ML20035C503
| ML20035C503 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/12/1993 |
| From: | Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304080043 | |
| Download: ML20035C503 (3) | |
Text
s
.......................o
~
RELEASED TO THE PDR NOTATION V0TE*
gg j
6W ine!st.:
RESPONSE SHEET T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECR.ETARY OF THE C0f44ISSION FROM:
C0lEISSIONER R0GERS
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-413 - INCIDENT INVESTIGATION OPTIONS REPORTING TO THE C0lHISSION Sosieer r.
7, APPROVED'* * "**
DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN Km NOT PARTICIPATING REO.UEST DISCUSSION COIEENTS:
s ce arm w~e-7 050070 SIGNATUR$
G RELEASE VOTE
/Y/
IE LT T 3 t
DATE q
WITHROLD VOTE
/
/
ENTERED ON "AS" YES %
NO 4
788*98848748822
(
CDRRESPONDENCE PDR-
1 I
i s
Commissioner Rogers' Comments on BECY-92-413 i
The intention of this proposed new investigative process is excellent-and it should improve the credibility of investigations that have high public interest and visibility.
While I believe the proposed new investigative process is an i
excellent idea, I have reservations about some particulars of the Incident Investigation Group (IIG) proposal.
Obiectives and Consideration I agree with the proposed objectives and considerations with one-exception regarding emphasis.
I'believe the primary objective;of j
the IIG should be technical fact-finding to establish the-cause of the accident or incident.
The determination of implications j
and assessment of the adequacy of the regulatory process should be considered as secondary objectives of the IIG.
.j i
Threshold for Activation f
I agree with.the threshold proposed.
{
f Investication Process and Framework I agree with the proposed investigation process and framework I
with the following exceptions:
a)
I would prefer that the Chairperson of the IIG be a person selected by the Commission having requisite credentials and not be a member of the NRC.
This would j
enhance public perception of independence of the IIG, and permit senior NRC technical staff to serve as Members of the IIG with less of an appearance of conflict.
i b)
I see no reason to preclude representatives of the licensee or selected industry representatives from the NSSS vendor, Architect-Engineer, or Engineer-Contractor organizations to serve as members of the IIG,-provided j
i they have the express written agreement of their respective organizations and, as professional-. technical individuals, possess unique knowledge and experience.of certain structures, systems, and components which are thought to be involved in'the incident and/or offsite-
~
consequences.
c)
I do not favor the' appointment of a representative from
}
the Office of the Inspector General _(OIG) as a Member of the IIG, since I view the OIG's function as being l
that of an independent auditor of all Commission 1
i l
..=.
i e
i 2
i activities, possibly including the composition, investigation, and findings of the IIG.
d)
While I agree with the itemized information that would
[
normally be contained in an IIG report, I would not i
rule out the provision of separate recommendations by the individual members of the Group as part of the IIG report.
l Schedule I agree with the schedule and activities proposed, i.e.,
the 60-day completion of the IIG's report after completion of onsite activities and preparation of an advance report for Headquarters 1
and Regional Offices, public briefing of-the Commission, placing i
the report in the Public Document Room, and the resulting management actions outlined.
Optional Incident Investication Board (JIB)
[
I do not believe it would be necessary to have an IIB.
An IIB l
would only detract from the credibility of the IIG.
AcHL h
I i
s l
.t t
i I
r I
.