ML19259B000
| ML19259B000 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/27/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Dingell J HOUSE OF REP., INTERSTATE & FOREIGN COMMERCE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901150203 | |
| Download: ML19259B000 (3) | |
Text
e e
C C
UNITED STATES
[h, s
(
,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
}y: j WASHINGTON,. C. 20555
- c. M E h /./
December 27, 1978
- ' /
g9p//5p2f3 CH AIRMAN
/
[/ihe Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman
/
ubcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce D
D D.q-ca a
United States House of Representatives 2.
oo, a
=
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In a previous letter to you dated February 9, 1978, concerning the General Electric Nuclear Reactor Study, generally known as the Reed Report, I was unable to provide, as you requested, a list of the 27 items in the Reed Report identified by GE as safety-related.
I stated in my letter that we did not then have such a list, but that we wculo request that GE provide one.
Subsequently, members of the NRC staff and Mr. Ward of your staff met with GE to discuss the scope and purpose of the Reed Report and the safety-related items identified in that report.
Folicwing this discussion, GE was asked by the staff to provide a brief statement on the status of each safety-related item.
We have now received this information from GE.
It was enclosed as an attachment to a letter from GE dated May 26, 1978, to the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
In providing the attachment, GE informed the NRC staff that information contained in the attachment was proprietary to GE and requested that it be withheld from public disclosure under 10 CFR 62.790 of the NRC's Rules of Practice.
Subsequently, on July 10, 1978, the NRC staff determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.790, that the attachment conta'ined proprietary information and was exempt from public inspection or disclosure.
Enciosures 3 and 4 are the GE May 26 letter and the July 10 response, respectively.
The NRC is providing Enclosure 1 to the Committee together with the staff's c'onclusion that it.is proprietary and should not be publicly discicsed without the consent of GE.
The Commission normally treats documents of this type as proprietary pending a--final determination.
We
~
will advise GE that this document has been provided to the Committee.
The applicability of the safety-related items identified in the Reed Report is now an issue in two licensing hearings.
In one case, the sum ary status (Enclosure 3) is being made available to the parties under protective agreement.
In the second case, the Board has issued a subpoena to GE to provide the Reed Report itself under protective agree-me'.
GE has moved to cuash the subpoena; this issue is currently uncer litigation in that hearing.
~"O 238
e2 O
v Tile Honorable John D. Dingell D**D D' T }SlnLs h
eeA
_A o
The flRC staff has reviewed this information and has no substantive disagreement with the summary status provided by GE.. However, GE's characterization of some of the items as not being licensing problems could be misunderstood since the staff had an interest in all 27.
Although the staff feels that acceptable solutions to each of these problems are available such that continued licensing is justified, all of these items were, and in some cases, continue to be the subject o'f review in licensing actions.
Of the 27 items originally identified, only 25 are separate issues. Seven of these 25 issues (fiumbers 2, 4,10, 12,15, 20 and 22) appeared in the Reed Report because they are constraints on,the operation of reactors resulting from regulatory requirements and, in that sense, are safety-related..However, neither the adequacy of the requirements, nor whether the plants adequately meet the requirements, are in question.
In the case of items 2 and 4, GE has requested that the requirements be modified so that reactor operation is not constrained.
This request is currently under review by the staff.
fio further action of the staff has been requested or is contemplated for the other five items.
Four other issues concern the imp ~1ementation of licen' sing criteri_a.
(numbers 1, 3, 5 and 14).
Although the criteria sufficient for a construc-tion permit existed, the final design for the particular affected standard plant will not be reviewed by the staff until submitted with a Final Safety Analysis Report at the time of applicaticn for an operating license. Thus, the full design and review procedure is not ccmplete.
These issues will be resolved before a Final Design Approval or operating license is issued. One issue (number 8) concerns a proposed feature that has subsequently been eliminated from the GE design. Although the staff czpleted much of the review of this feature, no further staff action to complete the review is contemplated.
Two of the issues (numbers 16 and 19) related to quality assurance, either deviations from established procedures or a need to improve procedures. The results of such internal audits are available for review by the f;RC inspection staff, but are usually only reviewed on a selective t
basis. GE determined that the specific items involved wera not significant so as to require notification of:the I;RC. The staff has no~ plans.to inv'estigate these issues further.-.
~
The remaining eleven issues are safety-related issues, three of whi~ch-(numbers 13, 23, and 24) the staff has questioned and subsequently resolved.
Final resolution has not yet been attained for the other eight issues (numbers 6, 7, 9, 11, 17, 18, 21 and 25).
For these un-resolved issues the staff has deva soped interin positions that provide an adequate basis for continued licensing or operation pending final resolution. Four of these items (9,11, 21, and 25) are included in the staff's generic activities program.
The initial program for item 9 is complete and the lonc-term program is scheculed for cc~.pletion in 0:tober 1979.
Iten 11 is scbeduled for cercle: ion pricr to issuance c'
" ~ 0 2 3 9
=e ee
9 o
The Menorable John D. Dingell an coerating license to the first affected plans.
A program for item 21 is being developed.
Completion of the initial portion is now scheduled for mid-1979 and final resolution is scheduled for mid-1982.
Item 25 is under consideration by the staff, and the final requirements will be decided early next year.
Staff reviews of items 6 and 17 are scheduled to be completed early next year. The staff review of items 18 and 21 are complete; the staff positions have been drafted and are to be issued within two months.
I hope that this additional information completes the response to your request of last December.
If more is required, please advise.
Sincerely, 3
r W
,( M M 5-doraph M. -Hendrie -
Enclosures:
1.
Ltr from G. Sherwood, GE to R.J. Mattson dtd 3/22/78 2.
Ltr to G. Sherwood, GE from R.J. Mattson dtd 4/4/78
r from G. Sherwood, GE to 3.
R.J. Mattson dtd 5/26/78 l.
Ltr to G. Sherwood, GE from
. R.J. Mattson dtd 7/10/78 cc:
Rep. Clarence Brown
'~'0 240'
.