ML20155H028
| ML20155H028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Conway J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155H034 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9811090301 | |
| Download: ML20155H028 (1) | |
Text
- - _ - _ - _. _ . _
t'DL g s W *av
! 8' o UNITED STATES
$ ; ,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
s & WASHINGTON, D.C. 20566
- October 23, 1998 CHAIRMAN l
The Honorable John T. Conway, Chairman U.S. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20004
Dear Mr. Conway:
I am responding to your letter, dated September 9,1998, outlining your intention to solicit views from the House and Senate Defense Oversight Committees on whether to continue the effort you initiated to collect regulatory costs data on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities. I agree that it is difficult for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
(NRC), DOE, and Board staffs to develop, with great accuracy, cost estimates for NRC's l
regulation of Defense Program facilities. Based on your letter, NRC will resume developing the statutorily required cost estimates after hearing the results of your consultation with the l appropriate Congressional Committees. In the interim, please contact me, if the Board or the Congressional Defense Oversight Committees need assistance from NRC on these matters.
Sincerely, f l
l-
& kW Shirley Ann Jackson 5
() f l.
9811090301 981023 PDR COtmS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
{
John T. con.ar. chair =aa DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES u tsse*,se,, wa c'*""'"
i SAFETY BOARD Joseph J. DiNunno ["
Hertw,t John Cecil Kouts 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, suite 700, Wuhington, D.C. 20004 2901 John E. MansfieLi (202)208-6400 September 9,1998 The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 l 1
Dear Dr. Jackson:
As set forth in previous correspondence, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is in the process of compleing a report on external regulation of defense nuclear facilities as required by Section 3202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1998. In this regard, the Board has sought the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) views on the questions posed by Congress concerning the comparative advantages and disadvantages to the Department of Energy (DOE)in the event some or all DOE defense nuclear facilities currently subject to Board I oversight are subjected to full regulation by the NRC. Specifically, the Board requested from the NRC any direct and indirect cost data that the NRC had readily available for selected categories of NRC facilities deemed similar to the defense nuclear facilities referenced in my letter to you dated July 22,1998.
The Board has reviewed the enclosed letter from Dr. Austin ofyour staff explaining NRC's regulatory approach and additional data needs in order for the NRC to develop meaningful cost data that are responsive to the Board's original request. In addition, the Board's stafTmet with Dr. Austin on August 31,1998 to discuss the scope and magnitude of the efTort required to research and develop the data base envisioned for projecting NRC's costs for regulating DOE defense nuclear facilities.
With the benefit of Dr. Austin's letter and his meeting with the Board's staff, the Board now has a better understanding of the difficulties the NRC has in being able to provide the Board with reliable cost estimates. Dr. Austin explained that there are few NRC facilities that are analogous to proposed or existing defense nuclear facilities, and that attempts to extrapolate regulatory costs from NRC's traditional regulatory base to those for defense nuclear facilities may result in a significant underestimation of the cost of regulating defense nuclear facilities. Dr.
Austin stated in his recent letter that the NRC regulates on the basis ofindividual radionuclides, quantities of radionuclides, and the nature of the activities conducted at facilities as well as other considerations. It would be difficult at best for the Board's staff to apply the NRC program codes and regulatory regime to the DOE nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship and management operations, which include nuclear explosive activities and unique experiments involving co-U D w ..
/* - ,
l
}
The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson
( ,
September 9,1998 Page 2 of 2 l
located high explosives and nuclear material. Unlike the facilities under NRC regulation, the risks at these defense nuclear facilities are not solely a function of the quantities of nuclear material present and associated criticality safety concerns, but m6re importantly, the material processes involved and the potential for explosive dispersal of radioactive materials or inadvertent nuclear ,
detonation. !
The Board understands that NRC believes it would be necessary to review information on )
each defense nuclear facility on a case-by-case basis in order to develop an estimate of the regulatory costs. The Board is concerned that a time-consuming and expensive effort by NRC, DOE, and Board staff to collect data on DOE defense nuclear facilities for use in extrapolating
- possible regulatory costs will be of questionable value for this Congressional reporting requirement. Before engaging in a review of this depth, the Board intends to solicit the views of the House and Senate Defense Oversight Committees.
The Board appreciates the NRC's attempt to be responsive to our request for projected cost data. In view of the submission date for this Congressional reporting requirement, the Board plans to reference the information provided by the NRC to date in its report to Congress. j Sincerely, yrd John T onway Chairman
Enclosure:
J.H. Austin to K.M. Pusateri letter dated August 25,1998 I c: The Honorable Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner The Honorable Edward McGafligan, Jr., Commissioner L
i k
j
-. . - - - . . ._. - . - - . . . ___ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ . _