ML20038A069
| ML20038A069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/18/1981 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20037D485 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-81-496, NUDOCS 8109160334 | |
| Download: ML20038A069 (25) | |
Text
. _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _
p e-a s
f POUCY ISSUE Auoust 13, 1931 (Notation Vote) secy-si-49c For:
The Comnissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FINAL GA0 REPORT ON "NEED FOR BETTER PCLICY AND CONTROL OER PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS (GGD-81-70)"
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a response to Congress on GA0 recommendations concerning NRC compliance with tne Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PL 96-511).
Discussion:
In July 1980, in the exercise of its oversigct responsi=i'.::tes under the provisions of tN Federal Reports Act, the GAO initiated an investigation of NRC plans and forms fee the collection of information from the puolic wnicn culnina ec in the subject GAO Report.
On April 1,1981, the effective date of the Paperwork Reduction Act, oversig'.t responsi=i'itj r
was transferred from GAO to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
GA0 nevertheless completed its report on the oremise that the problems it saw and the reconnendations that it made to alle.iate those ocoblems reflected valic concerns which should be consideres by the Co nission fr.
est:blisning proceoures to carry out its responsibilities under the Pacerwcrk Reduction Act. Like the Federal Re:aor:s Act, a primary purpose of tne Paper ork Redut:fon Act is tr reduce the number of information -equests T.ade by Feceral
)
egencies and to minimize the burden on the respondent replying to Inose requests. As an addec sar.ction, Section 3512 of the Paperwork Recuction Act proeices tnat "no pers n
/ ).
shall be subject to any pena'.:y fer fai'. t.] to maintain or
\\
Contact:
R. Stephen 5ccc:, ACM/TIDC
/
do; ana; fb (glo% of;
qu= y qy 'W-
',2
.g *
?
The Commissioners.
provide informtion to any agency if the infonnation collection request involves was made after December 31, 1981, and does not display a current control nunber assigned by the Director, (of OfE) or fails to state that such request is not subject to t%is chapter".
The GA0 report reflects a belief that NRC's policy and procedures for implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 are inadequate. The GA0 report includes two recormendations:
a 1.
The NRC clearance office should be given an active role and established at an appropriate level within NRC to ensure cwpliance wf0, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
2.
NRC should set forth a definitive policy which requires improved control by its clearance office to ensure that all requests for information from or the imposition of recordkeeping requirements on 10 or more respondents by NRC offices are processed through the NRC clearance office.
While the Staff recognizes the validity of GAO's concerns, particularly in the light of certain past, chiefly TMI related, information clearance lapses, the Staff now considers NRC's present policies and procedures for implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act to be adequate.
In the opinion of the Staff, several recent actions taken by the Executive Director for Operations to implement the provisiens of tnat Acc not only conform to the intent of the statute but also constitute an affirmative response to the two specific reconnendations in the GAO report.
As required by Section 3506(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Executive Director for Operations has designated tne Director of the Office of Administration as the senior NRC official responsible for carrying out NRC's inforcation management activities, including the activities and functions of the NRC clearance office, in ac:ordance witn the re:airemer.:s of the Paperwork Reduction Act. On April 24,1981, the Executive Director for Operatiens also issued an ~;nteHn Procedures" memorandum (subsequently incorperated in the "EDO Procedures Manual") to all Office Directors.
This memoranoun, which has been s'Amitted to CMB and has been in effect since April 24, 1981, describes tne policies anc procedures to be followed by the staff to assure compliance with the Act. Among other things, this mencrandur sti uiates tnat all inforv.ation colle: tion reaaests affecting at less:
10 persens must be submitted to and sparoved by the NRC clearance office. To assist the NRC clearance ofce in carrying out this functier., the me crandurt also created a
.. y?
.w The Casunissioners network of Information Management Coordinators within the NRC offices. Subject to the direction of the NRC clearance office, these coordinatcrs will advise their respective office staffs of the necessary clearance regsf rements, help those staffs identify items that will require OPE anproval, and coo-dinate with other NRC offices to determine the need for and eliminate duplcation in specific infonnation requests.
Since April 24, 1981., tne Director of the Office of Administration, with the assistance of the NRC clearance office, has conducted a series of meetings with Office Directors and Division Directors to assure t. hat these Directors understand the importance of obtaining proper approval of any reporting requireraents, especially in view of the fact that licensees need not comply with a reporting requirement that has not been approved by GMB.
Since these aew policies and procedores have been implemented, no deficiencies of tr.e type cited in the GAC report have occurred, nor has OMS found NRC cocpliance w'th the provisions of the Papeneork Reduction Act inadequate. A: cording to estimates contained in the NRC FY E2 Information Collection Budget, submitted to h!5 on August 3,1981, the burden on respondents of complying with NRC informatiot requests under the " Class Exemption for Reports Ccocerning ?cssible Generic Problems" has been reduced by apprcximately 3.5 million hours.
The NRC Staff is curre ::ly working wi:n OMB to further define the mcst practical way to acc:ent for burden-hours is: posed.
Most of the NRC's in?:raation collection anc re:ctdkeeping requirements are esta:lisned by regulation. Before proceeding to develop a proposed regulation, NRC Staff is required to prepare a regulatory analysis in order to de. ermine whether the proposed regulatian will impose a significant burden on the public. The papencork impact of the rega!ation is one of tne factors considiered by the staff in detarminf ag the significance of that :>urden. After a proposed regulation l
has been drafted, the associr tec paperwork.%-dens are subject to additional review and approval by the NRC clearance office before the procosed regulaticn is transmitted to the Executivt ]irector fer Operations and the Com:issioners for further review anc a;:gro,a1 and sucsequent smaittal to OMB.
In addition to evaluating tne paperwork impa:: of all proposed regulations, the NRC nas implemented a revien of all existing regulations at schedu';ed intervals to ensure, among other
(
consideratiocs, that ali information collecti:ns are necessary to the NRC cission, a e still required, are ::ncise and clear, and de not irrt.cse duplicative requirenents.
(Reference SECY-80-435A, "Perfoc"c and Sys:enatic Review of Regulations.")
4
- N
' r7 % : s.
t J
The Commissioners ~.
'N
~By September 1981, the Staff' espects to complete its development 3
and myiew of a draft NRC Manual C2hapter,0230, " Federal Reports Management". The Staf' believes that the objectives, responsibilities and authorities set forth in that Chapter, cited in the attachment to the proposed reply to Coegress, are consistent with the Paperierk Redr. tion Act of 1980 (PL 96-511) and constitute a definitime statement of policy, s
which, in accordance with the reconnendation in the GA0 report, will ensure that the ISC clearance office receives and processes all information c:llection requests or recordkeeping requirements imposed by lutC offices on 10 or more msper. der.ts in order to deten:ine whether tne inf,r. nation being requested is already available from other Federal agencies and to insura that the information is see:!ed and that the reporting burdce on respondents has been sirimized.
Recomendation:
That the Commission approse the pr apesed response to Congress.
/ElIiahi. Diriks Execwtire Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Report to Confess Comissioners' comments stculd te,rovided direc:ly tc the Office of the Secre:arj by cob
. riday, Setterter J, 1931 Commission Staf f Office c: men:5, if any, shui: be s.ddnec to the Coressicners NLT August 27, 1931. with an informa:iorr, ::y to the Of fice :,f the Secretary. U t-e raper is of such i natu e that it requires additier.al ti.me for ar.al tical review anc ccerce, the Comr:iss oners i
f and the Secretariat sncaid be apprised of wnen corrects ay be expe::et.
DISTRIBUTION Cornissioners Comissien Staff Offices Cxec Dir for Operations Exec Legal Director ASLSP Secretariat
n ~:$
~
"'g UMTED STATES S ' ~,s f -,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!I.
i RASHlfeG TON, D. C. 20555
-h j
j 4.,
j
...=
Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
l
(
irman, Cournittee on Governmental 9
fairs I ited States Senate Washington, D.C.
20510 l
Dear Mr. Chairraan:
In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by the Generp Acounting Office (GAC) within 60 days of publication, we herebysuboif3our responses to the recornee.aations made by the GAO in their i
report entit4d, "Need for Better Policy Control cver P;blic Infomation Requests (GGD-81-70).
J
]
Essentially, GAO does not believe that NRC has adegaately addressed the requirements of PL 96-511 " Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980".
The GA0 J
report sets forth two specific recommendations:
1.
The NRC clearance office should be given an active role and established at an appropriate level within N!t to ensure coc:aliance j
with the Paperwork Reductibn Act of 1980.
2.
NRC should set forth a definitive policy which requires improved control by its clearance office to ensure that all requests for information from or the imposition of recordkeeping requirements i
on 10 or more responcents by NRC offices are processed through the NRC clearance office.
GA0 believes that "a more c'efinitive policy and icoroved control of the clearance process are neeoed to ensure that:
(1) the c!earance office receives all information requests issued by hRC offices--a procedure necessary i
to determine whether the information oeing requested is already available i
from otner Federai agencies; (2) the infortnation is neeced; and (3) the reporting burden on respondents has been minimized'.
We celieve that tne management actions that we have implemented to comply with tne Paper.ork Reduction Act and in response to GAC's recommendations now provide the necessary assurance that tne NRC cleara.ce function is assigned at an appropriate level with adequate at thoritj to provice increved control over NRC requests for information from or tne ignition of record-keeping requirements on 10 o more persons.
m-.-
J
. - lc;.O Ag a.x.: a.m o
i 11am V. Anth, Jr.. '.
2, Ut W.:: 2' T
~
2 v
.a n n 1
?;fl.h.n ".
I Nequired by Section 3506(b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Executm 3
m W
scherifer Operations has designated the Director-of the Office of Admim:.tration k s - @;the segler BRC official responsible for carrying out MtC's information Q
jaanspeaant activities, including the activities.and functions of the NRC cf '
~ M)marance office, in accordance with the requirements of the -Paperwork V2 451stuctionAct; On April 24, 1981, the Executive tirector for Operations 3M also iss6ed an " Interim Procedures" anserandum (subsequently incorporated J n the *EDO Procedures Manual") to all Office Directors. This namorandum, i
~. ~
wMeh has been sutaitted to OMB and has been in effect since April 24, my i;>
r1981, describes the policies and procedures to be followed by the staff to assure cosyliance with the Act. Among other things, this assorandum stipulates that all information collection requests affecting at least 10 persons must be submitted to and approved by the NRC clearance office. To assist the NRC clearance office in carrying out this function, the memorandua also created a network of Information Management Coordinators within cne NRC offices. 5soject to the direction of the NRC clearance office, these coordinators will advise their respective off. ice staffs of the necessary clearance requirements, help those staffs identify items that will require 02 approval, and coordinate with other NRC offices to determine the need for and eliminate dup 1 cation in specific information requests.
Since April 24, 1981, the Director of the Office of Administration, with the assistar.ce of the NRC clearance office, has conducted a series of meetings with Office Directors and Division Di-ectors to assure that these Directors understand the importance of obtaining proper approval of any reporting requirements, especially in view of the fact that licensees need not comply with a reporting requirement that has not been approved by OMB.
Since these new policies and procedures have been implemented, no deficiencies of the type cited in the M0 report have occurred, nor has OKB found NRC compliance witn tne provisions of the Paperwork Reduction A:t inadequate.
According to estimates contained in the NRC FY 82 Information Collection Budget, subcitted to OMB on August 3,1981, the burden on responde*.ts cf complying with NRC information requests under the " Class Exemption for Reports Concerning Possible Generic Problems" has been reduced by approximately 3.5 million hours. The hRC Staff is currently working with OMB to further define the most practical way to account for burden-hours imposed.
Most of the NRC's infomation collection and recordkeeping require ents are established by regulation. Before proceeding to develop a proposec regulation, NRC Staff is required to prepare a regulatory analysis in order to determine whether the proposed regulation will impose a significant burden on tne public. The paperwork inpact of the regulation is one of the factors considered oy the staff 1. determining the significance of that burden.
After a proposed regulatica has been drafted, the associated paperwork burdens are subject to aeditional review and approval by the 'iRC clearar.ce office bef:,re the proposed regulation is transmitted to the Executive Direc:or fcr Operations a-d the Canissioners for further review ar.d apptcyal and subseq.ent sabmittal to DMB.
s
.-_-Gas
,e-w
~
- ~~
_ ;v cy 3,yr x
y y.
qs r --,c2 mre p
l The Honorable William 1. Roth, Jr. '
~
3 i
is additic,n to evaluating the paperwork impact of all proposed regulations, j
the NRC has implemented a review of all existing regulations at scheduled 4ntervals to ensure, among other considerations that all information l
collections are necessary to the NRC mission, are still regrad, are
{
concise and clear, and do not impose d:elicative requirments.
l By September 1981, NRC will have completed development and review of an l
EtC Manual Chapter on " Federal Reports Management" which will formalize existing policy and reclace tne interia guidance of Apr4124,1981.
