ML20217G562

Informs That Proposed Ltr Looks Fine.Argues That Ltr Lets OSP Formally Notify Constituency of Agency Position on Matter

ML20217G562
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1999
From:	Haughney C NRC
To:	Droggitis S NRC
Shared Package
ML20217G481	List: ML20217G476 ML20217G519 ML20217G562
References
NUDOCS 9910210311
Download: ML20217G562 (5)

Text

[ Spiros Droggitis - Ref DTft Agreement Stat:s Lettdr PagT1l

. From: Charles Haughney To: Spiros Droggitis Date: Thu, Sep 30,1999 3:02 PM I

Subject:

Re: Draft Agreement States Letter i Spiros, the your proposed letter looks fine to me. I would argue that it lets OSP formally notify yvir constituency of the agency's position on this matter, So I say, let's do it. You still may want to let th9 EDo and OCM know beforehand. No extra sentences are needed. The e-file of the transmittallettlers is attached.

Charley

>>> Spiros Droggitis 09/3011:02 AM >>>

Charles: Attached is my first cut of a draft All Agreement State letter on the status of external regulation of DOE. I have plagiarized liberally from the Chairman's transmittal letter to Congress in an effort not to create anything new. Can your staff send me an electronic version of the Chairman's letter to Murkowski?

! Please let me know what you think and whether or not we should add a sentence or two on the shutdown of your effort, etc. Thanks, Spiros

)

l 1

l l 9910210311 991008 PDR STPRO ESOGEN PDR L

pM&u g & UNITED STATES g j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001

\ % ,,, / October 8, 1999 ALL AGREEMENT STATES MINNESOTA, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, WISCONSIN

[

OTHER INFORMATION: EXTERNAL REGULATION OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (SP-99-070)

I committed at the All Agreement States Meeting in Austin, Texas to provide the Agreement States with a status summary on the issue of extemal regulation of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Task Force on Extemal Regulation of DOE Nuclear Facilities presented its views on the major issues related to extemal regulation of DOE nuclear facilities in the final report entitled *Extemal Regulation of Department of Energy Nuclear Facilities: A Pilot Program (NUREG-1708)." A copy of this report was provided to all States in August and can be found at: http://www.nrc.aov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1708/index.html.

The NRC Task Force report concluded that, although the pilot sites selected were not representative of the entire DOE complex and did not include any defense lacilities, no significant lesues were found during the pilot project that would impede NRC regulation of similar DOE non-detense nuclear facilities. The report detailed certain statutory and practical details that would need30 be resolved for NRC to implement an oversight program effectively. The Commission approved submittal of the Task Force Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy on July 13,1999.' The Commission's endorsement of the concept of NRC oversight of DOE facilities, phased in over time, has long been contingent on, among other things, adequate funding and staffing. Enclosed for your Information is a copy of the transmittal letter from Chairman Dicus to Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which provides additionallnformation. 3 m ~ / 9ww Paul H. Lohaus, irector Office of State Programs

Enclosure:

As stated L__ , _ _ - .

.n ,

2-4 4

r -

5- N' - UNITED STATES

'* [: / g gfC 4- - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. j' )#( j1 WASHINGTON, D.C. 205 % -0001 e July 19 -1999 h..v. . . .

CHAIRMAN J

y  :;

F y The Honorable Frank Murkowski, Chairman

- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

' United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 -

Dear Mr. Chairman:

p I am enclosing a copy of the final report entitled "Extemal Regulation of Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Facilities: A Pilot Program," prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Task Force on External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Facilities.

, The results in this report differ considerably from the results presented in the Lawrence Berkeley l National Laboratory,.the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel, and the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center pilot project reports that were transmitted to Members of Congress on

.p March 31, and July 2,' 1999. The NRC Task Force report concludes that, although the pilot sites _j selected were not representative of the entire DOE complex and did not include any defense  !

facilities, no significant issues were found during the pilot project that would impede NRC regulation of similar DOE non-defense nuclear facilities. NRC would implement its current risk-informed approach to regulation if it assumed regulatory jurisdiction over DOE facilities. NRC would not require DOE to change its approach to safety issues unless NRC determined that the DOE pproach resulted in an unacceptable level of risk. Extemal regulation cithese facilities would eliminate the inherent conflict of interest arising from self-regulation, help foster a safety culture comparable to that in the rest of the nuclear industry, and enable DOE to reprogram resources from safety oversight to its primary missions. However, as detailed in the report and summarized on pages 6 and 7 of the report, certain statutory and practical details will need to be resolved for NRC to implement an oversight program effectively.

