ML20141B023
| ML20141B023 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1997 |
| From: | Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | Quillin R COLORADO, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140G351 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705150103 | |
| Download: ML20141B023 (5) | |
Text
i
't i
- l E 2 9 1997 Mr. Robert M. Quillin, Director Laboratory and Radiation Services Division Colorado Department of Public Health l and Environment I 8100 Lowry Boulevard Denver, CO 80220-6928 i 1
Dear Mr. Quillin:
l We are providing follow-up information on the subject of discontinuance of funding for Agreement State staff to attend NRC sponsored training as indicated by Chairman Jackson in her December 28,1995, response to Mr. Richard Ratliff, Chair, Organization of Agreement States, Texas Department of Health, letter of November 15,1995. The Chairman indicated that this issue would be reconsidered under the NRC strategic assessment and rebaselinin'g effort and that staff would provide you information regarding this issue. The Commission reconsidered this topic under direction-setting issue (DSI) 4, !
"NRC's Palationship with Agreement States" and has reached a decision. A copy of this (
decision a enclosed. l i
On April 2,1997, the NRC released to the public the Commission's decisions on DSI 4, along with the Commission's decisions on DSis 2, 5, 6, 7; 10,13 and 14. In addition, on Apri! 23,1997, the NRC released to the public the entire set of the Commission decisions !
on all 16 DSis. Copies of the April 2 and April 23 press releases along with the !
Commission decisions on the 16 DSis are enclosed. I 1
Sincerely, originalsigned By RICHARD L. BANGART Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As Stated s i Distribution:
SDroggitis PDR (YES V' NO ) l Agreement State File Organization of Agreement States File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \QUILLIN.DSI
- See Previous Concurrence.
n .e.in . copy og thi. oocum.nt. ino c.t. in th. bon: c = Copy without attachment!enclosurA *E" = Copy wah attachment / enclosure 'N" = No copy OFFICE OSP l OSP:DD l OSP:E/g/M l NAME CHMaupin:nb phi.ohaus/KNS RLBangarf "
DATE 04/24/97
- 04/25/97
. r *.- fdf 4f U "
] QC @@ $[O
0 l
l l
l Mr. Robert M. Quillin, Director
/ l Radiatjan Contr
/ !
ivision Depattment ublic H lth and E ironment 4,300 Chert Creek ive South RCD-DO-B1)
. Denver, EO 8022 -1530 /
/
Dear Mr. Ouillin:
/ l We are providing follow-up information on the subjectontinuance of disc / of funding for l Agreement State staff to attend NRC sponsored training findicated by Chairman Jackson l in her December 28,1995, response to Mr. Richard Ra ff, Chair, Organization of Agreement States, Texas Department of Health, lettep of November 15,1995. The Chairman indicated that this issue would be reconsjdered under the NRC strategic assessment and rebaselining effort and that staff,would provide you information regarding this issue. The Commission reconsidered this topic under direction-setting issue (DSI) 4, "NRC's Relationship with Agreement States"gnd has reached a decision. A copy of the decision is enclosed.
/
in addition, on April 23,1997, the NRC,r eased to the public the entire set of the
.nmission decisions on the remainir>g' 15 DSIs. A copy of the press release along with the Commission decisions are enclosed.
/ Sincerely,
/
/
Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As Stated Distributio :
DIR RFjf7S-44) DCD (SP03)
SDroggitis Agr ' ment State File PDR (YESf_ NO_)
Or anization of Agreement States File DOCUMENT NAME: G:\ CHM \QUILLIN.DSI n ,.e.iv. . ' copy .e ini. eocum.at. indic.t. in in. bon: c = copy without set.cnm nt/.ncio.ur. = copy witn ett. chm.nti.ncio.ur. N* = No copy OFFICE f@[@ OSP:DD l OSP:D l l NAME CHNdu)JNnb PHLohaus gd/v RLBangart DATE B4/W97 04/g/97 04/ /97 OSP FILE CDUE: S3-A-4 SP-0-12 !
e
+$ p n mer !
, p UNITED STATES I
s* j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 4 001
\,.,,,,+/ April 29, 1997 Mr. Robert M. Quillin, Director Laboratory and Radiation Services Division Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment l 8100 Lowry Boulevard Denver, CO 80220-6928
Dear Mr. Quillin:
l We are providing follow-up'information on the subject of discontinuance of funding for Agreement State staff to attend NRC sponsored training as indicated by Chairman Jackson in her December 28,1995, response to Mr. Richard Ratliff, Chair, Organization of Agreement States, Texas Department of Health, letter of November 15,1995. The l Chairman indicated that this issue would be reconsidered under the NRC strategic I assessment and rebaselining effort and that staff would provide you information regarding this issue. The Commission reconsidered this topic under direction-setting issue (DSI) 4, "NRC's Relationship with Agreement States" and has reached a decision. A copy of this decision is enclosed.
