ML19270H426
| ML19270H426 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/1979 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Kimel W AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19270H427 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907270210 | |
| Download: ML19270H426 (3) | |
Text
e REco m
[
-k UNITED STATES j.(
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION q
- I.5 g
WASHIN GTON, O.C. 20555
\\{'~/ }
Tm June 5, 1979 OFFsCE OF THE CHAIRMAN Mr. William E. Kimel, President American Nuclear Society 555 North Kensington Avenue LaGrange Park, Illinois 60525
Dear Mr. Kimel:
This is in response to your letter of March 9,1979 concerning(WASH-1400) release of the Comission's Policy Statement on the Reactor Safety Study and the review of tMt study by the Risk Assessment Review Group headed by Dr. Harold Lewis.
At the outset, I would like to point out that the NRC staff pro ided not only a copy o.f the Comrhission's " Policy Statement on Risk Assessment and the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400)" but also a copy of the Risk Assessment Review Group's Report to all known recipients of the Reactor Safety Study.
The associated NRC press release was distributed in the same fashion as all other NRC press releases.
You have expressed a view that the Comission's press release concerning the Risk Assessmeri Review Group's Report was not consistent with the Review Group's Report. As discussed below, I do not believe that this is the case.
I would note, however, that it is fair to say that many of the media reports on the Comission's Policy Statement were not as consistent or balanced as they could have been.
While I would agree that neither the Comission's Policy Statement nor the press release included a detailed discussion of all of the findings and recomendations developed by the Review Group, I would note that both documents included a discussion of those matters which, in the Connission's judgment, were the most significant.
Furthermore, I believe that a careful reading of the Policy Statement, tha press release, and the transcript of the Review Group's briefing of the Comission on September 7,1978 would show that the material discussed in the Policy Statement and the press release are consis-tent with the Review Group's Report.
I have enclosed a copy of these documents.
Mile there are, as you point out, a number of positive statements concern-ing WASH-1400 in the Review Group's Report, there also are a number of criticisms.
Both the press release and the Policy Statement discussed those matters.
Both documents noted the praise by the Review Group of the Safety Study's general methodology and its contributions to assessing the risks of nuclear power, as well as indicating the Comission's endorsement of the Review Group's recommendations on future use of probabilistic risk assess-ment in the regulatory precess. The criticisms of the Review Group also were outlined, as were the Comission' aclusion on those matters.
I20 790727oato
Mr. William E. Kimel With respect to your observations on the Reactor Safety Study peer review process, I would point to the Commission's coments in its Policy Statement:
"The Review Group criticized the RSS staff response, pointing out that in some cases cogent coments from critics either were not acknowledged or were evaded and that, in general, the record of response to valid criticism was weaker than it should have been. The report points out that the lack of clarity of WASH-1400 itself led to major difficulty in tracing a line of thought through the study and crippled many efforts to accomplish peer reviews."
In noting its acceptance of the Review Group findings, the Comission said on the subject of peer review:
"The Comission agrees that the peer review process followed in publishing WASH-1400 was inadequate and that proper peer review is fundamental to making sound, technical decisions.
The Comis-sion will take whatever corrective action is necessary to assure that effective peer review is an integral feature of the NRC's risk assessment program."
You observe that the Comission press release and Policy Statement did not mention that WASH-1400 was seldom, if ever, used as the sole basis for regulatory decision-making.
In connection with issuing its Policy State-ment, the Comission directed the staff to review the extent to which; past and pending licensing or other regulatory actions, including Commission, ACRS and licensing board actions and statements, have relied on the risk assessment models and risk estimates of the Reactor Safety Study.
My testimony of February 26, 1979 before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs dis-cusses the staff actions in response to the Comission's directive.
I believe that the Comission's Policy Statement, the public meetings of the Comission which were held to discuss the staff's respon::cs as well as my testimony at Congressional hearings provide a reasonable perspective of our views on reactor safety. A copy of my testimony and that of Comissioner Bradford is enclosed.
I appreciate your concern about this matter and hope the information pro-vided will be helpful in understanding the Comission's actions.
Sincerely,.
1
' Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman
Enclosures:
See attached sheet
Mr. William E. Kimel
Enclosures:
1.
Policy Statement on Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) 2.
Press Release 3.
Transcript of Review Group's 9/7/78 Comission briefing 4.
Testimony of J.M. Hendrie, dated 2/26/79 5.
Testimony of P.A. Bradford, dated 2/26/79
.