ML19256A594
| ML19256A594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/26/1978 |
| From: | Basdekas D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Budnitx R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256A581 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-WASH-1400 NUDOCS 7901090070 | |
| Download: ML19256A594 (2) | |
Text
~
\\
UNIT ED STATL3 e *e.
4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,,
7 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 j
8 DEC 2 61978 MEMORA?iDUM FOR: Robert J. Budnitz, Deputy Director Office of fluclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Demetrios L. Basdekas, Reactor Safety Engineer Experimental Fast Reactor Safety Research Branch Division of Reactor Safety Research SUBJECT :
STAFF VIEWS Ott RESULTS OF SURVEY OF USES OF WASH-1400-YOUR MEMORAf4DUM TO ALL RES STAFF DATED DEC. 22, 1978 This is in response to your request for coments on the subject matter.
1.
The results of the purported survey cannot be thought to represent the views of the staff because the " survey" was not even conducted in some f4RC quarters.
Apparently, this has been recognized by the Commission.
2.
Your subject request comes during a time of the year and with such a deadline that it promises to be as effective as a press release on the first Wednesday in flovember of a presidential election year.* I trust the Comission recognizes that a large percentage of the Staff is on leave this week.
3.
I believe that the classification by the " majority" staff of the instances of WASH-1400 results or methodology use in the regulatory decision making process, as reported in SECY 78-637 and related documents, is without rational or sound technical basis; rather it 6ppears to be the result of the same type of artistry that produced works such as fiUREG-138, 153, and 410.
A number of the specific cases identified, for example, appear in more than one category and as many as three or four categories.
4.
Considering that the SECY 78-637 and related documents were produced mostly by the same crew that was involved in the potentially im-proper use of risk assessment, I believe it will be prudent for the Commission to have their scrutiny and cir,sification perfomed by a specially appointed Task Force free of the conflicts of interest that I believe have burdened the compilation of these documents.
All identified cases merit reconsideration without prejudging the outcome of such reconsideration.
- Comissioner Ahearne expressly noted his concern on timeliness sometime ago.
790109co70
RDbert Budnitz DEC 2 61978 5.
I recocinend that the approach described in Item 4 above be adopted by the Convaission and so reported to the Congress in the transmittal letter of the Annual Report to the Congress on Generic Safety Issues.
It is my judgment that this action will serve as a catalyst of a more constructive climate within the Connission as well as in its relationship with the Congress and the public at large.
In view of the time limitations existing at this time, which you correctly pointed out, I request that this memorandum be transmitted to the Commission with some dispatch (by December 29,1978) to assure a timely consideration of my recomendation contained in Items 4 & 5 above.
Thank you for the opportunity to coment on this important issue, hmM 0 MNm.
Demetrios L. Basdekas Experimental Fast Reactor Safety Research Branch cc:
S. Levine, RES H. Denton, NRR D. Bunch, NRR K. Pedersen, OPE C. Kammerer, OCA
Jan. 2, 1979 Anonymous comment on the results cf Survey of uses of WASH-14ti0 I would like to make the following comments on the subjects contained in the Dec. 20 meno.
First, this memo allowed no time to review the subjects mentioned in the memo.
I was not aware a survey of uses was even underway.
I do not know what uses were identified or which ones were identified as needing reconsideration.
Since this memo was not received by the staff until Dec. 28, and since many staff were on annual leave over the holidays, this memo cannot be considered as having reached all the staff for comment.
Since these comments must be in i
today I cannot go through the material and comment.
Second, an extension for comments is needed.
In the extension notice the identified uses and uses under consideration should be specifically listed,to avoid a waste of staff time.
More detailed comments may then be cone by those staff membert who have the time to read the summary in detail.
Office of NMSS