On April 2,1997, the NRC released to the public the Commission's decisions on DSI 4, ,
along with the Commission's decisions on DSis 2, 5, 6, 7,10,13 and 14. In addition, on !
April 23,1997, the NRC released to the public the entire set of the Commission decisions on all 16 DSis. Copies of the April 2 and April 23 press releases along with the Commission decisions on the 16 DSIs are enclosed.
Sincerely, ikAt AM}Al Richard L. Bangart, Director Office of State Programs F
Enclosures:
As Stated
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington. DC 20555 Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415 2234 Internet;opa0nrc. gov No.97-056 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Wednesday. April 2.1997)
NRC RELEASES FINAL DECISIONS ON STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ISSUES The Nuclear Regula' tory Commission has issued final decisions on eight of l the 16 direction-setting issues (DSIs) which are part of its strategic !
assessment and rebaselining initiative. Commission decisions have been made l on the following issues:
l e Oversight of the Department of Energy (DSI 2) .
e NRC's Relationship with Agreement States (DSI 4) !
e Low-Level Waste (DSI 5) '
e High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel (DSI 6) e Materials / Medical Oversight (DSI 7) e Reactor Licensing for Future Applicants (DSI 10) e The Role of Industry (DSI 13) e Public Comunications Initiatives (DSI 14)
Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson initiated the strategic assessment in 1995 to provide a solid foundation for the agency's direction and decision-making ;
as it positions itself for current and future challenges. The Commission !
arrived at these decisions after meetings and discussions with the staff and after considering coments received from interested individuals during three public conferences in Washington. D.C. Colorado Springs. Colorado, and i Chicago. Illinois. !
The agency will use these decisions in developing a strategic plan that will encompass the agency's priorities, mission and goals. Decisions on the remaining issues will be released to the public five days after they are completed.
Copies of all decisions will be available at NRC's Public Document Room.
2120 L Street. N.W., Washington D.C. 20037, telephone (1-800-397-4209) and electronically on our internet home page (http://www.nrc. gov /0PA/)
7._
4 e 0 1
- United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission j-Office of Public Affairs Washington. DC 20555 i Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234 i
Internet:opa@nrc. gov No.97-065. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Wednesday April 23, 1997) j NRC RELEASES FINAL DECISIONS ON ALL STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ISSUES
- i j
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released the entire set of i
' decisions on 16 direction-setting issues (DSIs) which are part of the agency's i strategic assessment and rebaselining initiative. Decisions were made in the '
j following areas:
3.
t
' e Oversight of the Department of Erzrgy (DSI 2) e NRC's Relationship with Agreement States (DSI 4) i e Low-Level Waste (DSI 5) l u High-Level Waste and Spent Fuel (DSI 6)
- Materials / Medical Oversight (DSI 7)
! e Decomissioning - Non Reactor Facilities (DSI 9) e Reactor Licensing for Future Applicants (DSI 10) e Operating Reactor Program Oversight (DSI 11) ,
e Risk-Informed. Performance-Based Regulation (DSI 12) i e The Role of Industry (DSI 13) e Public Communications Initiatives (DSI 14) e International Activities (DSI 20) e Fees (DSI 21) e Research (DSI 22) e Enhancing Regulatory Excellence (DSI 23) e Power Reactor Decommissioning (DSI 24)
Chairman Shirley Ann Jackson initiated the strategic assessment in 1995 to provide a solid foundation for the agency's direction and decision-making 1 as it positions itself for current and future challenges. The Commission arrived at these decisions after meetings and discussions with the staff and i after considering comments received from interested individuals during three i public conferences in Washington, D.C., Colorado Springs. Colorado, and !
Chicago Illinois.
The agency will use these decisions in developing a strategic plan that will encompass the agency's priorities, mission and goals.
Copies of all decisions are available at NRC's Public Document Room.
2120 L Street, N.W., Washington. D.C. 20037, telephone (1-800-397-4209) and electronically on our internet home page (http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/ strategy.html)
- . ~ . . - . ..
y
[ "
he UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f' wAssmotoN,o.c. rosss.oooi
%[..M, ... March 28, 1997 MCRETARY MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan !
Executive Director for Operations Karen D. Cyr General Counsel Ronald Scroggins Acting Chief Financial Officer ;
FROM:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary
SUBJECT:
i 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 ,
i 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 taking no position on the issue.
4 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 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 industry, the elimination of the conflict of self-regulation, and
- other facilities.
benefits resulting from NRC's oversight of DOE's nuclear 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 work with DOE and OSHA to address this issue.
.Since it does not appear that any of the options in the original DSI paper Group Report, match the proposal being made by DOE in its Working the Commission believes that it is best for the Commission to endorse the external regulation of DOE by the NRC, subject to che conditions noted in the first paragraph using the s
following guidance.
