " communication" issue between NRC and the Agreement States related to investigations at this time.
- We routinely infonn NRC ofinvestigations, inspections, enforcement actions or other concems involving NRC licensees, or involving radioactive materials use within NRCjurisdiction.
We do notot want NRC to generate any " guidance" to the States with regard to these or other topics, especially guidance " requesting" the states to take panicular actions. Our experience is that, in practice, these words are little more than euphemisms for mandates and directives that consume Tekphone: 518-4571202 SP- A-4 FAX: $18-485-7406 9%f)<--?/ 0 f5~f? boy $-$ ' ~
'? .
- e
. resources paid for by licensees and citizens of New York State. We will continue our practice of routinely exchanging relevant information with NRC.
- We see no need for routine telephone or e-mail notifications conceming NOV's and enforcement actions against State licensees.
- We have serious concerns about one regulatory agency's taking a punitive action against an individual, such as prohibiting employment in licensed -
activities, based on a prior action by another agency in another jurisdiction.
Sincerely,
)
Rita Aldrich RA/fdh Principal Radiophysicist cc: Agreernent States i
t l
i i
Ph t
Q STATE OF Sco b
X WA as/hspo TEZ:Y E. twANSTAD. GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH CHRISTOPHER G. ATCH . DIRECTom September 4,1998 A
_ o
- n 2> 7 s:
Richard L. Bangart, Director E Office of State Programs (03D23)
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission S Washington,DC 20555 Dear This correspondence refers to OSP letter SP-98-070. It also amplifies the comments contained in my letter to you that was dated September 3,1998.
OSP letter SP-98-070 presented information concerning and NRC staff conclusions about coordination and communication between NRC and agreement states regarding inspection, investigation and enforcement information. It supplied discussions and staff conclusions in three separate areas:
o Communications involving Investigation Activities; o
Communications Involving Inspection and Enforcement Activities; and o
Communications on Significant Public Health and Safety Issues.
The letter then asked whether vn agreed with the conclusions and,if not, to make recommendations to NRC.
[ My letter dated September 3,1998, provided the general information requested by the State Programs letter. However, on re-reading my letter, I thought it would be in both of our best interests to provide you with specifics about the iaadequacies and inconsistencies in some of J the NRC practices concerning communication with agreement states.
The first staff conclusion in each of the above area indicated that NRC procedures and guidance were sufficient to obtain information needed by NRC. This may be true. However, they are not sufficient to meet towa's needs. Additionally, the NRC places the onus on agreement states to provide information while reciprocal communications are few and far between.
Recently, NRC reported to us an allegation against an Iowa licensee. We could not obtain the origin of the allegation nor could we obtain the specifics. The justification for this shroud of mystery was protection of "the integrity of the investigation." Our office could do no preparatory work and we still do not know whether or not the investigation took the correct course.
SP-> q LUCAS STATE OFFICE BUILDING / 321 E.12TH ST. / DES MOINES. IOWA 50319-0075 DEAF RELAY (HEARING on sPrtcH IMPAIRED) 1 800-735 2942 / lNTERNET: H7TPv/ loph. STATE.tA.us/
MM[r mov 0 comm. HsALTw Hanta PnottCnow Poawwmo & AommesvnAnow G15 2313931 sueSTANCE ABUSE & HEALTM PMOMOTION DIRECTom 's Omcs 5152M15643 515 281 5787 515281 3641 515281 5604 FAX /5tba42 43S4 fax /515 281 4529 fax /515-2814958 fax /515281 4535 fax /515-281 4958
[@h C Edu YM
_. ...___7.._ ,
P g*
Bangart/9/4/98 i Then, NRC mquested-co demanded-4ull disclosure of our efforts in this area. Yet NRC procedures, as summarized in SP-98-07#, allow providing to an agreement state only a
" synopsis" of the investigation and a " redacted" version of the full report. Additionally, during IMPEP nyiews, we are evaluated on our handling of allegations. This means that we must provide a complete record ofinvestigations to the review team-another ine-tecy.
Ayymairnately four years ago, someone made an allegation about this radiation control program. NRC demanded that we provide the complete file of an ongoing investigation and would not even inform us of the nature of the allegation. We fell under serious scrutiny when we refused based on our procedures. This was a matter not for NRC, but for our State Attorney General.
