ML20212M133
| ML20212M133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bawsher C, Bowsher C, Brooks J, Markey E, John Miller, Roth W, Simpson A, Udall M GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608250386 | |
| Download: ML20212M133 (7) | |
Text
4
- " Cog o UNITED STATES g
, o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ ,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 N,*****JY CHAIRMAN August 6, 1986 The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve .
the NRC. Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of safety responsibilities which involve relationships with the Department of Energy (DOE). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with 00E defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC l -has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
Sincerely, h A&de 0v . \,
Lando W. ch, J .
cc: Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton
~
8608200386$50806 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDECES PDR s .
4
[ o,, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
[ g g E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 CHAIRMAN AU9USD be 190b '
The Honorable Jack Brooks, Chairman Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
s This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve the NRC.
Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of safety responsibilities which involve relationships with the Department of Energy (DOE). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with DOE defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
Sincerely, 4/. !
Lando W. ch , f r..
cc: Rep. Frank Horton
i
[ ),, UNITED STATES s 3 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMllElON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 5 g g*****y CHAIRMAN August 6, 1986 The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve '
the NRC. Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety, Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working
. arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of safety responsibilities which involve relationships with the Department of Energy (DOE). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with DOE defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
Sincerely, 0
savio U.
[' .
Lando W. Lec Jr.
cc: Sen. Gary Hart
/ %, UNITED STATFS o ! a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
{ ,E
/
CHAIRMAN AU9USD b F IbOb -
The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews.
for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this '
report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve the NRC. Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of' safety responsibilities which involve relationships with the Department of Energy (00E). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with DOE defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited
. recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
Sincerely, O
+ 4 w. li.
Lando W. Z ch, r.
cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan
s ean
- o,, UNITED STATES
- E' o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%*****#o CHAIRMAN AU9USD be 190b The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this _
report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve the NRC. Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of safety responsibilities which invo'lve relationships with the Department of Energy (DOE). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with DOE defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
Sincerely, Mdb h/. \s Lando W. ech, Jr.
cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead
6
/ 'o,, UNITED STATES i ! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{ $ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% .... N CHAIRMAN bU9USD b i 190b The Honorable Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548
Dear Mr. Bowsher:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this _
report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve the NRC. Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of safety responsibilities which involve relationships with the Department of Energy (DOE). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with DOE defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited l
recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement l
with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
l Sincerely, (Al. d .
Lando W. >ch, r.
l
~
-, __- . _ . _ _, - - -_- -_,.__.-.,_.,...,_,_____.._.-_r . - _ _ . . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - _
4
- C W,'o UNITED STATES g
g 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
( WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 I
%*****J CHAIRMAN August 6, 1986 -
The Honorable James C. Miller III Director Office of Management and Budget Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Miller:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GA0) report entitled, " Nuclear Safety: Safety Analysis Reviews for DOE's Defense Facilities Can be Improved." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was not asked to comment on this ,
report. A recommendation in the report, however, could involve the NRC. Therefore, we believe a comment on this specific recommendation is appropriate.
The following recommendation is made for outside independent review of DOE Safety Analysis Reviews (Appendix I, page 25 of the report):
"We recommend that the Secretary of Energy... establish an arrangement with an outside independent organization to review those SAR's for the most hazardous facilities. This could be accomplished either by establishing a working arrangement with NRC or an independent review panel."
The NRC has a number of safety responsibilities which involve relationships with the Department of Energy (00E). They include activities related to review of certain DOE reactors, the West Valley Demonstration Project, and transportation casks and DOE activities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. We have no comment on the merit of any expanded safety interaction of the NRC with DOE defense facilities. We do want to point out that if the Secretary of Energy chooses to respond to the cited recommendation by seeking to establish "...a working arrangement with NRC..." for additional reviews of certain SAR's, the NRC has no resources currently available for such additional arrangements. If a working arrangement is to be realized, appropriate budgetary considerations would be necessary.
Sincerely, A&fa k/, \
Lando W. ch,Gr.
,,n , - - , - - - . , -