ML19322C662
| ML19322C662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1979 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001180294 | |
| Download: ML19322C662 (1) | |
Text
_ _... _..
h NOTE To accompany Denton Memo to Conmission of 6-18-79 re: Operational Surveillance Program (OSP)
\\
This program concerns me and seems to be consistent with our findings with regard to the regulatory process.
It continues the expanding power of the NRR Staff to act as judge, jury and executioner and to bypass the adjudicatory process. The premise of the need to divide Tech Specs into serious and nonserious (operational surveillance) categories is that the public interest will be served. Where does that come from our Regulations or the Atomic Energy Act? There may be a backlog at NRR in processing amendments to Tech Specs but that is not a reason to alter the regulatory standards of the agency.
It may well be that operational tech specs do not need the full regulatory treatment (application for amendment, safety review, FR publication) that they now receive. But then why have them as a tech spec.
Promulgate a rulewhich requires such surveillance.
This artifical division of tech specs is a continuing example of the "fix" which this agency constantly uses.
Another thing which bothers me greatly is that the licensee will make the initial detennination, with the staff having only an illusonary " veto" in 15 day per sod. The Denton memo candidly admits that if the licensee proceeds, the only resort is an enforcment proceeding.
The memo notes coordination.with OELD and that that office "has no legal objection." Not to second guess that determination, I am curious how the OSP, which is not a part of the tech specs but is only referenced therein, can be considered a part of the license and therefore enforceable.
It is not the specifics of the Osp which bothers me so much as the continued disrespect for intellectual honesty and a regulatory scheme which it demonstrates.
Further research: Speak to Joe Scinto ans ask him if this is what he had in mind in dividing tech specs into 2 kinds of treatment?
Speak to Bill Parler to get his views.
If important, reference in final report.
80011p M Y
.