ML20135E771
| ML20135E771 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/12/1996 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135E733 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-212-C, NUDOCS 9612120050 | |
| Download: ML20135E771 (3) | |
Text
,
. NOTATI ON VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary l
FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-212 - REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF !
ENERGY'S PROPOSAL FOR TRITIUM PRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS l
. n Approved 48 Disapproved 4- M Abstain V ,
Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS: ) j 1
l l
l l
I l
g py ,-
SIGNATURE ev ()
Release Vote / K/ bk/ Ib'
/ DATE Withhold Vote / /
Entered on "AS" Yes I No 9612120050 961210 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
m _ . . . _ - __ _. ._ . _ __
__q 1 i
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-96-212 - Review of Deoartment of l t
Enerav's ProDosal for Tritium Production in Commercial Licht-Water Reactors I approve. in part. and disapprove, in part, the proposals in SECY-96-212 as follows:
- 1. I do not object to the staff's proposal -- as far as it goes -- to undertake a staged technical and safety evaluation of DOE's proposal for tritium productiun in commercial light-water reactors (CLWRs). This is a part of the NRC's responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act to protect public. health and safety in the licensing and use of nuclear materials. I aree with Commissioner Diaz that we should seek public comment during th? first 3hase of the program on the use of 10 CFR 50.59 for these actions even t1ough public comment is not normally a part of the 10 CFR 50.59 3rocess.
! I also believe. as sug;sted by the General Counsel in her Memorandum to the Commission of November 1. 1996, that it would be prudent for the Commission to seek legislation to address 42 U.S.C 7272, which provides that:
[n]one of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used for any purpose related to licensing of any defense activity
! of the Department of Energy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In addition. I understand that rulemaking may be required to address certain Price-Anderson issues attendant to tritium production in CLWRs.
I would urge the staff and the Office of the General Counsel to move forward now on both the legislation and rulemaking fronts so that the l
CLWR option is unquestionably available when needed. .
! 2. I disapprove the approach, reflected in SECY-96-212 and apparently made i explicit in the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Nuclear ;
! Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy dated May 22. 1996 l (MOU) wherein we arguably may have ceded to DOE our authority and i responsibility to consider the policy question concerning the use of NRC-licensed commercial facilities for defense activities. As noted by the General Counsel in her Memorandum of November 1, 1996. ;
[o]ne should not lose sight . . of the fact that the defense activity is the proximate cause of the NRC's involvement in reviewing the use of commercial reactors for tritium production.
The NRC has not had any orevious involvement in such activities. ;
which have been carried out by DOE in facilities not subject to NRC licensing. (Emphasis added)
Before embarking upon, or permitting, such a first-time use of NRC-licensed commercial reactor facilities for defense activities. I believe that the Commission itself has a responsibility to confront and address
- this issue and state a policy position on it. For my part. I am ready to support the use of NRC-licensed CLWRs for tritium production if it
' can be shown that such action will not be inimical to the common defense j and security and ultimately can be done in a manner that will )rotect public health and safety. I personally would be more comforta]1e if DOE
i o'
l were to own the reactors than if DOE were to purchase irradiation services from existing NRC licensees because the government would be producing tritium in a government facility (albeit one providing power to the grid under private sector management). In any event. I believe that the Commission should at least consider the policy issue that is i
involved here. If we must revisit the MOU in order to consider this
- policy matter. I suggest that we begin those negotiations now.
1 1
a a
Y I
4 l
k 4
s i
J
[spClay 'o UNITED STATES
! \ ,, 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON. D .C. 20555
- ., g
\...../
OFFICE OF THE December 10, 1996 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executi e Director for Operations FROM: Job C. oy e, Secretary
/
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-212 - REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S PROPOSAL FOR TRITIUM PRODUCTION IN COMMERCIAL LIGHT-WATER REACTORS i
The Commission has approved the staff's plan for review of DOE's proposal for production of tritium in commercial light water reactors.
The staff should hold public meetings and provide for public comment regarding the technical issues during Phase I to ensure the public is.made aware of its review activities early in the evaluation process. A public meeting should be held in the vicinity of the host facility prior to loading lead test Similar meetings should be held assemblies into the reactor.
prior to the insertion of the target assemblies in any particular NRC licensed facility.
The staff should ensure that DOE is aware of their responsibility for any legislative action that may be required regarding separation of commercial nuclear reactors from the nuclear weapons program. The staff should also consider now what must done to address Price-Anderson issues attendant to tritium production in commmercial light water reactors and inform the Commission.
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
I SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-96-212, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING l
RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL i
COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
(
h