ML20043B303

Responds to Forwarding Concerns Raised by Er Hein Re NRC Relegating Responsibility for Nuclear Safety to Inpo. NRC Has Not Turned Over Any Regulatory Functions to INPO

ML20043B303
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/18/1990
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Cranston A SENATE
Shared Package
ML20043B304	List: ML20043B303 ML20043B306
References
NUDOCS 9005290016
Download: ML20043B303 (10)

Text

v 7

a.,

May 18, 1990 The Honorable Alan Cranston United States Senate Washington, D.C.

20510 g

Dear Senator Cranston:

I am responding to your April 17, 1990, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)CongressionalLiaison,inwhichyouforwardedconcernsraised by your constituent, E. R. Hein. Let me assure you that the NRC has not relegated its responsibility for nuclear safety to the Institute of Nuclear Power (INPO) and we take our mandate to protect health and safety very seriously.

Specific responses to your constituent's concerns are enclosed.

Original Signed By:

James M. Taylor James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1.

Response to Concerns Raised by E. R. Hein 2.

Incoming letter dated 4/17/90 Distribution:

See following page

• See previous concurrence 4

JFo LOFC

P DI.3/L A

P DI-3P M

Tech E ditor

0GG

P DI.3/ DIR

AD

>k

< N AME :MRushbrook*

V N erses*

R Sanders *

E Reis*

R W ess ma n*

B Boger*

.......:...............:..............:..............:..............:..............: g g.....

D AT E- :5/11/90

5/14/90

5/9/90

5/14/90

5/14/90 Ok 0FC

D:DRP

ADP:NRR

NRR

ED

.......:...............:..............:..............:.............:. W.... L.......,c:.........m..

.N AME ':SVarga*

J Partlow *

T M urley*

JTa r

y d.

s..:............

.......:...............:..............:..............:...q.

DATE :5/14/90

5/14/90

5/16/90

5/\\/90 r.Af:

9005290016 900518 PDR ORG EPSINPO NRC RE CENTER COPY 9/#

=

s

• i.

j e

ENCLOSURE 1 2

i

)

l Response to Concerns Raised by E. R. Hein j

Perspective of March 14. 1990 Congressional Hearing J

The March 14, 1990, Congressional hearing cited in the letter, dated March 16, 1990, from E. R. Hein to Senator.Cranston was a hearing entitled, 'NRC Licensing Procedures Both Generally and With Regard to the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant."

The hearing held by the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations of tt r w:se Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was chaired by the i

HonorM.: Peter H. Kostmayer.

It focused on the Commission's decision-making process regarding the Seabrook facility.

lne Subcommittee received testimony from the NRC, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others, j

Certain aspects of the Commission's testimony before the Subconsnittee were limited because of the ongoing adjudicatory proceeding and litigation involving '

Seabrook offsite emergency planning issues. To ensure protection of the parties due process rights the Commission could not discuss emergency planning issues.

4 Close Congressional prodding of an agency's deliberative process when an adjudication is still in progress can constitute improper pressure on the agency and deprive the parties of their rights to due process of law. Additionally, i

the Commission's actions regarding authorization of a Seabrook full-power license are currently being reviewed in Federal court.

During the March 14, 1990 hearing, the Commission summarized the status of the emergency planning adjudication and provided the Commission's rationale for not l

discussing emergency planning issues with the Subcommittee. The Commission also responded to questions regarding the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations I

(INPO), certain INP0 activities involving Seabrook, and weld radiographs made during the construction of Seabrook.

Concern #1 -

"The NRC has' turned many of its congressionally mandated regula-l tory functions over to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operators l

[ sic] (1.N.P.O.), which is sponsored and controlled by the Nuclear Utilities it purports to regulate."

NRC Response - The congressionally mandated regulatory function of the NRC is to ensure that civilian uses of nuclear materials in the United States, as in the operation of nucleer power plants or in medical, industrial, or research applications, are carried out with proper regard and provision for the protection of public health and safety, of the environment, and of the national security.

The NRC accomplishes its mission by licensing nuclear reactor operations, by licensing other activities involving possession and use of nuclear materials, and by conducting inspection and enforcement actions.

e--m e

2 i

After the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island. plant, the j

55 utilities owning and operating nuclear power plants joined j

together to create INPO, a private organization whose stated purpose is to upgrade the quality of operations and safety performance at nuclear power plants. One of INP0's methods of achieving improved performance is through the conduct of periodic team evaluations at all reactor facilities. After assessing the information gathered from these activities, the j

inspection team writes a report to the utility, which documents i

the strengths and weaknesses that the team observed. The i

utility is required to report back to INPO on the steps that the 1

utility plans to take to address the observed weaknesses.- INPO then reviews these items during subsequent evaluation visits.

These INPO activities are independent of NRC activities.

in summary, the NRC has statutory responsibility for licensing and regulating nuclear facilities; NRC review and inspection activities ensure that licensees meet the applicable regulations.

INPO is an industry-sponsored organization who states its purpose is to promote safety and reliability of the operation of nuclear power plants. The NRC has not turned over any of its regulatory

~

functions to INPO.

evacuationplans.guousrulesfordeterminingtheadequacyof "The NRC has ambi Concern #2 -

W NRC Response - The Commission's emergency planning requirements, including evacuation plans, are clearly stated.

