ML19294A953
| ML19294A953 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/15/1980 |
| From: | Plesset M Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A952 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002260440 | |
| Download: ML19294A953 (8) | |
Text
.
e neuu
'o UNITED STATES Ig
!" A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
.. E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
/[
O WASHINGTON, o. C. 20555 s
January 15, 1980 Honorable John F. Ahearne Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Eubject: RECOMMENEATIONS OF PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON ACRS ROLE
Dear Dr. Ahearne:
he following comments are offered in response to Mr. Chilk's letter of November 9,1979 requesting that the ACRS provide the Commission with its views and analysis of the role of the ACRS as contained in the recommenda-tions of the report of the President's Commission (PC) on the Accident at Three Mile Island.
Individual recommendations from the report are listed below with ACRS comments following.
1.
"The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) should be retained, in a strengthened role, to continue providing an independent check on safety matters." The ACRS agrees.
2.
"We memberc of the Committee should continue to be part-time appointees;...."
h e ACRS agrees.
3.
"The staff of ACRS should be strengthened to provide increased capacity for independent analysis." The ACRS agrees that current staff support is inadequate to provide suitable independent-analysis capability; to keep abreast of NRC Staff, industry, and foreign group activities on specific safety matters; to provide technical and background information to the members so the latter can make the best use of their limited time; and to provide proper support to the numerous ACRS subcommittees. W e Committee therefore requests that ten additional, senior-staff positions.be author-ized for the ACRS staff in order to meet the sense of the PC's recommen-dations and to provide an adequate technical support base for improved operation of the Committee.
Rese positions are intended to be in addi-tion to those authorized in the Fellowship Program.
Ibwever, if budgetary limitations prevent this level of support, the Committee would accept some conversion of Fellowship positions into permanent, senior positions.
In connection with strengthening the staff, it is noted that the help of some outside organization could occasionally be very useful in the assembly of information and data or in carrying out some specific analysis.
It is requested that means be explored whereby the ACRS could obtain such short-term studies as needed.
80 0220$ YQ
Honorable John F. Ahearne January 15, 1980 1
4.
"Special consideration should be given to improving ACRS' capabilities in the field of public health.' At the present time, the Committee has one member who is a specialist in the field of public health, and it can call upon an extensive list of highly qualified consultants.
One of the initial group of ACRS Fellows was qualified in this area, and new Fellows, or possibly full-time staff members, knowledgeable in this field could be added to our staff as needed. Consequently, the Committee believes it has adequate competence in this area.
5.
"The ACRS should not be required to review each license application."
'Ihe ACRS concurs with this recommendation and suggests that legislation be passed such that, unless the Commission specifically requests a re-view and report on an application or portion thereof, the Committee may dispense with such review and report by notifying '.he Commission in writing that review by the Committee is not warranted. We would expect that such notification by the Committee would be made part of the public record.
6.
"When ACRS chooses to review a license application, it should have the statutory right to intervene in hearings as a party.
In particular, ACRS should be authorized to raise any safety issue in licensing pro-ceedings, to give reasons and arguments for its views, and to require formal response by the Agency to any submission it makes." While the ACRS agrees that additional emphasis should be given to ACRS recommen-dations during the hearing process, it believes that a more desirable method of achieving this purpose would be to alter the statute to re-quire that all recommendations made by the ACRS on given licensing proceedings be treated as substantive issues during the hearing.
In order to protect the advisory role and collegiality of the ACRS, the statute should also specify that neither the Committee nor its members should be involved as a party nor be subject to subpoena in connection with the hearings.
7.
"Any member of the ACRS should be authorized to appear and testify in
-hearings,...." The Committee believes that one of its main strengths results from its collegial approach and that this would be jeopardized if members departed from the collegial forum. Although members can ex-press disagreement with full Committee views by adding separata comments to our reports, we believe the collective aspect is overriding and we cannot support the recommendation. A member should be free, of course, to participate.as an intervenor in his. capacity as a private citizen.
8.
"ACRS should have similar rights in rulenaking proceedings.
In partic-ular, it should have the power to initiate a rulenaking proceeding before the agency to resolve any generic issue it identifies." The Committee agrees with the thrust of this recommendation but believes that the Commission would, as a matter of course, initiate a rulemaking pro-ceeding when recommended by the ACRS.
However, as noted in our letter of December 13,-1979 to Commissioner Bradford, we td ieve that well-defined i
s
4 Honorable John F. Ahearne January 15, 1980 procedures for ACRS input to the rulernaking process would be useful for clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the ACRS and the NRC Staff in this area.