We believe that the princiaal objectives, responsibilities and authorities set forth in that Chapter and described above are consistent with PL 96-511; l
and, as reconnended in the GAO report, provide the definitik policy needed i
to ensure that:
(1) the clearance office receives all information requests issued by NRC offices; (2) the information is needed; and (3) the reporting j
j burden on respondents has been minimized.
l Sincerely, l
2 i
I
(
Nunzio J. Palladino Chai rman i
Encl osures -
Interim Procedures i
Draf t Manual Chapter 230 Statement IDENTICAL LETTERS T3 335E ON E:iCLOSED LIST l
i i
l l
i i
I f
1 e--
j y
.< 0 D' '
- u. -2.%
a.am a
a i
,--.-,--,~...--.-.,..,--._.-,._,,,,n.
a
. $7..r" -
Tne Honora 01 e Wi'.cr. 2. 5 000'. ar The Hencra:1e Ja:k Bro xs, C. airman Acting Cca;;;r:"er :-ere ai :f the Cc=ittee on Government Operations United Stater United States Ecuse of Represe.tatives Gene al A :cun:irg
" :e Washingten, D.C.
20515 itashington, D.C.
205*2 The Hencrable Savid A. St:-knan cc: Rep. Frank Her:en Director I
The Her.crcle Alan Simason, Chairman Office of.Mana;arer.t ard Su:';et Subconc.ittee on Nuclear Regulation Washi ngton, 0..'.
20503 Corr.ittee. on Environment and Public Verks United States Se'nate Washington, C.C.
20510 i
cc: Sen. Gary Hart The Honorcie Morris K. Udall, Chairman l
i Subccrr.=ittee en Energy and Enviror. ment Cc :i tee en Irterier and Insular Aff airs t
i i
United States -ouse of Represer.tatives 1
Wasringte.9, C.C.
20515
~
cc:
'ep. Mar.uel Lg ar The Her.cri:'.e Richard L. Ottinger, Chairra,
f ut:0.-ittee en E crgy Cense-vat'en anc Power i
Cc-.ittee :n Energy and Oc :er:e 5
" nite:: Sti:es Hcuse of Depreser. tti<es Washin;;:, C.C.
20515 4
0 i
c:
Rep. Car',:
M:or.tead I
j The ::eneri:le ~;by Mef 9::, Chairman i
j Sut:; :.it ee :- Er.vi re me.:, Ener;y a.c Natu*El 3.i S O.lrce s l
l Ce -ittee :n hvernc er.. Operations United States h:Use Of Representatives t
cc:
Rep. Joel Deckard I
h 1
i i
1 4
k a
1 1
4 s
i l
4
!i i
er s
4 i
4.
, ~ - -.. _ _
~
.pn accoq
/
UNITED STATES
! Eg[\\j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHWGTON D. C. 20555 3g
... p N."....*
April 24,1981 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Office Directors FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT ThePaperworkReductionActof1980(P.L.96-317)becameeffectiveApril1, 1981. The primary purpose of this law is to rsJuce paperwork burden on the private sector by requiring Federal agencies to justify any information collection activity that affects ten (10) or more persons to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Responsibility for approving information collection requirements imposed by NRC on the public has been transferred from the General Accounting Office (GAO) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) effective April 1, 1981.
The Executive Legal Director's February 24, 1981 memorandum critiqued the key features of the legislation and its impact on NRC.
This memorandum further delineates the requirements of the legislation and provides detailed interim procedures for staff's use in implementing the legislation (Attachment 1).
A synoposis of the key aspects is provided below for your information. An NRC management directive will be circulated for coment/ concurrence by May 1.
1.
Coverage:
Any document or telephone transaction that applies a recordkeeping, application (e.g., FSAR) or reporting requirement, hereafter referred to as "an infomation collection requirement", on ten or more persons (e.g.,
licensees) is included in the scope of the Act.
In addition, infomation collection requests required by law or to obtain a benefit (e.g., a license) and submitted to nine or fewer persons must contain a statement to the effect that the request is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
All existing NRC information collection requirements must be re-approved by OPS. They will become invalid and non-enforceable as the present GAO clearances expire. This condition applies to application, recordkeeping and. reporting requirements contained in 10 CFR as well. The OMB clearance requirement includes both voluntary.and mandatory infomation collections, except where we ask for public comments on proposed rules, Regulatory Guides, standards, environmental impact statements, etc. or where we ask supplementary questions relating to case-specific licensing for regulatory actions.
2.
Responsibility:
The Paperwork Reduction Act stipulates that the head of each agency shall designate a senior official to carry out the agency's responsibilities under the Act.
Under the Federal Reports Act, which was superseded by the
. Paperwork Reduction Act, the Director, Office of Administration (ADM) f held similar responsibilities. Therefore, the Director, Office of Administration is hereby designated as the responsible NRC senior official with respect to activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Offices that originate information collection requirements are responsible for assuring that the OMB clearance documentation is submitted to TIOC in the proper format and on time.
3.
Time required for processing public infomation requests:
Previously, a request for clearance of a new or modified infomation collection requirement was submitted to GAO, after Comission approval, 75 days before it became effective. The new law makes several basic changes, including:
(a) With respect to rules, clearance requests are to be submitted to OMB at the time a proposed information collection requirement is published in the Federal Register; with respect to all other types of information collection requirements, they too must be submitted to OMB before they can become effective; (b) OMB will have 60 days to review such requests and may extend the review period another 30 days after notifying the originating agency; (c) OMB may coment on any proposed information collection requirement wnich is subject to the Act. Before making a determination, OMB may give all interested persons, including'the agency, an opportunity to be heard or to submit written statements. OMB coments, or written comments received during the OMB review, must be addressed by the staff and resolved.
4.
Special considerations:
(a) There are special procedures whereby NRC can obtain OMB clearance for information collection activities that must be conducted sooner than 60 days. These procedures are explained in Attachment 2.
" Blanket Clearance and Special Procedures for Obtaining Emergency Clearance".
(b) The Comission may " override" any denial by OMB. Override procedures are explained in Item V of the " Interim Procedures for Information Collections."
r ior to the Papemork Reduction Act, GAO published NRC proposed (c) rinformation collections in the Federal Register and responded to requests for copies of the GA0 Clearance Package. tJnder the new Act, the NRC must respond to public requests; OMB will, for the present time, publish the description of the proposed infomation collection in the Federal Register.
(..-
i
)
' I j
5.
New requirements to be imposed in the near-tem:
1 l-(a) OMB will require NRC to develop specific plans to reduce by 1983 the i
burden NRC imposes on licensees.
)
5 (b) OMB will assign a ceiling for the information collection burden that NRC will be " authorized" to impose on a fiscal year basis. This is called an "Information Collection Budget", and will be controlled by -
OMB.
(c) NRC will be required to systematically inventory its major infomation systems and periodically review its information management activities, including planning, budgeting.. organizing, directing, training, promoting, controlling and other manaaerial activities involving the collection, use and dissemination of infomation.
(d) OMB will also be requesting from NRC assessments of the paperwork and reporting burden that would develop from proposed legislation affecting the agency.
(e) OMB has been given the responsibility to establish a Federal-Information.
Locator System (FILS) which will be composed of a directory of-information resources, a. data element-dictionary, and an_ infomation referral service. FILS will serve as the authoritative register of all infomation collection requests.
Each agency will be required to establish procedures to ensure compliance with the requirements of-FILS.
The Director, ADM, has been directed to take the lead in defining and meeting the additional, new requirements outlined above. He will require assistance from all Office Directors, and will keep you informed of the requirements ciscussed above as soon as OMB makes them available in more specific detail.
Implementing the requirements of this Act will require significant staff resources and it is imperative that ADM receive full cooperation from your staff.
If you have not done so, please designate an Infomation Management Coordinator to work with ADM on paperwork management activities and to assure compliance within each respective office.
You will be advised of further infomation as soon as we are infomed by OMB.
Any questions regarding the new requirement may be directed to Steve Scott, Chief. Document Management Branch, TIDC, Ext. 28585.
f *' Q I
.il C
j.Q-s
(,,
>U H m
b1WilliamJ.Dircks Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
As stated I
i 1
1 INTERIM PROCEDURES FOR CLEARING INFORMATION COLLECTIONS l
I.
OMB Clearance Packages (OCP's) are required for application (e.g.,
i FSAR), reporting and recordkeeping requirements (commonly referred to as "infonnation collection requirements") affecting 10 or more persons, contained or endorsed in:
A.
Proposed Rules j
S.
Final Rules j
C.
Generic Letters D.
Bulletins 1
E.
Orders F.
Standard (Generic) Technical Specifications 3.
Telephone Surveys H.
Standard Work Orders that require contractors to collect infomation (only if it's a procurement contract to obtain information by way of a contractor) l l
I.
Forms used to report information requir'ements (e.g., LER form)
J.
Aoplications and formats required to obtain benefits (e.g., to
- otain a license)
K.
Questionnaires L.
All other statements or plans to obtain " answers to identical questions posed to, or identical reporting or recordkeeping i
requirements imposed on ten or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the United States."
II. A draft OCP supports the information collection requirements, and consists of:
a draft SECY paper or other authorization documentation as, appropriate (e.g. an EDO directive or Office Director approval),
a draft Supporting Statement prepared according to interim NRC MC-0213, interim SF-83A " Instructions for Requesting OMB Approval Under the Federal Reports Act, as Amended" and the guidance provided in II.A.
a draft proposed or final rule, Order, Bulletin, etc.
. A final OCP consists of:
a Secretariat Staff Requirements Memorandum with the related SECY paper or other signed authorization documentation as appropriate-(e.g., an EDO directive or Office Director approval},
a Supporting Statement approved by TIDC, a copy of the final proposed rule, final rule. Order. NUREG, Bulletin, form design, etc. as it is being sent for publication.
a cover memorandum requesting TIDC to obtain an OMB clearance and affirming that the Regulations Division, Office of the Executive Legal Director, has no legal objection to the proposed information collection.
In addition to the requirements contained in NRC MC-0213 and SF-83A, 1
the following items must also be addressed in the Supporting l
Statement:
1.
Practical Utility Practical utility and need will be weighed heavily by CMB in determining whether to approve or reject an information collection.
When reviewing in tenns of practical utility, NRC must be able to explain not only the intended use of the data to be' collected but also NRC's capability of making use of the data by a specific
- time, i
2.
Necessity Necessity in terms of the agency's mission ties'in very closely with practical utility. NRC must be able to explain what the data are to be used for as well as why.
OMB can reject an information collection if it deems it not t
necessary to NRC's mission, whereas GAO dic not have this authority.
3.
Costs to the Governnent 1
Under GAO review, agencies were not required to submit data under this item. However, under OMB review, we must estimate the cost i
in terms of pretests, printing forms, mailing list compilation and maintenance, overhead, etc.
(Reference Standard Form 83A,
" Instructions for completing request for OMB aoproval under the l
Federal Reports Act, as amended " and NRC MC-0213 for greater detail.}
9 k
3-1 i
4.
Costs to the Public Formerly, under the Federal Reports Act, the " burden" on the public was expressed only in term of man / hours of time required to comply with the information collection required. The-Paperwork Reduction Act defines " burden" as the " time, effort, or financial resources" required of the person to provide the requested information. Pending further instructions, GMB has advised that we continue to express " burden" as we have in the past and to calculate that burden based on random sampling of
~
no more than nine potential respondents.
5.
Cooy Recuirements No agency can require more than 3 copies of a response to an information collection from a respondent without OMB approval.
i A statement explaining the intended usage of the copies and why the copies must be provided by the respondents must be included in the supporting statement.
j 6.
Record Retention D
OMB will not authorize recordkeeping requirements that do not include a specific time period for their retention.
r l,
7,..~.
...,r,._,.
._,.4
-.e,
,,,.m,,.
\\
l i
' !!I. Definitions Several tenns that will be widely used when referring to the clearance process are defined below.
A.
"Information Collection" - is used synonymously with " collection of information" and is defined as the " obtaining or soliciting of facts or opinions by an agency through the use of written report forms, application forms, schedules, questionnaires, reporting or record-keeping requirements, or other similar methods calling for information from 10 or more persons."
Telephone surveys were not included in the definition of information collection wnen clearances were subject to GA0 review; however, they are now required to be cleared under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980.
3.
" Practical Utility" - the ability of an agency to use information it collects, particularly the capaoility to process such information in a timely and useful fashion.
Practical ut;ility and need will be weiphed heavily by OMB in determining whether to approve or reject an information collection.
C.