In the text of the regulations, in rulemakings on the subject of emergency plan-ning, and in adjudicatory decisions interpreting those regula-tions, the Commission has maJe clear that judgments on the adequacy of emergency planning are to be based on conformity with the 16 planning standards given in 10 CFR 550.47(b).

Detailed criteria for evaluating emergency plans are contained in guidance developed jointly by NRC and FEMA, primarily in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, " Criteria for Preparation and t

Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Pre-paredness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants." For offsite planning,.the regulations provide that the Federal Emergency l

Management Agency (FEMA) shall make " findings and determinations I

as to whether State and local. emergency plans are adequate and i

whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be imple-mented,"

(10CFR650.47(a)(2)).

Concern #3 -

"The 1.N.P.O. evaluation reports are not available to the public and in many cases are not even available to our representatives 4

in congress."

h L

r-l, 3

?

NRC Response - As described in item 1, above, the results of an INPO team evaluation are documented in a written report provided to the utility.

INPO, as a private organization, has taken the posi-tion that its reports are private and should not be made public.

Because the reports are treated as proprietary infor-mation, member utilities maintain that they feel free to accept r,

and answer candid reports of weaknesses without becoming defensive and argumentative about the matters reported. Although INPO does not make its evaluation reports public and is not required to submit them to the NRC, our staff is able to review these reports on site at each reactor facility. These reviews are normally conducted by one of NRC's resident inspectors who is assigned full time at each licensed power reactor.

NRC reviews are conducted to ensure that INP0 reports do not contain l

any significant adverse safety information that was not previously revealed by our inspection program.

In addition, by regulation, every utility must directly notify the NRC of any matter, including a finding by INPO, which indicates a. condition that the util1ty's license would otherwise require them to report to the NkC.

Thus, while INPO evaluation reports are private, we believe thbt the public safety is aided through the industry's INPO self-assessment initiative, as an addition to the NRC's direct inspection program, and the NRC's ongoing review of INPO

~

activities.

Concern #4 -

"When some nuclear power plants do not meet certain NRC require-ments necessary to get a start-up or full power license, NRC changes the rules rather than require the operating utility to meet the safety requirements. This was well illustrated in the case of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant."

i NRC Response - The NRC determined that Seabrook met all applicable licensing requirements when the full-power license was issued on March 15, 1990.

Because of the long period of time that has passed since the Seabrook construction permit was issued in-1976, many ) have licensing requirements (the " rules or safety requirements" changed. Among the changes that affect the licensing process for Seabrook are new requirements established in response to the Three Mile Island accident, the resolution of unresolved safety issues, and the acquisition of additional operating experience.

l l

The Seabrook license was issued after many years of review, public hearings, and onsite inspections.

NRC has devoted more than 30,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> conducting field inspections at Seabrook, covering construction, preoperational testing, initial criti-cality, and low-power testing.

Between May 1989, when the b

low-power license was issued, and December 1989, NRC spent ~more than 3,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> conducting field ins)ections at Se 's ook.

On the basis of an extensive inspection listory, and ti e reviews and inspections conducted in the months just preceding the issuance of a full-power license, the staff found that Seabrook was capable of being safely' operated at power levels up to the full-power limit.

p

z..,

. q, 1

GREEN TICKET NO.5415-

)

1ISTRIBUTION:

locketFile50-443(w/ incoming)

NRC PDR w/ incoming-Local PDR w/ incoming EDO #005415 EDO Reading

,T.Murley/F.Miraglia J.; Partlow PDI-3 r/f (w/cy of incoming)-

S. Yarga B. Boger OGC GPA/PA SECY #90-0457 lor' J.Tay(E00f0005415) w/cy of incoming PMAS Beverly Clayton V. Nerses w/cy of incoming M. Rushbrook D. Crutchfield F. Gillespie W. Russell C. M. Satyre J. Johnson, Region I

. 1

)

k D

4:

l k -

-u..--

a---T-

g 3

\\,

.n.

/

/

/

l I

The Honorable Alan Cranston

/

United States Senate 4

Washington, D.C. 20510

[

Dear Senator Cranston:

/

r

/

I am responding to your April 17, 1990, t

letterf o the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)CongressionalLiaison,inwhich/ouforwardedconcernsraised by your constituent E. R. Hein. The NRC staff has responded to your constituent's l

/

concerns in the enclosure to this letter.

incerely, 5

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations 1

Enclosures:

1.

Response to Concerns R sed by E. R. Hein 2.

Incoming letter date 4/17/90

• Scc previcus concurrence OFC

PDI-3/LA

.: PDI-3/

TechEditor*

0CC

PDI-3/DIR

AD

......:................:...J.PM

VN[ses:mw* : Ray Sanders

EReis*

RWessman*

BBoger*

NAME :MRushbrook*

......:................:.y...........:..............:..............:..............:.............

DATE ':5/11/90

5'/14/90

5/09/90

5/14/90

5/14/90

5/14/90 t

/

./W OFC-

D:DRP

/:ADP:NRR p

EDO

......:............. 4.:............

