ML19290D659
| ML19290D659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002220504 | |
| Download: ML19290D659 (4) | |
Text
[ Jp 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555
,,.g y
Y k j *s f
+
"..n."
December 17, 1979 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Morris Udall, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing on behalf of the Commission in response to your request of December 11 for our views on Section 104(a)(6).
This section was offered as an amendment to H.R. 2608 by Representative Bingham and adopted by the full House. We appreciate this opportunity to provide our comments on this proposal prior to House-Senate conference.
We fully endorse what we believe to be the intent of the Bingham amend-ment,. i.e., that the NRC undertake a comprehensive program for systemati-cally reevaluating the safety of all currently operating plants.
- However, a majority of the Commi.ssioners (Chairman Ahearne, Commissioner Kennedy
[
and Commissioner Hendrie) does not believe the Bingham amendment would j
represent the most effective use of resources in accomplishing this j
goal.
j The amendment is intended to provide information concerning the degree
[
to which operating power plants conform to NRC standards and criteria II required of current applicants for operating licenses and construction permits as well as to provide a schedule for resolving generic safety issues identified in NUREG 0410.
In developing this information one approach would be to conduct.a quick review which would not involve substantial resources.
This type of review would probably be based on telephone calls to licensees, I
comparison of licensing dates with effective dates of NRC require-ments, and a review of outstanding issues. This was the approach the NRC staff originally had in mind for complying with the amendment.
However, upon further consideration of how this process would actually work, we have concluded this alternative would have limited usefulness in evaluating safety. To be useful, the information developed by the
~ industry and the NRC staff would have to be carefully compiled and reviewed for completeness and accuracy.
For example, under the first approach one might assume plants licensed before the effective date of a O
8 00gggg 5O
2 requirement do not meet that requirement.
However, a closer look might show that the NRC imposed the requirement on licerisees while it was still a draf t position.
Thus, careful examination of each plant would be necessary to accurately determine the status of each requirement.
Following this second approach i
for all operating plants is estimated to require six months and involve approximately 15 man-years of NRC effort.
This is a significant resources allocation decision which will have an impact on the ongoing Three Mile Island efforts.
The majority of the Commissioners would prefer a third approach.
i As you are aware, two years ago the Commission undertook a reevaluation on a limited basis with respect to 11 of the older operating plants. We believe a variation of this Systematic Evaluation program should be developed for application to all operating plants.
Such a program should also address generic safety issues. A specific task to accom-plish this objective has already been included in the proposed Three Mile Island Task Action Plans currently under review by the Commission.
It will take several months for the NRC staff to develop and propose, and for the Commission to approve, this systematic program for evalu-ating the safety of all operating plants.
It most likely will include some elements of the ongoing Systematic Evaluation Program, in which evaluations are being made by the NRC staff of the design of the older plants with regard to some 130 safety " topics," e.g., determining the adequacy of plant design with respect to geologic and seismologic phenomena (earthquakes, land slides, ground collapse, liquefaction, etc.).
This would be in contrast to evaluating the safety of these plants by comparing and contrasting their design features with all current staff standards and criteria.
The new program will undoubtedly also contain some elements which do involve a comparison of existing plant design features against some of the more safety significant current NRC requirements for the design of these features.
Our preference therefore would be to replace the current Section 104(a)(6) with language along the following lines:
"The NRC shall develop and provide to the Congress within 120 days a comprehensive plan for the systematic safety evaluation of all currently operating plants.
The Commission shall forward to the Congress a report on the progress on implementation of the evaluation program prior to February 1,1981, as a separate document, and for each succeeding year as a separate chapter of the Commission's annual report (required under Section 307(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974)."
3
~
If this alternative is not acceptable to the conferees, we recommend that the time period for compliance with the current Section 104(a)(6) be extended to 180 days to minimize any interference it will have with ongoing Three Mile Island-related efforts.
In addition to your request for our views, your letter expresses concern that NRC staff doubts about the Bingham amendment were not rade explicit to Congress or transmitted in writing to your Subcommittee in a timely manner, presumably before floor action on H.R. 2608.
Several days before Mr. Bingham offered his amendment on the House floor, similar language was circulated to senior staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, who offered the informal opinion that the information required by the amendment could be compiled but that six months rather than four would afford a more reasonable time frame for impl ementation.