"Recordkeeping Requirements" - a requirement imposed by an agency on persons to maintain specific records.
Effective July 1,1981, agencies will be required to include the records retention senedule for all recordkeeping requirements in the regulation, instruction, bulletin, etc. that is used to impose a recordkeeping requirement.
D.
" Burden" - time required to respond to an information collection including (1) the time it takes to read or hear the instructions; (2) tne time it takes to assemble any source materials necessary for i
developing the information to be reported; (3) the time it takes to process the materials and to put them into the format used; and (4)
{
the time required to report the information.
NOTE: Monetary cost to the respondent will be required as of July 1, 1981.
(Reference II.
- 4. of these procedures.)
IV.
Procedures for Submitting OMB Clearance Packages A.
The originating office will prepare a draft OCP and submit it to TIDC for review and approval.
B.
TIDC will review:
1.
To ensure the package is complete.
_5 2.
To ensure all information collection requirements have been identified and addressed in the Supporting Statement.
3.
To detemine if duplication exists, i.e., if the information being proposed for collection is already required by NRC or some other government agency.
4.
To detemine if all the required supporting items have been adequately substantiated.
5.
To ensure that all required standardized statements are included in the appropriate documents.
6.
To ensure that the proposed method of infomation collection is practical, efficient, and cost-effective.
C.
TIDC will return the draft OCP to originating office with concurrence /
comments and/or recomendations.
D.
Originating office will submit final OCP to TIDC.
(NOTE:
In conjunction with a rulemaking, tne OCP must be submitted to TIDC promptly to ensure that it is clocked in at OMB no later than 3:00 p.m. on the date of publication of the proposed / final rule in the Federal Reoister). This requirement must be met or OMB may refuse to review tne rule.
E.
OMB will review and file public coments within 60 days and submit notice of approval, coments or a denial to TIDC.
(NOTE" OMB can extend its review period by 30 days. TIDC will advise staff if this occurs.)
F.
TIDC will notify originating office of OMB approval /coments/ denial and place coments in the PDR.
(NOTE:
If denied, the originating office will follow the procedures as outlined in V. "Comission Override").
3.
If approved, the originating office will assure that the OMB approval information is included in the publication containing the information collection requirement.
(SeeVI.E.)
H.
If OMB has made substantive coments, TIDC and the originating office will work together with OMB to resolve the issues.
I.
In the case of proposed rulemakings, the originating office will resolve OMB's coments as a part of the routine rulemaking process.
If the infomation collection requirement is significantly altered as a result of OMB or other public coments, it will be necessary to re-submit an OCP.
(NOTE: The OCP process is continuous until OMB approval is obtained or the Comission votes to override an OMB denial.)
J.
Originating office submits 2 (two) copies of the publication containing OMB approval information to TIDC for submission to OMB for inclusion in the OMB and TIDC case files.
1
. V.
Commission Override of an OMB Denial:
A.
TIDC will notify the originating office of OMB's denial.
B.
Originating office will prepare a staff paper addressing the issues raised by OMB and a letter from the Chairman to the Director of OMB informing OMB of the Commission's decision to override and the reasons therefor. ADM and ELD must be included in the concurrence chain.
C.
The EDO will determine whether to forward the staff paper to the Commission for action. A majority vote of the Commissioners is required to override.
3.
If a majority votes to override, the Chairman will sign and forward the letter to OMB and the Secretariat will prepare a memo to ED0 to inform the staff of the Commission's decision.
E.
Upon receipt of the Chairman's letter, OMB will provide NRC with an approval number. (The override will be valid for 3 years, at wnich time, a renewal will be required.)
VI. Standardized Statements for use in SECY papers, Federal Register Notices, Rules and Information Collection Instruments.
A.
SECY paper 1.
Proposed Rule or Final Rule not previously reviewed by OMB.
NOTE: This proposed / final rule contains information collection require-ments that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Upon Commission affirmation, formal request for OMB review and clearance will be initiated. OMS review may take 60-90 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.
Therefore, such requirements will be mado effective only af ter that period.
If approval is denied by OMB, the Commission will be notified.
2.
Final Rule.
NOTE: This rule contains information collection requirements that were reviewed by the Office nf Management and Budget. (optional language) (1) OMB approval was granted on (Date) (2) OMB denial was rejected by the Commission in SECY XX-XXX (3) Public comments resulted in revision of the information collection requirements; therefore, upon Commission affirmation, formal request for 0MB review and clearance will be re-initiated. OMB review may take 60-90 days from the datt of publication in the Federal Register.
Therefore, such requirements will be made effective only after that period.
If approval is denied by OMB, the Commission will be notified.
i 1 )
B.
Preamble to oroposed rule As required by P.L.96-511, this proposed rule will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance of the reporting /
recordkeeping/ application requirements.
C.
Final rule - Effective date The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has submitted this rule to the Office of Management and Budget for such review as may be appropriate under the Papere rk Reduction Act, P.L.96-511. The date on which the reporting /recordkeeping/ application requirements of this rule become effective, unless advised to the contrary, accordingly, reflects inclusion of the 60-day period which the Act allows for such review.
J.
Negative Declaration The application / reporting /recordkeeping requirements contained in this Regulation / Bulletin / Order /NUREG/ Letter /etc. affect fewer than 10 persons and are required by law or to obtain a benefit, and therefore, are not subject to Office of Management and Budget clearance as required by P.L.96-511.
E.
OMB Acoroval Statement The application, reporting and recordkeeping re'quirements contained in this Regulation / Bulletin / Order / Letter /NUREG/ Form /etc. have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget; OMB approval No.:
?.
Federal Register Notice Statement of Availability The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has submitted this rule to the Office of Management and Budget for such review as may be appropriate under the Paperwork Reduction Act, P.L.96-511. The SF-83, " Request for Clearance," Gupporting Statement, and other related dccumentation submitted to OMB have been placed in the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St., N.W., Washington, DC 20555 for inspection and copying for a fee.
3.
Mandatory / Voluntary response to reouests:
1.
Except for applications and reports filed by recipients of Federal benefits (e.g., to obtain a license) each information collection subject to the crovisions of the Pacerwork Reduction Act will carry on its face one of the following statements:
i
_ "This information collection is required by law (
U.S.C.
a.
, E.O.
C.F.R.
).
Failure to report can result in (cite penalty)."
b.
"This information collection is authorized by law (
U.S.C.
, E.O.
CFR
).
- dhile you are not required to respond, your cooperation is needed.........
2.
For application and reports filed for Federal benefits, one of the following applies:
a.
No may be unless a completed applict
- ,1 form nas been received (
U.S.C.
,E.O.
C.F.R.
).
(Example: No license may ce issueo.....)
6.
No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under this program unless this report is completed and filed as required by existing law and regulations (
U.S.C.
, E.O.
C.F.R.
).
?
A i
BLANKET CLEARANCE AND SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR OBTAINING EMERGENCY CLEARANCES A.
If an agency head determines a collection of information:
1.
Is needed prior to the expiration of the 60-day period required for OMB review, 2.
Is essential to the mission of the agency, and 3.
The agency cannot reasonably comply with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (the Act) within such 60-day period because:
(a) Public harm will result if n,ormal clearance procedures are followed, or (b) An unanticipated event has occurred and the use of normal clearance procedures will prevent or disrupt the collection of information related to the event or will cause a statutory deadline to be missed.
The agency head may then request the Director of OMB to authorize such collection of information prior to expiration of such 60-day period.
The Director of OMB shall approve or disapprove any such authorization recuest within the time recuested by the agency head and, if approved, shall assign tne information collection request a control number. Any collection of information conducted pursuant to these special procedures may be conducted without compliance with the provisions of the Act for a maximum of 90 days after the date on which the Director of OMB received the request to authorize such collection.
B.
OMB/NRC Class Exemption for Reports Concerning Possible Generic Problems (Blanket Clearance).
Under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and the Office of Management and Budget regulations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been granted authority to use a blanket safety clearance by wnich the NRC can impose warranted safety reporting and recordkeeping requirements that are generic in nature. The policy criteria and administra-tive procedures governing the use of this clearance are described below.
NRC, as a regulatory agency, has a unique statutory responsibility to protect the public health and safety. The staff may, on occasion, determine that a threat to the public safety and health might exist if identification of a problem or corrective action is not initiated promptly.
. ~
l Therefore, the staff must request licensees to promptly initiate actions that due to their highly technical nature will require notetaking, record-keeping and ultimately a report to NRC.
On occasion, the effort involved in this activity may be quite involved and may require exten-l sive time and work by the licensees before the actual submittal of a l
report to the NRC, l
NRC is authorized to notify licensees. of (a) the incident or problem, (b) the need to evaluate their own circumstances with respect to the i
incident or problem, and (c) the need for a report back to NRC within the specified time that the tecnnical staff perceives acequate to satis-factorily address the issue.
Use of the blanket safety clearance is limited as follows:
1 1.
The incident or problem identified as a safety concern must be a non-routine generic problem, i.e., conceivably it might pertain to more tnan ten licensees.
2.
Unless identification of the problem by each licensee and/or correc-tive actions are initiated immediately, a threat to public health and safety may result.
3.
The information being collected is not duplicative of any previously required by a Federal agency.
4 The information being collected is not already available to the NRC in other documentation.
The blanket clearance is to be used only in those instances where the Director, Offices of Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, or Nuclear Reactor Regulation detemines that there is a non-routine generic problem which requires prompt action by both NRC and
~
licensees to preclude a threat to the public health and safety. This clearance will cover occasions where licensees must take immediate action to begin developing information even though submission to NRC may not be j
made until the icensees complete action under the bulletin, order, or letter.
4 NRC has established an internal policy which explains the use and control of the clearance, and recognizes that OMB retains the right of review of each information request issued under the clearance. The following controls for the use and processing of information requests under the blanket clearance are to be established and raintained.
1.
NRC procram Offices The program offices should develop written procedures that include the following controls:
~
l
. Establish a designated control point for coordination of the 1
clearance requests with the NRC clearance office.
Before issuance of each information request, verify through the i
NRC clearance office that the data requested is not already available. Where this procedure would delay a bulletin, order, or letter that must go out imediately because of a generic i
health or safety problem, the Office Director may make this determination, provided the NRC. clearance office verifies the accuracy of the determination upon receipt of the issued bulletin, order, or letter.
Include in each information request the clearance statement prescribed by GMB.
Furnish a copy of each information request, when issued, to the NRC clearance office and a copy without attachments to OMB.
j 2.
NRC Clearance Office The clearance office must maintain an infomation locator system adequate to detemine whether information being requested duolicates information already available.
For each query from a program office l
for use of the generic clearance, the clearance office will:
i Search the information locator system promptly and advise the program office as to whether the information is already available.
Maintain a file of each infomation request including a copy of all respondent ccaments on burden and duplication, j
i Periodically review and assess each request under the blanket clearance for conformance with authorized use, discuss questionable uses with the appropriate program office, and document the resolution of these cases.
Submit to OMB a copy of any comments concerning burden and /
duplication received from licen::ees.
l Submit to OMB semi-annually and at other times, as reauested, j
a listing by date of the individual infomation requests by i
program office, listing the number of licensees by type to whom each request was sent and the estimated reporting burden under j
each request.
3.
OMB Clearance Office OMB's Reports Management Office will monitor the use of this blanket clearance as follows:
4
,s.
'l i
4 It will periodically review each information reouest issued under i
the blanket clearance for conformity with its authorized use, and discuss questionable uses with the NRC clearance office and appropriate program office. This review may require additional NRC documentation.
It will request NRC to submit promptly for OMB's specific review any cases judged by 0MB to be outside the scope of the blanket clearance after discussion with the NRC clearance and program offices.
Should NRC not submit such cases for review within a reasonable time. OMB will publish a Federal Register _ notice of violation.
- will publish in the Federal Register the semi-annual information on use of the blanket clearance as furnished by NRC.
It will periodically review NRC's administration of the clearance.
j The following clearance information must appear on each information request which is used as a non-routine generic request.
l "This request for information was. approved by OMB under a blanket clearance numoer R0072 which expires December 31, 1981. Comments on burden and duplication may be directed to tne Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building., Washington, D.C.
20503."
i NOTE: These special procedures will expire December 31, 1981. NRC is negotiating with OMB for use of the blanket clearance after this date.
i 1
l
.w
i P G '" W T ' '
- 7 ?
j y
g.
I i.
- 3 g
6 s
.g
.. q a,,
gs.,,_
.- ve.
n.
l f"
N-Q,..,.'y.
m Q.:': - N T.;
.i i
4 n
+
{
Q '. b'.":e.
- .f W [ Q. p>.h ys'.1 c
. rg er
- [.
d
'e 4
3)~.y/l J' 'e ~.