Although precise cost estimates are difficult to develop for regulation of the entire DOE based .

solely.on the_ pilot program, and without having established the mechanism to be used for '

regulation, the cost to DOE of NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities could be minimized, potentially resulting in a net savings. However, the Commission's endorsement of the concept of NRC oversight of DOE facilities, phased in over time, has long been contingent on, among other things, adequate funding and staffing. NRC's budget is at an all-time low in constant

} dollars and its staffing level is at the lowest it's been in.20 years. There would be no overall gain in public health and safety if NRC's regulation of DOE made NRC unable to devote adequate c attention to its other duties, particularly the regulation of nuclear power plants.

, :t

[ ,

l. .A I%*

c L If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, c- t Greta Joy Dieus

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Senator Jeff Bingaman I t

f 1

1 l

l 1

i I

i l

i i

l i

k' l

u.

w q

9

)

.t

. ', k.'kk . g /y ggj%%Q. q,; ingqfS' eg g y %. p , y.[$yQ%**%

W"QpMpWc N. nn..a T w a ':. w, uyeY pmp' a n>,t.T 6f -QQi y?.

, 'nfw :.@

4 W ~ wg, au ,mna

& >m . : *ijkwb% ~ ,t.po.J a wK e m . . . , :.,, a m;.; m y< 6:4m&,,p r . .a

.4g~.w..

ASTATE

% m. a,.

m

+*

. ssp, PROGRAMS:

w,c ~ ,

~w a. ~nn . wa it 4.

aug

r a W,m OFFICE

~

@T)4O o M Me.3:: M M,ACT ,mm .z- , km;,;1 p,IVE PROJECT m. . a ,m,e };;ssy,y.,1Ms ( W W4aW P., y e, s n.g me 4n %,

2 > . w. s m W i n,jjiV%%d'y , n %L .yN . - % Q. - MQ . a 1 m.W + 3 enJ

)v &h%ll& MQN ,' .. QL g

at ' y Date:y y t a l. 9/,30/99 M $y M nli M fe%%g  ! d %~ MW  % ,M,s.h,,4 Q l Q : pg .,4..,yf m.,s Q dm 1,

r, Oym%n c.. . _,

+ #x e~

2

. g, h v. r e,y, y;w< or.rw r s,p .,ry

e. :. ar

.O y s., s  %.#.4..

a.: . 2, wz.

.y,aa.v w ,+ ..3%

1. n -qpu;e. p y

4 s /M

"'*D "Dy':*% g,m Nd hh wi<4A W, u,m. .a .

r . . .

M. . a .m ProjecHD. e Qg Ms a*., w ,- . .. -.L 4::: %

$$Dj f i &l@j9-206 pmW ' Y *" 'W Sj;9$wQ $$ '

T ..WJ PsoleclDescilpEon. SEND ALL AGREEMENT STATE LTR REGARDING NUREG-1708 N'?Q i d.FM, ', . -C %- % &, W R:

u 'q TO STATES. "

i. M,$y@ j '.

@ 4 k, . x.'*

a my Q.h d..y .a s

.[, ~ .% a.  %

g i.)

. '3 ,

. .g,g,,wm,7.,_,__ , , , ,, .. .. .

SIGIE) ole. l 9/30/99R , OdWnalDces:tl_10/21/99ph ProfoclLeot lDROGGITIS .j(M

,, = , w .n yv n v ,a ,s, n; lm. ,-,,n-- p ,., ; u can-n. w .,m> a ni..m:.,4 a ~

Q, v.  %,

• a

.. ~ .

W{ Completon a. Dele:. J_l. ,_,__f. t@ Duo Date:tl ,

. .10/21/9J9 ,_._ _ . .MQ, W. pM-. E - .., Q,s.,>h m

C

,aw . .

+ .

s a.m v y n,

7 a ff.

3 % * ' -h I f' _[ ( ,, . ', A /'y O g %.a. v f,

)%}A , g.'; w " k ( y g _.y-- .n _,_.. , , -

,, .py }' f Ayyy;j

w. _ ., to...4 ,.agueslevomeed f b 3 & q,n S lL.o_HA. US_/O. _SP

..,Ij'pT'YA * %ProgvevA-wetg.p.weikws.emyswretsa s

_ L.h @ M,N!

er b ...,a ti s

' O, 4 M,M,M, w .gw a

e d..v t

15 " , ag

.u. m,M.; ,,

J (h eqw',we '.)' 7 yh . h ..p ' b e 'g f, 3

!r[(.< ')Q . p 'f 7,J t , . F\^ f . .q e.

