ML20202E027
| ML20202E027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1997 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202E000 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-237-C, NUDOCS 9712050224 | |
| Download: ML20202E027 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSEEHEET l
TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-237 - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Approved X ~.)$ d Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request '3iscussion COMMENTS:
See attached cenenents ano mark-up of V90 10 er nl.. h SIGNATURE ~
G. ' 'l
} 3,
N'l 7 Release Vote / x /
c.
DATE Withhold Vote /.,
/
Entered on "AS" Yes 4 No 9712050224 971113
.PDR COMMS NRCC
(),, y yC,ORRESPONDENCE PDR
C0HISE10NER McGANIGAN'S CCw fNT; ON SECV 97 237 I approve the draft M00 with DOE for the pilot program on extern 0 regulation of 00E f acilities by the NRC. Subject to the coments noted in the attact td mark up have included suggested language to address wnat I consider to De 6 major shortcoming in the proposed MOU. namely, the issue of t1 ming of poss 51e legislative proposals to author 12e NRC external regulation of DOE fac111tles W1t,7ut prejudging the results of the pilot projects.1 believe that the joint staf fs of the two agencies need to make recommendations about legislative proposals as the Phase I (fY 1993) pilots are completed and not wait, as contemplated in the draft MOU. until february 2000.threemonthsafterallthepilotsarecompleted Assuming the usual vureaucrat1C delays after the joint staff report is submitted in february 2000, Congress would be unlikely to receive a legislative proposal in time for action in the second sess1on of the 106th CongressJ The issue would be put over to a new President and a new Congress in 2001. eight years af ter external regulation first began to be studied in earnest.
I would suggest that this timing 15 not consistent with the clear guidance provided by the Appropriations Committees In the conference report on the fY 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill which states that "[t]he Conference agreement directs that all new nuclear f ar.111tles for which construction starts in the year 2000 or beyond are to be constructed in accordance with NRC licensing standards
- That language envisions that the tvo agencies would have something pertinent to say about author 121ng legislaticn by tho FY 2000 (calendar 1999) budget deliberations in Congress.
Furthermore, there is no reason that the two agencies should not be able to draw conclusions for the classes of facilities represented by the Phase I pilots by late 1998 or early 1999 as part of their FY 2000 legislative program submittals.
If the result of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory pilot is successful, for example, then we should get on with proposing to make a transition to external regulation for the class of facilities represented by Lawrence Berkeley and not simply put them on the backburner for two or three years until the full range of pilots is completed and analyzed A second legislative submittal to broaden the 2
classes of DOE facilities subject to NRC regulation would have a much better chance of enactment in calendar 2000 (the FY 2001 legislative process) if it had been
.-preceded by successful enactment of a narrower legislative submittal in the FY 2000 cycle.
Additional cormients are noted in the attached mark-up 3f the draf t M00.
i
'Any legislation in this area will need to be considered by multiple committees of both Houses. Legislative proposals that cross committee jurisdiction are particularly difficult to enact i
in a short Presidential election year session.
' Conversely, if the Phase I pilots are unsuccessful, consideration should be given by the l
l two agencies in consultation with Congress to terminating the effort to bnng DOE facihties under l
external regulation.
~
i t
j MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING l
BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
PILOT PROGRAM ON EXTERNAL REGULATION OF DOE FACILITIES BY THE NRC l.
PURPOSE The purpose of this Memorandumof Understanding (MOU) between the of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is ram to support a joint recommendation by DCE and NRC to framework for a pilot prog $lO Congress on whether NRgbe given statutory authority to regula nuclear facilities. The intent of this pilot program is for NRC to " simulate reg defined herein) on a series of pilot facilities to help both agencies gain exp to NRC regulation of DOE facilities. It will also provide an opportunity to information on the costs and benefits of extemal regulation, 11.
BACKGROUND
~
in 1994, legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives that wo subjected new DOE facilities to immediate extemal regulation and wo stakeholdergroup to study extemairegulation of existing facilities, As an att approach, Hazel O' Leary, the Secretary of Energy at that time, in Janu n,,.
4 licensing or permitting actions; (3) conduct inspections against applicab'.3 st:ndards and requirements and licensing conditions; and (4) bnng enforcement actions against the i
regulated entity for violations of the standards and requirement. Simulated regulation, as defined for the purposes of this pilot program, means that NRC will test regulatory concepts and evaluate a facility and its standards, requirements, procedures, practices, and activities against standards that NRC believes would be appropriate to ensure safety in view of the nature of the work and hazards at that pilot facility, Simulated regulation will involve interactions with DOE, DOE's contractors, and NRC. Simulated regulation will include NRC inspections of each pilot facility to identify issues related to implamentation. NRC's inspections will not result in enforcement actions to compel compliance with partir.ular standards or requirements. However, significantinspection findings that impact health and safety will be transmitted promptly to the appropriate DOE organization for the pilot facility for review and corrective actions, as appropriate.