3' r
? :.
l g.;,~
fn-.
L8. NUCLE &R EECCLA! DRY C0!*f155 ION
- .fpway
..,,x.
rwaC MANUAL l
y.>
.em;r.m -,
f.n,.ps.4.#..,. - -" y -
.a
. p.; ;
M..^
480
- neneral M=feierration 1
- I g $p00 44=f=tatrativa Procedures and Services
-e p.
.o :
e j
pr5
.r -
j l
- 5. :'.N.
i
~ I; y., * -
.t_,.....
i CBAPIER'0230 PT.DERAL REPORTS MANAGErz.5T n..s
- ,M:.,.,.}. '. a..
L
, 2130 4 1 COVERAGE I
'This chapter supersedes the organizational s:ructure and precedures appr:ved by j
the Cossaission in SECT-77-93 "GA0 Report on the Effec:iveness of NRC's Infernati:n J
Cathering Activities" and Draf t NRC Manual Chapter 0213 " Clearance Requirements l
for information Collections". Tnis manual chapter also supersedes NRC Sulletin 2210-9 dated July 6,1977 and me crandum from the EDO to all Offi:e Dire::crs j
cated April 2'.,1931.
Tnis chapter defir.es the objectives, responsibili:les and j
procedures for the condu:t of NRC's information collectices applicable :: ?L 06-511. "Tne Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980", 41 CFR 101-11.11 " interagency Rep:r:s Managment",
- CFR 101-H.207 " Internal Repor:s Managenent", and relevant OM2 and NARS guidan:e and dire:tives, i
0230-02 OPJEC!1'n.S 021 Assign respenaihilities and set itrch procedures for the cc:.du:: of l
NRC inf or.:.atics-gathering ac:1vities as prescribed under the Faper.:ri Redaction A:: of 19SO and OX3 regula:icns and direc:17es.
02: Assure that t':.e colicction of infer =ation by 531 is ::csisten: vi:.h needs of the regaistory progrso and under:aken is a manner that vil; place a minia;;; burcen upcn the respcodents, and perforr.ed ic co=plian:a I
with PL St6-511. " Paperwork Reduction Ac: of 198C".
1 I
j 023 Assure couplience wi:h the NRC/CE agreemen: or. :he use of the " Class j
Exa=ption for Reports Concerning ?ossible Generi: Probleza".
i 4
4 02 Assure that the NRC inferna: ion ::1.lection requiresen:s are reviewed I
at ie:. internis during developne.: and f ollowir.g imp".t.:.entati:n so 1
that appr:pria:e decisi::.s can be sade regarding such acti:ns cm j
1:sti:c:ing, ::::inuing, modifying, or termina it.; s.uch information-j gathering requireueats, i
023 Assurs edherer.;e to policies, re:isirements, and procedures :: the General Sercices Adrinistra: ion, ';1tional Ar:hins and Records Servi:e i
thRS) pt.rsu::.: :o u CFR 1:1-11.11 and 101-11.2'J7.
i 3
03 Assarc that d.e ces: efficient, effe::ive, an1 e::r.e i. sour:es or j
muns h,r ir:ainini or appli:1:ic. Of infor:atie: reacur:es have been j
eensiderec.
t
.i e-y r.,-v-------.e,-.w
.,n
...-e--ee-
- ---+--.------------------.-----.------------m----
yy
<r' W T -g Ff"yTr'!!t
^'*' " ""'"
1, 2-z, c,
a :p 0230-03 RESPCNSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 The Coma:.ission approves new or revised information collection require-ments as contained it Rules, Regulations, or Orders issued by the Commission.
032 The Director. Office of Administratica:
4 Assures agency compliance with PL 96-511, "Pape:vork leduction a.
Aer of 1980".
b.
Assures tha the infora'aticu policies, principles, s:andards, guidelines, and rules and regulations preseirbed by OM3 and GSA ara sppre: rintely implemen:ed within the agency.
c.
Develops ages:7 informa:ico policies and proceduras and eversees, audits, and other rise periodically reviews age:cy informatics resources canage.=ent ac:ivi:ies.
d.
Reviews and apprcves p : posed agene.y reper:ing a:d e ordkeeping require.:en:s to ensare :hac :ne.y bpone the s us burden upon
,the public, are no duplicative, and, have ;;ac:ical utill:y f : the agen:7 Develops cnd b;ile: tents proceduras fe assessing the burdes :: hc.
a.
publi: and cc.s:s to :he agency Ic: infor=a:ic: requi:e=ents ::ntained in proposed le;islation aff ecting agency progrs.:s.
1 f.
Condu::s and is accountable fer a:quisi:lons made pu:suan: :a Se::ian
)
111 of :he Federal Pr:per:.y and Adsinistra:ive 3ervices A:: of 194.i.
l Assures : hat kRO's O'. ass Tr.a:p:.1:: f or 1=.ps::s ioneerning ?:ssible g.
Generi: ?:obless (CE3 3150- 0012) is adminis:cred in ac::rdan:e si:h the OY.3/.UC Agreenen: governing its use.
h.
Assis:s OM3 in the perfemance of its func:fons assig.ted by ?196-311, including the reviews of agency information ac:ivi:.ies.
\\
1.
Assures the develsp=sn: of the agency-wide Inf::setice Cc11ectica 3udge:
and subni:s it to 02.
- e..
j R
g JPfe7
. f,,
- {~
.... ; s,n.;
h}*:isl.
s w$,- ;
c c
~
.---..m.
y
.m...-.,
,-,,w.,,.
.m..,,
..,,,#w.n.m_,_r,,m,,,.rre,.
.w..n,--
p.m,,.+,,,,
l
-(
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 INFORMATION REPORT
~
May 8,1981 SECY-81-291 For:
The Comissioners From:
T. A. Rehm, Assistant for Operations, Office of the EDO
Subject:
WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT - WEEK ENDING MAY 1,1981 A summary of key events is included as a convenience to those Cornissioners who may prefer a condensed version of this report.
Enclosure j
Contents Administration A
Nuclear Reactor Regulation B
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards C
Inspection and Enforcement D
-l Nuclear Regulatory Research E
Executive Legal Director F
International Programs G
State Programs H
Management and Program Analysis I
Controller J*
Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data K
Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization L*
Items Approved by the Commission P
/T. A. Rehm, A u for Operations Office of the Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
- No input this week.
Commissioners
Contact:
Commission Staff Offices T. A. Rehm, EDO EDO f
LO-?77F.1 ACRS 1L N0 L
t
\\
l
- s26g,
SUMMARY
OF WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT Week Ending May 1, 1981 Zion Station, Unit No. 1 On April 22, 1981, Zion Unit 1 commenced operation after a 98-day refueling outage. The next refueling for Unit 1 is scheduled for April 1982. The next refueling for Unit 2 is October 1981 during which time it is planned that the two remaining steam generators will be modified with J tubes.
McGuire Duke Power Co. notified the staff that Unit No. 1 initial criticality has been delayed approximately a month (from May 7 to early June) due_to a leak in the reactor vessel head flange caused by failure of the RV head flange inner metallic 0-ring seal.
US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement The IAEA will complete their initial inventory verification activitics at the Exxon Nuclear Fuel Fabrication facility on May 18, 19, and 20. An initial IAEA inspection will be conducted at Trojan on May 21 and 22. and at Rancho.
Seco on May 26 and 27.
epa /NRC/ OSHA Hearing The first joint hearing on occupational radiation protection was held in Washington, D.C. April 20-23. The material covered was devoted almost exclusively to EPA's proposed guidance on this subject. The testimony was generally negative, with several recommendations that the guidance should be withdrawn. The most common complaint was that too much detail is given, as l
opposed to broader policy considerations.
Hydrogen program At a meeting on April 22, Sandia reviewed the status of the hydrogen program, proposed activities for the balance of FY81, and provided a scope of work for FY 82. The major conclusion of the meeting is that presently budgeted FY82 funds for the program are significantly below Sandia recommendations of an ideal level of effort and a minimum level of effort.
l l
l l
f l
4 0FFICE OF ADMINISTRATION i
Week Ending May 1, 1981 ADMINISTRATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT j
STATUS OF REQUESTS Initial Appeal of Request Initial Decision Received 215 6
Granted 137 0
Denied 22 2
Pending 56 4
ACTIONS THIS WEEK i
Received Lindsay Audin Requests three categories of documents regarding (81-160) inspection and enforcement reports performed at faciliti fabricating spent fuel casks.
Sanford L. Hartman, Requests a list and copies of all documents comprising Debevoise & Liberman the " record" identified in Memorandum and Order, CLI-80-;
(81-1 61)
Philip G. Sunderland, Requests 11 categories of documents regarding the Terris & Sunderland Senior Executive Service.
(81-162)
Robert Goldsmith, Requests three categories of documents releting to an Citizens for a evaluation or estimate of the possibility that Better Environment decontamination of-Dresden 1 using NS-1 solvent will (81-163) accomplish its goals as specified in Section 2.4 of the Final EIS.
(NRC employee)
Requests the names of all secretaries, series GG-318, (81-164) who have been selected and enrolled in the non-Governmental facility PARA-LEGAL STUDIES program from 1967 to date and the names of all ASLBP panel members who have been selected and enrolled in the non-Governmental facility ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEDURE SESSION from 1967 to date.
Rick Pitcher, Requests the names, salary, or GG 1evel and locations Occidental Life of NRC employees in Region V.
Insurance (81-165) l CONTACT:
J. M. Felton l
492-7211 l
ENCLOSURE A f
l t
2 Received. Cont'd Janes A. McLellan, Requests' the names of all licensed Reactor Operators and Pro-Tech Senior Reactor Operators.
(81-166)
(NRC employee)
Requests files on him in the Office of Inspector and (81-1 67)
Auditor..any charges made against him and his personnel file.
Gordon G. Hobson, Referral from the Department of Energy for information Attorney-At-Law relating to nuclear fallout and/or radioactivity in the (81-168)
Hanford, Washington area caused by the presence of nuclear weapons production or testing and records of all past claims made by employees of the Government or residents of Hanford, Washington concerning their exposure to radioactive materials.
Dennis E. Smith, Requests a copy of SECY-79-564, entitled " Domestic Desmatics, Inc.
Safeguards,' Technical Assistance and Research and (81-169)
Contracted Projects."
Kenneth I. Condra Requests the job classification, job' rating, salary and (81-170) period of employment with the NRC of a named individu'a1.
Wendell R. Marschall, Requests _ the cost of a transcript of a meeting on April Mapleton Intervenors 1981 regarding Consumers Power Company.
(81-171)
Irwin D. J. Bross, Requests specific information on Contract NRC-10-10 Roswell Park Memorial 06-3.
t Institute (81-172) l Steven P. Hershey, Requests copies of all correspondence between the NRC Community Legal and Philadelphia Electric Company since November 1,1980 Services (81-173)
Robert R. Belair, APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION for 17 documents pertaining to Hill, Christopher and the Commission's February 20, 1981 Order in the Diablo Phillips. P.C.
Canyon physical security proceeding.
(81-A-6-81-84)
Granted l
l William Reynolds, In response to a request for documents relating to the American Friends import of special nuclear material or spent fuel from Service Committee the Chalk River Reactor'in Ontario,_ Canada, made availab (81-125) eight documents.
p ENCLOSURE A i
~.. -......
..~
l l*
3 l.
Granted, Cont'd Lynn Connor, In response to a request for four categories of Doc-Search Associates infomation relating to wire and cables manufactured to (81-143)
Continental-Wire and Cable Company, Anaconda Company, Okonite Company and Collyer Wire and Cable Company, informed the requester these documents are already available at the PDR.
Steven C. Sholly, In response to a request for a copy of a draft report i
Union of Concerned prepared by the Instrumentation and Controls Division of Scientists Oak Ridge National Laboratory concerning a review of (81-149)
BAW-1564, a Babcock & Wilcox Company report entitled
" Reliability Analysis of the Integrated Control System", made available this document.
l Carol Schapira, In response to a referral from the Department of Attorney-At-Law Energy for copies of licenses and/or applications and (81-152) renewals for Jersey Nuclear and related fims in connection with a fuel fabrication plant, handling of fissionable materials and a uranium mill located at Converse City, Wyoming, infomed the requester these documents are already available at the PDR.
j Denied I
Allan Mazur, In response to a request for copies of the enclosures to Syracuse University a letter dated December 1,1978 to Mr. Byron Lee (80-615)
(comonwealth Edison Company) from J. G. Keppler (NRC) and Comonwealth Edison Company's response to NRC, denied portions of two documents containing unclassified safeguards infomation, j
l Stephen M. Rappoport, In response to a request for specified certified copies Slepkow, Slepkow &
of documents pertaining to the nuclear incident on 4
Rappoport, Inc.
