ML20137L800
| ML20137L800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L805 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-064, COMSECY-96-64, DSI-20, SECY-96-064-C, SECY-96-64-C, NUDOCS 9704070318 | |
| Download: ML20137L800 (11) | |
Text
.
1 4
April 3, 1997 SECY NOT.Z:
The following documents are being released to the i
public at this time:
1.
Text of DSI 20 (International Activities) 1 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 28, 1997.
3.
Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 30, 1997.
4.
Views of Commissioner Regers dated January 22, 1997.
5.
Views of Commissioner Dicus dated January 14, 1997.
6.
Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 27, 1997.
7.
Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated January 23, 1997.
)
l W
John C. Hoyle l
Secretary of the Commission
\\
\\
I 9704070318 970403 J
PDR NRCSA I 20 PDR f,s d e x ecf
&/0-f7 l$l,lyl!lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlII g3 J
Sundnary Analysis of Comments international Aaiyty COMSEGY-N-3.12 INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES (DSI 20) 3.12.1 The Direction-Setting issue and the Options ij
- w
=:
What is 'ne appropriate role of NRC in the development and implementation of H I
policies on international nuclear matters?
O,0 ll a
Option 1:
Seek To Reduce NRC's International Role to a Minimum lE}
lI Option 2 Perform NRC's Statutory Role and Limit Other International k f Activity to a Minimum
- IIj q.
cc Option 3:
Conduct' Activities of Benefit to NRC's Domestic Mission Option 4:
Conduct Activities of Benefit to NRC's Domestic Mission or U.S.
National Interests (similar to its current role) i Option 5:
Expand Activities l
3.12.2 Commission's Preliminary Views The Commission agrees that Option 4, which fundamentally allows the Commission to conduct international activities of importance and benefit to NRC's
(
domestic mission or U.S. national interests, is a desirable goal. However, modifications are expected to be required because of expected continued reductions in NRC budgets. Therefore, we need to examine individual international activities with respect to budget ana priority to provide the basis for an orderly reduction and/or sunsetting of certain activities to meet i
expected future constraints on the program.
Option 4 reaffirre NRC's current policy basis for participation in international actwities. Under Option 4, NRC would continue to perform its current statutory role in matters related to export-import licensing and its current and prospective role in treaty implementation and would, in addition, actively participate in international activities that support and benefit hRC domestic safety and security responsibilities or U.S. national interests. Also the NRC would participate in exchange activities of benefit to its domestic responsibilities or U.S. national interests and would provide a wide but carefully selected range of safety and safeguards assistance.
The Commission believes that international activities performed in support of U.S. national interests actually undergird our domestic mission.
For example, NRC's nuclear safety cooperative research agreements with other countries 4
allcw NRC to obtain valuable information, often at a comparatively small cost, to support our own programmatic needs. Furthermore, NRC's own research program allows it to play a leadership rule in such international organizations as the Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency, thus providing, substantial benefit to the U.S. In addition, NRC's role in export licensing.has direct impact on overall U.S. commercial interest.
Recognizing that we must also address the issue of future constraints on the NRC's international program, staff shoulo develop a plan ta include criteria which would address the basis for prioritizing NRC's international activities, including research. This will assist the Commission in determining where appropriate programmatic exp&nsinn or reductions niay be made, depending on Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Repon Page 3-113
international Activities Summary Analysis of Comr; ants future budget constraints. In particular, since NRC is licensee fee based, careful consideration of international programs and their primacy to NRC's mission are important considerations. The plan should also identify areas where efficiencies can be considered and develop criteria for sunsetting certain activities.
3.12.3 Summary of Comments A.
Significant/Important Comments Directly Affecting the Comission's Preliminary h ews or the Direction-Setting Issue Most of the comments supported the Commission's preliminary views, both the Comission's choice of Option 4 as a goal and the Commission's emphasis on the need to prioritize the agency's international activities.
Option 4 The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that there are "many substantial benefits to global nuclear safety that accrue from NRC support for international nuclear safety activities and the provision of results of its safety research programmes." A Mexican regulator said, in full support of the Commission's preliminary views, that NRC had exercised " distinguished leadership" in international forums and its proposals had paved the way for safer worldwide use of nuclear power.