Ist me now shift to the area of inspections. We have a number of Iowa licensees who conduct business in NRCjurisdiction underJeciprocal recognition of their Iowa Radioactive Materials j License. To date we have received no communication from NRC that either an inspection was !
conducted or the results of an inspection. Our policies dictate that we share with NRC the results ofinspections in which a Notice of Violation was issued. In preparing this letter we a have decided that it would be more appropriate to supply the results of ALL inspections of NRC l l
licensees to the syywydate regions. 1 I apologize for not addressing each question of SP-98-070 specifically. There did, however, ,
seem to be an underlying thread in the staff conclusions. It may be that NRC staff is not j cognizant of agreement state needs or that it is not fully aware that an agreement between a state an NRC creates a nlationship of " separate but equal." It is our experience ths.t NRC uses ,
its procedures and guidance with a ngulatory tone when an agreement state is concerned.
Except for the oversight of a state's program, with which the NRC is tasked, that state and NRC an ngulatory equals and partners in protecting public health and safety. In fact, NRC oversight of agreement states is to insure the existence of a consistent, national radiation safety program. It does NOT insure regulatory compliance. Therefore, this oversight, and the associated communications, must be collegial and not adversarial-reciprocal and not unilateral.
We recommend that NRC once again review it procedures, policies and guidance agardmg communications with agnement states. During this nyiew the staff should evaluate whether o particular type communication provides for EQUAL and RECIPROCAL exchange of information.
If you have ar.y questions or comments, please call me or Dan McGhee at 515-281-7007. /
Sincerely, ld Flater, Chief Bureau of Radiological Health 515-281-5478 515-242-6284 - FAX dflater@idph. state.ia.us
}
k$2.-
- beobPOD l PNL.
&C 0 l STATE OF Qh I W.A w/mo TERRY E. BRANSTAD. GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH CHRISTOPHER G. ATCHISON. DIRECTOR August 21,1998 ' ,
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office ofState Programs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,DC 20555-0001 I
Dear Mr. Bangart:
Subject:
NRC AND AGREEMENT STATE COORDINATION ON INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION AND ENFORCEMENTINFORMATION - (SP-98-070)
- Ihe Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) is providing response to the questions posed in the subject correspondence. The issues addressed by US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) staff really relate to the issues of communication and confidence in other regulatory agencies. Before responding to the specific questions, let me address them in generically.
While in most instances a written notification satisfies the requirements of the agreement established between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the States, letters are often delayed, confusing, or obtuse. It would appear that the NRC staffis avoiding more direct and prompt method of communication. It has been IDPH's objective to inform the respective regulatory authorities by telephone and to provide a letter as a follow-up. I suggest that this promotes the exchange ofinformation and is a practice that should be adopted. It is especially important if the issue is so significant that it results in the imposition of escalated notices of violation, orders, or civil penalties.
By employing the shield of " integrity of inspections," the NRC staff promulgates an ingglar status. From an Agreement States standpoint, it would appear that the NRC believes thaRhe other regulatory entities cannot be entrusted with information concerning an investigation 5}til that investigation has been finalized. IDPH recognizes that the NRC excludes investigasons .3 involving significant public health and safety concerns from the delayed notification. Howe'ver, 'n what real justification is there for not transmitting the fact that any investigation is bHng '
contemplated or initiated? 1l5 Y
sP-g A-4 LUCAS STATE OFFICE BUILDING / 321 E.12TH ST. / DES MotNES lOWA 50319 0075HTTP://lDPH. STATE.lA.U DEAF RELAY (HEARING OR SPEECH IMPAIRED) 1-800-735 2942 / INTERNET: I FAMILY o COMM. HEALTH HEALTH PROTECTION PLANNING & ADMINISTRATION SUS $7ANCE ABUSE & HEALTM PROMOT60N DIRECTOR 's OrrscE 010 S31 3931 515-281 5643 515 281 5787 515 281 3641 515 281 5604 FAX /51G.242 6384 pax /515 2814529 fax /515481 4958 fax /515-281 4535 fax /515-281-4958
$&Q& Q r'D WN
4 .
Page 2/NRC 8-21/98 The pitfall in promptly informing other regulators of problems is that there is an impulse to inundate people with questions. IDPH has had been on the receiving end of those inquiries.
They only make the inspection process more difficult.