July 24,1964 at the United Nuclear Corporation, made (81-133) available one document. Denied portions of one document, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
David F. Power, In response to a request for specific comunications Attorney-At-Law between the NRC and the Defense Intelligence Agency, l
(81-142) denied portions of one document containing classified l
informa tion.
(NRC employee)
In response to a request for copies of appraisals and/or (81-144) evaluations of applicants in the selection of NRC Vacancy Announcement Numbers 81-0139 and 81-0140, made available 13 documents. Denied eight documents in their i
entirety and portions of nine documents, the disclosure I
of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
l l
ENCLOSURE A l
I l
l DIVISION OF CONTRACTS Week Ending May 2, 1981 RFP/IFB'S ISSUED 1.
IFB RS-01E-81-256 Title - Intrinsic Germanium Detector System Description - The procurement involves the acquisition of a Princeton Gamma Tech Nuclear Power Reactor Cryostat Intrinsic Germanium Detector System or Equal.
Period of Performance - Within 90 days Sponsor - Office of Inspection and Enforcement Status - IFB scheduled to be issued on May 1,1981.
Bid opening is scheduled for June 1,1981.
2.
RFP SR-RES-81-203 Title
" Definition of Bounding Physical Tests Representative of Transport Accidents - Air and Ship" Description - Define a set (s) of radioactive material shipping package performance tests which bound the environments experienced in such accidents, based on an investigation and assessment of extremely severe air and marine transport accident events.
Period of Performance - 18 months Level of Effort - 3 to 5 man years Sponsor - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Status - RFP issued on April 20, 1981.
Proposals due May 20, 1981.
CONTRACT AWARDED 1.
RFP RS-RES-81-168 (formerly RS-RES-81-235)
Title - Seismic History of the Eastern Seaboard from New York to Norfolk, Virginia Description - The work to be accomplished under this contract comprises a comprehensive search of all available records in major j
respositories throughout the northeastern United States for j
the purpose of discovering new information on earthquake occurrence and effects. The region to be surveyed extends l
from New York to Norfolk, Virginia and includes the Appalachian Mountains within its western boundary. The historical period to be covered extends from the earliest i
records available up to 1930. The results of this search j
is to be published in a catalogue, suitable for interfiling l
with existing catalogues.
Period of Performance - One Year Sponsor - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research q
Status - Cost reimbursement contract awarded to the Pennsylvania State University in the amount of $17,102.00 effective April 23, 1981.
n ENCLOSURE A
- v. 2 -
C0!nRACTS CLOSED OUT (All administrative action completed and final payment made)
Contract No.
Contractor Closecut Date NRC-03-77-059 Science Applications, Inc.
4/22/81 NRC-03-78-190 Dr. M. Grant Gross 4/24/81 NRC-17-79-453 Bernard C. Doyle 4/27/81 j
l NRC-03-78-182 MacKay School of Mines 4/24/81 NRC-03-79-136 Mark Messings 4/28/81 NRC-04-79-185 CGS, Inc.
4/23/81 NRC-04-78-256 EDITECH, Corp.
4/27/81 NRC-10-79-380 L. J. Hampton Associates 4/27/81 l
AT-(49-24)-0015 Nuclear Assurance Corp.
4/23/81 NRC-11-79-403 Dr. Theodore Wu 4/28/81 AT (49-24)-0278 Mr. E. E. Halmos 4/28/61 NRC-11-78-429 Battelle Columbus Lab.
4/28/81 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE 1.
NRC-04-81-011 Title - Conference on Small Break Loss-of-Coolant-Accident Analysis in Light Water Reactors Description - To provide a forum for the exchange of infomation on Small Break LOCA's, an area of safety research which has been of increased interest to the NRC t.fter the accident on TMI Period of Performance - 5 months Sponsor - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Status - Grant awarded to the American Nuclear Society, Northern t
California Section in the amount of 53,000.00 effective April 7,1981.
ENCLOSURE A f
. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER Sole source letter contract (NRC-05-81-254) was issued to Southwestern Bell Telephone Company on March 12, 1981.
The contract provides for 'he installa-t tion of a private branch exchange (PBX) in NRC's Region IV offices. Rolm Corporation ((Rolm) and Fisk Telephone Systems, Inc. (Fisk) have both issued written protests to the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) challenging the sole-source status of Southwestern Bell.
NRC issued a documented report responsive to the protests to GA0 on March 19, 1981.
Fisk submitted comments on the NRC report to GA0 on April 10, 1981 with copies to the NRC. A GAO conference was held on April 24, 1981, at which time both NRC and Fisk representatives were afforded the opportunity to discuss the subject matter.
' NRC and Fisk were given five (5) working days to submit any additional written comments on the subject matter prior to GAO issuing a final decision. NRC does pian to submit additional comments.
s ENCLOSURE A I
\\
i l
DIVISION OF SECURITY l
l Week Ending May 1, 1981 Security Surveys f
A representative of the Facilities and Systems Security Branch conducted surveys of the following security interests: Region V, Scitran, Inc., and Dr. Harold Lewis, Consultant, who are approved to use, process and otherwise handle NRC classified matter.
l l
Air Rights III Building Advised NRC employees of Air Rights III that the Rusco Card key system is operational and is being used to control access to NRC space. Procedures for ootaining a card key were given to those individuals in need of acquiring one.
i
- Foreign Travel Defensive Security Briefing SEC has prepared a written defensive security briefing which can be given to NRC employees traveling to Communist-controlled countries. Copies of this unclassified briefing can be obtained from the Information Security Branch.
- Delete from PDR copy.
t ENCLOSURE A l
\\
(
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
\\
l WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS - MAY 01, 1981 ZION STATION, UNIT NO. 1 On April 22, 1981 the Zion Unit No. 1 commenced operation after a 98 day refueling outage. The next refuelins, for Unit 1 is scheduled for April 1982.
l The next refueling for Unit 2 is October 1981 during which time it is planned l
that the two remaining steam generators will be modified with J tubes.
1 Actions taken during this refueling outage were:
(1) fuel loading for a 12 month power cycle (2) turbine maintenance for a failed bearing, (3) replacement of a leaking SS clad BIT with an all SS BIT, (4) containment leak rate testing j
(Appendix J); (5) installation of J tubes in the two remaining steam generators i
in Unit 1, (6) reactor coolant pump seal maintenance, (7) scheduled ISI and subsequent steam generator tube plugging, (8) snubber inspection, and (9) check valve testing.
Other plant modification based on NRC requirements included:
(1) TMI modifi-cations, and (2) hanger modificationa per IE %11etin 79-14 MC GUIRE The licensee (Duke power Co.) notified the staff that Unit No.1 initial criticality has been delayed approximately a month (from May 7,1981 to early June) due to a leak in the reactor-vessel head flange caused by failure of the RV head flange inner. metallic 0-ring seal.
A new 0-ring seal will be installed. Cause of the failure has not been determined.
kLk. PWR Ap?LICANTS AND LICENSEES-
(($eitingwi1fbeheldib':05 Wednesday, April 29, 1981 in Room P d18 "*
cf the Phillips Building in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss with the FWR Owners Groups thermal shock to reactor pressure vessels by overcooling transients and ~
the potential consequences of subsequent repressurization at'relatively Qow
. temperatures. The meeting is being held to provide an update of industry efforts ce=r.itted to during the 31 March 1951 meetins as well as to discuss the ;
i Tiafety significance related to continued operation of these_ plants.'r l
l 4
i e
- ENCLOSURE 8 l-
4 SIGNIFICANT NRR MEETING On May 7,1981, to discuss ENC Analyses of LOFT L3-6.
C i
1
+e 1
e t
t 5
l
\\
i ENCLOSURE B-I I
i
t
~
llRC TM1 PROGRAM OFFICE WEEKLY STATUS REPORT Week of April 26.- May 2,1981 7
l Plant Status Core Cooling Mode: Heat transfer from the reactor coolant system is';S) loops to reactor building ambient.
Available Core Co'oling Modes: Long-tem cooling "B" (once through steam generator-8); decay heat removal systems.
RCS Pressure Control Mode: Standby Pressure Control (SPC) System.
Backup Pressure Control Modes: Mini _ Decay Heat Removal (MDHR) Syp*..
Decay Heat Removal. (DHR) System.
i Hajor-Parameters (as of 0430, May 1. '1981) (approximate values)
Average Incore Thermocouples: 114*F Maximum Incore Thermocouple:
141 *F RCS Loop Temperatures:
A B
Hot Leg 112*F 115'F Cold Leg (1) 66*F 65'F (2) 66*F 65*F RCS Pressure:
99 psig Reactor Building: Temperature: 64*F Water level: Elevation 290.7 ft. (8.2 f t. from flocr*
via penetration 401 manometer Pressure:
.6 psig
')
l Concentration: Less than LLD (4.3 x 10 6) j l
(sample taken 4/30/81)
Effluent and Environmental (Radiological) Infonnation
-l i
1.
Liquid effluents from the TMI site released to the Susquehanna River after processing, were made within the regulatory limits and in accordance with NRC requirements and City of Lancaster Agreement' dated February 27, 1980.
During the period April 24, 1981, through April 30,1981', the effluents contained no detectable radioactivity at the discharge point although individual effluent sources-which originated within Unit 2 contained minute amounts of radioactivity.
Calculations indicate that less than 2 millionths (0.000002) of a curie was discharged.
This represents less than 0.00002% of the permissable l
total liquid activity as specified in Technical Specifications I
for operational cor.mercial reactors.
i i
l ENCLOSURE 3 l
I
2 2.
Environrental Protection Agency-(EPA) Environmental Data.
Results
~
f rom ETA conitoring of tne environmenI' around the TM1 site were as follows:
3 The EPA measured Kr-85 concentrations (pCi/m ) at several environmental monitoring stations and reported the following results:
Location April 17 - April 24.1981 a
(pci/m )
Goldsboro 22 Observation Center 25 Middletown 33 Yorkhaven 25 All of the above levels of Kr-85 are considered to be back-ground levels.
No radiation above normally occurring background levels was detected in any of the samoles collected from the EPA's air anc gamma rate networks during the period from April 24, 1981, through April 30, 1981.
3.
NRC Environmental Data.
Results from NRC monitoring of the environ-ment arouno tne IMI site were as follows:
The following are the NRC air sample analytical results for j
the onsite continuous air sampler-l l
I-131 Cs-137 Samole Period (uci/ce)_ (uti/cc)
HP-264 April 15,1981 - April 22,1981
< 8.5'E-14
<8.5 E-14 i
HP-265 April 22,1981 - April 29,1981
< 8.6 E-14
<B.6 E-14 Environmental TLD measurements for the period February 5 to March 12,1981 around THI, and the Island stations for the period November 28, 1980 to March 13, 1981, indicated gamma radiation to be at the natural background levels.
Fifty-eight TLD's registered doses ranging from 0.17 mR/ day to 0.32 mR/ day.
Average dose was 0.24 mR/ day.
These dose rates are consistent with natural background radiation in the TMI area.
4 f
ENCLOSURE B l
l 4
i i
3
^
.\\-
Licensee Radioactive Material aod Radwaste Shipments 4.
27,1981, a 40 ml Unit 2 reactor coolant
)
On Monday, April sample was sent to Sabcock and Wilcox (B&W), Lynchburg, Vi'rginia.
1 i
i 27.1981, one 4' x 4' EPICOR II dewatered On Monday, April resin liner (liner DT-13) from Unit 2 was shipped to U. S.
i l
Ecology, Richland, Washington, 28,1981, one 4' x 4' EPICOR II' dewatered j
On Tuesday, April resin liner (liner DF-4)'from Unit 2 was shipped to U. S.
j Ecology Richland, Washington.
l April 29,1981, one 4' x.4' EPICOR I! dewatered 1
On Wednesday, liner DF-7) from Unit 2 was shipped to U. -5.
resin liner (
j Ecology, Richland, Washington.
Major Events Reactor Building Entry.
The ninth entry into the Unit II reactor f
J 30, 1 981.
During 1.
building (88) was completed on Thursday, April this entry preparations were completed for a decontamination experiment l
. Additionally, a floating which will be performed on the next entry.This pump will be used to pump j
pump was placed in the RB sump water.
sump water to the submerged demineralizer system.
Eight persons.
entered the RB during the entry and based on preliminary indicators.
j The (dosimeters), the maximtsn individual exposure was 618 millirem.
i 14, 1981.
The RB was
)
j next RB entry is tentatively scheduled for May purged prior to the entry to reduce airborne Krypton concentrations.
l Air samples taken before and after the purge indicate that approximately J
three curies of Krypton-85 were released to the environment.
l Test boring two was placed on an accelerated Ground Water Monitoring.
