ML20134B467
| ML20134B467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/17/1997 |
| From: | Camper L NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| SECY-96-221-C, SSD, NUDOCS 9701300114 | |
| Download: ML20134B467 (2) | |
Text
,
e fR 04ts
. t UNITED STATES j y'
g ,je NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556 4 301 j
1 o
January 17, 1997 l
MEMORANDUM TO: Stuart Treby Assistant General Counsel for Rulemaking and Fuel Cycle Office of General Counsel FROM: Larry W. Camper, Chief Medical, Academic, and Commercial J b[ prt -
Use Safety Branch Division of industnal and Medical Nuclear Safety i Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
QUESTIONS CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT OF '
AN ACTION PLAN IN RESPONSE TO STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM - SECY-96-221 The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) is in the process of formulating a response to the December 31,1996, Staff Requirements Memorandum - ,
SECY-96-221 (SRM). The subject of the SRM is plans for NRC to improve its control over, j and licensees' accountability for, general- and specific- licensed devices and the Commission briefing on the subject held on November 13,1996. The response is due to the Commission at the er$d of March.
In preparing its response, NMSS has developed some questions concerning the actions it can implement under the current regulatory structure, including enforcement of current regulatory requirements. The responses to these questions will affect the actions NMSS will take prior to rulemaking and the structure of the rulemaking.
NMSS requests Office of General Counsel assistance in resolving the following issues:
- 1. Can NRC require current general (under 10 CFR 31.5) and specific licensees (under 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70) to verify accountability of the byproduct material they possess through mail contact, or via telephone, without amending the regulations? l This would include having licensees verify and report their current inventory of byproduct material to NRC, such as having the devices subject to a registration )i system. If so, NMSS would need to know the mechanism (e.g.,10 CFR 30.52, bullitens, su:veys) for such contact and the action that NRC can take for persons not responding.
1 '
I
- 2. Can NRC modify or revoke a general license, sur5 as the one provided in 10 CFR 31.5, by order or rulemaking, as it ap v M s specific individual or company?
g in em /EM N n"* F "7 C_D PDR NRC Hi.E CiEMR COPV
., a e
S. Treby 2 a
i
- 3. ; Will NRC need to obtain OMB clearance for the mail or telephone contact specifed in item 17-
- 4. What is the status of the general license, and the responsibility of general licensees, when damage occurs to a device,' including leakage of radioactive material and -
contamination of the facility? Do decommissioning regulations apply?
- 5. What is the status of persons possessing devices as a results of an unauthorized transfer from.a 10 CFR 31.5 general licensee? Is the person considered as possessing material without a license?
- 6. How can NRC ensure that Agreement State licensees that transfer material to NRC licensed users report transfers of the products? How can NRC enforce the repoding requirements? . &
- 7. ' Can NRC, through rulemaking, covert a type of license for possession and use of .
e- material to a different type of license? This would include the possibility of converting g
a general licensee to a specific licensee, converting a specific licensee to a general
(- '
' licensee, converting s' general licensee to a different type of general licensee, or G converting a specific licensee to a different type of specific licensee.
3 3, ,
8; t ' Aie ther'e'any legal limitations on reducing the requirements of 10 CFR 30.32 for NRC
- > to issue.a license '
document, either as part of pre-approval or after issuance of the
- license?.T
,N l .
,' .a
( ' EThe abo've issues and several derivations were discussed at a meeting between members of
' (my staff and Maria Schwartz ar}d Henry McGurren of the Office of General Counsel.
i- .. ,
(Since the above information will be used to formulate an action plan in response to the SRM, ;
we request s'res'ponse clarying the 'above issues by the early part of 13ebruary. If additional ,
information is needed or you or your staff would like to discuss the issues, please contact l
John Lubinski of my staff at 415-7868.
