ML19305A664
| ML19305A664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/01/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR SECY-78-109A-B-C, NUDOCS 8001160725 | |
| Download: ML19305A664 (2) | |
Text
_ -- - _-______ -____
w...
i.u + = st s cs
, ---, *Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,{
e Q
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
-~
t c ic
. k,* +..***/
September 1, 1978 cFFICE OF TH2 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director d -
d
,,o for Operations ww *
](p FROM:
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secret
SUBJECT:
IMPROVING THE PROCESS FOR ETERMINING THE NEED FOR NEW REACTOl REQUIREMENTS (SEE SEC'; STAFF REQUIREMENTS MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 14, 1978 REGARDING JULY 5 BRIEFING ON STANDARDIZATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS - SECY-78-109A/B/C)
The Co:nissi'on appreciates the staff's effort in preparing the July 5, 1978 Briefing on Standardiration, during which a thorough expo.~ition of the process by which new staff requirem are developed and approved was provided.
ents believes, however, The Commission that a number of issues concerning that which may require further action by the staff. process were ident but are not necessarily limited to, These include, the following:
define in more explicit - if not quantitativa -How might t K/V\\
is essential to safety, while still recognizingterms the that judgement is an inherent part.of such decisions?
d~6y What needs to be done to clarify the circumstances '
M -%
under which economic impacts associated with new reg rements can and should be taken into account of new requirements?and wo improve the quality of value-impact anal How should NRR decisions and the basis for new pfp) requirements best be documented and most expeditiously communicated to and implemented by those affected?
How can the NRR process be opened to observation ppaq or participation by interested persons outsiae of NRC so as to improve the quality of new requirements and the timeliness of their implementation?
8001160 M 6
,,a 2.
1; Might RRRC membership,and structure be altered to f33 more appropriately account for the extent.of demands on the time of senior staff personnel and the possibility of conflicts with their other duties?
What changes in NRR procedure might be adopted pys which would take better account of the concern that the precedent established by imposing new requirements in individual cases in the interim prior to RRRC review and approval (so-called.
category 4) makes.RRRC approval and NRR adoption for generic use a foregone conclusion?
How might NRR procedures be improved to prevent ffS the further accumulation of generic issues and to introduce,; greater predictability with respect to requiremehts to be imposed?
- What might be done to better distinguish the basis PgN(
[4] for permitting a licensed reactor to continue
=
operation'pending implementation of a new requirement, whereas the operating license for a completed reactor may be withheld until the new requirement has been incorporated?
How might NRR identify and eliminate elements of 7?g$
the standard review plan which make an insignificant contribution to overall plant safety, so that staff and industry resources can be focused on matters of most significance to s'afety?
The staff is asked to inform the Commission, by October 16, 1978, of what actions it believes are appropriate in response to these issues.
cc:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford Commissioner nhearne Acting Ger3ral Counsel Director, Polic" Evaluation 9
P
.