ML19344A863
| ML19344A863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/25/1980 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19344A862 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-30-56 NUDOCS 8008220374 | |
| Download: ML19344A863 (9) | |
Text
.,
L./ *
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[ Docket No. PRM-30-56]
Gulf Nuclear, Inc. ; Denial of Petition for Rule Making AGENCY:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Denial of Petition for Rule Making.
By letter dated April 12, 1979, Mr. Walter P. Peeples, Jr., on behalf of Gulf Nuclear, Inc., filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a petition for rule making.
THE PETITION The petitioner proposed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission be divided into two separate entities - one area would cover power reactors, uranium mining, nuclear weapons manufacturing, nuclear fuel processors, and any area that deals with fissile materials; the second area would deal with byproduct materials. (Note:
Nuclear weapons manufacturing is a responsibility of the Department of Energy rather than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.)
BASIS FOR REQUEST In support of his petition, Mr. Peeples stated five propositions that he felt were adequate justification for o nsideration of his proposal:
1.
Fissile materials used in power production and the production of nuclear weapons require far more stringent rules than those required of byproduct material users and licensees.
This includes regulations concerning shipment and use of these materials.
Because the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a single entity, all rules pertain to both types of licensees.
8008220374
[7590-01]
2.
The majority of effort of the U.S. NRC is devoted to fissile mate-rials creating enormous costs and efforts to control.
The majority of the licensees are byproduct materials users who are forced to share the cost burden exhibited in U.S. NRC fees.
3.
The staff and leadership of the U.S. NRC devotes the majority of its time to expended energy related to power reactors which creates undue burdens on byproduct materials users.
4.
A division of responsibility by NRC would create a positive effect on the general public by making them aware that there are different types of radioactive materials, easing some of the political pressure on the NRC.
5.
Because of the present makeup of NRC controlling both areas, the public apprehension toward power reactors has a tendency to force over-regulation of byproduct materials because both are jointly referred to as simply " radioactive materials".
This detracts from the ability to point out the positive nature of public benefits derived from both types of materials.
Since NRC fails to distinguish between the two types of materials, undue burdens in transportation ar.d publicity force byproduct materials users to defend a position they are not totally familiar with.
Petitions and regulations, including regulatory guides, are frequently opposed or incorrectly interpreted because of lack of distinction between the two types of materials.
In summary, the NRC staff responses are based or published statements related to (1) legislative mandates, (2) judicial guidelines, and (3) statutory responsibilities for regulating civilian nuclear activities.
Many parts of the NRC rules are devoted to regulating production and utilization facilities, including nuclear reactors and facilities for processing irradiated special nuclear material.
Other parts are devoted to regulating byproduct materials, source materials, or special nuclear materials.
Several parts cover both fissile materials and other nuclear materials.
An example of this last case is the NRC's regulation, " Fees for Facilities and Materials Licenses and Other Regulatory Services Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended," 10 CFR Part 170.
The fees l
l 2
[7590-01]
e charged for licensing and inspection servict:s by the NRC are based on guidelines that determine whether or not the NRC may charge a fee for a par'.icular service and what the maximum fee may be.
The NRC is generally obliged to impose the fees allowed by the guidelines where it is fair and equitable te do so and is limited by the requirement chat a consis-tent and fundamentally fair fee structure must accord equal treatment to similarly situated recipients of agency service for nuclear facilities, fissile materials, and other radioactive materials.
A copy of "NRC Staff Responses to Petitioner's Justification State-ments - PRM 30-56," is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.
Single copies of the document may be obtained on request from the Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON PETITION A notice of filing of petition for rule making was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 17, 1979 (44 FR 28896).
The comment period expired July 16, 1979.
Eleven letters of comment were received in response to the notice.
Two of the letters opposed the proposal and nine letters supported the proposal.
Several persons commented generally that NRC regulations which cover both fissile materials and byproduct materials result in administrative l
burdens, confusion, and added costs for byproduct material users.
Appli-cation of pertinent NRC regulatory requireme7ts in a graded approach, i.e., applied to an extent consistent with their importance to safety, 3
[7590-01]
can reduce burdens and costs for persons complying with the requirements.
In many instances, the NRC's regulations grant relief from safeguards reporting requirements for small quaitities of byprcduct material and grant relief from both safeguards and criticality safety controls for small quantities of fissile material.
Two persons commented on the costs of NRC licersing and inspection fees and the beneficiaries of NRC services.
Fees associated with fissile material licensing and inspection activities (and all other fee categories) are based on the sum on the average of the direct and indirect costs that the NRC incurs in furnishing the services for a member of the class of identifiable recipients for which the fees are assessed.
Excluded from consideration for recovery are oudgeted regulatory costs that are partofaprogramconductedonbeh51fofthepublic.
One person expressed the opinion that the inclusion of 10 CFR Part 34, " Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations," within the scope of 10 CFR Part 21, " Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance," is not necessary.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 21 implement section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.
Part 21 requires, among other things, that informa-tion reasonably indicating that a licensed activity or b'asic component supplied to such activity fails to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or any applicable rule, regulation, order, or license of the NRC relating to substantial safety hazards, or contains a defect which could create a substantial safety hazard should be reported.
