ML20050D021
| ML20050D021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1982 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Bickwit L, Dircks W, Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 M820325B, NUDOCS 8204090482 | |
| Download: ML20050D021 (5) | |
Text
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE REFER T0: M820325B guovy'o UNITED STATES 9
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON,0.C. 20555 g
- y March 30,1982 Phd* hp
(
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY l
f MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operat' s*
O Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel D\\
Carlton C. Kamerer, Director, Congressional g7 gEC g?)
rs E
q Joseph J. Fouchard, Direc Public Affairs B99 0paAP '_
FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretar, f
C 9
m i
}NSESSION82-10
,m
'7
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFI F THURSDAY, MARCH 25,1982, QC@MISSIONERS' CONFER
- ROOM, D.C. 0FFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
,j \\
l 4
l I.
SECY-82 Proposed Addition on 10 CFR 50.73 Establishing the License _e Event Report (LER) System I
The Comission, by a vote of 4-0, approved a notice of proposed ruie-making which will modify and codify the existing LER reporting requirements.
The Commission requested that:
1.
the notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 1 of the subject paper) be modified to include the attached coments in the statement of consideration ar.d be published in the Federal Register; (AE0D)
(SECY Suspense:
4/19/82) 2.
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administratk7 be informed that the Commission has certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
(NMSS)
(SECYSuspense:
5/7/82) 3.
the appropriate Congressional committees be notified; (0CA/RES)
(SECYSuspense: 4/19/82) 4.
the FRN be distributed to all applicants, licensees, and state governments; and (ADM/RES)
(SECYSuspense:
5/13/82) 5.
a public announcement be issued.
(0PA/RES)
(SECY Suspense: 4/19/82) 1 lSection 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.15841, provides that i
action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Comissioner Gilinsky was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his approval.
Had Commissioner Gilinsky been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision.
s204090482 820330 PDR loCFR PT9.7 PDR
d 2
II. SECY-82-16B - Psychological Health Under the Atomic Energy Act--Draft Order The Comission, by a vote of 3-12 (Chairman Palladino, Commissioners Ahearne and Roberts approving; Comissioner Gilinsky disapproving),
approved an order that responds to a Court of Appeals request for a statement of the reasons for the Comission's determination that psychological health is not cognizable under the Atomic Energy Act.
(0GC/SECY)
(Subsequently, the Order was signed by the Secretary.)
III. SECY-82 Amendment to 10 CFR 35 to Require Installation of Radiation Monitors in Teletherapy Rooms and Periodic Inspection and Servicing of Teletherapy Machines 3
The Comission, by a vote of 4-0, approved a notice of proposed rule-making which would require installation of radiation monitors and use of portable survey instruments in all teletherapy rooms and to require teletherapy licensees to provide and document inspection and servicing of all teletherapy machines to assure proper functioning of the source exposure mechanisms.
The Comission requested that:
1.
the notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure A of the subject paper) be published in the Federal Register; (RES)
(SECYSuspense: 4/19/82) 2.
appropriate Congressional comittees be notified; (OCA/RES)
(SECYSuspense: 4/19/82)
~
3.
the Federal Register notice be distributed to all teletherapy licensees and other persons with known interest; (RES)
(SECYSuspense: 5/3/82) 2Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 65841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Comissioner Gilinsky was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his disapproval of the order.
Had Commissioner Gilinsky been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision.
3Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. H5841, provides that action of the Comission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Comissioner Gilinsky was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his approval. Had Commissioner Gilinsky been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision.
3 4.
they be provided with copies of any comments received on the proposed rule; (ED0)
(SECY Suspense:
7/12/82) 5.
the ED0 publish the amendments in final form if no significant adverse comments or questions have been received on the notice of proposed rulemaking and no substantial changes in text are indicated; and (RES)
(SECYSuspense: 7/19/82) 6.
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration be informed that the Commission has certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)).
(RES)
(SECYSuspense: 4/19/82)
Attachment:
As Stated cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commission Staff Offices ACRS ASLBP ASLAP PDR(Advance)
DCS-016 Phillips k
=
Comission coments to be included in Statement of Consideration on Proposed LER Rule The Commission notes that in endorsing the proposed rule, the ACRS said:
"We believe the Proposed Rule represents a natural evolution in the state-of-the-art in data gathering, and we support its publication for comment.
Although subsequent experience will undoubtedly reveal ways in which the Proposed Rule should be revised, and even perhaps replaced, we do not believe its publi-cation should be delayed until a more advanced system is developed.
Ultimate goals for such a system in-clude better reporting, analysis, and evaluation of human errors and computer software errors and perhaps the development of a system for more effectively identifying precursors and systems interactions."
(March 9, 1982) -
The Commission directs that the NRC explore the possibility of developing improvements now.
Comments are solicited on the feasibility and desirability of improving the overall j
design of the system, the characteristics of such a system, l
the time and resources required to develop it,the~ utility of i
doing so, and of postponing LER changes until such improvements are incorporated into the system.
The LER system needs revision, to make reporting more consistent among licensees, to screen out unimportant events, and to provide better data on significant events.
- However, the Commission is concerned that the actual improvement will be significantly less than required and that the NRC may miss the opportunity to develop a significant tool.
The LER system in principle can be used to support case studies of specific events and to provide the data for trend analysis.
/
2 In conjunction with NPRDS, the LER system should be a key tool in searching for precursors of major accidents.
The Commission believes that the data system in the proposed rule will support case studies but not trend analysis.
The proposed rule has significant limitations.
These include the proposed use of the narrative data gathering instrument and its tendency towards compiling nominal level data.
The use of the narrative data instrument as proposed will insure that instead of data taken from the actual event being recorded, the record will be derived from an encoder's reading of a report analyzing the actual event.
When infor-mation is retrieved from the system, the analyst will not analyze the actual event, but rather a reconstruction of an artifact of a distillate of the actual event.
Only those signals that are strong enough as individual occurrences to catch the attention of the encoder will be captured in the proposed screening process.
Signals that will be perceived
~
only in the aggregate that are essential to tracking yet~
unidentified precursors will be lost.
The tendency of the proposed system to compile nominal level data also weakens the datarsystem in that this type of data is appropriate for only a limited number of statistical procedures.
. -.,