ML20137Z853
| ML20137Z853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/10/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Pena F ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9704250126 | |
| Download: ML20137Z853 (2) | |
Text
.
. ~ ~ -
. -... ~. - - _ -
i
[
'k f
' UNITED STATES
.\\
e*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C 20555-0001 April 10, 1997 CHAIRMAN i
The Honorable Federico F. Pena Secretary of Energy Washington, DC 20585 l
~
Dear Mr. Secretary:
As you know, Under Secretary Grumbly briefed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 31,1997, regardirig the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) intent to develop
. and submit proposed legislation to transfer oversight of nuclear safety at certain DOE facilities to NRC. Under DOE's plan, NRC would hecome the nuclear safety regulator of f
DOE nuclear facilities over a 10-year period following the passage of the enabling legislation. Within the first 5 years of the transition, all Nuclear Energy and Energy l
Research nuclear facilities and selected new Environmental Management and Dafense Program nuclear facilities would be transferred to nuclear safety regulation by NRC or by j
NRC Agreement States. Nuclear safety aspects of remaining Environmental Management f acilities would be regulated by NRC within 10 years, after which NRC would also regulate nuclear safety at the remaining Defense Programs' nuclear f acilities. NRC would ultimately become responsible for regulating nuclear safety at approximately 200 DOE facilities. The transition would begin immediately after enabling legislation is passed, a
Based on our review, the Commission endorses NRC regulation of DOE nuclear safety i
contingent upon adequate funding, resources, and regulatory authority. The Commission i
believes that such regulation would serve the best interests of the public and contribute to protecting f acility workers, the public, and the environment. As a part of its Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining initiative, the Commission considered regulating DOE, and, in its preliminary views, did not take a position on the concept. However, stakeholder comments on the Strategic Assessment have strongly supported NRC regulation of the DOE nuclear camplex, because of such benefits as enhancing safety and stability with a single set of requirements and standards, developing a safety culture comparable to that of the commercialindustry, and eliminating the conflict-of-interest associated with self-regulation. Those public views, in combination with the analysis, findings, and conclusions presented in DOE's Working Group report on external regulation, have convinced the Commission that NRC's oversight of nuclear safety at DOE facilities is appropriate.
,L The Commission is ready to move forward on this matter. We are forming a task force to:
o E (1) develop a framework for regulating certain DOE nuclear facilities; (2) participate in k drafting proposed authorizing legislation and to support the legislative process; and (3)
Yu ouW develop and implement a plan to anable NRC to make the transition to regulation of DOE ek f acilities. NRC is a full-cost, fee-reccvery Agency. Therefcre, we need to work with DOE 4 5 to promptly develop a funding mechanism for NRC task force activities, in addition, we p3o 3 $ believe that, over the next 30 days, NRC and DOE should develop a Memorandum of 8,$
Understanding (MOU) to govern near-term activities and intera~ctions such as the QI y development of legislation and potential pilot programs. The NRC point of contact is R88
%nn y-
[fh
"'9021 u me Dog lll ll ll lll ll lllll gg m. w.-sn DAcoms
.... -,, - - -. - -. ~
i i
1 r
1 !
i l
Mr. Hugh L. Thompson, Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs. He can be reached at (301) 415-1713.
We look forward to working with you, stakeholders, and the Congress in this effort.
i Sincerely, i
4 Shirley A. Jackson
.i l
b E
l i
l i
l 1
)
I I
t
.y
,..