ML19294A894
| ML19294A894 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/12/1979 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Roisman A National Resources Defense Council |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A895 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-88, NUDOCS 7905080137 | |
| Download: ML19294A894 (2) | |
Text
'
, ~..
/
xl$5
' ff^
~
f b
UNITED S TATES
['r
,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g 1.-(/
- ...=
w >. __
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esquire Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
917 IS th Street, N.W.
Washi ngton, D.C.
20005
Dear Mr. Roisman:
Your letters of December 26, 1978, Ja nuary 12, 1979 and February 2,1979, noted a lack of timeliness in two instances of Licensing Board notifications by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff, and suggested that the staff announce and implement a policy for prompt board notification of relevant new information.
In response to your letters, I will describe our policy and procedures for Board notification that were issued during the past year, and then relate the facts surrounding the specific instances you have cited.
On May 4,1978, the Commission approved a new agency-wide policy for noti-fying Licensing Boards of relevant and material new information.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in turn promulgated detailed procedures for Board notification in the form of NRR Office Letter No.
19 on July 6,1978. A copy of the Of fice Letter is provided in Enclosure 1.
Other program offices of NRC issued similar instructions.
Technical staff members of the five program offices of NRC were also given training in the implementation of the procedures during the months of July, August, and September of 1978.
Our general view prior to receipt of your letter was that the new procedures were working reasonably well.
We were correcting some of the early bugs in our tracking system, but believed that the resources expended in training the staff on the importance of this responsibility had been well spent.
Your concerns with the containment buckling and asymmetric load issues are the only complaints concerning Board notification received to date.
We have examined the facts of these instances in order to understand if and why the existing procedures did not serve their intended purpose of assuring prompt notification, and have included the details of these examinations as Enclosure 2 for containment buckling and Enclosure 3 for asymmetric loads.
I
~7 C0f1TAlf1S
. TV MGES e
79050809 M
~
7.r,.._
y 3
[
Anthony Z. Roisman
- 2. -
Having reviewed these instances in context with the other Board notification matters processed in recent months, we conclude that the staff should have notified the relevant Boards at a much earlier date.
We do note, however, that both of the matters which you have addressed were initially raised prior to the formalization of the Board notifi-cation procedures and subsequent staff training.
In summary, we agree with your suggestion that the staff should announce and implement a policy for prompt Board notification. We accomplished that goal last summer.
The lack of timeliness in the instances you cited tells us we can do better in putting this policy into practice.
We further note that at the time the Comuission approved the current Board notification policy they indicated that a review of experience gained should be made at the end of one year.
We are in the process of gathering information and opinions from the various NRC groups in-volved in this process and will develop a Commission paper to critique the implementation of the current policy and to suggest any changes in procedures which may be needed.
In preparing this appraisal for the Commission we will include consideration of the particular concerns you have raised.
In order to improve performance in the near term, however, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will issue a memorandum to its staff to summarize the facts surrounding the two instances you have cited.
In addition, that memorandum will instruct the staff that information requiring more than four weeks to evaluate for processing under the Office Letter No.19 should be sent to the relevant Boards prior to completing a determination that it puts a new or different light upon an issue before the Boards.
Sincerely, i4 Harold R. Denton, Director u
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
NRR Office Letter No.19 dated July lo,1978 2.
Containment Buckling Concern - Examination 3.
Asymmetric Load Concern - Examination
.