ML20137J335
| ML20137J335 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/17/1997 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman 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 9704030272 | |
| Download: ML20137J335 (3) | |
Text
._.
p rary
......,....,,,,,,,,,,,,, j
,6
~p UNITED STATES RELEASED TO THE PDR
- i l#
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO@
n 5
i WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 4h/w Du
=
%*****M January 17, 1997 date initials es..o.........
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONE N MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan O.
FROM:
Kenneth C. Rogers
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-053:
OVERSIGHT OF DOE - DSI-2 I continue to prefer Option 4 that at this time NRC becomes neither a strong advocate nor an opponent to taking on broad responsibilities for the safety regulation of DOE facilities.
External regulation of DOE may be a desirable policy choice and apparently has strong support by some commenters.
Before endorsing this policy choice, NRC should carefully examine and identify possible solutions to a number of key problems connected with the agency's taking on broad regulatory authority for DOE facilities.
With such solutions in hand, I would not oppose a commission position that offers its assistance in drafting appropriate legislation necessary for NRC regulation of DOE to take place.
In my view, we must propose credible answers and solutions to the following questions and problems.
1.
Safety Performance Standards How will NRC maintain its present high safety standards when faced with the challenge of regulating one group of licensees with more than twenty years of experience under NRC's regulation, and at the same time, another group of licensees of equal magnitude operating similar, larger or more challenging facilities which have operated for forty years under a much looser and less demanding system of self-regulation?
How can we ensure that the compromises which we will undoubtedly have to make with respect to safety standards at some DOE facilities (at least for some phase-in period of several years) will not lead to a least common demoninator degradation of our current expectations for licensee safety performance?
How will NRC avoid the pervasion of a compromise mentality throughout our organization because we will be unable to explain to private sector licensees (and our own staff) why 9704030272 970401 PDR NRCSA I 2
1 i
sf I
i
? 1 1
what we claim is safe enough for DOE facilities is not safe i
enough for other licensees.
l i
2.
Credibility d
How will we remain a credible regulator of the power reactor industry and AEA materials users?
DOE admittedly is i
perceived as having failed.
If we take,on its regulation, 1
j and immediate positive results are not apparent, damage to i
NRC's credibility could extend to all aspects of our regulation.
1 3.
Enforcement 1
Regulation of private for profit licensees is effectuated
{
1 through the enforcement practices which NRC has developed j
over the years.
The same enforcement tools are much less likely to have a strong impact on facilities operated by I
another federal government licensee.
NRC will have to have very carefully considered plans for an l
enforcement program appropriate for establishing its authority in regulating DOE facilities.
Our normal l
enforcement methods, for example, fines and shut-down i
orders, will serve only to delay DOE's work.
As a government agency, DOE will not suffer the same consequences j
4 from such delays as would a profit-making firm.
i L
4.
Resources The*e are three aspects of resources that must be considered.
Resources required prior to year zero, resources required during the initial ramp-up period of ten l
years and resources required in the steady-state period y
aftar the first decade or so.
N The resource demands for license renewals, decommissioning j
j waste disposal activities, transition to performance-based j
j regulation, and adjustment to electrical industry 1
restructuring in the next ten years are very uncertain.
We l
may or may not have sufficient FTE's and dollars to address these issues even if we have no additional responsibilities i
i for DOE facilities.
Yet these activities will constitute a
{
We aignificant part of our current AEA responsibilities.
Our first j
must be able to give them appropriate attention.
priority must continue to be power reactor regulation because that is where the greatest real risk lies.
NRC j
regulation of DOE in the steady state will require roughly i
1500 FTE's, a number that is a3most half our current level of staffing.
j i
J
,/
t The FTE's and dollars required during the pre ramp-up and early ramp-up phases will have to be provided in addition to what will be required for our main-line programs.
In particular, I do not endorse imposing upon our main-line licensees to support these through their license fees.
Additional resources will have to be provided in other ways to carry out the initial studies, pilot programs and other activities starting in FY 1998 and beyond.
5.
Agreement Stat;33 The role of the Agreement States must be clarified in relation to NRC's regulation of DOE facilities within their borders.
Given the likelihood that uniform standards will be impossible to impose on DOE facilities, even if NRC is the only regulator, if there are many State regulators, each settling on different requirements, the potential for gross regulatory differences cannot be ignored.
Because of the serious nature of the issues I have just listed, I believe that our approach to regulation of DOE facilities should not be unconditional enthusiastic endorsement, but rather, a studied measured approach that does not ignore the problems that must be overcome if NRC is to discharge this new responsibility satisfactorily, cc:
t