IV.
SCOPE This MOU establishes the overall framework for DOE and NRC cooperation in a pilot program for simulated regulation by NRC at selected DOE facilities. Implementation details for each pilot facility will be negotiated by DOE, NRC and DOE contractors in individual
' work plans.
f Qf tn WW '
pW faf*"b The pilot program is expected ts ast two years. During these two years, between six and ten facilitieswillbe evaluated l.
At L c-d cf Sc ble yeen, DOE and NRC will determine whether to seeklegislation to give NRC authority to regulate individual or classes of DOE 4
,m
....--,,g---e--,..-.,,---
y.
4
.,.f 2
- - - --.-y--.-.r,-w
h*
nuclear f acilities, This MOU provides for ccoperation in seeking to obtain the necessary bud staffing resources for NRC participation in the pilot program.
In addition,this MOU provides for cooperationin involving the public and oth in the pilot program and in the DOE and NRC decision on whether to regulationst hw M%mq This MOU covers a pilot program for simulated iag : dion of nuclear safety a l
)
protection of workers at the pilot facilities. It does not cover the industna safety of workers at the pilot facilities. A parallel effort related to ind workers at some, if not all, of the pilot facilities is expected between DOE a Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
V.
OBJECTIVES The overallobjective of the activities undertaken pursuant to this MOU i and NRC with sufficient information to determine the desirability of NRC re oversight of DOE nuclear facilities and to suppoia decision wnether to se authonze NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities. Specifically, DOE and obtain sufficient information about a set of DOE nuclear facilities to:
the value added by NRC regulatory oversight of activities at a pilot se A.
Detem 5
~.
1
+
VI.
AUTHORITY A.
Department of Energy DOE is entering into this MOU pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act nf 1954, as amended, including but not limited to Sections 31,33,91 and 161(i); the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, including Section 104; Sections 301(a) and 641 of the I
Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977; and, the Economy Act as th amended.
B.
Nuc. tar Regulatory Commission L
l NRC is entering into this MOU pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; and, N Economy Act of 1932, as amended.
Vll.
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES A.
Arsponsibilities Department of Eneyf The Assistant Secretar* for Environment, Safety and Health will be responsible for the
/
7
^
l I
staff level,within 30 days of rea::hing such a concluson, the NRC and DOE agree g
to refer the matter to the Assistant Secretary of Environment, Safety and Health (DOE) and the Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs (NRC).
C.
Pilot Program Description The pilot program will begin with three DOE pilot facilities selected by DOE a oojective is to complete between six and ten piht facilities by the end of the tw Pilots will be staggered throughout the two year pened as mutually agreed to b NRC However, all pilots must be completed no later than two years from the effec of this MOU.
DOE and NRC agree to develop a detailed work plan for each pilot facility. These plans will be preparedwith extensive participation by the pilnt site. The wor developed to allow DOE and NRC to implement the intent and objectives of this As soon as sufficient information has been obtained and analyzed for each of the facilities, DOE and NRC personnel will prepare and provide to the Secretary and Commission a report, and as appropriate bnefings, on each facility that address Each report will examine the advantages and objectives in Section V of this MOU.
disadvantagesof NRC regulating the pilot facility, as well as other DOE facihties
" C' class of facihty.
DIET- @
4 Within three months after the two year pilot prugram ends, DOE and NRC person o
- - - ' ~ ' - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l INSERT 1 Within three months after the first year of the pilot program ends. DOE and NRC personnel will prepare ar.d provide to the Secretary and-the Commission a report on the advantages and disadvantages of NRC regulating DOE nuclear facilities bas?d on the first year pilot 3rogram The report will include a recommendation on which )0E experiences.
nuclear facilities or which classes of DOE nuclear facilities should be externally regulated by IIRC as well as draft legislation to implement the recommendation.
If the Secretary and the Commission determine that particular DOE nuclear facilities or classes of DOE nuclear facilities should be regulated by the NRC. DOE and NRC will promptly submit draft legislation giving NRC such authority as par'. of the FY 2000 legislative program of the two agencies.
A O W
- - - - + - - - - - _ _. _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e n
the advantagescnd prepare and provide to the Secretary and the Commission a report o
. A' bid'/Mr I
d on thg pilot program disadvantages of NRC regulating DOE nuclear facilities base h DOE nuclear facilities experiences. The report will include a recommendation on whic35 w<
!'M
/
lated 15y NRg if the or which classes of DOE nucleas facilities should be extemally regu lebn,k f ilities thould be Secreta.y cod the Commission determine that some or all DOE nuclea 44d%d*
NRC such authontyAs regulated by NRC, DOE and NRC will p+eparagraft legislation giving F/ M l.y>l# 4 4 rey-# h M -y~ "'
4 J
.g.
g Stakeholder and Pub..; Participation D.
l gulation are Identificationand assessmentof the issues associated NRC, other affected 1.
expected to require extensivo coordination between DOE and Defense Federal agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency, OSH d
ties.