Tha 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 conjunction a high-level NRC Task Force that will identify, in with DOE, analysis and resolution. the policy and regulatory issues needing The Task Force should be comprised of members from OGC, CFO, NMSS, NRR, RES, OE, and OCA at a minimum.
A thenon-exnaustive Task Force are:set of such issues that should be considered by (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 identified 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 the 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, framework. implemented by contract clauses, to the NRC regulatory 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.
_ .._ . _. _ _. _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _.. . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ ._- _ _ _ _m __ _ _ __ _
j J >
4 i
Among the technical and programmatic issues that will need to.be resolved prior to implementation are those that were identified 4
by Commissioner Rogers in his January 17, 1997 memorandum on this j i
subject, the DOE Working Group Report issued in December 1996, i and the public comments received regarding NRC regulation of DOE l
' activities. '
i
! Additional issues that the staff should consider include, but are '
! not necessarily limited to, the DOE proposal to retain regulatory authority on security and safeguards, at least initially; the i relationship with other regulators of DOE facilities, including l 1 the need for MOUs or other arrangements with such regulators as OSHA, EPA, DNFSB, and the States and a discussion of the " lead agency" concept propounded by DOE; the means of enforcement of 1
the NRC regulatory framework, especially at facilities where responsibility is shared between DOE and its contractors; the j role of NRC in decontamination and decommissioning of DOE j
facilities; the use of the 10 CFR 2.206 petition mechanism or
" citizen suits" under the NRC regulatory framework; and the j
possible regulation of NARM and accelerators by NRC.
i i
The staff should also initiate the development of an MOU with DOE that establishes the framework for the legislative and follow-on
! phases of the project. The staff should also seek to obtain the j
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.
i
+
l
! l l l R
cc: Chairman Jackson
- Commissioner Rogers
! Commissioner Dicus 4
Commissioner,McGaffigan Commissioner Diaz
- D. Rathbun (OCA)
! E. Jordan (SARSC) l J. Silber (SARSC) l i
i f
l u
5
jp*
"'4r UNITED STATES p
t k'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAssiwatON, D.C. 20555-0001
% March 19, 1997 ucnnuw
- MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Karen D. Cyr General Counsel ,
Ronald Scroggins l Aci .g Chief Financial Officer l
.AL FROM: J h, C. Hoyle Secretary
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-054 - NRC's RELATIONSHIP WITH AGREEMENT STATES (DSI 4)
The C -amission continues to support its preliminary view to continue the current Agreement States Program, including adopting i current initiatives (Option 3), subject to the following additions and modifications.
l With regard to the funding of Agreement State travel, training, and technical assistance, the Commission modifies the present '
policy to allow NRC funding of such costs in those instances where Agreement States demonstrate that state funds are not available or cannot be used for these purposes. The staff should develop criteria, for the Commission's consideration, for making this determination. The criteria should be stringent enough to provide adequate assurance to the Commission that the state has thoroughly explored funding alternatives available to the state and a determination by a high ranking state official (e.g., state agency head or chief financial officer) has been made that funds are not available. In such cases, states should also explore partial funding of costs. Such an approach must be designed to ensure that such certifications are not " pro forma" and that use of NRC-licensee funds for these purposes are in the public interest. The staff's proposals should provide for funding and should be provided to the Commission in a time frame that would allow implementation of the modified policy beginning in FY-98.
Otherwise, training should be made available on a " space available" basis with Agreement States funding their own travel and per diem costs.
Staff should develop guidance for offering assistance to states on a case-by-case basis that would help the states' agencies k O O L4 ( Q %[{f ,
.e '. .
j- -
a identify and clarify their tr' aining needs to their appropriate I
i authorities, e.g., the State Cabinet Secretary or legislative i l body. NRC should be prepared to offer such help (e.g. , a letter) j l
F if requested by the Agreement States.
i The' staff should also examine cost-effective alternatives for l
providing training and technical assistance to Agreement States.
.The staff should provide the Commission with a report on available alternatives and recommendations for assuring that NRC !
j training and technical assistance are provided in a cost- ,
1 effective manner. i 9/30/97) 1 F
b Public comment on the use of seed money or other tangible I
{ benefits to encourage states to become Agreement States did not i support the concept. The Commission finds that the use of such :
i incentives is inappropriate and inconsistent with the intended role Energy ofAct.
the NRC as it fulfills its mission under the Atomic The Commission believes that the NRC should continue )
I to respond to incoming requests from individual States that i j
express an interest in pursuing Agreement State status and work 1
with each State to achieve this goal. ;
b j For the longer term, the NRC should request Congress to enact i 1
j legislation that would exclude Agreement State funding from NRC's '
user fee base and provide a separate appropriation to cover these j' costs. It is the Commission's view that the Agreement States ,
themselves should be more proactive on this matter. Moreover, to
! the degree that funding for the Agreement States program remains
! in the user fee base, the Agreement States'should be more forthcoming with methodologies for bearing a larger share of the ]
costs.
i In the absence of spacific comments on the related issue of 1
whether to continue NRC's Independent Radiation Monitoring
{
Program (IRMP), the Commission requests that the staff evaluate the cost effectiveness of the program and make recommendations on l the pros and cons of centinuing with the program.