He pointed to NRC's assistance to, and exchanges with, his country and said that these had been fundamental to his country's development of a robust and healthy regulatcry framework. He said that, although the issue paper's assumptions and projections for internal and external factors were accurate enough to provide a solid basis for strategic planning, they were not sufficient to establish policies to face forthcoming challenges, unless these policies are based on an explicit commitment to excel. He argued that such a commitment had been the driving force behind NRC's past leadership, and that the absence of such leadership would have grave consequences for the nuclear industry worldwide. He would like to see NRC lead other countries into the future, rather than merely react to local and global changes.
In the same vein, a Czech regulator said that the Commission's preliminary views should be ruch stronger in their argument against reducin'g the agency's current international role. An Australian regulator said that NRC's international involvement would benefit NRC also, especially in enabling NRC to remain aware o# new developments in regulation abroad. An employee of SCIENTECH viewed Option 4 as " realistic under present objectives and constraints" and as necessary "in today's world" for achieving the agency's domestic mission.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) supported Option 4, partly on the grounds that the association did not want another foreign accident to jeopardize the U.S. nuclear option.
Westinghouse also supported Option 4, arguing that regulators in the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) need to more fully replicate the U.S. regulatory
- structure, and that NRC was the best-positioned agency to help stabilize these regulators. The same firm also said that application of U.S. regulatory practices abroad benefits U.S.
industries.
International Nuclear Regulators Forum: Most comments about the International l
Nuclear Regulators Forum were favorable.
For example, the Mexican regulator l
said that the Forum would contribute to NRC's leadership and to improvement in Pats '-l14 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Repon
Suminary Analysis of Comments internatior.al Activities 1-regulatory activities. NEI was more cautious.
It suggested that it would be
" appropriate" to consider the relationship between the Forum and the Nuclear Energy Agency's (NEA's) activities, or the process for implementing the new Convention on Nuclear Safety. The International Atomic Energy Agency's 4
(IAEA's) comment was similar, and it noted the opportunities for discussions among senior regulators provided by the NEA and the annual Meeting of Senior Regulators at the IAEA General Conference.
An NRC employee argued that NRC i
should make more use of the NEA, instead of creating the International Nuclear Regulators' Forum.
He said that, at the NEA, senior regulators can discuss policy and invite regulators from Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and 4
Taiwan to take part in the discussions on an equal basis, and that use of the NEA group instead of a new forum would also maintain a close-knit relationship with the exchanges and cooperative projects now managed by NEA committees headed by senior regulators.
The employee of SCIENTECH said that, until there d
are criteria for regulatory performance, an International Nuclear Regulators' l
Forum may not serve to improve regulation.
4 Coordination of Safety Assistance: Several commenters urged close coordination with other organizations, both public and private, in carrying out NRC's international assistance. The employee of SCIENTECH recommended coordination of assistance, not just for the sake of efficiency, but also to foster "the right business-like attitude" in the recipient. He argued that NRC has the reputation and experience necessary to take the lead in this coordination. He also said that there must be adequate controls to ensure l
that the' objective of the assistance is mot, and that contractors were userul not only for quality control and quality assurance purposes but also because they minimize the use of the regulator's own resources and take advantage of the expertise of many institutions. NEI suggested looking at assistance requests to see whether some other organization, like the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WAN0), could be the best entity to respond to the request.
In the same vein, the Australian regulator urged looking to see whether NRC could collaborate with other agencies, transfer certain activities to other agencies, or hire more contractors, after giving due regard to the need to retain in-house corporate knowledge.
Representatives of Cnmmonwealth Edison and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory urged more coordination with the assistance efforts of DOE and the IAEA.