2.
sample analysis schedule when minute amounts of radioactive cesium were detected in the water samples taken during the months of December j
through March. The cesium sctivit l
decreased to below the lower limit of detection (LLD)y subsequent yon the most recent ana j
available from test boring two from samples taken on April 22, 1981.
Tritium activity in the test borings has remained in'the same range as j
previously reported.- An exception _has been test boring nine. Samples j
taken from test boring nine on February 25, 1981, indicated an increase t
in tritium activity to 6310 picoeuries per litar (pC1/L).
Samples taken on March 4,11, and 18,1961, indicated 3660, 2940 and 3310 pCi/L i
Test boring nine is located adjacent to the of tritium respectively.
borated water storage tank (BWST). -During the time when tritium actively i
l increased in test boring nine, excavation. work was in progress around The excavation may have altered the normal flow paths of tne BWST.
the ground water.
Leaks from the SWST associated valves and fittings may have been the source of the ground water contamination.
The licensee has constructed a trougn and a rain cover around the potentially leaky BWST components.
- The weekly monitoring of the ground water activity will continue.
f L
1 4
i ENCLOSyBE..B....,
}e
l i
I 4
i Submerged Demineralizer System (SDS)_.
Preparation of the Safety 4
3.
Evaluation Gp^o'rt (SER) by tne El Program Office is in progress 1
}
On although some necessary information has not yet been received.th j
April 30,1981, the needed infomation.
1 j
The licensee is perforsning functional tests of the SOS components The testing to verify that. the equipment will operate as designed.
t does not involve processing of contaminated water. The licensee has 112,000 gallons of EPICOR II processed water into pumped approximately The fuel pool will be completely filled when the i
the fuel pool.
functional testing allows and concerns raised about airborne tritiic concentrations are resolved (this item is discussed in the next j
l paragraph).
.1 Elevated Tritium levels in Fuel Handling Building. -At approximately 4.
10:00 p.m. on April 29, 1981, licensee representatives obtaingd uCi/cc analytical results for an airborne concentration of 3.1 x 10-3 (tritium, H-3) for a grab sample-taken between 2:00 p.m. to The sampling process was perfomed 7:00 p.m. earlier in the day.
while 'ICOR 11 processed water. which contained 0.22 uti/mi of H-3, l
was tr. asferred to partially fill the "B" Spent Fuel Pool, which I
will be used to shield the Submerged Demineralizer System during 4
The sample was taken inside the pool. Subsequent its operation.
samples were imediately taken at the 347' elevation (working area) of the Fuel Handling Building (FHB) adjacent to the "B" pool.
l 30, 1981 The second sample resgits became available at 4:45 a.m., AprilThe 347' e and showed 2.2 x 10 " uCi/cc (H-3).
j declared an airborne radioactivity area.
The transfer process was-i i
secured at 2:30 a.m., April 30, 1981.
At approximately 10:00 a.m., a sample analysis indicated 1.2 x 10-6
?
uCi/ce, (H-3) and personnel entry into the area was resumed since the l
airborne (H-3) concentration was reduced to below 25 percent of.MPC (occupational maximum pemissible concentration per 10 CFR 20).
Licensee analytical results of a grab sample taken at 0553 to 0740 on April 30, 1981, from the FHB exhaust indicated an H-3 concentration of less than the Lower Limit for Detection (LLO < 4.5 x 10-9 uti/cc).
j The NRC resident staff have compared the monthly _ H-3 effluent and determined that the H-3 airborne releases during April (2.8 Ci) were essentially the same as March (2.7 Ci).
Based on the monthly _ effluer.t data it appears that-the slightly elevated and localized H-3 concentrations in the FHB during April 29 and 30,1981, has not contributed to any'significant increase in the plant monthly H-3 effluent.
Further, the licensee initiated a bicassay fur selected personnel present at the 347' elevation area of the FHB'during the period of the The source of the-apparen; increase in H-3 airborne concentrations.
apparent localized H-3 concentrations is still being examined by the onsite staff.
ENCLDSUIEB I
5 Meeting Held On Thursday, April 30, 1981, Harold Denton and Lake Barrett attended the annual convention of the Pennsylvania Osteopathic Medical Association at the Host Farm in Lancaster.
Mr. Denton addressed the convention at its opening session followed by an open question session.
The majority of the questions centered around general issues regarding the cleanup program of TMI Unit 2, and the recent Japanese event at Tsuruga Nuclear Power Plant.
Future Meetings
~
1.
On Tuesday, May 5,1981, Lake Barrett will conduct a plant tour for area mothers.
2.
On Wednesday, May 13, 1981, Lake Barrett and Oliver Lynch will participate in a meeting with the Susquehanna Valley Alliance on the Programatic Environmental Impact Statement.
The meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m., in the Friends Meeting House in Lancaster at 110 Tulane Terrace.
I f
i e
l I
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS Items of Interest Week Ending May 1,1981 l
US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement The Design Information Questionnaire (DIQ) for the Trojan Nuclear Plant was forwarded to the State Department for transmittal to the IAEA in Vienna on l
April 23, and the one for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station was l
forwarded on April 28, 1981.
The IAEA will complete their initial inventory verification activities at the Exxon Nuclear Fuel Fabrication on May 18,19 and 20. An initial IAEA inspection will be conducted at the Trojan Nuclear Plant on May 21 and 22, and at the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station on May 26 and 27.
Meeting with B&W-Naval Representatives from B&W-Naval met with members of the Material Control and Accountability Licensing Branch on April 27 to discuss modifications to their FNMC Plan ta allow recovery of scrap generated by another licensee.
New License Conditions for Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tennessee On April 30, 1981, we issued Amendment No 9 to License SNM-124 held by Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tennessee to incorporate additional requirements to improve emission controls and environmental sampling. The new requirements were discussed in SECY-81-193 dated March 25, 1981.
Speech Joseph DelMedico addressed the International Symposium Workshop on Quality Assurance in Nuclear Medicine, held April 27-29 at the Pan American Health Organization Building in Washington, D.C.
The title of his presentation was
" Objectives of the Regulatory Agencies"(Procedures of Monitoring Radiation, Safety). This symposium was sponsored by the Federated Council of Nuclear Medicine Organizations and the Bureau of Radiological Health, i
ENCLOSURE C l
Planned Meetings Division of Safeguards 1.
Subject:
Safeguards Agreement Working Group Date:
May 5,1981 Location: State Department, Washington, D. C.
Attendees:
Paul Morrow Eugene Sparks, SGMD Representatives of. State, ACDA, DOE 2.
Subject:
Meeting with B&W-Naval and NUSAC to implement the Advanced Pkterials Accountability Simulation Study -(AMASS)
Date:
May 11-15 Location: Lynchburg, VA Attendees:
H. McClanahan, B&W R. Hawkins, NUSAC G. Gundersen, SGML M. Messinger, SGMD 3.
Subject:
Discussion with IAEA on upcoming inspections at Exxon Trojan and Rancho Seco Date:
May 12 and 14, 1981 Location: State Department, Washington, D. C.
Attendees: Paul Morrow, Eugene Sparks,' SGMD Representatives of State, ACDA, DOE and IAEA 4.
Subject:
Upcoming IAEA Reactor Inspections Date:
May 14, 1981 Location: NRR Attendees:
Paul Morrow, SGMD Eisenhut and Tedesco, NRR Representatives of IAEA Absences of Director and Deouty Director 5/8/81 D. R. Chapell Acting - D. R. Chape11 5/15/81 R. F. Burnett l
ENCLOSURE C
!=
l planned Meetings - Division of Waste Management 1.
Subject:
13th Annual National Conference of Radiation Control Date: Phy 4,1981 Location: Little Rock, Arkansas Attendee:
R. Browning (speaker) 2.
Subject:
Search of U.S. Ecology Files for material determined to support NRC staff position in the pending Sheffield hearing Date: May 4-7, 1981 Location: Louisville, Kentucky (U.S. Ecology)
Attendees:
J. Shaffner, WMLL, H. J. McGurren ELD 3.
Subject:
Review of Brookhaven nuclear waste managenent activities i
Date: May 12, 1981 Location: Upton, NY (BNL)
Attendees:
J, Martin, R. Browning, E. Cook j
Absences of Director and Deputy Director 5/4/81 - R. Browning 5/8/81 - R. Browning - Exec. Seminar USDA Grad. School 5/12/81 - J. Martin & R. Browning - BNL 1
s ENCLOSURE C L
i
4 Meetings - Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety J
j 1.
Subject:
13th Annual National Conference on Radiation Control i
Date/ Time:
May 4-6 Location:
Little Rock, Arkansas Attendees:
F. D. Fisher will participate in an emergency preparedness task force meeting - May 2.
R. G. Page and Ray Johnson (EPA) will discuss Federal Roles in Remedial Action for Contaminated Si tes - May 5.
R. G. Page will discuss Emergency Planning for Onsite Response at Fuel Cycle and Materials Facilities - May 6.
2.
Subject:
Public Meeting Sponsored by DOE to Discuss DOE Remedial Action Plan for Canonsburg Date/ Time:
April 29 Location:
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania Attendees:
W. A. Nixon (FC), DOE Representative, State and Local Officials Absences Richard E. Cunningham - May 8 - Scheduled to attend SES Executive Seminar Thomas F. Carter - May 11 - 1:00-5:00 - Leave.
i 4
i ENCLOSURE C I
l l
l' i
l 0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT Items of Interest Week Ending May 1,1981 j
i i
l i
1.
The following Notifications of Significant Enforcement Action were dispatched during the past week:
EN-80-57A Consolidated Edison Company of N.
Y., Inc. (Indian Point Unit 2) -
a.
An Order Imposing a Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued to subject l
licensee on April 29, 1981. Presiously, a Notice of Violation and a Notice of Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in the amount of $5,000 was issued based on an item of noncompliance involving exceeding the Technical Specification Limiti Conditions for Operation of the containment spray system. After consideration of the licensee's response, the IE staff concluded that the item of noncomplian did occur and that no adequate reasons were given by the licensee for mitigatio or remission of the proposed penalty.
b.
EN-81-13 Mayo Clinic - A Notice of Violation and a Notice of Proposed j
Imposition of a Civil Penalty in the amount of $1,500 was issued to subject 1
licensee on April 27, 1981, based on an alleged violation involving failure to l
i assay a radiopharmaceutical resulting in a misadministration to a patient of l
a different isotope than what was intended. This violation was a Severity Level l
III event ordinarily resulting in a civil penalty of S4,000; however, the l
l licensee imediately took steps to correct the problem and preclude similar events in the future, and imediately notified the NRC. The licensee also l
showed good faith by self-identification of the problem and by implementation of prompt and effective corrective actions. Therefore, it was determined l
that a total of 75 percent reduction in the civil penalty was justified.
4 2.
Preliminary Notifications relating to the following actions were dispatched during the past week:
1 a.
PNO-I-81-56 Peach Bottom Unit 3 - Possible Overexposure of One Individual l
.b.
PNO-1-81-57 Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 - Radioactive Waste Discharge Line Break c.
PHO-I-81-58 Peach Bottom Units 2 & 3 - Possible Strike by Contract Guard Force d.
PNO-II-81-32 Brunswick 1 - Loss of Normal Decay Heat Removal e.
PNO-III-81-40C Duane Arnold Energy Center - Possible Defects in Recirculation Piping and Themal Sleeve Welds i
f.
PNO-III-81-43 Davis-Besse Site - Plant Startup After Steam Generator Repair 9
PNO-III-81-44 Point Beach, Unit 2 - Steam Generator Tube Degradation h.
PNO-111-81-45 Monticello Site - Loss of Offsite Power During Refueling Outage
- i. PNO-IV-81 -ll Cooper Nuclear Station - Failed Turbine Blades ENCLOSURE D I
4
l l
-2
- j. PNO-V-81-25 San Onof*3 Nuclear Generating Station Unit No.1 - Earthquake at San Onofre Unit 1 i
k.
PNO-TMI-81-09 Three Mile Island, Unit 2 - Epicor-II Resin Liner Shipment
)
1.
PNO-TMI-81-10 Three Mile Island - Elevated Tritium Levels in the Fuel i
Handling Building L
I 4
ENCLOSURE D 1
i OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH IMPORTANT EVENTS FOR THE WEEK ENDING MAY 1,1981 1.
EPA /NRC/ OSHA Hearina The first EPA /NRC/0SHA hearing on occupational radiation protection r
was held in Washington, D.C., April 20 thru April 23, 1981. The sessions were attended at any one time by only 20 to 50 personnel, including participants, of which there were about 22 during the four full days and one evening session. The material covered was devoted almost exclusively to EPA's proposed guidance on this subject. The i
testimony was generally negative, with several recomendations that the guidance should be withdrawn. Although virtually every aspect of the i
guidance was criticized, the most common complaint was that too much detail is given, as opposed to broader policy considerations. The out-of-Washington hearings begin in Houston on May 1,1981, and end in San Francisco 1
on May 9, 1981.