5 l' cc: Chairman Jackson l Commissioner Rogers -
Commissioner Dieus
{ Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Diaz D. Rathbun (OCA) i H. Bell (OIG)
A. Galante (CIO) l W. Beecher (OPA) 4
M%
- 9*
UNITED STATES
- p h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
.y , WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$55-0001 l C j 9
4e ..,* thrch 7, 1997 I i
CFFICE OF THE
$ECRETARY l MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Exe ieD eptor for Operations f FROM: Jo O. Hoy , Secretary 4
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-055 - LOW-LEVEL WASTE (DSI 5) l The Commission no longer supports its preliminary view of Option 2, but does support Option 3 to maintain the current low-level waste program. The Commission selects this option with the
' understanding that if NRC is given responsibility for the external regulation of DOE facilities, the NRC's low-level waste program may begin to grow at a commensurate rate, funded through i an appropriate mechanism which supports any additional FTE l required. Resources to carry out such increased responsibilities I should be provided after a statute to implement such a regulatory role for NRC is enacted. The funding mechanism for NRC low-level I
waste activities associated with the external regulation of DOE should be addressed in any enabling legislation or apprcpriations language deriving from that legislation.
In carrying out Option 3, the staff should make every effort to i
maintain the core technical disciplines needed to assess low- I level waste disposal issues, but these technical experts should i be utilized in other NRC programs as appropriate.
l public comment received on DSI 5 indicated a significant interest in NRC's position on the concept of " assured storage". The ,
Commission sees no reason to alter its current position of neutrality on this matter. The Commission continues to support the position that was set forth in a letter from Chairman Jackson ;
to Mr. David Leroy dated May 9, 1996 on this concept. '
Agreement State comments on the draft branch technical position (BTP) on performance assessment of LLW sites stated that the BTP ;
1 is
- unnecessary and disruptive." The staff should inform the l Commission how it plans to resolve such comments prior to a l decision to finalize the BTP. '
I If O C R v M ( [
2-cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner McGaffigan ,
k Commissioner Diaz j K. Cyr (OGC)
D. Rathbun (OCA)
H. Bell (OIG)
' A. Galante (CIO)
R. Scroggins (CFO)
W. Beecher (OPA)
E. Jordan (SARSC)
J. Silber (SARSC) h c :
k e
u
.. -- - - . . ~ . - . . - ~ _. ~ . - ~ . - . - - ..._..~.-~.a-> --s - - - . --
i 8 "80
/g6 t ' 'g
' UNITED STATES
/ .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ ; : wAsHiscTom,o,c.rosu March 17, 1997 4 oprics or THE
, SECRETARY l i I 1
l -l
, MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Exec
- v Di ec for Operations i
.FROM: Jo . Hoyle, Secretary 1
i
SUBJECT:
4 ST FF REQUIREMENTS - COMSECY-96-056 - HIGH-
, LEVEL WASTE AND SPENT FUEL (DSI 6)
) The Commission continues to endorse its preliminary view to maintain NRC's ex$ sting high-level waste program (Option 3). '
i This approach will enable the NRC to. keep pace.with the national high-level radioactive waste program at whatever level is appropriate. As stated in its preliminary views, the Commission will revisit this issue if, and when, the Congress provides ]
i further legislation on this matter. Additionally, the Commission j
j strongly supports NRC's' fiscal year 1998 budget request of~$17 million so that all 10 key technical issues can be addressed in ,
time for the 1998 viability assessment performed by the l Department of Energy on the Yucca Mountain site.
On'the related. issues in the paper, the staff should identify any revisions to NRC's regulatory process that may be needed to deal
. efficiently with dual-purpose (storage and transportation) spent fuel canister license applications especially in light of the fact that DOE has proposed in its FY 99 budget submission to complete its program on this matter. The issue of on-site storage of greater than class C waste (GTCC) for Part 72 licensees was raised in this Direction-Setting Issue as well as DSI 24, " Power Reactor Decommissioning." Specific direction to
, the staff on this issue is provided in the SRM on DSI 24..
0 N -
cc: Chairman sackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dieus Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Diaz K. Cyr (OGC)
D. Rathbun (OCA)
H. Bell (OIG)
A. Galante (CIO)
R. Scroggins (CFO)
W. Beecher (OPA)
E. Jordan (SARSC)
J. Silber (SARSC) 9