IA-85-836, Discusses Differences Between Interpretations of 10CFR50.55(e) Re Reportability of Items/Events within 24 H. Region IV Encourages Permittees to Rept Soon After Identification If Analysis Will Continue for Extended Time
| ML20154R343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/16/1985 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154R302 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-836 NUDOCS 8603280312 | |
| Download: ML20154R343 (2) | |
Text
. . . ,
~ p;-_
APR 161985 .
1 MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM: Robert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV
SUBJECT:
ASLB MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IN RE HL&P This supplements my memorandum dated April 2, 1985, in which I pointed out that the ASLB memorandum and order of February 26, 1985, takes issue with the staff's interpretation of IE guidance on Construction Deficiency Reporting.
My memo was in the mail to you when I received Guy Cunningham's March 25, 1985, memo on the South Texas Project Phase II hearings. This memo has raised an additional point regarding differences between ASLB interpretation of
. 50.55(e) and our understanding of same that we overlooked in reading the memorandum and order.
The ASLB, as ELD apparently understands it, has said that " determinations as to whether matters had to be promptly reported to the NRC were not to be made on information developed long after the report was. received, but infonnation had in the 24-hour reporting period provided in 50.55(e)(2)." This was the conclusion apparently drawn from page 16 of the memorandum and order.
Our understanding of 50.55(e) is that when an item is determined to be reportable, it must be reported in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. A reportable item is defined in 50.55(e)(1). The analysis to determine if an item could have adversely affected plant operations etc., and thus, is a reportable item, could take months. We also recognize that it is possible for a utility to ' analyze' the iten for months while its generic impact remains unknown to the industry and the I:RC. To provide a mechani.sm for promptly reporting, we followed the 1980 guidance and have encouraged permittees to report 'potentially reportable items' soon after they are identified if the analysis to determine reportability will continue on for some time. Normally, using this reporting philosophy, permittees report these potential-items shortly af ter their initial identificatior..
It appears, however, that the ASLB has a different interpretation of the 24-hour clock and expects that reportability can be established within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of initial identification by the licensee. We believe that this
) A RIV:RPbl RSP EHJohnson/lk RPDe 'se RD in 85 Q/4/85 g/g/85 j/
f 8603200312 860110 O PDR FOIA PDR SCHUMBS-836
James M.-Taylor issue should be included in any review of the guidance on interpretating SD.55(e). Please let me know if we can provide any additional information or background.
.r.,a by Robert D.-Martin Regional- Administrator cc:
V. Stello, ED0 T. E. Murley, RA-RI J. N. Grace, RA-RII J. G. Keppler, RA-RIII J. B. Martin, RA-RV
.bcc:
PScheck RPDenise DRHunter EHJohnson J. Lieberman, OELD E. Reis, OELD RPB1 RIV File
$