ML20137J352
| ML20137J352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/28/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Rogers K, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137J293 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-053, COMSECY-96-53, DSI-2, FACA, SECY-96-053-C, SECY-96-53-C, NUDOCS 9704030275 | |
| Download: ML20137J352 (3) | |
Text
m
- )
! * *
- RELEASED TO T UNITED STATES g
\\
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+
g W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555
\\"b,g, *]
i -.bb/n tw dat0
[nj$113 OFFICE OF THE January 28, 1997 cons.arssionen MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz l
[h, FROM Edward McGaffi
- 1. Jr.
SUBJECT:
COMSECY-96-053: DSI 2 - OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF i
ENERGY i
In light of DOE's December 1996 decision to request NRC regulation of most of its nuclear facilities (excluding Naval Reactors and the Waste Isolation Niet 4
Plant). I believe the Commission must rethink its preliminary view on this matter. A posi" on of neutrality was appropriate while DOE and the administration were deliberating on the Advisory Committee's recommendations.
but I believe that we now must move to a position of responding positively in 3rinciple to the administration *s request while workiqg very hard to define low NRC would carry out this new mission and to understand and deal with the challenges which such a mission would pose for the NRC. should Congress adopt appropriate implementing legislation.
I believe that the response must be positive because the nation was ill-served by '00E self-regulation during the Cold War. as DOE itself recognizes.
The l
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. (DNFSB) has made significant contributions to safety at DOE's defense program and environmental management facilities since its creation by Congress in 1988.
But the full regulatory approach advocated by the Advisory Comi; tee has significant additional benefits in terms of providing a stable, efficient and predictable safety environment with enhanced public confidence compared to the DNFSB oversight approach.
There should be no doubt, however, that this new mission, if it is approved by the Congress, will bring about the largest changes in the NRC since its i
creation. Some of these changes will be hard to predict. While many of the facilities will be familiar to our staff. Others will not be.
Even the familiar facilities will have lived in an starkly different regulatory environment and framework for their entire lifetimes. The DOE orJer system.
implemented through contract provisions, will not easily transition to an NRC regulatory framework.
Even for familiar facilities, a transition aeriod will be needed for NRC to create the new regulatory framework and for t1e DOE i
facility to understand the new framework and to make necessary adjustments.
l 9704030275 970401 PDR NRCSA I 2
including contract changes, before coming under NRC regulation.
For the unfamiliar facilities, the challenges will be more far-reaching as we have already learned in the case of the 3aseous diffusion plants and are learning in the case of the Hanford waste tank clean-up project.
The 00E Working Group on External Regulation recognized much of this.
Their idea of phasing in NRC regulation over a ten year period with Presidential and Congressional assessments at the end of each phase is fundamentally sound.
j The Working Group also recognized the significant additional resources which the NRC will need to carry out its proposed role.
However, there are aspects of the DOE Working Group 3ro)osal that may not be appropriate and will certainly require analysis by tie iRC staff and the Commission.
For example, should the resources needed ty the NRC be provided solely through the NRC appropriation, as pro)osed, er si.ould at least part of the resources be provided through fees paid ay the DOE Miragement and Operations contractors?
If the goal is to treat DOE contractors as private industry is treated, there ir. much to be said for a fee approach, at least for the costs of servres covered under Part 170 which will vary depending on the safety record of individual facilities.
A near-term resource issue involves the sco]e of resources which the NRC will need this year and next to participate in wlat the DOE korking Group report terms the legislative phase of the initiative.
During this critical period.
NRC staff will need to become much more familiar with the nature and com)liance status of the DOE nuclear facilities and, according to the DOE Wor(ing Group proposal, will need to develo) "a workable ' enlightened compliance' regulatory framework" that may 3e different i1 certain respects from the normal NRC framework with stakeholder input.1 Sett1 Hg on the proper and workable regulatory framework acceptable to the Nic. will be a very resource-intensive undertaking, which shculd not be conducted at the expense of our current statutory responsibilities and out of the fees paid by current licensees.
I would recommend that we seek the necessary budgetary resources from DOE through an MOU and any necessar" relief from personnel ceilings from OMB.
I also believe that realistically it will take much of 1997 to develop the legislation needed to implement whatever regulatory framework the NRC and the administration ultimately agree upon.
Speaking as a former Congressional staffer I know that Members of Congress will want to know the answers to many of the questions on resources and the nature of the aroposed regulatory framework before thev will act. DOE and NRC should lave those answers in hand Page 6-3 of the Working Group Report states: "The Working Group 1
concluded that NRC promulgation of new standards for the wide variety of existing DOE nuclear facilities and conditions, modifying facilities and operating procedures to achieve compliance, and then ehtaining individual licenses (in the form of a license, certification, or concurrence) is an unrealistic regulatory framework and would not be cost-effective."
t 1 before the. legislation is formally introduced. This does not mean that we should not be working on draft legislrtion and consulting with Congress early in the process.
Drafting pro)osed legislation can be a very useful tool for forcing decisions on issues tlat need to be resolved.
I would also recomend that a high-level NRC staff review group be promptly established to assess the details and ramifications of the DOE Working Group proposal and to advise the Commission on policies, procedures and approaches to the issues they identify. The NRC staff group would need raembers from the Office of the EDO 0GC, CF0. OCA and essentially all of the program offices.
In summary. I believe that the NRC should res)ond positively in principle to the DOE proposal and comit to working with tie administration to develop appropriate enabling legislation, including at least a notional implementation alan on such issues as resources and the nature of the regulatory framework to
)e utilized. My hope is that there will not be any insuperable difficulties when the discussion gets down to details, as opposed to generalities.
But it will be essential at this early stage for NRC staff. DOE staff and stakeholders to get issues raised and addressed, so that there will be no major surprises in actually implementing the mission should Congress assign it to the NRC.
cc:
OEDO OGC i
SECY r