ML20133G177
| ML20133G177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1996 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-96-221-C, NUDOCS 9701150207 | |
| Download: ML20133G177 (3) | |
Text
4 UNITED STATES
/
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g
e[
December 31, 1996
.g.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY j
MEMORANDUM TO:
James M. Taylor Exe utlve Director for Operations A_
y e,' Secretary FROM:
J C.
TAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-221 - IMPROVING
SUBJECT:
NRC'S CONTROL OVER, AND LICENSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICA LICENSED DEVICES and BRIEFING ON CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF LICENSED DEVICES, 2:00 P.M.,
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1996, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Commission has approved the staff proposal contained in alternative number 3 to develop an action plan to address the issue of device accountability and control.
The Commission disapproved the staff's recommendation to conduct a pilot program this time and will reconsider any proposed pilot in FY 1998 at programs when a detailed action plan is provided to the The staff should also advise the Commission on Commission.
options to pay for an enhanced NRC regulatory program including the availability of external funds, or whether consideration needs to be given to exploring with Congress the possibility of removing specific program costs from the NRC's user fee base (e.g., orphan source recovery fund).
3/28/97)
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
The action plan should provide sufficient details to manage and track all actions associated with this issue and should address:
1)
The staff's position (accepting, rejecting, or on each of the working group's accepting in part) recommendations, and the basis for that position.
THIS SRM AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD SECY NOTE:
CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
SECY-96-221 WAS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON NOVEMBER 13, gS" 150104 1996.
9701150207 961231 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 pyg
4 O
/
2)
The proposal by Ms. Aldrich to require specific licenses for the more hazardous devices now available under a general license, and address whether this proposal would lead to greater harmonization of U.S.
regulations with those of other countries.
4-3)
Any additional recommendations from the staff that were not addressed in the working group report (such as
~
proceeding with or. dropping the air gap rule),
i including the above information on resources and 4
reprioritization for each staff recommendation.
The NRC and Agreement State resources needed to i
4) implement each working group recommendation (including 4
those that the staff has accepted in part or rejected).
j Whether NRC resources are currently budgeted.
If 5) resources are not currently budgeted, then the staff should describe the activities that would have to be l
reprioritized to carry out the actions.
Resource estimates for each year and for maintenance of the l
developed system after the plan has been completely implemented should be included.
The staff should j
strive to develop the most cost-effective plan a
possible.
The staff's position on the Agreement Stace l
6) compatibility issue raised by the working group, and make a recommendation on the appropriate level of-a compatibility for each requirement that the staff recommends adopting.
The action to quantify the risks associated with 7) unaccounted-for devices.
Specifically the staff should plan to proceed with establishing the probabilities associated with devices being lost, devices causing exposure to members of the public, devices entering the devices being smelted, and metals manufacturing stream, other incidents the staff recommends analyzing.
8)
A mechanism for identification, control, storage, and proper disposal of orphan sources, including a funding plan for such centingencies.
A rulemaking plan.
The action plar should include a 9) specific action to develop a rulemaking plan to address these device accountability and control issues, along with a schedule for the rulemaking process.
10)
When each accepted action would be started and completed.
, The actions in the staff action p]an should be tied to the primacy of risk, with higher-risk issues receiving higher priorities, faster schedules, and more immediate resources than lower-risk issues.
The staff should consider the need for initiating this effort in advance of the completion of the rulemaking.
Because it is unlikely that the staff will be able to quantify these risks at the time the action plan is provided to the Commission, the staff should base the action plan recommendations on the staff's own general experience with the associated risks.
In developing an action plan, the staff may propose pilot If the staff suggests a pilot program for any of the programs.the staff should describe the pilot program and how the
- issues, pilot program will be limited.
The staff should be specific when it about what the pilot program is expected to accomplish, will be started and completed, and what resources will be required.
If a pilot program is suggested, it should be of the there are no minimal length of time necessary to demonstrate that significant unforeseen difficulties in the prompt implementation of the staff's proposal.
i cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
>