ML20135E738
| ML20135E738 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/15/1996 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135E733 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-212-C, NUDOCS 9612120034 | |
| Download: ML20135E738 (3) | |
Text
- NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-212 - REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PROPOSAL FOR TRITIUM PRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS Approved X N$ents Disapproved Abstain Not Participatin- Request Discussion COMMENTS:
l See attached comments.
l i
1 1,
J dW& I
' / SIGNATURE J November 15, 1996 Release Vote / X / '
DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes X No
< V61212OO34 961210 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
- l. .
l CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S COMMENTS ON SECY-96-212 i I approve the staff's proposed plan of action with the stipulation that the l staff hold public meetings and provide an opportunity for Jublic comment as '
part of the review process for the topical reports. This will allow the staff to explain the status of its reviews to the public and the process that is l proceeding, and provide an opportunity for public interaction on the issue.
The General Counsel's Memorandum of November 1,1996, indicated that from a !
legal perspective the Commission could proceed with the activities that would allow for the initial lead test assembly, and, for clarity of Congressional intent, it would be prudent to obtain legislative authorization if it were i decided to proceed with actual production of tritium for defense purposes. I i believe this is a matter that the NRC should bring to DOE's attention, if it i has not done so already, and that it is DOE's responsibility to pursue the i legislative change. The staff should consider now what must be done to address Price-Anderson issues attendant to tritium production in commercial light water reactors and inform the Commission. !
The' decision to produce tritium in a commercial nuclear reactor, or reactor owned by DOE, that may be licensed by NRC, is a policy matter to be decided at !
a national level by the Executive Branch and Congress. It is NRC's !
responsibility to evaluate the technical aspects of tritium production from operation of a nuclear reactor under license by the NRC to ensure that this activity in no way compromises public health and safety. This includes review and inspection of activities related to the lead test assembly and subs:quent production of tritium. Further, as stated in the MOU. "[t]he production of :
tritium under an existing commercial license will require DOE and NRC to '
develop mechanisms to ensure that national defense production requirements will not affect the regulation, including plant shutdown for safety reasons. ,
of the facilities." >
With respect to Commissioner McGaffigan's comment regarding revisiting the MOU, I wald suggest a rather high threshold for renegotiating the MOU recently completed and agreed to by both the NRC and DOE. Thus. I would be very reluctant to see this MOU reopened unless there was compelling new information and reason to do so.
For the NRC's part, the Commission could register a caution, as it has in other circumstances, to the Executive Branch and Congress that in deciding ;
whether to use commercial nuclear reactors to produce tritium careful consideration should be given to the fact that historically there has been a separation of commercial nuclear facilities and materials from the nuclear t weapons program. In the end, if there is a national decision by the President and the Congress to produce tritium for defense purposes in an NRC licensed nuclear reactor, the Commission would, or course, discharge its health and safet'y responsibilities under law.
(
.. _