Such procedures should include enough flexibility to allow those departures which may be required by special circumstances.
We have also informally sought cormnent from the President's Office, the Com-mission, the ASBP, the NRC Staff, Corgressional Staff, and from the Commit-tee members on ways to strengthen the role of the ACRS.
Four major sugges-tions have surfaced, and these are addressed below.
1.
It has been suggested that it would be of considerable value to the Commission if the ACRS could periodically assist in establishing pri-orities among the many safety matters needing attention. One approach to acccrnplish such an assignment, which we are prepared to undertake, would be for the Committee to comment on the priorities indicated in the report on unresolved safety issues which is submitted annually by the NRC to the Congress.
Such a review should include consideration of other issues which are potential candidates for the list.
A second, more time-consuming approach, somewhat experimental in nature, might be for the ACRS to evaluate and provide comments to the Commission on the general objectives, priorities, and resource allocations of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or other NRC Offices. We would be pleased to work with the Commissioners to determine whether this or some other approach might prove useful.
s 2.
It has been suggested that the NRC needs a senior advisory group to assist in consideration of problems covering all aspects of the fuel cycle and that the PC seems to suggest that this role be filled by the ACRS. As you are aware, the ACRS, at the request of the Commissioners, either is or has been involved in safety-related aspects of reactor power plant design and operation, advanced reactor develognent, Depart-ment of Energy and Naval reactors, research, siting, chemical processing facilities, nuclear safeguards, transportation of radioactive materials, industrial sabotage, waste management, emergency planning, and spent fuel storage capacity. Rus, it already serves as an advisory body on subjects covering most of the breadth of the safety aspects of the fuel cycle. Although the Committee's time is limited, it could undertake additional work on the few remaining safety aspects of the full fuel-cycle.
E 3,
.2 e Committee feels that some of its recommendations have not been fol-lowed up by the Commission and the NRC Staff in an adequate or timely fashion. We are pleased to see that you have initiated actions recently to resolve this matter, and we are prepared to work with you or your staff as needed. We believe that the Commission and Staff should develop a
. specific procedure for handling ACRS recommendations and for commenting on the reasons for the actions taken.
E Honorable John F. Ahearne January 15, 1980 4.
It has been suggested that the ACRS should devote a greater fraction of its time to some of the broader, as contrasted to detailed, aspects of reactor safety. 'Ihe Committee is in agreement with this point and had begun moving farther in this direction prior to 'IMI-2.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss any aspects of this letter on which you have questions.
Sincerely, Milton S. Plesset Chairman O
e O
A
I 2.
Transfer of Functions to FEMA The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C.
5801 et seq.) is amended --
h 1.
By redesignating subsection 201(f) as paragraph (1) of sub-section 201(f); and 2.
By adding a new paragraph (2) to subsection 201(f) to read i
as follows:
E
"(2) There are transferred to the Federal Emergency Management L
Agency all of the licensing and regulatory functions of the L
c
~
Nuclear Regulatory Commission with respect to review and I
approval of State and local plans for offsite emergency response.
The Agency shall have the exclusive authority to make determinations about the adequacy of such plans, and such' determinations shall not be subject to review in any Commission proceeding.
This transfer shall be effective upon a finding by the Commission that the Agency has a program for making such determinations which is adequate to protect public health and safety."
- "K.
-~-
3.
The "Present" Requirement
...E The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C.
5801 et seq.) is amended by inserting the following new sentence af ter the sixth sentence in section 201(a)(1):
v:.
The presence requirement for quorum purposes and for taking action shall be waived in the case of any action
- +
of the Commission if all members of the Commission (whether or not present) have indicated in writing, in such form and manner as may be prescribed by the Com-mission, that they agree to such waiver with respect to such action.
f:p
+:
~-
b-[_
E 7.
2.
4.
Mandatory ACRS Review The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 eti seq.) is amended --
g 1.
By striking the word "which" af ter the word " thereon" in subsection 182b.; and 2.
By adding the following new words to subsection 182b.
af ter the word " thereon":
=-
- Provided, however, That unless the Commission specifically requests a review and report on an application or portion thereof, the Committen may dispense with such review and report by notifying the Commission in writing that review by the Committee is not warranted.
Any report or notice required by this subsection m
9
- 6. Carry over of a Commissioner The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 as amended (42 U.S.C.
5801 et seq.) is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of subsection 201(c) to read as follows:
A Commissioner may continue to serve af ter the expiration of his term until his successor has taken office, except that he may not so continue to serve for more than one year after the date on which his term would otherwise expire under this subsection.
s 9