ML20059D601
| ML20059D601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/17/1990 |
| From: | Carroll J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 9009070114 | |
| Download: ML20059D601 (2) | |
Text
--.
6tt,.** *vq#og
.,/
UNITEP STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
ADVISORY COV 'lTTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS p @Tf[
3, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 July 17, 1990 The'lionorable Kenneth M. Carr Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Carr:
We are greatly concerned about the implications of the recent directive to the ACRS that
- any legal advice... should be obtained from the Office of the General Counsel," and that any Committee concerns about legal interpretations should be presented to the
- ommission by the_ General Counsel rather than by the committee (June 14, 1990 memorandum from Kenneth M.
Carr to Carlyle Michelsc,n).
This reasoning could easily be-carried over to technical questions, forbiddin us from _ consulting any experts except those inside the agency. g The directive makes a sham of-any claim-to intellectual independence on our part,, with implications we cannot quietly-accept.
10 CFR 1.13 specifically = states, "The Committee. on its own initiative, may conduct reviews of specific gener,ic matters or nuclear fao: J,ity safety-related items."
This rule doas not say that in such reviews the committee must consul only sources approved by the commission.
Yet your June 14 directive says we must.
If we, the Commission, and the Congress are to continue to portray the Commi": tee as an independent group of safety experts,'we think it essential that the commission now reaffirm oilr intellectual independence.
is to help the-Commission on behalf of the country,We are a statutory Com by providing an-independent source of safety advice.
And independent meanc, acove all, independent of the NRC staff.
The. Commission is of course free to reject our advice, to pack our. membership'with more compliant folks, or even to recommend to the Congress: that the Committee be abolished, but it should not seek to influence'our judgmeac by~ limiting the sources we consult.
Please note that we are not suggesting that we ought not seek advice from the Officc of the GePeral Counsel.
On tha' contrary, we propose to continue our past practice and routinely to consult not only that office but any other NRC of fice (e.g.,
NRR, RES, AEOD) that contains the-expertise we need.
We therefore ask the Commission to affirm that it will honor our intellectual independence.
including our right to seek relevant 00005 n
9009070114 900Ye 01
{
- PNU,
\\\\V
%v+wk e
e
e-The Honorable Kenneth M.
Carr 2
July 17,1990 information on safety issues from any reasonable and appropriate Since nuclear safety is a complex mix of technical, legal, source.
j procedural, and human matters, and since good balanced advice can l
only be formulated by cor.sulting a variety of reputable sources, our ability to function as the nation expects will be greatly impaired if we are confined to-the NRC staff as a source of information, whatever the subject.
We urge you to take this issue seriously; it has not been lightly raised.
Additional comments by ACRS Member Carlyle Michelson are presented
- below, i
Sincerely,
)
a-wsi n
A
(/
James CT Carroll IV n Catton M
William Kerr Harold W.
Lewis
~
j W
f Lawrence E. Minnick Paul G.
Shewmon I
cf YYu.
Chester p. Sless
~
David A.
Ward e
f M
Of J. 2r.%st Ni ! k '
~
Charles J.
11 Additional Comments by ACIRS Member Carlyle Michelson My view is that this matter should not be pursued further unless it cectues a real problem on a specific issue.
In that event, the Committee should bri a the concern directly to the Commission for resolution.
I would not want the General Counsel to do this (as stated in the June 14 memorandum to the committee) unless he:is clearly not in conflict 'with the issue.
For most cases, I would expect the committee to seek the advice of the General Counsel first as has been our usual practico.
Only if there is a significant need for independent legal advice would I expect the Committee to seek Commission resolution.
I do not see this as being a challenge to our technical independence.
-,