NRC/NEA Relationship: An NRC employee suggested that the agency should establish a post to support work done through the NEA. He argued that this group has the ragulators with whom NRC has the most active exchanges, and that through such a post NRC could increase its presence, attend every meeting of the technical and management committees of cooperative international projects, enlist contributions from its colleagues to solve common problems, and influence outcomes in areas of interest to NRC, all with less time and money than NRC spends now. Another NRC employee said that NRC's Office of Research should have the lead NRC role in NRC's dealings with other countries' nuclear safety research programs, but that the other program offices should have the lead on licensing and pre-licensing matters, for example in the provision of technical assistance to other countries on how to regulate radioactive waste disposal.
Priorities: Several commenters recommended ways to prioritize the agency's international activities. The employee of SCIENTEtil recommended taking a close look at the efficiency of exchanges and assistance on the grounds that these are the most labor-intensive of the agency's four international functions.
Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report Page 3-115
--~
- - ~
International Aaivities Summary Analysis of Commnts 4
Several commenters said that NRC's domestic program should dictate some of the agency's international priorities. An NRC employee argued that international cooperative research programs and international activities that could support NRC's transition to risk-informed, performance-based regulation, should be given increased priority because, in the commenter's view, other international activities are less directly related to the NRC's domestic mission. A Swedish regulator said that, given NRC's budget constraints, the increasing development of nuclear technology abroad, and the similarity of many foreign designs to U.S. designs, cooperative research and exchange of operating experience should be agency priorities. The Organization of Agreement States (0AS) and most of the State regulators, who endorsed the comments of the OAS, argued that NRC should consider cuts in some areas--international for instance--that would not result in reduced levels of domestic safety. NEI said that the Commission's preliminary views should more explicitly recognize that the agency has a primary responsibility to the domestic industry to ensure effective implementation of its export-import responsibilities.
The Australian regulator said that a high priority should be given to maintaining NRC's role in the Comprehensive Threat Reduction Program. The Svedish regulator said more generally that the United States should focus on areas in which it has unique competence, for example, in the protection and haadling of weapons-grade materials, especially materials from dismantled weapons.
The Australian regulator said that it would De to the benefit of all concerned to have clear guidance from NRC and the Executive Branch as to the relative priorities of international activities in the eyes of the Executive Branch, the relative priorities of NRC's international activities compared to NRC's l
other activities, and the relative priorities of assistance to the former J
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe compared to assistance to developing countries in the early stages of building nuclear power infrastructures.
l Framatome Technologies said that a better understanding of how ruclear risks compare to the risks of other means of generating electricity would suggest new areas of cooperation, information exchange, and research.
B.
Comments on Other Options Opt
- a The b._
istant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Thomas McNamara and two other commenters preferred Option 5.
The State Department argued that, for assistance, Option 5 is "probably the most realistic assessment of both recipient and policy needs for the foreseeable future."
The Department said that the consistency of American policy across two Administrations and three Congresses (in supporting assistance to improve the safety of Soviet-designed reactors) is a " clear indication" of the extent of national interest in reducing the risk of a nuclear accident abroad.
The Department agreed with the conclusion of the issue paper on DSI 20 that the results to date of some assistance efforts have been " disappointing."
According to the Department, some foreign regulators still lack the legal bases, technical capability, and resources required to match the size of their problems.
In this connection, the Department said it would be pleased to contribute te the comprehensive evaluation of FSU/CEE assistance called for by the paper.
Page 3-116 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaaion Repon l
Sundnary Analysis of Comments international Actinties Along the same lines, a representative of ABB-CE said, in support of Option 5, that NRC should expand its current level of activity to export the culture and safety standards of the United States.
The commenter said that such expansion would benefit world health and the U.S. industry, because the world can ill i
afford another significant accident.
The commenter also said that if the agency could not get more resources for expansion, it should shift some of its domestic budget to international activities.
l A Washingten State regulator argued, in support of Option 5, that, because the agency is losing licensees to the Agreement States and the reactor program is in decline, NRC should expand its international work to help ensure that nuclear problems abroad do not become problems for the United States.
A representative of the Council of Radiation Control Program Directors said that NRC's presence in the discussions on th: international convention on the handling of radioactive waste is very important, and that this therefore is one area in which expansion might be appropriate.
Option 3 The OAS and most State regulators preferred Option 3.
