ML20127C601
| ML20127C601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/13/1985 |
| From: | Lewis H Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1126, NUDOCS 8503260267 | |
| Download: ML20127C601 (3) | |
Text
s e [a Jeruph UNITED STATES y -
n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
W ASHINdTON. D. C. 20555 March 13,1985 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THE NATI TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY The ACRS has been following with interest the deliberations about the need for a formal institutional structure for the investigation of nuclear events, patterned after the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). We have written two letters on the subject, one on June 8, 1978 in which we saw no need for such an organization, and another on April 11, 1984 in which we recommended that the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) be In the interim, the 1984 NRC elevated to the status of a Commission Office. the NRC to reexamine the NTSB concept, Authorization contained and the Brookhaven language National tasking (BNL) was asked to carry out the study Laboratory on behalf of NRC. We understand that the BNL report on this study has been made public and transmitted to the Congress, and that Commission comments on the report will follow.
We have studied the BNL report and have discussed it during the 299th meeting, March 7-9, 1985. We have also had the benefit of a briefing by BNL during a subcommittee meeting on March 6, 1985. We are pleased to transmit herewith our comments.
Overall, we believe that the BNL group has done an excellent job of laying out the issues that are relevant to the need (or lack thereof) for an independent board or agency for the investigation of significant events. There are argu-ments for and against such a board or agency, and the BNL group interviewed approximately 40 people in formulating its recommendation, sampling as nearly as we can tell, most of the diversity of views on the subject. (A number of ACRS members were among those interviewed.)
formation of a " quasi-independent" event-In the end, BNL recommends investigation office, within NRC but reporting directly to the Commission, and recommends giving it statutory standing, like several other N?C offices. They recommend calling it the Office of Nuclear Safety (ONS), though other names may be more appropriate, and also recommend -- and thisObviously is important -- giving it there are many the broad investigatory authority typified by NTSB.
details of the potential new office's relations with other elements of the community, which are not addressed, but would have to be if the recommendationWe recommend were implemented. Some of them are matters of great delicacy.
that investigations conducted by ONS exploit the same cooperative " party" system used successfully by NTSB, with parties chosen for their expertise rather than their institutional affiliation.
ffd$$hY Y
March 13, 1985 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino We support the Brookhaven recommendation for the formation of a new statutory office, while recognizing that the precise organizational structure of the office requires much more work, and that the interoffice relations within NRC require attention. We must further note that statutory status for DNS need not delay its formation, since we believe that NRC now has the requisite authority to establish such an office while seeking its statutory recognition. We also note that the success or failure of the office will depend heavily 'on the quality of people attracted to serve in it, and this will, in turn, beAdepend-mediocre ent upon the perceived commitment of the Commission to the change.
ONS would be worse than no ONS at all. The good reputation of NTSB depends in no small measure on the respect it attracts from both within and without the aviation community.
We support the creation of ONS as an alternative to the recommendation in our letter of April 11, 1984. We are also specifically not recommending that AEOD The investigatory authority be renamed ONS and elevated to Conmiission level.
and responsibility are the key points.
We recommend that NRC now embark on the second stage by committing itself to the formation of the new office and by initiating an effort to produce a detailed plan. Since the new office would necessarily dilute some of the authority of existing offices, we think that the planning effort is best per-formed outside NRC.
We maintain active interest in the sub,iect, wish to be consulted as the drama unfolds, and would like to be kept informed. We will have many detailed suggestions as the planning progresses.
Additional comments by ACRS members Robert C. Axtmann; Jesse C. Ebersole; Max W. Carbon, William Kerr, and David A. Ward; and Harold W. Lewis are presented below.
Sincerely, I, t .%.. .
Harold W. Lewis Acting Chairman Additional Comments by ACRS Member Robert C. Axtmann The concept of an in-house, NTSB-Itke investigatory entity is a contradiction in terms. The essential characteristic of the NTSB concept is independance of a regulatory agency that may share culpability in the events that are investi-gated. The ACRS' proposal, stripped The to its essentials, is the creation of a virtues, if any, of that arrangement would new office within the agency.
be lost on the general public and could become a matter of derision for the Commission's critics.
9 March 13,1985 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Additional Coments by ACRS Member Jesse C. Ebersole While I agree with the general direction of this letter, I believe the new organization will still be so constrained by bureaucratic traditions and pressures that it will be unable to carry' out a truly independent overview function in evaluating accidents and extrapolating the findings to appropriate levels of significance. I also see a problem in the perpetuation of a disease
-- "patchitis" -- a treatment of the immediate symptom but not the root prob-lem. One aspect of this might be the inability to permit new and better safety concepts to displace outmoded, complicated, and unreliable patchwork which has grown in over the years.
I believe the new organization should t.e outside the NRC.
Additional Comments by ACRS Members Max W. Carbon, William Kerr, and David A.
Ward We do not join in the recommendation that a new office for investigation of reactor events be created at this time. We believe that the present system of event investigation is inadequate and needs improvement, but we believe such improvement can and should be made without formation of a new office. There are many other issues facing the NRC. Allocating resources to these issues could make better use of the financial and management resources which would be devoted to creation of the ONS. Furthermore, creation of At a new office would present, there is introduce another perturbation in regulatory practice.
great need for predictability and stability. We also question whether the
- afety record of the aviation and ground transportation industries suggest the NTSB should be a model for safety regulation of nuclear power.
Additional Comments by ACRS Member Harold W. Lewis I confess to long-standing views on this subject, which predate my appointment to ACRS, and support a truly independent safety board with broader responsi-bility. NTSB itself evolved through various stages of " quasi-independence" before experience revealed the need for real independence, and II support Therefore, believe that the history is likely to repeat itself in this case.
recommendation.
References:
- 1. Brookhaven National Laboratory, "An Independent Safety Organization," NRC Report NUREG/CR-4152, dated February 15, 1985