1 Finally, if the goal of the NRC and Agreement States is to develop and nurture a spirit of cooperation, there will be little progress toward that goal unless both entities become proactive in sharing information in a timely manner. However, it should be recognized that Agreement States are, for the most part, independent. They have the right to make decisions concerning their programs without being second guessed. Efforts to enhance communications between the NRC /
and Agreement States should be, therefore, optional rather than mandated.
The following are responses to the specific questions in SP-98-070.
I I. CommunicationsInvolvinoInvestientional Activities I
Because of the need to maintain investigation integrity, the NRC's Position with respect to l sharing investigative information with Agreement States remains unchanged.
There is no written guidance requesting Agreement State notification to NRC of Agreement ,
State investigations that may be ofinterest to the NRC. )
- 1. Do you agree with the above stated first conclusion?
IDPH believes that the NRC should notify the State before entry if conducting an investiga' tion. It is NRC policy to notify the State at least one week before entry for a routine inspection. The circumstances that precipitate an investigation have a more significant impact than a routine inspection. It is therefore inconsistent to impose a .
lesser standard than for an inspection. IDPH is not advocating release of all information. However, at a minimum, States should be informed of the nature of the investigation.
- 2. Given the general sensitive nature of investigations and specific internal State procedures governing the release ofinformation regarding State investigations, are the States in a position to share this kind ofinformation with the NRC7
. Experience has shown that the NRC's policy of disseminating information on a system .,
accessible by the public jeopardizes the exchange ofinformation concerning on-going investigations. At the opposite extreme, earlier this year the NRC shredded IDPH documents that had a " Sensitive Allegation Material" warning because the staff feared a request for information from the public. (The waming closely resembled that used by
s' Page 3/NRC -
8-21/98 the NRC for its documents.) The point is that the NRC does not have a consistent cf procedure for handling and safeguarding preliminary investigation information {
transmitted by an Agreement State. If one is established, the free exchange of documentation can be achieved.
As a word of caution, guibmce has a habit of becoming a requirement. Sharing information should be considered a voluntary endeavor.
- 3. Should a reciprocal Agreement State exchange ofinvestigative information take place with theNRC7 Yes. IDPH cunently sends copies of " Notices of Violations" to the appropriate Agreement State or NRC Regional Office.
i II. Communications Involving Inspection and Enforcement Activities Current NRC guidance and practice with respect to NRC communications with Agreement States about NRC inspection and enforcement activities appear sufficient.
- 1. Do you agree with the above stated conclusion?
No. Informing an Agreement State by mail of imposition of escalated notices of violation, orders, or civil penalties could delay the State's ability to address practices that threaten the health and safety of employees and the public within the State. IDPH does not wish to place its licensees in a situation where they are overwhelmed by regulators, however, any violation that is a cause for significant concern should be promptly communicated to the appropriate Agreement State by telephone or fax. <#
- 2. Do Agreement States want routine telephor.e or e-mail notification of:
- Escalated notices of violation and civil penalties against Agreement State licensees operating under reciprocity?
- Non-escalated notices of violations?
e - Predecisionalenforcementconferences? Orders?
Except for non-escalated notices of violations, the NRC should communicate with the Agreement State as soon as practical rather than awaiting completion of a formal written document.
- 2. -
l 3, . Page 4/NRC )
8-21/98 NRC staff believes the general exchange ofinformation that occurs between Agreement States and NRC has been and will continue to be sufficient to provide NRC with information about significant Agreement State inWon and enforcement activities.
In order to addren the recommendations in the June 12,1998 SRM,'NRC is interested in the States' ability to prohibit individuals from involvement in licensed activities and, if so, whether States can provide NRC with information on individuals prohibited from involvement in licensed activities.
- 1. Do you agree with the above-stated conclusions? i In general, yes.
- 2. Should Agreement States routinely provide NRC information that includes the names of prohibited individuals and significant actions taken against Agreement State licensees?
Yes. However, the process should be voluntary rather than required.
1 III. Communications on Significant Public Health and Safety Issues 1 NRC and Agreement State existing guidance and practice appear sufficient to mutually inform Agreement States of information having significant immediate public health and safety significance.
- 1. Do you agree with the above stated conclusion?
l The problem is that I am not sure that we all have a clear or common understanding of l what constitutes a significant immediate public health and safety significance. l If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact George F. Johns, Jr. at (515) l 242-6280 or me.
l Sincerely, i Donald A.Flater, Chief Bureau ofRadiological Health 515-281-3478 515-242-6284 -FAX dflater@idph. state.ia.us