ML20138B083
| ML20138B083 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/19/1997 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138B048 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-045-C, SECY-97-45-C, NUDOCS 9704290067 | |
| Download: ML20138B083 (3) | |
Text
__
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary i
FROM:
COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-045 - FINAL RULE - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF LICENSED RADIOACTIVE NATERIAL AND REVISION TO THE NRC ENFORCEMENT POLICY Approved Disapproved xx Abstain Not Participating _
Request Discussion COMMENTS:
See Attached Comments 4
I The no
, ex t n
\\[
jIjRATURE
~
Release Vote
/ xx /
777 au/3
/9
/ F/7
(
DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on "AS" Yes No 9704290067 970417
~
PDR COMMS NRCC
(
CORRESPONDENCE PDR 4
l:
Comments of Commissioner Dicus on SECY-97-045 I. disapprove the proposed rule in its entirety. Our reporting requirements for doses in excess of Part 20 limits have previously focused on the safety significance of tha exposures, irrespective of how they occurred. This rule would, for the first time I believe, require reporting of doses not linked to the safety significance of the exposures.' in my view, this is unacceptable. There are several factors which cause my
- disapproval of this approach.
First,'any intentional misuse of licensed material that results in exposures beyond Part 20 limits will be reported to NRC under existing regulations. Thus, existing regulations require the most significant intentional incidents to be reported to NRC based on the 3
significance of the exposures.
- Second, as a result of the requirement in 10 CFR 1101(a) that licensees have Radiation Protection Programs that are adequate to ensure compliance with Part 20, licensees would be expected to investigate any allegation of intentional misuse to determine if doses in excess of Part 20 limits had been received. Thus, licensees will be reviewing such incidents as a general matter to determine if such inappropriate actions resulted in A
any safety significant doses.
I-Third, the rather overwhelming comments in opposition to the proposed rule,give an indication that the burden on licensees from this new reporting requirement would be
[
significant with little, if any, safety benefit. In such a situation, I do not believe we should impose a new requirement without a clear understanding of the health and safety benefit to be derived from the requirement.
Fourth, I believe this rule is a strong reaction by NRC to two intentional internal contamination events by major facilities, which occurred fairly close together, rather than a response to specific safety significant gaps in our current reporting system. The
}
reasons for the rule given in the FR appear to bypass the licensees' responsibilities for investigating incidents, or minimizes confidence in their abilities to investigate incidents.
j Before a license is issued, NRC reviews information.to ensure that the licensee has adequate procedures in place to protect the public health and safety, one procedure i
being response to incidents. I believe that we could impede investigations of events such as these, and possibly create more harm than good if we get involved in investigations before a licensee or other investigatory authorities have completed their own investigations.
Finally, I am not sure that a reporting requirement is an effective way to address concerns about intentional misuse of licensed material. We cannot regulate out of existence the individual intent on taking actions that violate the law. However, when j
those individuals are discovered, we do have the authority to ban them from 1
f n
~s
- ~
i..
I
' participating in licensed activities. I might consider a requirement that licensees investigate allegations of intentional misuse and report to NRC any confirmed cases of intentional misuse.- This would allow NRC to consider enforcement actions against individuals involved in confirmed intentional misuse. That proposal, however, is not
(
before us now.
Given a period of sinking NRC resources, where we must assure that our use of resources is based on getting the biggest safety benefit from our activities, I am not-convinced that using staff resources to review and investigate reports that would be made under this proposed final rule is a wise use of our resources. I, therefore, as previously stated, disapprove the proposed rule in its entirety.
W 1
4 i
h 1
)
3 a
1 i
- -