ML20058F814
| ML20058F814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/15/1990 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9011090148 | |
| Download: ML20058F814 (3) | |
Text
.-
-- '~~
^ ~ ~ ~
^ ^ ~ ~ ~
N 0 T A~T I O N V0T(
RELEASE 0 TO THE PDR
.n
///6/9o o
RESPONSE SHEET eate' i
................ nv.ais -:
- TO:
SAMUEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:-
C0mISSIONER CURTISS
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-211 PROPOSED RULE FOR LICENSES AND RADIATION SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGE IRRADIATORS X/with APPROVED connents DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN N6T PARTICIPdTING REQUEST DISCUSSION' lCOMENTS:
((
See attached connents.
lp
.)
5.-
W I
s
,f l<
t rib y
b l.
4 L,[
Q SIGNATURE
>x.
RELEASEiVOTE!
/ X =/-
August 15, 1990 L-DATE L
WITHHOLD. VOTE '/
/ -
1
- ENTERED ON "AS" YES-x NO e
90110NO140'900815
.PDR COMMSJNRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC q
4 l
4
, Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-90-211:
g I_ approve: publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking, subject to the revisions recommended by Chairman Carr.
I would specifically note that I support the reinstatement of the r
a discussion on the RSI-Decatur accident, indicating that the f
Commission is reevaluating and soliciting comment on whether continued use of sources containing soluble cesium-137 should be permitted.
Regarding~the analysis of the RSI-Decatur accident, I continue to be concerned with the manner in which our evaluation of this
. incident, and?specifically the suitability of the WESF sources, i
.is proceeding.
It is my understanding that considerable data.
have emerged.since the accident at RSI that would call into
-question the; fundamental safety of the design.and manufacture of these sources.
In. view of-this, I am growing increasingly l.'
uncoslortable waiting for what now appearsLto;be an indefinite perir>d of'timeifor DOE to complete its evaluation of these caprules.- We have witnessed one delay after;another in the completion of DOE's analysis and,1now that lawsuits have been filed, it'is'likelyithat we will see.further' delays.
- Moreover, if-these< sources are~indeed'as inhomogeneoussas recent reports seet to1 indicate, it is not at all clear that a conclusive.
'assassment of-the cause of failurelat RSI, however long in i
7' fcoming, will provide us adequate assurance-that the failure mode of all other-WESF sources can be accurately-predicted or
~
x o
prevented.
LForotheseareasons,-and to facilitate a timely Commission. decision
.on:the suitability of.the WESF capsules, I would recommend.that
.i
.weldirect-the staff,to undertake'the following actions:
1)!
Staff shouldtformally' request a' copy of the' Interim Report'of. DOE's; Type ~B' Investigation.
l(
. Board.
(m
<2)?
Following~ receipt and' review of this report l staff
~
should aesemble anreview pane 11 composed of
.individualsiknowledgeable11n'healthLphysics,
(
metallurgy, physicalichemistry, metal' corrosion,-
'and manufacturing QA, who have not-been directly Jinvolved in, licensing decisions affecting-the:use
, 50 ofithe WESF sources? lThis'panelishould promptly.
SM review the Board's. findings and recommendations.
1 W
9e
- and.reportLto the Commissiontwithin 30 days with' an assessment of the report's implications'for y
.i W
continued 7 commercial licensing of,the WESF.
Ly s
e s o u r c e s'. -
- 3):
~The recommendations _of this-review: panel, along.
~ ith-any public comments received during comment.
w
'onLthe? rule, should,then form the basis of a staff
,, f paper l evaluating the, continued licensability of
.s l
L' '.
. 1
_ _, ~
- bie.
2 4
these sources along with options for Commission action.
i r
l l
.1 y
?
i
(
1 t
(
t
(
p
, Li.
i 1
4 I
,)
I A
v
.E
-j"^
s
!I>
l Q.
..