NAME :SVarga*

JGPartlow*

Wurley

JMTaylor DATE

5/14/90

5/14/90

5///p/90

5/ /90 0FFI L RECORD COPY Document Name:. GREEN TICKET NO.5415 i

9 i

l' l

l The Honorable Alan Cranston United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Cranston:

I am responding to your April 17, 1990, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) Congressional liaison, in which yoy' forwarded concerns raised

/

i by your constituent, E. R. Hein. The NRC staff as respended to your constituent's concerns in the enclosure to this letter,

ncerely, James M. Taylor t

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated

• See previous concurrence

0FC

PDI-3/LA

PD.3/PM

TechEditor*

0GC

PDI-3/D

AD,

...... :. 4g I......:....h,p......:...Sp4.:..............:

....n..:.

BBogerb......

lNAME :MRus 6k

.VNer s:mwf

Rey Sanders

6

R tman j...... :....).....N..f..:..............:..............:.

. 7.........:..............:.............-

l,0 ATE 25/ El91

/

5/14/90

5/09/90

5//Y/90

5/lf/90

5/lN90 1

\\\\

/

!OFC

_ :D : DK......"....... ::.......gpAg4 :

ADP:NRR DIR:NRR

EDO

.. E.:..............:..............:...............:.............

3 lNAME la

JGPartl TEMurley

JMTaylor I.' y/ :

lDATE

/90

5Ak/90

5/ /90

5/ /90 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: GREEN TICKET NO.5415 L.

~. n \\ ca +

Ej e

i

>u i

The Honorable Alan Cranston 7

- tInited States Senate'

,/'

Washington, D.C. 20510 E

Dear Senator Cranston:

-I-am responding to your April 1*,1990 letter to the Nuclear Regulatory

- Commission Congressional liaison, in which tu forward concerns raised by a constituent. A response to Mr. Hein' concerns, prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, is con ined in the enclosure.

Sincerely, i

James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

' As stated

/l OFC.

PDI-3/LA

PDI-3/PM

TechEditor

0GC

PDI-3/DIR

AD-C)

......:..............:.....7.......:..............:..............:.............

NAME.qMRushb ok-

VNerses:mw

-lRexpA&3dbrA

RWessman

BBoger i

s......:................:..............:...A.........:..............:..............:..............

DATE :5/ /90

5/ /90

5/T/90

5/ /90

5/ /90'

5/ /90' 0FC-

D:DDP

ADP:NRR-

DIR:NRR

EDO NAME". SVarga

JGPartlow

TEMurley

JMTaylor j

DATE

5/ /9,0

5/ /90

5/. /90

5/ /90 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: GREEN TICKET N0.0005415 x

f 1

I

{'i }

1 '

Ty,[T f, '

W*

M a;U

.O UNITED $TATES 4 A*.[7 f kg;.

NUCLEAR REGULATOR ( C7MMISSION, g

g,3 3:7 a,

jf s WASHING TON, D. C. 2' y4 g'

p

!FROM:.

DUE: 05/10/90 EDO CONTROL: 0005415-DOC ' DT:: 04/17/90.

FINAL: REPLY::

~

j 1,

NS:n.fAlan~Cranston LTO : -

ll O

w>

OCA'~

y FOR. SIGNATURE-OF:

-** GRN

' CRC NO: 90-0457-

-j A

ENocutive Director.

'ig

-(

r".DESC:

~ ROUTING:

' ENCLOSE 3 LETTER FROM E.'R.

HEIN CONCERNING

.]

RELEASL OF INPO REPORTS-

,.DATE:t 05/01/90-

' ASSIGNED TO:

. CONTACTS 1

{Nn.1 Murley

.t

/SPECIAL1 INSTRUCTIONS'OR1 REMARKS:.

.. RETURN T NCOM T NGATH-RERIJ -

ARK ENVELOPE AT7N: ; JIM KOHLENBERGE

! NRR!. RECEIVED:'

MAY-01,-1990-a JACTIOkgd@QpPgggTLgjf Nca. 4 () W

,,,,,v RR" R0l) TING:

_MURLEY/MIRAGLIA i

J CRUTCHFIELD' o

4 GILLESPIE'

-RUSSELL T

LSMYRE'

[

a ACDCY

-~

i l

DUE TO NRCDIR CTOR BY [ '

fd 1

~

a aJ y -

h.

'r

[ fl,

-'f i

,'r.!'-

j

^

'a'-.'

g

$llbf,

'.hf^-

'jj i

i s

u

p w.

. v,.

, A.,

~

4 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:

CRC-90-0457 LOGGING DATE: Apr 30 90 ACTION OFFICE:

EDO AUTHOR:

Alan Cra.nston--Const Ref AFFILIATION:

UNITED STATES SENATE LETTER DATE:

Apr 17 90 FILE CODE:

SUBJECT:

Role of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operation (INFO)

ACTION:

Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:

OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: Nont NOTES:

E.R.

Hein DATE DUE:

May 14 90 SIGNATURE:

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

...~m Dets f l 9' EDO

~

005415

.(

., ~

c