ML20133G491
| ML20133G491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/04/1996 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133G353 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-139-C, SECY-96-221-C, NUDOCS 9701160064 | |
| Download: ML20133G491 (2) | |
Text
e NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-221 - SECY-139 - STAFF REQUIRRENTS - CONGD-94-003 - IMPROVING NRC'S CONTROL OVER, AND LICENSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY LICENSED DEVICES Approved #(a#
Disapproved
- b Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
4 +ScAul -
SIGN $tdkEU lM!
N Release Vote
/V/
DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on "AS" Yes
>('
No EM"nMS MM 2 CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2 i
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN'S COMMENTS ON SECY-96 221. " STAFF REQUIREMENTS COMGD-94-003, IMPROVING NRC*S CONTROL OVER, AND LICENSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY LICENSED DEVICES" I concur with the comments of the Chairman and Commissioner Dicus. In addition.
I offer the following comments for consideration of my fellow Commissioners.
In the action plan, the staff should carefully examine Ms. Aldrich's proposal to J
require specific licenses for the more hazardous devices now available under a general license, and address whether this approach would lead, as she argues to greater harmonization of U.S. regulations with those of other countries.
The staff should also advise the Commission whether there are options available i
to ensure that the beneficiaries (e.g., steel manufacturers, metal recyclers.
source / device vendors) of an enhanced NRC regulatory program share in the associated additional costs or whether consideration needs to be given to exploring with Congress the possibility of removing associated program costs from the NRC's user fee base.
UNITED STATES
/
8' h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D C 20555-0001 e
A,,,,,/
December 31, 1996 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
James M. Taylor Exe ut've Director for Operations Secretary FROM:
J C
TAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-221 - IMPROVING
SUBJECT:
NRC'S CONTROL OVER, AND LICSNSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY 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 The Commission issue of device accountability and control.
rMsapproved the staff's recommendation to conduct a pilot program PY 1998 at this time and will reconsider any proposed pilot i.
h 1;.ms when a detailed action plan is provided to t e The staff should also advise the Commission on p) 2 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 33, 1996.
qWobo7
. ~.
. The proposal by Ms. Aldrich to require specific 2) licenses for the more hazardous devices now available under a general license, and address whether this f
proposal would lead to greater harmonization of U.S.
regulations with those of other countries.
Any additional recommendations from the staff that were 3)
(such as not addressed in the working group report proceeding with or dropping the air gap rule),
including the above information on resources and reprioritization for each staff recommendation.
The NRC and Agreement State resources needed to (including 4) implement each working group recommendation those that the staf f has accepted in part or rejected).
If i
Whether NRC resources are currently budgeted.
currently budgeted, then the staff 5) resources are not i
should describe the activities that would have to be the actions.
Resource reprioritized to carry out estimates for each year and for maintenance of the developed system after the plan has been completely The staff should implemented should be included.
i strive to develop the most cost-effective plan possible.
The staff's position on the Agreement State 6) compatibility issue raised by the working group, and make a recommendation on the appropriate level of compatibility for each requirement that the staff recommends adopting.
The action to quantify the risks associated with 7)
Specifically the staff should unaccounted-for devices.
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 including a funding proper disposal of orphan sources, plan for such centingencies.
The action plan should include a A rulemaking plan.
9) specific action to develop a rulemaking plan to address these device accountability and control issues, along with a schedule for the rulemaking process.
l When each accepted action would be started and 10) completed.
1
- The actions in the staff action p]an should be tied to the primacy of risk, with higher-risk issues receiving higher faster schedules, and more immediate resources than 4
l priorities, 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 j
associated risks.
\\
the staff may propose pilot In developing an action plan,If the staff suggests a pilot program for any of the i
issues, the staff should describe the pilot program and how the programs.
The staff should be specific pilot program will be limited.about what the pilot program is expected to acc i
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 thatimplementation significant unforeseen difficulties in the prompt of the staff's proposal.
1 j
i 4
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Dia:
Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 9