ML20137J330
| ML20137J330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/29/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Mcgaffigan E, Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J293 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-053, COMSECY-96-53, DSI-2, SECY-96-053-C, SECY-96-53-C, NUDOCS 9704030270 | |
| Download: ML20137J330 (2) | |
Text
i i.p"%
RELEASED TO THE PDR 3"
UNITED STATES 5
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4///U
[h WASHINGTON, D.C. 20056 dath ini{ia!$
%...../
January 29, 1997 CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM TO:
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-053, OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DSl 2)
Since the issuance of the Commission's preliminary decision that indicated that the Commission favored Option 4 (Take No Position on Broad Responsibility for DOE Facilities), two significant pieces of information have been presented to the Commission. First, DOE issued its Working Group Report on External Regulation in December 1996, which recommended that NRC be established as the regulator of DOE nuclear facilities over 9 ten-year period. Second, the public comments received on this Direction-Setting Issue (DSI) have overwhelmingly endorsed NRC's oversight of DOE l
facilities.
Based on my review of DOE's Working Group Report on External Regulation and the public comments received on this DS!, I now strongly endorse NRC's oversight of DOE i
facilities. e celieve that such regulation would serve the best interests of the public and contribute to protecting facility workers, the public, and the environment. The public commenters on this DSI enthusiastically welcomed NRC regulation of DOE facilities because they foresaw enhanced safety and stability with a single set of standards and requirements, a safety culture being developed within DOE that is comparable to the commercial industry, the elimination of the conflict of self-regulation, and other benefits.
These public views, in combination with the analysis, findings, and conclusions presented in DOE's Working Group Report on external regulation, convince me that NRC oversight of nuclear safety at DOE facilities is appropriate.
Since it does not appear that any of the options in the original DSI paper match the proposal being made by DOE in its Working Group Report (although Options 1 and 2 have many points in common with the DOE proposal), I believe that it might be best for the Commission to endorse NRC's oversight of DOE but not specify the details at this time. The implementation details can then be developed in the legislative phase of the project. An NRC task force is being formed to v ork with DOE on legislative language and initial consideration of technical / regulatory issues. Also, I intend, based on the 9704030270 9704o1 PDR NRCSA I 2
,_ Commission's decision on DSI 2, to respond to DOE's initiative in the form of a letter to the Secretary of Energy, with slightly mv 'e operational details worked out. Such a letter will, of course, offer us the opportunity to be as specific or general as we prefe'r.
Finally, it would be important to codify the work in the legislative and followon phases in the form of an MOU between the NRC and DOE.
Many commenters addressed the details of implementing a program if NRC were given oversight responsibility of DOE. The comments that have been provided on DSI 2, particularly those that address Options 1 and 2, should be given consideration as the NRC and DOE work together to establish a framework for extemal regulation of DOE.
cc:
,