Two reasons for postponing the guidance were discussed at considerable length by several participants.
First, a serious question recently has been raised about the neutron dose estimates for the Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors.
It now appears that the neutron doses may have been much smaller than previously assigned.
If this is shown to be the case, then virtually all of the radiation-induced cancers at Hiroshima were caused i
by gama radiation, with the inference that gamma radiation may have a higher risk than previously thought. Some participants believe that this question should be resolved before the new occupational radiation protection guidance is established.
The second reason given for postponing the guidance involves waiting for the NCRP to publish its new recommendations on occupational health protection. The NCRP is working on a protective system based on risk rather than dose. Since the dose is just one component of a risk estimation, many participants are intensely interested in the NCRP work.
(NOTE: In risk calculations the risk is usually considered to be proportional to the product of the dose, the risk factor, and the number of subsequent years of life at risk.)
A great deal of valuable infonnation was provided for the record. Arpong the testimony of particular interest was a presentation by representatives of Westinghouse in which previously undisclosed details were given concerning their crew of nuclear power reactor maintenance workers. This crew consists of over 100 highly skilled personnel who go fron one plant to another to l
perform maintenance during outages.
It was stated that the average dose for these individuals is about 6 rems per year, that about 25% of them have been members of the crew for 20 years or more, that the employment turnover is very low, and that most of the crew is expected to remain on this job until retirement. The Westinghouse participants indicated that there are other companies performing similar services. Usina 1980 BEIR 4
ENCLOSURE E I
5 l.
i i
j i 1
i report risk factors, about 7%.of such workers would be. predicted to contract g
i radiation induced cancer. These doses are within current NRC occupational i
dose limits.
(NOTE: In accordance with NRC annual reporting requirements, a worker receiving two rems at each of four different plants is reported 3
i as four workers, each receiving two rems, not as one worker receiving eight rems.)
The Commission recently established a regulation which requires licensees j
to tell terminating workers the-dose they received,-to request such information from new workers and thereby to consider the total dose received 1
by workers during any quarter at any facility. An ongoing NRC rulemaking action, which was published last year for public coment, would limit individual occupational doses to 3 rems per quarter:and 5 rems per year, j
These two regulations, working together, would effectively prohibit annual i
individual doses exceeding 5. rems, including transient workers, such as j
the maintenance work crews..(NOTE: More than 80 letters of comment were received on the 5' rems-per-year propcsed rule; many of these letters complained that flexibility to exceed 5 rems /yr is.sometimes needed. The j
Comission has not been requested to take final action on this rule pending j
completion of the joint hearings.)
- i
Contact:
R. E. Alexander 1
443-5975 l
2.
Heissdampfreaktor (HDR)
RES has invited HDR officials to Washington during the week of May 10,1981, j
to plan FY 1982 reismic research at HDR. NRC contractors will also attend.
j HDR is a decommissioned West German reactor used for nuclear safety research.
1i
Contact:
John O'Brien l
443-5860 i
ENCLOSURE E I
l l
- l Severe Accident Assessment Branch 1.
TRANS-2 Experiment in ACRR TRANS-2 (Transition Phase-2), the second in a series of unique in-pile experiments on the streaming and freezing of molten reactor fuel through structure has been successfully perfomed in the ACRR test reactor at Sandia National Laboratory.
In these laboratory-type experiments, the test reactor is used to rapidly melt a pellet of fue" with a pulse of neutrons, and the molten fuel is then driven under constant pressure into a stainless-steel tube. The depth of penetration and the final distribution of the fuel are measured by post-experiment x-radiography and in real time by wall themo-couples and by in-core fuel-position diagnostics.
l Results from these experiments are being used to assess.the current conflicting models of molten fuel streaming and freezing developed for fast reactor safety l
analysis.
Fuel streaming and freezing is a key factor in detemining whether or not the transition phase of a severe LMFBR accident can undergo an energetic-recriticality. The results of these experiments and the models also have generic applicability to the problem of molten-fuel relocation in a severe LWR accident. Similar experiments are currently being planned for LWR-specific fuel melts and conditions.
0 Very preliminary results indicate that TRANS-2, at 600 C fnitial stainless-steel tube temperature)was similar to TRANS-1, with a 400 C initial temperature.
The penetration lengths to the blockages were about 70 cm, and apparently in l
bothcasesappreciablefuelhadpenetratedbeyondtheblockageagdthebore l
l was lined with a fuel crust.
In TRANS-3, to be perfomed at 800 C tube tempera-ture, the steel should melt on contact with molten fuel. The steel-ablation l
' unstable-fuel-crust model predicts that, under these conditions, mixing of the fuel and steel will produce a blockage at a very short penetration length j
(about 20 cm). TRANS-3 is scheduled for July.
I 2.
NRC-EPRI Program Management Meeting An EPRI-NRC program management meeting was held in Chicago on April 24, 1981.
This one day management meeting provided a review of EPRI-NRC jointly sponsored research projects and a review of other research programs sponsored by the two organizations. This review included discussions on FLECHT-SEASET, REFILL /
REFLOOD programs and the TLTA program. These discussions were concerned with both the technical aspects of the program and potential budgetary problems associated with each. The meeting also covered research sponsored by each organization related to degraded core accidents, hydrogen control and mitigation, fission-product release and qualification testing. Additionally, RES reviewed i
work on SEMISCALE, 2D/3D and fuel behavior programs and EPRI reviewed the pro-grams on valve testing and passive restraints.
ENCLOSURE E I
i i
. Analytical Models Branch 1.
Fortran coding of TRAC-PF1. the fast-running small-break version of TRAC has been canpleted.- Developmental assessment-has started and the code is being compared with data from small-break tests in Semiscale LOFT and PKL. An improved' simulation of on/off trips and controls has also been coded and is being tested to prepare the code for use on those operational transients that do not require dynamic controls.
2.
A.. TRAC-PD2 fine-node calculation of.a large-break LOCA in a USPWR has been completed.
It has been reviewed by RES and once additional comments on depressurization rate,:downcomer liquid level, noding and LPIS injection rate have been prepared it will be transmitted for review to NRR.
3.
In preparation for the June meeting on UPTF design' and operation, to be held at Erlangen, a status report meeting is being held at NRC on April 29, 1981..The following organizations are reporting:
LASL.on their loop calculations with (GPWR) and without (UPTF) active pumps and. steam generators; MPR on potential loads in UPTF; CREARE on plugging experiments and hot-le~g oscillation analysis; and NRC on scaling of CREARE test results and data to. support the TRAC calculations.
Fuel Behavior Branch l
l 1.
Technical Bases Report on Fission Product Behavior (Draft NUREG 0772)
The format and approach to the documentation of peer reviewer comments were resolved at a meeting with key authors on April 21 at Headquarters.
Final, revised camera-ready chapters are due at Headquarters on May 4.
Contractor inputs to Chapter 1 (Summary) revisions are due this week.
2.
Hydrogen Program At a meeting on April 22, in response to an RES request, Sandia reviewed the status of the hydrogen program, proposed activities for the balance l
of FY81, and provided a scope of work for FY82.
Sandia also provided a comprehensive work plan which includes all presently identifiable tasks.which which should be persued. The nejor conclusion of the meeting is that presently budgeted FY82 funds (S650KO for the program are significantly below Sandia recommendations of an ideal. level of effort (at $2900K) and a minimum level of effort (at S1900K).
ENCLOSURE E i
i i
l I
i
. Experimental Proarams Branch 1.
Semiscale Test S-UT-7, 5 percent cold leg break with UHI, was conducted as planned on April 22, 1981. This completes the small-break test series. We have initiated facility modifications required for the natural convection series, which we plan to start in June.
These are principally instrumentation changes required to study low flow rates and two-phase behavior.
i We have initiated planning for a Semiscale Review Group meeting.
l This will be held in Idaho in conjunction with an ACRS meeting planned for July 1981.
We are also investigating conduct of an experimental program analysis workshop. The objective is twofold: to assure that all interested analysts have the most recent information pertaining to the facilities and to provide a forum where analysts can share I
the knowledge.
2.
FLECHT SEASET The negotiations among NRC, EPRI and Westinghouse has begun for the program funding change. A final resolution is expected to be reached before the end of May 1981.
3.
BWR Full Intearal Simulation Test (FIST)
NRC Commissioners have approved the research plan to upgrade the TLTA facility (renamed FIST) to investigate BWR small-break LOCA and operational transients. A contract modification prepared by NRC has been sent to the other two parties (GE and EPRI) for signature.
This contract. modification will allow GE to order hardware associated with the planned upgrade and execute Phase I testing. GE has been authorized to start design work for the first phase of the upgrade.
i l
4 ENCLOSURE E l
l l
L 1
l 0FFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR l
ITEMS OF INTEREST l
WEEK ENDING MAY 1,1981 j
1 l
Blue Hills Station, Units 1 and 2 On April 28, 1981, the ASLB issued a Partial Initial Decision (Early Site Review) in which it determined that the Blue Hills site is suitable with respect to the factors considered.
1 l
l k
i l
ENCLOSURE F i
l l
ITEMS OF INTEREST OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS j
WEEK ENDING MAY 1, 1981 Foreign Visits to NRC l
On Thursday Mr. Hans Haunschild, State Secretary of the FRG Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT) and Messrs Loosch and Patermann, also of the BMFT, met with Chairman Hendrie, Commissioners Ahearne and Gilinsky, and J. Shea, IP, to discuss export licensing policies and the acceleration of the US reactor licensing process. A renewal of the NRC-BMFT Technical l
l Exchange and Cooperation Arrangement in the field of reactor safety research j
and development was signed.
On Thursday Dr. H. L. Striem, Head of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission's Site Licensing Department, met with R. Jackson, L. Reiter and P. Justice of the Geosciences Branch to discuss seismo-geological considerations for site licensing.
i l
I i
i i
i ENCLOSURE G
I l-i-
- Foreton Reports The following foreign reports were received at IP during April 28 - May 1.
The ** indicates the reports are in English..For further information contact Eva Szent-Ivany (49-27788) IP.
From Canada:
AECB Publications Catalogue 1981-82**
A Selection of News Releases in 1981**
A Summary of the AECB's Research Program **
From France:
French Reactors Operating Data, November, December 1980 and January 1981 From FRG:
BMI - Civil Defense in the Federal Republic of Germany **
BMFT - The German Risk Study - Summary, August 15, 1979**
From Israel:
Papers presented by Israeli visitor:
- Draft, Basic Hydrological Considerations for Site Licensing fin Israel **
I
- Underground Nuclear Power Plants - LDI Policy Statement **
- On the Characterization of Risk **
- Some Radiation Protection Implications of the Three Mile Island Incident **
From the 5th International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, Jerusalem I
A Comparative Study of the Reliability of the Safety Related Electrical Systems in a NPP** - From the Meeting of.the Nuclear Societies of. Israel l
A Vulnerability Analysis of a PWR to an External Event **
From the American Nuclear Society / European Nuclear Society Topical Meeting From Italy:
l CNEN - Nuclear Safety Research Index, Italy 1980**
l l
l
- Deleted from PDR copy.
' ENCLOSURE G f
OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS ITEMS OF IN'I'EREST WEEK ENDING MAY 1, 1981 On April 29, 1981, Tom Elsasser, RSLO, Region I, attended a public meeting in the evening in Salem, New Jersey, at which the off-site State and local radiological emergency response plans for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station were discussed.
OSP has been informed by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation that DEC's Commissioner has signed a consent order for Self Powered Lighting, Inc., a New York State licenses which contains provisions to phase down the emission for their operation in Elmsford, New York, from 100 Ci of tritium oxide to 25 Ci of tritium oxide per year.
Self Powered Lighting, Inc. manufactures tritium exit signs and other light sources.
We were informed by a colorado official on April 30, 1981, that the Home Stake Mining Company has decided not to continue with its Pitch Project uranium mill which was licensed by Colorado on March 24, 1981.
The reason given for putting the project on hold is reportedly due to the slump in the uranium market.
1
-The House Committee on Energy and Commerce' (Rep. Ottinger) held I
hearings on May 1 regarding Rep. Ertel's bill to establish a national insurance program to cover on-site damaga from a nuclear j
accident.
Met-Ed and the Pa. PUC testified.
