ML20155H041

Confirms Telcon of 980824 Establishing Listed Meeting Time on 980831 to Discuss Info Needs to Estimate Costs of Regulating DOE Defense Program Facilities

ML20155H041
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/25/1998
From:	Joseph Austin NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Kevin Pusateri ENERGY, DEPT. OF
Shared Package
ML20155H034	List: ML20155H028 ML20155H041
References
NUDOCS 9811090312
Download: ML20155H041 (2)

Text

- - - _ . _ _ _ . - - - .- - _-. _

I f, UNITED STATES i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.5 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 0001 8

4 August 25. 1998

%,*****,#[ ,

Mr. Kenneth M. Pusatori General Manager Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board .

625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Pusateri:

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of August 24,1998, establishing a meeting time of 10:30 a.m., on August 31,1998, in your office, to discuss our information needs that would permit us to estimate the costs of regulating the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Defense Program (DP) facilities. This information is in addition to the information provided by John T.

Conway, Chairman, U.S. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) in his letter to Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated July 22, 1998.

NRC regulates on the basis of individual radionuclides, quantities of those radionuclides, and the nature of the activities conducted at facilities, as well as other considerations. An example of the type of information we need for each facility, so we can develop accurate, regulatory costs, is shown in Enclosure 1. NRC developed this information so as to best identify which '

program codes, regulatory regime, and fee categories would apply to each Oak Ridge National  !

Laboratory facility assessed during the Pilot Project of simulated regulation conducted there in l the past few months. Similar information is needed about the DP facilities, so we can complete a similar analysis. )

NRC has reorganized (Enclosure 2) the facilities that DNFSB provided according to the types of l facilities listed in the attachment to the letter dated July 22,1998, namely, ' DOE Facility / Site {

Summary." From this reorganization, NRC has identified current licensees or program codes that most closely fit those types of facilities (Enclosure 3). As can be seen in Enclosure 3, a wide variety of current licensees or program codos could serve as a basis for estimating resource needs for regulating DP facilities. Resource needs for regulating this variety of licensees differ by a factor of five or more, depending on the particulars of each licensee. This j would be true for DP facilities, as well. It may be that existing prcgram codes are not appropriate for DP facilities. If not, then the level of effort is dependent on the extent to which the " areas of review" identified in Enclosure 3 are applicable to individual DP facilities. The arcas of review, in turn, are dependent on the identities of radionuclides within each facility, possession limits for radionuclides, and the nature of the activities (e.g., hot cell activities, glove box activities, hood operations, and potential for criticality), and the role of structures, systems, and components in ensuring safety.

l 9811090312 981023 '

PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR s

'l Mr. Kenneth M. Pusateri 2 August 25, 1998 I look forward to meeting with you on August 31,1998. If you need to contact me before then, I can be reached at (301) 415-7275.

Sincerely, ,

/

f i

John H. Austin, Deputy Chairman External Regulation of the Department of Energy Task Force

Enclosures:

1. ORNL Radiological Facilities (other than REDC) r 2. DOE Facility / Site Summary l 3. Costs to Regulate DOE DP Facilities l

l l

l l'

i 1

! . _ _ . . - - . _ . , _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ ._ _ _