ML20140C153
| ML20140C153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/28/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Callan L, Cyr K, Scroggins R NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9704020166 | |
| Download: ML20140C153 (3) | |
Text
.
-=
v
[ n.,\\
UNITED STATES
-l f
NUCLEAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION r
g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 0001 2
I
...../
March 28, 1997 SECRETAFtY i
i MEMORANDUM TO:
L.
Joseph Callan j
Executive Director for Operations 1
Karen D.
Cyr i
General Counsel Ronald Scroggins Acting Chief Financial Officer a
FROM:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary j
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-053 -
OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DSI 2)
The Commission endorses NRC taking responsibility for the regulatory oversight of certain DOE nuclear facilities, as recently proposed by DOE, contingent on adequate funding, staffing resources, and a clear delineation of the authority the NRC will exercise over facilities.
This is a departure from the
?
Commission's preliminary decision in which the Commission favored j
taking no position on the issue.
The Commission now favors NRC's oversight of DOE facilities based on DOE's decision to seek the transfer of regulatory oversight of selected DOE facilities to the NRC and also on the strong public support during the comment period for this proposal.
In its comments on the Commission's preliminary decision, many of the 1
public commenters foresaw enhanced safety and stability with a single set of standards and requirements, a safety culture being developed within DOE that is comparable to the commercial 4 -
industry, the elimination of the conflict of self-regulation, and other benefits resulting from NRC's oversight of DOE's nuclear facilities.
The Commission also believes that it would be preferable if implementing legislation or interagency agreements, or both, designate radiation protection as within the scope of NRC's jurisdiction and oversight of the selected DOE facilities.
The staff should o rk with DOE and OSHA to address this issue.
I
.Since it does not appear that any of the options in the original DSI paper match the proposal being made by DOE in its Working Group Report, the Commission believes that it is best for the Commission to endorse the external regulation of DOE by the NRC, subject to the conditions noted in the first paragraph using the g $
nnnn19 77-6 p
(
- u"?We" g m F t.g s tjs h a i w r i PT9.7 p _4 w
5
}' following guidance.
The Commission recognizes that there are likely to be many significant legal, procedural, and technical issues which must first be identified and thoroughly considered and resolved prior to accepting oversight responsibility for any DOE facility.
To carry out the Commission's decision on this issue, the staff should convene a high-level NRC Task Force that will identify, in conjunction with DOE, the policy and regulatory issues needing analysis and resolution.
The Task Force should be comprised of members from OGC, CFO, NMSS, NRR, RES, OE, and OCA at a minimum.
(EDO/OGC/CFO/OCA)
(SECY Suspense:
4/30/97)
A non-exhaustive set of such issues that should be considered by the Task Force are:
(1) the legislative language laying out the scope of NRC's regulatory oversight and the extent of its authority, the relationship with other regulatory agencies, and the effect of existing statutes on the NRC oversight of DOE defense facilities, (2) the initial identification of DOE facilities, activities, and issues that would be subject to NRC oversight, (3) the potential schedule for transition of the ide; fied facilities, activities, and issues to NRC oversight, (4) a realistic assessment of the financial and personnel resource needs for NRC oversight, and (5) an assessment of the various methods of funding NRC oversight, including evaluations as to whether direct appropriations or regulatory fees paid by DOE contractors would be appropriate.
'The Task Force should periodically (at least quarterly) inform
<he Commission of its findings and the status of its work and seek the Commission's approval or guidance on proposed resolution of the issues that have been identified.
Independent of DOE, the Task Force should provide an initial consideration of technical / regulatory issues related to external regulation of DOE, and the potential methods (e.g.,
licensing, certification) of regulating the identified DOE activities and how the transition will be made from the current DOE order system, implemented by contract clauses, to the NRC regulatory framework.
The Task Force should assess the details and ramifications of the DOE Working Group Report and advise the Commission on policies, procedures, and approaches to the issues that are identified.
(-
s e
1-
! Among the technical and programmatic issues that will need to be resolved prior to implementation are those that were identified I
by Commissioner Rogers in his January 17, 1997 memorandum on this subject, the DOE Working Group Report issued in December 1996, and the public comments received regarding NRC regulation of DOE activities.
Additional issues that the staff should consider include, but are l
not necessarily limited to, the DOE proposal to retain regulatory authority on security and safeguards, at least initially; the relationship ~ with other regulators of DOE facilities, including the need for MOUs or other ar.Tangements with such regulators as l
OSHA, EPA, DNFSB, and the States and a discussion of the " lead agency" concept propounded by DOE; the means of enforcement of the NRC regulatory framework, especially at facilities where responsibility is shared between DOE and its contractors; the t
role of NRC in decontamination and decommissioning of DOE facilities; the use of the 10 CFR 2.206 petition mechanism or
" citizen suits" under the NRC regulatory framework; and the possible regulation of NARM and accelerators by NRC.
i I
(EDO/OGC/CFO/OCA)
(SECY Suspense: status report: 6/30/97) i The staff should also initiate the development of an MOU with DOE that establishes the framework for the legislative and follow-on l
phases of the project.
The staff should also seek to obtain the necessary budgetary resources for.the legislative phase of.this project from DOE and staffing resources via any necessary relief from personnel ceilings from OMB for both the legislative phase and the longer term.
l (EDO/OGC/CFO/OCA)
(SECY Suspense:
6/30/97) i I
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus i
commissioner McGaffigan i
Commissioner Diaz D. Rathbun ('OCA)
H. Bell (OIG)
A. Galante (CIO) i W. Beecher (OPA)
E. Jordan (SARSC)
J. Silber (SARSC)
Pb4 i
i
,,