,n pM w , .. a

~[-p2t 4N d ,"T I ' ," \ @7 3 ' . , f [ %{ o.gz A' 7sA _ ag ,s,  : ss':g l '

9,:.p; qu a my;g' ['

q,q,bz -y&?l .. s# 8 wn,g = y:

p.. m p, . < g v ~~

9 3. p. j-w A p  ; ; b n ;,p 3. .egig;:  ; y y

..v ~ -y ,

np 2 . ut ga 3 t. ;p , ,.: . ._ .

s

.e g'gg, ( , p + ,:;.p.y.2, D5 ' . [ f 'l-

,., - y'I y e -

h, if

, ,n -

= _ , , ,

g: f alTSCuile:ll. KPANo:] m :n.w m. m,..m.,u@m.,@,M j

F ,a'T M d$,,sy. m$$

M,,t,<

n; .;w. _

i n wn < u .,, m v 49 y- ;1N qq m.my: n.y; , , ; r.

y,,,l

+ y sy.. _ seq c-m,  ;

e g.,-,.t ;y,i ?<,.

S v 1

, y yXa'::ge v i'Q -

+

1. +. a a

> an. i'99, e tW ;%.q *wp, . 7:f. ,, 4 v ;d..gQ, K,Qr. eU,9 , 9, :;r n"n9 f,% ,. y,. n, ,ygb ' 1 s

5 = g..a.p ;A,s. >

e.'F ' p . .. ~* d)?.4

, < a w

( .p 6 +

t

,/s.2q w,,9'A m p io

.gs 3 C. v.

, ,, m , yD.3

,g 9 - ,L ,

,,. 4 =y

,s.

W< ; 1 s~

g ,% .y i. <3 - c. -A s Q4y ,f ',

• j. +p,4 W' s i .7"< }{}** H

• q ,,

3 ,

gr 3

,,Q,

.- , ',} ,

, g

'Ww,c 'W ,

1 s q. < u n:W. w. , ,

I n , s

' ' i

,- i >

',7 .

Q].w

• nj  % u n.'k

) N a4 a. 4 ,.; vn

+ y - f,t

.: np 1

i Vq ;~ n ,

.u+>, md.

y y s +n.'yy

.,.,. u. a u .,; .<v s;u;a:

n w. i .m *n ns'..  !:.-)

am . k,y c. , 8

,. i

. ,, 1. . , .:

o.,s w .4.,,,' .s a +.%v ,, .r e ~'a., s.* y4

%,6,ws.ww,9.

%, y u M,3 . .CMw -

s,

d. m'- c'

! W ,' , A< 'd ,0.

' %a, x L.a.uiM.Aww.u.aea.a

- m a

1 Ii r

u.-

r

1. ~' ~ --

[5We'Droggitis - sp'iros wpd

--Pagaq.

For Spiros:

{ Recess.]

MR. CAMERON: All right, everybody, come on back in.

We have one more substantive area on the agenda, and we're going to try to cover it in fairly short order, and I'm going to ask Stan to sort of set up the issue for us as it relates to the Department of Energy.

One thing i just wanted to mention before we do that is that there was some talk about -- do we need a state-federal working group of some kind to try to address and come up with a solution to the FUSRAP issue? Because NRC is working on stuff - I mean, it's just a thicket, it seems to me, and maybe if there was a state-federal working group, you could say which should be the solution and what do we need to do to achieve that solution, and start from that direction rather than going down these legal rabbit holes.

But it's just an idea, and I don't know how you want to put that forward, or if you want to put it forward, but it's something to think about.

MR. WHATLEY: If the federal agencies would simply talk to each other, we'd get a lot solved.

MS. ALLEN: It's like we need a FRP for FUSRAP.

MR. CAMERON: I mean, that's part of the problem.

MR. WHATLEY: I think we need a task force on that more than we do there.

MR. CAMERON: Okay. Well, Paul you're always the focal point for a lot of the things that we do. Do you want to try to explore this issue that maybe there's some coordinated way, either the federal agencies or state-federal for some solution to be found to this problem?

MR. LOHAUS: Yes. I think both of these are very good suggestions, and we'll take these back and look at them further. From my experience and one of the things that I've found, I think the working group process, including the other federal agencies when necessary, has really been an extremely successful process. And really, it's thanks to all of you because it's you all and your staffs that are working with us on this. And I think the working group products have really been very good products, and to me, these areas are good areas where the working groups can really help us address and resolve these issues, and I will carry that back.

MR. CAMERON: Bill Sinclair just volunteered too, and Roger.

MR. SUPPES: Well, a comment is with the time line that everybody is on - at least the Corps is on in terms of cleaning up these sites --is the working group process one that's amenable to that in meeting with the time lines._ l'm not objecting to the work group idea, it's just whether the Corps is going to buy into it, whatever they're doing to clean up these sites and move the material.

MR. CAMERON: I guess we already have a working group, the start of one, but if Paul could try to see if that could be coordinated and relate it to the timeliness issue that Roger has brought up.

You know, as Bill Sinclair pointed out, there's a lot more complications here than just Corps of Engineer issues, so I think that it would be broad.