They argued that the money now spe:.t on foreign trainees and ot'ier international activities could then be spent for other purposes, for example training for Agreement States.
The Maryland regulator said that NRC should give higher priority to the Agreement States Program than to international activities.
Arguing against some forms of assistance, a representative of the Washington Public Power Supply System asked why NRC should give assistance to countries that are expanding their nuclear power programs but not buying U.S. reactors.
Other Options A representative of the Enviror. mental Coalition on Nuclear Power asserted that the United States should exercise leadership in the " prevention" of international trade in nuclear materials and waste, and that NRC should help other nations " maximize control" over, and " minimize the movements" of, these materials and wastes. The commenter saic that NRC's domestic mission should be "to bring about an end of the nuclear industry and of nuclear weapons facilities and activities as expeditiously is possible."
A group of NRC Regional employees said that the agency should engage in only those international activities that are funded by Congress.
C.
Comments on Important 0 missions The IAEA said that the issue paper does not reflect NRC's significant contribution to the preparation of international safety standards.
The OAS and most State regulators said that the issue paper had failed to take into account the role that the States can play in international activities.
For example, the OAS and others said that the Agreement States can respond to radiological incidents resulting from imports of contaminated items and to foreign incidents along U.S. borders (especially the border with Mexico, where all the States are Agreement States). They also noted that they can help train regulators from other countries.
Most State regulators said that the Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report Page 3-117
inernational AaMaies
- 5ummary Analysis of Commews
-a
~
Agreement States may have.a rdle i.n inspectin.g impcrted.defices using radioactive materials., and possibly the ;facRf6es abrared 1 hat produce them, 3
to ensure their safety
!I The NEI said that -the paper on DFI 2D 'had cm9tted three 'ntgmritant t
considerations:
i The paper should have considered the hnpati on the Cummissivwr of some of
'NRC's international activities, especially Ms policy function, and, assuming the impact disproportionately burdensome, should have sought ways to achieve the agency's international goals with less impact on the Commission, l
1 l
The paper should have considered the effect on licensee fees of international activities other than those which directly benefit licensees, These other activities, such as support of U.S. national interests, should be funded by general revenues or by the entity (such as the State Department) that asked for the activity.
l No matter which option is chosen, NRC should assess the value of each specific exchange or assistance program, and not limit itself just to either continuing or ending the program.
D.
Comments on Internal / External Factors
' The NEI lfstcd a number of external factors whose impacts on NRC should have been considered in the issue paper:
possible increased commercial nuclear trade with China (which could significantly increase NRC's export role),
implementation of the Convention on Nuclear Safety (which could require additional resources) snd the possibility of insufficient congressional
-appropriations to continue the agency's foreign assistance programs (which could raise a question either about how NRC would turn these over to others or, if they were continued, how they would be funded without charging the costs to licensees). The IAEA said that carrying out the obligations of the Convention will " entail co-operation with other countries beyond that required by the specific obligations." Commenting more generally on trade with Asia, a Chinese reguietor said that the paper should have taken into account more the rapid expansion of nuclear power programs in developing countries. He said that more attent N. should be paid to cooperation in inspections % tween NRC and the regulatory bodies of countries in which U.S.-designed plants are operating or will be built. The IAEA foresaw an increase in the worldwide use of nuclear power, not just in Asia, to meet projected energy demands and to stabilize the production of carbon dioxide.
Marvin Lewis and the representative of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear power asked how the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the Inter @.ional Standards Organization's 14000 standards affect NRC's role in the regulation of international trade in radioactive materials. Marvin Lewis thought that GATT gave the international community power over U.S. policy on nuclear materials, to the point of prohibiting NRC from exceeding international regulatory standards.
i E.
Comments on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary views, the Commission did not pose any additional questions for public comment.
Pha.ce !! Stakeholder lateraaion Repon
- Page 3-118 n.
n.,,-.
Sununary Aksis of Con;ments international Activities 3.1.4 List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTS 1.
October 21, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Richard Ratliff for Robert Quillin) [ draft) 2.
