ML20206T558
| ML20206T558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/04/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206T463 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-107-C, NUDOCS 9905240190 | |
| Download: ML20206T558 (2) | |
Text
'
1 1
. .t k
_ NOTATION VOTE l
1 RESPONSE SHEET l
TO: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-107 - POTENTIAL MODIFICATION OF THE i DOE /NRC MOU DUE TO CHANGES IN THE HANFORD TANK WASTE REMEDIATION SYSTEM PRIVATIZATION 1
Approved K Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
. ,g),
SIGN TURE '*U i , lil' DATE U Entered on "AS" Yes $ No FM5"!8M87J8!2o CORRESPONDENCE PDR f#/05*h o 19D
m I_. 1 l
Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-99407 i l
1 firmly believe that the Commission would have benefitted from making the subject l L paper public, soliciting comment from the appropriate Congressional Committees, and I l considering those comments prior to making a decision on it. However, since a majority l l of the Commission has voted on the paper, prior to making a Commissio.n decision on i my request to release it, I do not want to inadvertently delay informing Congress of the l i
implications of the Department of Energy's (DOE) changed approach at Hanford's Tank l Waste Remediation System (TWRS) facility for NRC by not voting on the modest staff l proposal before us.- Therefore, I approve the staffs plan to negotiate potential modifications on the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOE on the TWRS l project and offer the following comments for the staffs consideration. l 1
l would have liked to have been informed immediately of DOE's decision in August 1998 to fundamentally alter its approach to the Phase I facility and of how those changes would affect NRC's role. We are currently spending about $2 million per year, about half of our General Fund appropriation, on preparing to regulate the privatized vitrification facility at Hanford. At our March 19 public meeting on DOE external d regulation, I spoke in favor of seeking Congressional clarification this year on our role at Hanford, just as Congress had clarified our role last year on the mixed-oxide fuel facility.
The essence of the staffs paper is that any transition to NRC regulation at the TWRS facility has now likely been put off to 2015, and that there is now a significant probability that DOE's Phase I design, construction, and operational decisions will affect NRC's j ability to ever license the facility. I am not sure whether any serious consideration has l ever been given to moving up the NRC regulation of the privatized TWRS facility so that i NRC would make the 2001 construction authorization decision for the Phase I facility. It may be too late to consider that option although the attached February 4,1999 issue )
paper seems to indicate that much of the regulatory framework (draft Standard Review Plan, etc.) has been developed. I suspect the alternative to immediate NRC regulation .
of Phase I is never to have NRC regulation of any phase of this facility. As for our I current budget request, this paper implies that we almost surely have the wrong amount budgeted for NRC's role at the TWRS facility. We may have too little if Congress wishes the Phase I facility to be regulated by NRC or too much if Congress wants to reduce our role to technical consultant to DOE as it self-regulates the facility. It will be up to Congress to advise both agencies which course to take and I would recommend the staff of both agencies consult closely with the appropriate Congressional Committees before detailed negotiations begin on the modified MOU. The staff should keep the Commission fully and currently informed on these matters.
i I