So I'm going to turn this over to Stan to sort of set up the Department of Energy issue for us, and I'm not sure that there is anybody from the NRC that's going to be able to give some good answers to these questions, but we will endeavor to get the answers. Stan.

MR. MARSHALL: As you know, weeks ago I solicited ideas and suggestions for this agenda, and external regulation of DOE and privatization of the DOE complex, and a number of DOE things came up indifferent forms, and we put together this last session this morning of relationships with federal agencies, including DOE.

We got no response to an invitation from DOE to come but we thought we would maybe leave this on the agenda and pose a question.

A couple of weeks ago, in a passing e-mail to Mike Mobley, I mentioned that it was my impression or it was Nevada's impression that maybe external regulation and the associated issues I

1. l {oTDroggitis - spiros.wpd

~ ~ '

]P{gs2]

)

was not happening, that the wheels were coming of the wagon. His e-mail response to me was, in so many words to the contrary, that he had impressions that more and more people were lining up with the same idea that it should happen.

I think everyone here probably saw this report summarizing the pilot project, the NRC report that indicated that it could happen with existing mechanisms without exorbitant prices, as Dewey suggested, and also, interestingly, without state involvement. And I guess to start the discussion, I ask the question is it happening or not, because we have some - there are 13 DOE states out there, states with parts of the DOE complex; 12 of them are in this room, and the rest of you are corridor states or waste transportation - maybe even to Nevada. It affects this entire group, whether we are involved with external regulation or not.

The question is is external regulation and that kind of thing going to happen. What can we

' tell people when we go home?

MR. CAMERON: Paul, I know that we had a discussion earlier about we've ben out of that loop for awhile, but can you offer anything on what's going on or how to find out what's going on on this?

MR. LOHAUS: What I can do is take this issue back. I apologize that we don't have anyone here to address that issue, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with all the details to really address this issue today, but I can take the issue back.

One of the items that has been mentioned - it was mentioned yesterday at the OAS meeting - was the briefing of the Commission by the OAS. If this is an area or issue where there are particular aspects or points of view that you would like to share with the Commission. then we'd present an opportunity to do that. That's one mevhanism to get some of your views and thoughts before the Commission. But I will take the issue back and maybe communicate with you in an All Agreement States letter where we are.

Stan mentioned the report, and I think that speaks for itself, but I'll take the issue back and get some information to you through an All Agreement States letter.

MR. CAMERON: And keep in mind the issue that came up squarely in the Chairman Dicus presentation the other day is that the NRC position was described as if we do have jurisdiction over the Department of Energy, that it would not be shared with the Agreement States. I don't think I'm misquoting that, but I think that that's probably one of the focal points of the issue.

Roland?

MR. FLETCHER: Once again I'd like to bring it home, perhaps to those states who don't necessarily have a lot of direct dealings with DOE and some of the problems that the other states have. I mentioned this at the last Agreement States meeting, but this year the -or late last year, actually, the DOE scheduled a transportation exercise in Maryland for an accident involving DOE-related materials.

And in planning the exercise, they did not get in touch with Maryland Radiological Health Program; we didn't show up on their screen. They wanted to deal directly with the jurisdiction in which the exercise was to take place. It turns out that these were two friends in different agencies who were trying to do each other a favor.

But what it points out is if we don't make some noise, there are a lot of things that can happen on the DOE jurisdiction in states that we're not involved, we could be out of the loop totally and would go exactly contrary to the way we normally do business. I mean, if there's a transportation accident in the state of Maryland under any other type of material, we're involved, but in this particular instance, we had to insert ourselves into the planning to ensure that things proceeded as normal.

And I just throw that out so all the states that Stan alluded to need to pay close attention to this.

MR. CAMERON: Thank you, Roland.

l

O ' [$piros Droggit'.3 - spirosrpd Pagi3]

j.-

Any other comments on the Department of Energy issue? I'm putting an action item up here for NRC's Office of State Programs again to inform the states of the status of DOE external regulation.

MR. FLETCHER: Can I add just one thing? At the time I found out about this exercise, DOE had also not notified the NRC, MR. CAMERON: Stan, do you want to say anything more on this issue and/orjust jump into tha business session?

MR. MARSHALL: I think I do. I have a couple of points related to the previous speakers, and we needed that break, but I think what I've got to say also relates to the DOE and this last

, session on relationships with federal agencies.

I liked Kirk's comment about a working group to cause - I think I understood it - to cause federal agencies to communicate MR. WHATLEY: I didn't make that recommendation.

MR. MARSHALL: I didn't say it was a recommendation either.

MR. WHATLEY: My statement was if they did, that would solve, in my opinion, would go a long way to solve - we probably wouldn't have had to have this session on it.

MR. MARSHALL: My point is we heard NRC talk about their role, their important role as a lead or almost lead in Weapons for Mass Destruction; I think we're all 1

i 4

i

)

u  ;