ML20135B403: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20135B403 | | number = ML20135B403 | ||
| issue date = 11/19/1996 | | issue date = 11/19/1996 | ||
| title = Responds to | | title = Responds to Re NRC Conduct of Investigation in New York State.Info Provided Highlights Need to Consider Addl NRC Procedures in Subj Area | ||
| author name = Jackson S, The Chairman | | author name = Jackson S, The Chairman | ||
| author affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM) | | author affiliation = NRC COMMISSION (OCM) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| contact person = | | contact person = | ||
| document report number = NUDOCS 9612050008 | | document report number = NUDOCS 9612050008 | ||
| title reference date = 07-18-1996 | |||
| package number = ML20135B405 | | package number = ML20135B405 | ||
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | | document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
Nevertheless, I believe that the information you provided highlights the need , | Nevertheless, I believe that the information you provided highlights the need , | ||
to consider additional NRC procedures in this area. | to consider additional NRC procedures in this area. | ||
The NRC conducts investigations and inspections in order to determine whether NRC licensees are in compliance with NRC requirements. In the case that I referenced in my June 3,1996 letter, the issue involved a potential violation of NRC requirements by an NRC licensee. Our Office of Investigations (01) was investigating alleged false statements made by an NRC licensee that the NRC-licensed material in question was located in Pennsylvania. Based on information suggesting that the sources actually were lor.ated in New York, it was necessary, in 01's judgment, to ascertain the actual location of the sources in order to complete its investigation. | The NRC conducts investigations and inspections in order to determine whether NRC licensees are in compliance with NRC requirements. In the case that I referenced in my {{letter dated|date=June 3, 1996|text=June 3,1996 letter}}, the issue involved a potential violation of NRC requirements by an NRC licensee. Our Office of Investigations (01) was investigating alleged false statements made by an NRC licensee that the NRC-licensed material in question was located in Pennsylvania. Based on information suggesting that the sources actually were lor.ated in New York, it was necessary, in 01's judgment, to ascertain the actual location of the sources in order to complete its investigation. | ||
This is in contrast to the case raised in your letter of July 18, 1996, in which New York State had informed the NRC of numerous instances where an NRC licensee had entered New York State without filing the required notices or obtaining the required approval of your Radiological Health Unit. As we both agree, NRC has no jurisdiction in this case because it concerns compliance with New York State requirements rather than those of the NRC. However, because an NRC licensee's failure to comply with an Agreement State's l requirements may be indicative of failure to comply with NRC regulations while conducting business in non-Agreement States, it is important that timely exchanges of information should occur between the NRC and Agreement States. | This is in contrast to the case raised in your letter of July 18, 1996, in which New York State had informed the NRC of numerous instances where an NRC licensee had entered New York State without filing the required notices or obtaining the required approval of your Radiological Health Unit. As we both agree, NRC has no jurisdiction in this case because it concerns compliance with New York State requirements rather than those of the NRC. However, because an NRC licensee's failure to comply with an Agreement State's l requirements may be indicative of failure to comply with NRC regulations while conducting business in non-Agreement States, it is important that timely exchanges of information should occur between the NRC and Agreement States. | ||
The Commission appreciates your Radiological Health Unit's efforts to keep us informed in this matter. | The Commission appreciates your Radiological Health Unit's efforts to keep us informed in this matter. | ||
Revision as of 07:32, 14 December 2021
| ML20135B403 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/19/1996 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Sweeney J LABOR, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135B405 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612050008 | |
| Download: ML20135B403 (2) | |
Text
i
, 3R._ j
' [
o- %,4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
E o WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056A001 n :g <
% / November 19, 1996
+.... '
CHARMAN l
l i
Mr. John E. Sweeney )
Commissioner of Labor j State of New York Department of Labor State Office Building Campus i Building 12, Room 500 l Albany, New York 12240 l
Dear Commissioner Sweeney:
I am responding to your letter of July 18, 1996, regarding the Nuclear j Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) conduct of investigations in New York State. i The NRC, as a Federal agency, has jurisdiction to conduct investigations of j its licensees' activities in all States, including Agreement States.
Nevertheless, I believe that the information you provided highlights the need ,
to consider additional NRC procedures in this area.
The NRC conducts investigations and inspections in order to determine whether NRC licensees are in compliance with NRC requirements. In the case that I referenced in my June 3,1996 letter, the issue involved a potential violation of NRC requirements by an NRC licensee. Our Office of Investigations (01) was investigating alleged false statements made by an NRC licensee that the NRC-licensed material in question was located in Pennsylvania. Based on information suggesting that the sources actually were lor.ated in New York, it was necessary, in 01's judgment, to ascertain the actual location of the sources in order to complete its investigation.
This is in contrast to the case raised in your letter of July 18, 1996, in which New York State had informed the NRC of numerous instances where an NRC licensee had entered New York State without filing the required notices or obtaining the required approval of your Radiological Health Unit. As we both agree, NRC has no jurisdiction in this case because it concerns compliance with New York State requirements rather than those of the NRC. However, because an NRC licensee's failure to comply with an Agreement State's l requirements may be indicative of failure to comply with NRC regulations while conducting business in non-Agreement States, it is important that timely exchanges of information should occur between the NRC and Agreement States.
The Commission appreciates your Radiological Health Unit's efforts to keep us informed in this matter.
As a result of this case, the NRC staff is developing guidance that can be
- used to improve communication about, and coordination of, respective NRC and Agreement State inspection, investigation, and enforcement actions when NRC [.
licensees violate Agreement State requirements and when Agreement State q
,g
["p O p 05001s
9612050000 961119 l
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
~s iM
,d ' p"x
- b
John E. Sweeney 3 licensees violate NRC requirements. The staff also will be developing l guidance that documents the current practice of informing the Agreement State !
of any issue having immediate public health and safety significance within the i State. Matters not of an immediate public health and safety significance ;
under the State's regulatory authority which are discovered in the course of ;
any NRC investigation or inspection of an NRC licensee in an Agreement State ,
will, however, continue to be treated on a case-by-case basis. Depending upon the individual case circumstances and the need to maintain confidentiality of an investigation, Agreement States will be notified as soon as practicable.
The NRC staff will coordinate the development of the proposed procedures with ;
the Agreement States. f l
NRC continues to be available to meet with you to discuss further the specific i circumstances of the case to which your correspondence referred, including any I enforcement action taken within NRC jurisdiction. Please contact i Richard L. Bangart, Director, Office of State Programs, at 301/415-3340,-to i arrange such a meeting or to discuss this letter. I i
Sincerely,
{
I i
I 1
l i