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, State govemments, and other neral DOE and NRC will develop a strategy to involve stakeholders publir,, throughout the pilot program.
tion Requests received by NRC under the Freedom of informat OE for appropriate 2.
provided to NRC by DOE under this MOU will be referred to response.
10
Vill.
OTHER PROVISIONS f
NRC's participation in the activities desenbed in this MOU is contingent upon A.
receiving adequate appropriations or reimbursements from DOE of NRC Special agency cost and an appropriate personnel ceiling for those actwities.
activities beyond the scope of this MOU may be negotiated for cost reimb as needed.
For this pilot program, DOE will f acilitate NRC interadions with DOE con B.
achieve the purposes of this MOU, Nothing in this MOU will limit the authonty of either agency to exercise C.
/
its authonty wiih ragard to matters that are the suoject of this MOU.
independenti Nothing in this MOU alters DOE's authonty to ensure the safety of an D.
nuclear facility that is part of the pilot program. Nothing in this MOU gran any regulatory authority over DOE nuclear safety and radiation prote Nothing in this MOU establishes any right nor provides a basis for any E.
legal or equitable, by any person or class of persons challenging a g action or a failure to act.
This MOU is effective upon the date of signature by the last party. This MO F.
I1 i
UNITED STATES o,^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION if3 WASHINGTON. D C. 20 % 5-0001 y
i November 13, 1997 n\\q OFF6CE OF THE StCHfTARY L. Joseph Callan
- ive Director for Operations #
MEMORANDUM TO:
Exec John /
8 FROM:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-237 - MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY The Commission has approved the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Energy (DOE).
in consultation with DOE, prepare a revised MOU The staff should, that will be available for review and signature by the Secretary the time of completion of the of Energy and the Chairman at The revised MOU Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Pilot.
should incorporate lessons learned and language that allows DOE and NRC to seek legislation for NRC regulatory authority for a facility or class of facilities based on specific pilot Some of the changes below inf onnation f rom the pilot program.
The cover letter to DOE transmitting the this approach.
reflect signed MOU should mention this need for a revision.
The following editorial changes should be incorporated in the next revision to the MOU:
1.
On the signature page, insert ' NUCLEAR' between ' DOE' and ' FACILITIES.'
Also, the signature block should be changed to ' Shirley Ann Jackson.'
2.
On page 1, line 4, insert 'uhould' after 'NRC.'
In line 7, insert ' nuclear' after ' DOE.'
3.
On page 3, paragraph 3, line 1, add a comma after add a comma after
' Jackson' and on line 2, -
' Commission.'
last paragraph, line 2, replace 'At the end On page 4, 4.
of the two years' with 'Over the course of this pilot
- program, 5.
On page 5, line 1, add a new sentence after THIS SRM, SECY-97-237, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING SECY NOTE:
RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
M i YKn tir f ilv' W " #I J
l
,. ' facilities' which states:
If deemed appropriate, a decision to seek legislation to give NRC authority to regulate a specific facility could be made in advance of the full two-year time frame.
In the second full paragraph, line 3, delete 'at the end of the pilot program.'
6.
On page 7, paragraph 1, line 4, insert 'of 1932' after
' Economy Act.'
7.
On page 9, paragraph 4, line 3, insert commas before and after 'as appropriate.'
The comma after the word
" briefings" should be removed.
Add a new sentence at the end of paragraph 4:
Each report will be made available to stakeholders, including the Congress.
Also on page 9, in the last line, insert a hyphen between ' two' and ' year '
C On page 9, insert a new paragraph prior to the last parcgraph on this page:
Within three months after the first year of the pilot program ends, DOE and NRC personnel will prepare and provide to the Secretary and the Commission a report on the advantages and disadvantages of NRC regulating specific DOE nuclear facilities based on the first year pilot program experiences.
The report will include a recommendation on which specific DOE nuclear facilities or which classes of DOE nuclear facilities should be externally regulated by NRC as well as draft legislation to implement the recommendation.
If the Secretary and the Commission determine that particular DOE nuclear facilities or classes of DOE nuclear facilities should be regulated by the NRC, DOE and NRC will promptly submit draft legislation giving NRC such authority as part of the FY 2000 legislative program of the two agencies.
9.
On page 10, paragraph 1, line 1, insert ' final' before
' report.' In line 4, insert 'as well as draft after legislation to implement the recommendations'
' NRC. '
In line 6, replace ' prepare' with ' submit.'
Also in line 6, insert 'as part of the FY 2001 at the end of legislative program of the two agencies' the sentence after 'rathority.'
10.
On page 11, item C.,
line 2, remove the comma aftet
' independently.'
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
4/30/98)
e
_3 cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Dia:
Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directorc, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 3 PDR DCS
@ W g
- 4
^^ - - - - -
_ _