ML20035C567
| ML20035C567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/22/1993 |
| From: | De Planque E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304080122 | |
| Download: ML20035C567 (2) | |
Text
........................
RELEASED TO THE PDR NOTATION V0TEj g79) 4 j
w RESPONSE SHEET
""""*"""'ing"s T0:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COW 4IsSION FROM:
C0l44ISSIONER DE PLANQUE
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-413 - INCIDENT INVESTIGATION OPTIONS REPORTING TO THE C0144ISSION APPROVED xx (in part) DISAPPROVED xx fin part) AssTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REO.UEsT DISCUSSION C0ffiENTS:
see ettecument comments.
I I
i l
93040B0122 930222
~M E8NacEE50$cs$e'ena SIGNATURE /
]
RELEASE VOTE
/ xx /
February 22, 1993 DATE i
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
)
ENTERED ON "AS" YEs xx NO
t i
Commissioner de Planque's comments on SECY-92-413.
l (approve in part, disapprove in part) i I support the option in SECY-92-413 to develop a process or
}
framework, for Commission review, for constituting an Incident Investigation Group, reporting to and supervised by the Commission for events deemed worthy of such response.by the Commission.
The process to be developed at this stage should specifically address the thresheld for activation, how such a group would be formed and how members would be selected, and should also address functioning of the group. Further, staff should also clarify the coordination aspects of onsite investigation'and federal emergency response, to be sure that an IIG is not dispatched until the conditions at the facility are sufficiently stable (such as concurrence of Director of Site l
Operations).
Since such events will be of low frequency, and their nature cannot by well-predicted, developing more than a general framework and protocol seems inappropriate.
I agree with Commissioner Rogers' comments on the Investigation-Process and Framework.
I believe that if an IIG is to have the desired credibility, there should be participation by the NSSS supplier or others as appropriate considering the particular event.
It would appear that there are meaningful methods for such participation.in fact-finding (and possibly in recommendations), which would not require establishing a FACA-charter group.
I would also normally expect the IIG (or a i
subsequent entity) to develop recommendations, subject to the considerations noted in the EDO*s January 25, 1993 meno.
With these specifications for the IIG process, I see no need for an IIB as proposed by the staff.
- 'i
.i I
l l
i
.,1
..a