Attachment:
Staff Requirements Memorandum - SECY-96-221 Distribut5n: ,j SSSS Staff SSSS r/f 'NE03 'Cp DOCUMENT NAME: C:\ FILES \GLACTION\OGC
- T2 seestue e sepy of this slocument. Ins 16cate in the box: *C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure 'E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE ,
llMAB4u.A l(L IMAB, m l l l l l NAME- JLubinskiljl LCampef' l DATE 01/17/96 01/17/96' l OPMCIAL RECORD COPY
16:33 t E , 301 415 5369 t ca.ae: s.. a
. 01/02/97 Action: P@eriello, NMSS
/ e asse%
UNITED STATES Cys: Taylor f 4 NUCLEAR AEGULATORY COMMISclON M11hoan 8 wasmNc7oN, O C M555-0@ Thompson g
Blaha Morrison, RES 9'%****
MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Exe ut ve Director for Operations f
l FROM: Jo C, y e, Secretary d
SUBJECT:
TAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-221 - IMPROVING NRC'S CONTROL OVER, AND LICENSEES' ACCOUNTABILITY FOR, GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY LICENSED DEVICES and BRIEFING ON CONTROL AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF LICENSED DEVICES, 2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1996, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE " LINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) i The Comission has approved the staf f proposal contained in alternative number 3 to develop an action plar; to address the
' issue of device accountability and control. The Commission disapproved the staff's recommendation to conduct a pilot program
' in FY 1998 at this time and will reconsider any proposed pilot programs when a detailed action plan is provided to the Commission. The stcff should also advise theiCommission on options to pay for an enhanced NRC regulatory ' program including the availability of external funds, or whethet consideration needs to be given to exploring with Congress dhe possibility of removing specific program costs from the NRC#d user fee base (e.g., orphan source recovery fund) .
4EDG). (NMSS) (SECY Suspense: ,
3/28/97) 9600102 The action plan should provide sufficient detdils to manage and track all acti na associated with this issue and should address:
- 1) Thestaff'sposition(accepting, rejecting,or accepting in part) on each of the working group's reconnendations, and the basis for that position.
'b L
SECY NOTE: THIS SRM AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD 3 CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM. SECY-96-221 WAS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON NOVEMBER 1 &
1996.
%.Ota ..
O1<02/97 16:33 iFC - 30145 5369 4
t
- 2) The proposal by Ms. Aldrich to require specific licenses for the more hazardous devices now available under a general license, and address whether this ',
proposa.'. would lead to greater harmonization of U.S.
regulations with those of other countries.
- 3) Any additional recommendations from the staff that were not addressed in the working group report (such as '
proceeding with or dropping the air gap rule),
including the above information on resources and reprioritization for each staff recommendation.
- 4) The NRC and Agreement State resources needed to l implement each working group recommendation (including those that the staff has accepted in part or rejected).
If
- 5) Whether NRC resources are currently budgeted.
resources are not currently budgeted, then the staff should describe the activities that would Resource have to be ,
reprioritized to carry out the actions. !
estimates for each year and for maintenance of the developed system after the plan has been completely implemented should be included. The staff should scrive to develop the most cost-effective plan possible.
- 6) The staff's position on the Agreement State compatibility issue raised by the wokking group, and make e recommendation on the appropriate level of i compati.ility for each requirement that the staff recommends adopting. ' l 7)
The action to quantify the risks assbelated with unaccounted-for devices. Specifically the staff should plan to proceed with establishing th6 probabilities associated with devices being lost, devices causing exposure to members of the public, dhvices entering the metals manufacturing stream, devices!being smelted, and other incidents the staff recommends { analyzing.
l
- 8) A mechanism for identification, control, storage, and proper disposal of orphan sources, including a funding plan for such contingencies. ;
- 9) A rulemaking plan. Theactionplanhhouldincludea specific action to develop a rulemaking plan to address these device accountability and control issues, along with a schedule for the rulemaking process.
- 10) When each accepted action would be started and completed.
. 01/02 &t 16:33 tFC 4 301 41'3 5369 10.068 R-.
3 The actions in the staff action plan should be tied to the primacy of risk, with higher-riek issues receiving higher priorities, faster schedules, and more immediate resources than lower-risk issues. The staff should consicer the need for initiating this effort in advance of the completion of the rulemaking. Because it is unlikely that the staff uill be ab'.e to quantify these risks at the time the actionjplan is provided to the Commission, the staff should base the action plan recommendations on the staff's own general experience with the associated risks.
In developing an action plan, the staff may propose pilot programs. If the staff suggests a pilot program for any of the issues, the staff should describe the pilot program and how the pilot program will be limited. The staff should be specific about what the pilot program is expected to accomplish, when it
~.
will be started and completed, and what resources will be 4 required. If a pilot program is suggested, it should be of the minimal length of time necessary to demonstrate that there are no significant unforeseen difficulties in the prompt implementation of the staff's proposal.
4 cc: Chairman Jackson Cotraissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCA -
I OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via B-Mail) 4 A