ML20127M085
| ML20127M085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/16/1992 |
| From: | Dunning T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127M067 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301280105 | |
| Download: ML20127M085 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ .. _____.
Ref. EDO 7825
, f. Bateman for on
' ' [o us .y UNITED f TATEs cys: Taylor NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
Cin.iezek s gy, e
,3,(l (A g
W ASHING T ON, D. C. 20555 Thompson June 16, 1992 Blaha
(.gf(p/ ....
Murley Bird MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Taylcr Executive Director for Operations FROM: Thomas G. Dunning Senior Reactor Engineer Technical Specifications Branch Division of Operational Events Assessment, NRR
SUBJECT:
DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION (DPO) - REGULATORY AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCES I was disappointed to find that Mr. Sniezek's memorandum of June 12, 1902, did not set any date as a goal for the panel to render its recommendation on the i disposition of the DP0 that I have stated on this matter. On the contrary, it appears that Mr. Sniezek expects that the process to resolve this matter will be a lengthy one in that he requests monthly progress reports regarding the development of the panel's recommendations.
I must presume that you and Mr. Sniezek have at least r7ad the statement of the DP0, if not its enclosures, and that you either believe that NRC is not failing to enforce the regulatory and technical specification requirements for ,
electrical power sources or that NRC is not obligated to enforce them. On the cther hand, if you are awaiting the recommendations of the DP0 panel to provide a response to these questions, it would hardly seem necessary that the panel should take months to address this aspect of the DP0 .
Mr. Sniezek noted that the panel should consider 10 CFR 50.109 (the Backfit rule) as related to its provisions for adequate protection, compliance and cost-benefit, as appropriate, in reaching their recommendations. However, Section (a)(4) of the Backfit rule specifically states that those provisions do not apply where the Commission or staff, as appropriate, finds and declares, with appropriate documented evaluation for its finding (i) That- a modification is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Commission....
I believe that the DP0 satisfies the documentation requirements for such finding and declaration, as noted in the provisions of the Backfit rule, and that a modification of NRC's and licensees' past practices with regard to this matter is warranted.
I am also disappointed that Mr. Sniezek did not assign one or more attorneys as members of the DP0 panel to participate in the review and recommendation process because of the question of HRC's failure to act to enforce the cited legal requirements. Hopefully, Mr. Sniezek's request that the members of the panel coordinate with Larry Chandler on legal aspects of the GDC will accomplish the same results.
Enclosure 3 9301280105 921228 PDR MISC 9301200090 PDR
,.y. J *
- a The NRC's efforts to address shutdown risks and develop new standard technical specifications may be affected by the panel's recommendations with respect to the enforcement of regulatory and technical specification requirements.
However, these activities do not have the immediate impact on the safety of operating plants as does the question of NRC enforcing thnse requirements.
Therefore, the timing of the panel's recommendations with i espect to these future actions is not critical.
I can not help but believe that it is vitally important for NRC to act in an expeditious manner to resolve the legal aspects of this matter and, thereby, maintain the confidence of the >ublic in the ability of NRC to fulfill its responsibilities and protect pualic health and safety, which are necessary to maintain a viable nuclear industry. Furthermore, it would be responsible for the NRC to determine (1) the status of plants that are currently shutdown, (2) what conditions the NRC is allowing to occur, such as the removal from service of diesel generators, and (3) whether any NRC action is warranted in view of the applicable regulatory and plant technical specification requirements.
/
T omas G. Dunning i Senior Reactor Engineer cc:
J. Sniezek L. Chandler l
_____________-_ -