The inergy and l
Environment Subcommittee (Rep. Udall) holds hearings on May 4 and 5 regarding the financial status of GPU.
i ENCLOSURE H t
4 0FFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS Items of Interest WEEK ENDING MAY 1,1981 i
Congressional' Correspondence l
Delivered to EDO responses to Senator Simpson's questions on emergency preparedness.
l Publications Distributed March issue of Operating Unit Status Report, NUREG-0020, (Gray Book).
l l
l l
1 ENCLOSURE I-I i
- -. -.... -. ~..
OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA i
ITEMS OF INTEREST WEEK ENDING MAY 1, 1981 1
J Engineering Evaluation on Millstone 2 Event An AE00 engineering evaluation on a January 2,1981 event at Millstene 2 has recently been completed. This event involved a reactor trip following de-energization of a 125 V de bus and had several associated failures.
The evaluation did not identify any new safety concerns other than those included in generic task A-30 and USI-M4.
j As a result of the evaluation, the report identified a' number of lessons j
whirh are now under review.
-Presentation of a Paper i
Carl Michelson presented a paper on April 27, 1981 at the Fourth Symposium on the Training of Nuclear Facility Personnel held in Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
The paper sumarized the organization and programs of AEOD and highlighted some of the AE00 observations after one year of analyzing operational experience.
l a
i t
I ENCLOSURE K
.~.m
. i... -., - -
.--,,,.L,
... =. _, '.
..---,-m,L
,.....4.
ITEMS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION - WEEK ENDING MAY l,1981 A.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES, 3:00 P.M.,
THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE). Memo SECY to Bickwit, dtd 4/27/81.
I.
Sua Sponte Powers of the Boards The Comission, without reaching a decision, considered several proposals concerning the sua soonte powers of the boards.
Chairman Hendrie noted that the Comission would discuss this matter further at a future meeting.
II. SECY-81-111A - Intervention in NRC Adjudicatory Proceedines 4
The Comission discussed the subject paper and several proposals concerning the raising of contentions in licensing proceedings.
The Comission requested that OGC prepare language for a proposed rule that would require prospective intervenors to include in their supplement to the petition to intervene a concise statement of facts supporting each contention together with references to the written documents and other information relied upon to show the 4
existence of their facts.
The language should also specify that, if prospective intervenors failed to provide such a statement, that particular contention would not be admitted.
(OGC)
(SECY Suspense: 4/28/81)
B.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIEFING ON EFFECTIVE INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR 50 ON HYDROGEN CONTROL AND CERTAIN DEGRADED CORE CONSIDERATIONS (SECY-81-245),10:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE). Memo SECY to Dircks, dtd 4/Z7/81.
The Comission was briefed by staff on the proposed interim rule on hydrogen control and certain degraded core considerations.
Comissioner Gilinsky would like to have the staff explain to him why the evaluation of instability is not recuired for steel containments (reference pages 21-22 of Enclosure C to SECY-81-245).
The Comission agreed to deletion of the last sentence of the paragraph ending on page 22 of Enclosure C to SECY-81-245 from the proposed rule.
(EDO) i The Comission reached no decision at the meeting. The Chairman indicated that further consideration would be given to the proposal at a Comission meeting at a later date.
ENCLOSURE M f
l j
2 C.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIRMATION SESSION 81-16., 4:35 P.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 23, j
1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C._0FFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE).
Memo SECY to Dircks/Bickwit, dtd 4/27/81.
4 l
I.
SECY-81-191/191A - LEITRAUSER MOTION FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE OF INTERVENOR STATUS The Commission, by a vote of 4-0, approved a proposed Order, as modified by Commissioner Gilinsky, which i
refers a motion of Mr. John Leithauser to the Licensing Board for appropriate action.
(Subsequently, the Order was signed by the Secretary.)
(OGC)
II.
SECY-80-546/SECY-81-ll4 - FIRE PROTECTION RULE FOR FUTURE PLANTS The Commission, by a vote of 4-0, has approved adoption of Alternative 3 of the subject paper to develop r.
3 proposed fire protection rule containing requirements in i
I those areas which are generic and applicable to most plants, while leaving plant-dependent features to staff l
evaluation under generic requirements.
l (NRR)
(SECY Suspense:
5/1/82)
{
l In connection with their votes, the Commissioners j
agreed with Commissioner Gilinsky that until a rule is in place, new licenses (those issued after January 1, 1979) j should contain a condition requiring compliance with commitments made by an applicant and agreed to by the i'
staff.
(NRR)
D.
SECY-81-140 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. RS-RES-81-184, ENTITLED " BENCH-i MARKING OF COMPUTER CODES USED IN STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS".
Memo SECY to Dircks, dtd 4/28/81.
This is to advise you that the Commission (with all Commi'ssioners agreeing) has disapproved the proposed contract.
In connection with their disapprovals the Commissioners had the following comments:
1.
Chairman Hendrie:
"The project is simply too ambitious and is, I thir.k more than the staf f can digest - particularly Task I.
There is merit, however, in the underlying aim of developing reliable codes, or verifying them, in the structural area.
I would like to see a more modest proposition for this purpose, one where results would be more easily manageable by staff and with less ambitious results that the staff can more easily use.
The piping code efforts of a few years ago provide an example of this."
ENCLOSURE M f
1 l
l l
'3 D.
(continued) j-2.
Commissioner Gilinsky:
"This paper indicates a:need to develop better tools for checking structural analyses.
I support efforts in this area but I understand there are-difforences between-NRR:and RES on how to approach-this.
The two offices should get together and make another more moderate proposal."
l 3.
- Comissioner Ahearna:
a.
"This approach, based on the-Statement of Work,.looks for a guarantee'-that analysis is accurate, for a system that is ' foolproof'.
Unless-we are going to design plants ourselves, I believe a.,
b., c..in the Statement of Work are enough for a competent reviewer."
b.
"We are apparently; searching for codes that may go well beyond what.the data will' support in calculational precision."
c.
" Approval of Senior Contract Review Board' should be keyed to size of contract, not expense rate."
4.
Commissioner Bradford agreed with Commissioner Ahearne.
e The office of Research and the Division of Contracts was i
l informed of this action by telephone.on April 28, 1981.
1 l
E.
SECY-81-153 - NUCLEAR DATA LINK (NDL) MANAGEMENT PLAN. Memo SECY to Dircks, dtd 4/28/81.
l This is to advise you that the Commission (with all Commissioners approving) has agreed to the implementation of a prototype NDL, subject to the comments noted below:
a.
The commission believes that a better plant-data transmission system to the Operations Center than the present people-on-telephones arrangement is needed if they are to carry out even the most moderate role in emergencies.
ENCLOSURE M f
l'
4 4
E.
(continued) b.
As a first step the-staff should-install several prototype data' links, one to'a PWR, one to a BWR, and possibly one to a reactor _ simulator.. Installation of the prototype displays need not await the-choice of an overall contracting scheme or contractor.
Consideration should be given to the use of a
" transmit" switch at.the plant-to transmit data only in the case of an accident so as to remove much of the complaint about potential intrusion-into normal operation.via the NDL.
c.
Following evaluation of the experience with the prototype displays the Commission will decide how l
far they wish to go in the development of the-automated NDL concept.
d.
The Commission. believes that a " Systems Integrator" approach as described in Enclosure 5 to SECY-81-153 should be used in the program development.
This would place on the system integrator the responsibility for handling program contracting, including preparation of_RFQ's, evaluation of proposals, negotiation and awarding of contracts, and the administration of the contracts.
This would result in the ' highly desirable feature of having one organization accountable for the successful completion of the NDL.
Option C, where the NRC would choose subcontractors, would' leave the technical integrator _with neither the sense of responsibility that the contractors were his choice,'nor could'he-be held accountable if the subcontractors produce an inadequate product.
The systems integrator should also be explicitly precluded from developing _the software or hardware so as to provide protection against charges of conflict of interest.
The solicitation of interest for.the systems integrator position should go to organizations.
such as the-Jet Propulsion Laboratory, among others.
In the final RFP the system integrator would be asked to reexamine the stand-alone versus standard concept.
The Commission believes it'would be helpful for a e.
systems integrator to be brought on board in time to help evaluate the prototype phase, if it'can be done without the commitment of a1large contract.
The NRC should not select contractors for the. full NDL system until the experience with.the prototype has been evaluated.
ENCLOSURE M
l 5
I F.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF REVISED LICENSING PROCEDURES,10:05 A.M.,
TOTfDAY, APRIL 28, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE). Memo for the Record fm SECY, dtd 4/30/81.
I.
SECY-81-202/A/B - Proposed Statement of Policy (See also SECY memo dtd 4/27 forwaroing' Commissioner Gilinsky's comments.)
i The Commission continued its discussion and reached agreement on all sections of the proposed Statement of Policy except:
Part III, Section A (Time), wnich will be discussed further in connection with a proposed hearing schedule; Part III, Section J (Sua Sponte),
which is to be discussed further after consideration of an ASLBP memcrandum to Comissioner Ahearne, which is anticipated by 5/1; and Part IV (Conclusion), which is to be drafted for Commission consideration by Commissioner Bradford.
(OGC)
II.
SEC:-Di-252 - Proocsed Changes to 10 CFR Part 2, Analysis of Public Coc er.ts and Reco=encations of NRC's Lecal Offices ano Licens1nc Panels The Comission discussed tM subject paper and tentatively agreed to approve the staff recomendations on four of the six proposed changes (proposed changes numbered 2, 3, 4 and 6 in SECY-81-252).
The Comission deferred a decision on the other two preposed changes (numbers 1 and 5 in SECY-81-252).
Chairman Hendrie noted that the recomendations would be discussed at a future Commission meeting at which time Commissioner Gilinsky's proposed alternative to Item 1 will also be considered.
(OGC)
Another r:eeting on Revised Licensing Procedures has been scheduled for May 7.
G.
SECY-81-22B - SIXTH DOE /NRC REPORT ON DOMESTIC SAFEGUARDS - DOE REWRITE.
MEMO SECY to Dircks, dtd 4/30/81.
This is to advise you that the Commission (with all Comr..".ssioners approving) has approved the sixth DOE /NRC Report on Domestic l
Safeguards -- DOE Rewrite with the modifications noted oh the attached pages 2 and 3.
l The Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards was infomed of this action by telephone on April 29, 1981.
Attachment:
Not included ENCLOSURE M f
G 6
H.
SECY-81-260 - RENEWAL OF NRC-BMFT TECHNICAL EXCHANGE ARRANGEMENT IN THE FIELD OF REACTOR SAFETY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. Memo SECY to Dircks, dtd 4/30/81.
This is to advise you that the Commission (with all Commissioners approving) has noted the status of the renewal of the NRC-BMFT safety research arrangement and has designated Chairman Hendrie to sign this arrangement with State Secretary Haunschild during his April 30 visit to NRC..
Commissioner Ahearne approved the paper with the understanding that the NRC explains (informally is acceptable) to BFET the points made by the Department of State in its letter o.
April 21, 1981.
The other Commissioners agree.
The office of International Programs was informed of this action by telephone on April 29, 1981.
It is requested that you provide a copy of the research l
arrangement to the office of the Secretary after signature by the Chairman and Mr. Haunschild, i
1.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCUSSION OF FULL-POWER OPERATING LICENSE FOR SALEM-2, 1:30 P.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE). Memo SECY to Dircks, dtd 4/30/81.
The Comission was briefed by staff and by Mr. John E. Dickey (FEMA) on the emergency planning exercise at the Salem site and on the review of fire protection aspects of the plant.
The Commission deferred final action on the staff recommendation to authorize issuance of the license, pending a meeting to hear the results of a fire protection plant review to be con 6ucted by(R. thttson.
(NRR)
SECY Suspense: 5/12/81)
Comissioner Bradford requested information on how the misstatement regarding completion of the alternate shutdown system was reported in the SER Supplement Number 5.
(NRR)
(SECY Suspense: 5/12/81)
ENCLOSURE M
7 J.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - PROPOSED RULE ON OL APPLICATIONS (SECY-81-246) AND INTERIM AMENDMENTS ON HYDROGEN CONTROL, (SECY-81-245),10:10 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1981, C0tHISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE).
Memo SECY to Dircks, dtd 5/1/81.
The Comission, by a vote of 3-1 (Commissioner Bradford dissenting),
approved a Federal Register Notice as. modified below seeking comment on a proposed rule that incorporates into 10 CFR Part 50 a set of TMI-2 requirements for operating license applications.
The Comission requested that the Federal Register Notice be modified:
1.
to indicate in the Statement of Consideration that a similar rulemaking with respect to operating reactors.will be published for comment in the near future; 2.
to incorporate the items on'the attached errata sheet that was distributed by staff at the meeting; and 3.
to solicit comment on the effective date and its application to pending proceedings.
The Commission requested that the Federal Register Notice be sent to all known interested persons.
Attachment:
Not included I
l l
..-