I Incident and overexposure reporting requirements had been in existence 4
[7590-01]
in Commission regulations for a number of years before enactment of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (which contains section 206) in October 1974.
That person also expressed the opinion that the inclusion of indus-trial radiography licensees in 10 CFR 71.12, " General License for Shipment in D0T Specification Containers, in Packages Approved for Use by Another Person, and in Packages Approved by a Foreign National Competent Authority,"
is not necessary.
It is the general licensees delivering licensed radioactive material to a carrier for transport under the authority of 10 CFR 71.12(b) who must assure themselves and the NRC that the subject packages are as described in the packages approvals and that they are used, tested, and maintained in accordance with both the general and specific portions of an approved quality assurance program.
(The NRC must exercise'its regulatory authority through its general licensees who use package approvals because the NRC has no general enforcement powers over package manufacturers or package owners unless they possess and use licensed radioactive material.
They would, however, be subject to 10 CFR Part 21, " Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.")
A copy of " Abstracts of Comments and Staff Reponses:
Proposal that Nuclear Regulatory Commission Be Divided into Two Separate Entities -
DocketNo.PRM30-56,"isavailableforpublicinspectionattheCommis-sion's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.
Single copies of the comment analysis may be obtained on request from the Office of Standards Development, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555.
5 l
[7590-01]
ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, was enacted by the Congress and approved as Public Law 93-438 on October 11, 1974.
Title II of that Act established the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and transferred to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all the licensing and related regulatory functions of the Atomic Energy Commission.
In assigning those functions within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Congress not only distinguished between nuclear reactors and other licensed facilities and nuclear materials, but also gave due and proper emphasis to functions which are vital to the public health and safety and the safe and efficient operation of both nuclear reactors and other licensed activities.
Sec. 203(b) of that Act provides that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation shall perform such functions as the Commission shall delegate including principal licensing and regulation involving all facilities and materials licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, associated with the construction and operation of nuclear reactors licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Sec. 204(b) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, provides that the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards shall perform such functions as the Commission shall delegate including 6
[7590-01]
principal licensing and regulation invo!ving facilities and materials ticensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1554, as amended, associated with the processing, transport, and handling of nuclear materials, including the provision and maintenance of safeguards against threats, theft, and sabotage of sucn licensed facilities and materials.
The Nuclear Regula-tary Commission has used the flexibility provided by Sec. 204(b) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, to establish within the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards the Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety to perform those licensing and regulatory activities which pertain to the processing, transport, and handli..g of nuclear materials off the nuclear reactor site.
The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, provides no authority under which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on its own initiative, may transfer any licensing or related regulatory function to a new or established agency of the Federal Government.
ALTERNATIVE ORGANIZATION FORMS Alternative organization fc ms for nuclear regulation have been considered in recent studies conducted on or for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 306 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, required the Comptroller General of the United States to audit, review, and evaluate the imalementation of the proviii6nTof Title II of that Act by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not later than sixty months after the effective date of'that Act and submit to the Congress a report j
on his audit.
7
[7590-01]
In the Comptroller General's report to Congress, "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
More Ag essive Leadership Needed," E81ij-80-17, dated January 15, 1980, the General Accounting Office (GA0) identified an alternative (separating NRC into separate policymaking and regulatory agencies) similar to the petitioner's proposal.
GA0 noted that separation of NRC into two agencies could build on the strengths of both the commission and the single administrator forms of nuclear regulation.
Policymaking on critical unresolved nuclear regulation issues could continue under the commission form with the advantage of multimember deliberations.
At the same time, day-to-day regulation of nuclear activities could proceed under an agency headed by a single administrator with prospects for better management of these day-to-day activities.
GAO discussed this alternative with a cross-section of people knowledgeable of nuclear regulation, including representatives of Government, the nuclear industry, public interest groups, and academia.
Opinion on tns alternative ranged from active interest to a belief that it represents an unnecessary proliferation of Federal regulatory agencies.
GA0 chose not to recommend any alternative to strengthening the present commission because none of the alternative forn s appeared to have a clear-cut advantage.
In conclusion, GAO stated:
Ultimately, the Congress must consider the advantages and disadvantages of various organizational forms and decide on the organizational structure which, on balance, best represents what the Congress wants for nuclear regulation.
8
)
[7590-01]
GROUNDS FOR DENIAL The Commission has given careful consideration to petition for rule making PRM 30-56 and the public comments received thereon and has decided to deny the petition on the grounds that, given the structure of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, it is clear that Congress intended the newly created Nuclear Regulatory Commission to have licensing and related regulatory authority not only over nuclear reactors, uranium milling, nuclear fuel processing and reprocessing, and other areas dealing with fissile materials but also have this same authority over byproduct materials.
The NRC itself cannot "... separate the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission into two separate entities..."
Such a separation could only be accomplished in either of two ways:
(1) enactment of legislation by the U.S. Congress, the method by which the existing NRC was created; or (2) through implementation of an Executive Reorganization Plan pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 901 et seq.
A copy of the petition for rule making and copies of the letters of comment and the Commission's letter of denial are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C.
Dated at k W A M this
- 2. I day of
, 19 2 v
()
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
$r WJlliam J. Dircks Acting Executive Director for Operations 9
f