October 23, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (summary, prepared by NRC/0SP, of discussions between State and NRC regulators) 3.
October 24, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Richard Ratliff for Robert Quillin) 4.
October 24, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Steven Collins)
S.
October 24, 1996, Texas Department of Health (Richard Ratliff) 6.
October 28, 1996, John Randall, USNRC 7.
October 28, 1996, Washington State Department of Health (Terry Frazee) 8.
November 3,1996, Marvin Lewis 9.
November 4, 1996, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (Diane Tefft) 10.
November 5, 1996, SCIENTECH Moscow office (Serguei Routchkine) 11.
November 7,1996, Mississippi State Department. of Health (Robert Goff) 12.
November 11, 1996, People's Republic of China, National Nuclear Safety Administration (Wang Liren) 13.
November 11, 1996, Mexico, Comision Nacional de Seguridad Nuclear y Salvaguardias (Miguel '!aillard) 14.
November 11, 1996, Czech Republic, Sote Office for Nuclear Safety (Miroslav Hrehor) 15.
November 12, 1996, Slovak Republic, Nuclear Regulatory Authority (JozefZlathanskj) 16.
November 14, 1996, Oregon Department of Human Resources (Ray Paris) 17.
November 14, 1996, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (M.K. Batavia) 18.
November 18, 1996, G. Donald McPherson, USNRC 19.
November 18, 1996, Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organization (Robert Godfrey, forwarded by Allan Murray of the Australian Embassy) 20.
November 20, 1996, Moni Dey, USNRC Phase 11 Stakeholder interaaion Report Page 3-119
~
21.
November 21, 1996, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (Ronald Wascom) 22.
November 21, 1996, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (Thomas Hill) 23.
November 21, 1996, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (William Sinclair) 24.
November 22, 1996, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (Gary Taylor) 25.
November 22, 1996, International Atomic Energy Agency (Z. Domaratzki) 26.
November 25, 1996, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Energy Systems j
(N.J. Liparulo)
J 27.
November 25, 1996, Framatome Technologies (John Bohart) j i
28.
November 27, 1996, Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas Ryan) j 29.
November 27, 1996, Texas Department of Health (Richard Ratliff) 30.
November 27, 1996, Dyle Acker, et al., USNRC Region IV j
31.
December 1,1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (Judith Johnsrud) i 32.
December 2,1996, Swedish Huclear Power Inspectorate (Lars H6gberg)
J 33.
December 2,1996, Maryland Department of the Environment (Roland Fletcher)
December 2,1996, ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (Charles 34.
Brinkman) 35.
December 2,1996, Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (Thomas Ortciger) 36.
December 3, 1996, No Name 37.
December 5, 1996, U.S. Department of State (Eric Newsome for Thomas McNamara)
ORAL COMMENTS Washington, D.C. (October 24-25, 1996) pages 22 - 39 1.
Al Ankrum, Pacific Northwest Laboratory 2.
Judith Johnsrud, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Colorado Springs, CO (October 31-November 1, 1996) pages 235 - 246 1.
Tom Tipton, Nuclear Energy Institute 2.
Charles Brinkman, ABB Combustion Engineering Phase 11 Stakeholder Interacion Report Page 3-120
Saninary Analysis of Conenents international Adivities 3.
Stephen Floyd, Nuclear Energy Institute i
I 4.
Kenneth Weaver, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors g
Chicago, IL (November 7-8, 1996) pages 19 - 29 1.
Mr. Narinder Kaushal, Commonwealth Edison 2.
Irene Johnson, Commonwealth Edison 3.
David Swank, Washington Public Power Supply System l
u 2
I 1
i i
Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaaion Repon Page 3-121
. - ~.. - -.
_ _ -..-.~. -. -..
Summary Analysis of Comments
. learnational Aaivisia a
f t
I a
I 1
I L
i l
i e
i t
t h
i t
I f,
[
T 4
I t
r i
i This page was intentionally left blank.
t v
I i
i i
i f
r i
1 i
t f
I Phase 11 st"+ 1staaaion Report l
Page 3-122 t
C
.... -