This informal opinion was conveyed to Mr. Bingham's staff and to the staff of your Subcommittee.
The NRC officials involved did not volunteer an opinion as to whether such a compilation represented the most effective use of limited resources.
At the time the staff interpreted the Bingham amendment as likely to be compatible with the systematic evaluation program to be proposed to the Commission.
However, on further consideration, the staff now believes that i. )lementation of the Bingham amendment either would have limited usefulness in evaluating the safety of operating plants or would impact substantially on its ability to develop the reevaluation plan contemplated by the Commission staff.
As previously pointed out, we believe the goal of the amendment is essentially the same as one already set by the Commission.
However, it would be difficult to implement the second and third approaches simul-taneously because of resource limitations.
Thus the current amendment would determine the course of action rather than allow the Commission to reach a decision based on its evaluation of the NRC staff's proposals.
Co.missioners Gilinsky and Bradford endorse the Bingham amendment.
They regard the requirements of the Bingham amendment as a necessary first step in developing a comprehensive program for the systematic evaluation of currently operating plants. They believe that this information con-cerning the basic NRC safety requirements to which each operating reactor is subject should be readily available.
In their view, the apparent fact that it is not available indicates a surprising disarray in the status of NRC knowledge of operating plants that should not be allowed to continue. They do not interpret the Amendment as requiring any engineering evaluations. Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford suggest that it would be useful to add to Section 104(a) (6) (B):
4 T
. and which of those items referred to in subparagraph (A) the licensee is required to meet as of the date of this Act.
For those cases where a current requirement is not imposed on a licensee, the report should identify the related applicable
?
requirement, if any, and the difference between it and the current requirement;"
This would serve to document what is required of operating plants 1
in light of current standards.
If The Commission (Chairman Ahearne and Commissioners Kennedy and Hendrie) has no objection to the Bingham Amendment, if it is understood to be the minimal resource review of the first approach.
However, if it is to lead to the significant resource application of the second approach the Comissioners believe the Commission should decide how best to allocate its resources to accomplish the desired goal.
They agree with what they perceive to be tF: intent of the Bingham Amendment but believe their proposed alternative is the proper way to reach a decision on allocation of large staff resources.
Regarding provisions (C) and (E) of the amendment, NUREG 0510 identified which of the issues listed in NUREG 0410 were, in the Commission's judgment, " Unresolved Safety Issues." NUREG 0510 provided estimated programs resolving these issues. As additional items are raised to the level of these issues, schedules are developed for them.
I hope this information is helpful in clarifying the Commission's position.
Sinc ' rely, f
f ~ F. Ahearne LL g
~
~
John
UNITED STATES C C[O F f
o,,
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- g g &,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
o
\\...../
~
CHAIRMAN January 3, 1980 The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Commission has now had an opportunity to review both versions of S. 562, as passed by the Senate and House.
Attached for your convenience and that of the conferees is a table listing major provisions where there are significant differences between the Senate and the House bills and indicating, where appropriate, the NRC preference and the reasons, in abbreviated form, for that preference.
Section 101 of both bills provides spending authority for various NRC program offices for FY 1980. The higher authorizations contained in the House bill reflect the most recent Commission assessment of its needs, taking into account the many necessary changes identified as a result of our evaluation of the Three Mile Island accident. The sum of these items is $426,821,000 for NRC for FY 1980. This amount has the Cormiission's full support.
The Commission is particularly pleased that both Senate and House included recommended legislation increasing the amount of civil penalties which may be imposed for violations of NRC regulations. We are also pleased that the House version includes a provision (Section 302) long sought by the NRC, which protects certain sensitive, but unclassified, safeguards information, related to the security of nuclear facilities, from public disclosure. The colloquy between Congressman Udall and Congressman Moffett concerning the application of this provision (Congressional Record December 4, 1979 --H-ll497-H-11498) has created some uncertainty about the intended coverage of this section. The Commission cletely believes that information on individual shipments (specific times, and, in the few cases where alternative routes are available, the alternative chosen for an individual shipment) should be treated as safeguards information and withheld from public disclosure. We are now considering in an adjudicatory proceeding the issue of whether the routes approved by the NRC should also be kept confidential. The Commission expects to rule on this question in the near f '
DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:
. g i
No. of pages: