ML20203H134
| ML20203H134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/16/1997 |
| From: | Delligatti M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Umbell D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| 9700553, NUDOCS 9712180317 | |
| Download: ML20203H134 (3) | |
Text
_... _.
December 16, 1997 1,
MEMORM.DUM TO: Donna Umbell, PMDA FROM:
Mark Delligatti, SFPO
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON UPDATE OF NRC/ DOE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TICKET NO. 9700553 Attached are the commer.ts of the Spent Fuel Project Office on the subject memorandum of understanding. Please feel free to contact me, if you have any questions, cc:
Charles J. Haughney Susan F. Shankman a
Attachment:
As Stated i
Qistribution: w/ attachment k
NRC File Center PUBLIC n[i
$SS R/F SFPO R/F SFLS R/F LGilbert CPolaryh@-
Reamer, OGC Nh0N bh E
E OFC NAME Delligatti dd EJL e
DATE 12/l}/97 12/ld/97
/ /97
/ /07
/ /97 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N
- NO COPY i
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY G:\\MSD\\LABMOU.MSD 12/16/97 :dd DFoW i
g.Q - \\ N OLA ya c/Do',
fll i
i i
,n,
h[..Et 20PY
,..id190317971216cusg
SPENT FUEL PROJECT OFFICE COMMENTS ON THE REVISEO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION /
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
MEMORANDUM OF UUNDERSTANDING (MOU)
ON USE OF THE DOE LABORATORIES BY NRC PURPOSE:
2.
Independent Access it should be clarified whether NRC or DOE determines when it is necessary to review and monitor the project scope, schedule, and funding. This section of the MOU appears to limit NRC access rather severely. Shouldr.'t NRC have access to DOE facilities whenever the staff believes that it is necessary to ensure that work is being properly carried out? The scope could be correct, but the implementation may not.
3.
Cooperation This section of the MOU seems confusing. Couldn't this be interpreted to suggest that the staff will be using DOE labs for either extemal regulation of DOE facilities or for the pilot program? In the former case, OGC has determined the existence of an organizational conflict of interest (COI), in the latter, should the same determination not be made, a major policy inconsistency would result in the appearance of COI in the pilot program.
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PARTIES:
A.
Business Practices associated with NRC Work Performed by DOE Laboratories Do we really want to specify an NRC Management Directive in an interagency MOU?
Why not simply state the principles, without reference to the management directive?
Thus, if the management directive gets scrapped, changed, renamed, or whatever, the MOU is not affected?
8.
NRC Dedicated Facilities The term "NRC dedicated feeliity" needs to be defined. In the past, with regard to the developmed of the CNWRA NRC's federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) at Couthwest Research institute in San Antonio, Texas, and more recently, with regard to the OGC determination of organizational COI at the DOE laboratories in the spent fuel area, it was determined that the creation of firewalls at DOE laboratories was not sufficient to prevent COI. It may be that due to the way work is parceled among laboratories, an "NRC dedicated facility"is not realistic.
(
C.
Budget, Funding, and Financial Management 1.
Long Range Planning it would appear that the funding approach described here would give funding of DOE laboratories top priority over other sources of technical assistance and re7.earch. This seems, on its face, unfair to all other sources and may conflict with the Office of Management and Budget and Federal Acquisition Regulations reqairements foi stable funding of NRC's own FFRDC.
F.
Organizational Conflicts of Interest As mentioned above, there exist two areas where organizational COI has been determined to exist by NRC's Office of General Counsel. These are the high-level waste repository and spent fuel areas where DOE is either an actual licensee or statutorily will be an NRC licensee in the future. It is not clear whether this MOU is meant to supersede these existing OGC determinations (which could, in effect, take away the basis for NRC having its own FFRDC).
This section could also be interpreted as requiring a great deal of sharing of responsibility between DOE and NRC. SFPO assumes that OGC has carefully considered the impacts and implications contained in this section.
VI. General Provisions 3.
Applicable Procedures As mentioned above, is it necessary or proper to specifically site NRC procedures or management directives, rather than using a more general form of designation?
... !