ML20217A066
| ML20217A066 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1998 |
| From: | Dicus G NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217A044 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-221-C, SECY-96-273-C, NUDOCS 9804220146 | |
| Download: ML20217A066 (4) | |
Text
'
NOT ATIO N VOT E l
i RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER DICUS
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-273 - STAFF REQUIREMENTS -- SECY-96-221 --
"lMPROVING NRC'S CONTROL OVER, AND LICENSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY LICENSED DEVICES" Approved Disapproved K Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
4 h
0.
)
1 O L' l&
MATU$3/s b/woA, I
/99f Release Vote /
/
DATE I
I Withhold Vote /
/
Entered on "AS" Yes I No 9804220146 900413 i
4 PDR CoMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Commissioner Dicus' comments on SECY-97-273-The central problem that underlies SECY-97-273 is that general licensees' control and accountability of sources and devices are not adequate. As a result, such sources and devices are entering the public domain in an uncontrolled manner causing or having the potential to cause radiation exposures of the public, radioactive contamination of te environment and damage to property. The Commission has considered this issue on a number of occasions for more thar) 10 years, most recently in December 1996 (December 31,1996 SRM re SECY 221) when it directed staff to complete evaluation of the Agreement State-NRC Working Group (WG) report (NUREG-1551) and provide recommendations to the Commission. I will not repeat here the WG's assessment of the problem nor its recommendations. I willinstead note that WG's report received high praise and the WG's conclusion that the problem needs regulatory attention and its recommendations for action were strongly endorsed by our fellow regulators, the States, and by the industries most adversely affected by the current deficiencies in the generallicensing program. Unfortunately, SECY-97-273 recommended a course of action that would fall far short of the WG recommendations. Staff's recommendation to undertake a more limited response was driven in large part by concerns about the resources that would be needed to implement a program along the lines of that recommended by the WG. However, it is my view that staff recommendations should be based upon health and safety issues, not resource issues.
The NRC is a government agency charged with protecting the public health and safety, environment and property. If the Commission determines that there is a recognized threat to public health and safety, the environment and property that will continue absent regulatory action, then action must be taken, and resources found to enable the action. While resource constraints may affect what we do, the approved action must be responsive to the challenge. I will presently provide suggestions on the resource issue.
The objective of the following recommendations is to enable a response that is appropriate in scope and with respect to timeliness. On the latter point, I note that in the period following the Commission's December 1996 SRM, there have been four accidental meltings of radioactive sources in US steel mills. As we deliberate on this matter, generally licensed sources and devices continue to slip fror'l licensees' control. Hence, the need to move expeditiously on this matter.
Having disapproved the recommendations contained in SECY-97-273, I propose the following actions be taken by staff.
- 1. Staff should take necessary steps to finalize the 1991 rulemaking to the extent that R will provide a basis for an annual registration program for the radioisotopes and quantities recommended by the WG.
- 2. The registration program should include provisions for follow up of cases where there are no responses or discrepancies are found between responses and NRC records. This is a critical element. Staff should explore with vendors their willingness to voluntarily assist the NRC (and Agreement States) in the follow up effort.
- 3. Finalization of the 1991 rule will enable enforcement of the registration program from the
2 beginning. Staff should amend the present enforcement policy to provide for an initial amnesty program to encourage full and complete reporting of possible accountability and control deficiencies of sources and devices meeting the WG criteria. Thereafter, escalated enforcement should apply. Staff should increase civil penalties to provide an increased incentive to licensees to exercise due care with sources and devices under their control.
- 4. Staff should initiate rulemaking that will apply fees to general licensees subject to the registration program to recover the costs of the progran. While my preliminary view is to agree with the staff's recommendations for a per license fee and option 3 for the process, staff should 1
provide the Commission the pros and cons of options for pro-rating the fees, e.g., per device (fixed or sliding scale) or per license, and, determine the extent to which application of the small business rule will affect the fees. Staff should also provide its recommendations for initially funding the program in the interim before finalization of the registration fee rule.
- 5. With respect to orphan sources the staff should use as a guiding principle the concept that non-licensees who find themselves to be in possession of radioactive sources that they did not seek to possess should not be expected nor asked to assume responsibility and costs for exercising control or arranging for their disposal. Staff should continue to consult with the DOE, EPA, FEMA and the States to define jurisdictions and regulatory responsibilities for addressing the orphan source problem. At the same time, staff should look into the pros and cons of establishing a contract program that would enable licensees or the DOE to take possession of and arrange for proper transfer or disposal of orphan sources and provide an estimate of the costs such a program. Staff should provide recommendations for funding the program including, as directed by the Commission in its December 1996 SRM, " exploring with Congress the possibility of removing specific program costs from the NRC's user fee base (e.g.,
orphan source recovery fund)."
- 6. Staff should assess whether implementation of the registration program may result in an initial surge of requests to return or dispose of sources and devices which may need special attention by the NRC and Agreement States.
- 7. Staff should develop a plan to address the recommendations of the WG to improve the labeling of sources and devices to facilitate identification when sources and devices enter the public domain in an uncontrolled manner.
- 8. The basis of the generallicenses should be reviewed for adequacy with respect to consideration of the consequences of off-site accidents, such as loss of shielding or melting in j
metal making furnaces.
- 9. Staff should review registration programs for general licensees that have been implemented by Agreement States for applicability of concepts. Staff should also explore the possibility of utilizing other Federal agency registration programs and off-the-shelf commercial programs to minimize development and operating costs.
- 10. With respect to resources, it is essential that staff provide a complete estimate of resource needs for the various phases of the registration program including, in particular, the substantial
" spike" of resources needed to carry out the follow up program, in this regard, the staff should
L.
l.
l l..
3
' explore the possibility of contracting with the States to carry out this part of the program under authority of Section 2741 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. While it may not be realistic to expect that av of the States would be willing to engage in such a program, if a significant l
number do, their participation could greatly assist the NRC in addressing the resource problem.
States have smaller geographic regions than NRC to cover and some general licensees may also possess radiation producing machines regulated by the States and thus are familiar to State radiation control programs. As a result, State follow up efforts will likely be more cost effective than those by NRC. States are usually the first responders to problems involving radiation sources found in the public domain and therefore will have an incentive to participate i
l in a National program whose objective is to reduce the frequency of such events.
- 11. It is recognized that NRC resources are tight. While all NRC staff offices have been j
affected by resource constraints, NMSS has been particularly hard hit. Recognizing this, and the fact that additional resources will be needed, the EDO should develop a plan for Commission approval to reprogram agency resources to implement the registration program.
To the degree that staff is successful in engaging the States to assist in the follow up phase of the registration program, the plan may be scaled down accordingly. For planning purposes, however, the first planning assumption should not include allowance for State contributions.
Commission's decision in this matter, i
l l
l l
l l
l