ML20153E567
| ML20153E567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/22/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153E571 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8805100051 | |
| Download: ML20153E567 (3) | |
Text
.
ATTACHMENT 1 REFERENCES 1.
NRC to W. O. Parker, Jr. (DPC), November 7, 1980; Safety Evaluation Report on the Inservice Inspection program at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3.
2.
R. W. Reid (NRC) to W. O. Parker, Jr. (DPC), January 16, 1981; safety evaluation of replacement hydrostatic test relief request.
3.
P. C. Wagner (NRC) to W. O. Parker, Jr. (DPC), April 8,1982; safety evaluation of relief requests.
4.
P. C. Wagner (NRC) to W. O. Parker, Jr. (DPC), May 17, 1982; Revised evaluation of one relief request.
5.
J. F. Stolz (NRC) to H. B. Tucker (DPC), February 14, 1984; evaluation of relief requests.
6.
J. F. Stolz (NRC) to H. B. Tucker (DPC), February 7, 1985; evaluation of relief requests.
7.
H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), September 25, 1984; Oconee Unit 1 Inservice Inspection Program.
8.
H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), March 5, 1985; Oconee Unit 2 Inservice Inspection Program.
9.
H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), May 1, 1985; Oconee Unit 3 Inservice Inspection Program.
- 10. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), September 13, 1984; submits five 2nd-interval relief requests.
- 11. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), November 16, 1984; relief request from hydrostatic testing of system modifications.
- 12. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), December 11, 1984; relief request from hydrostatic testing of system modifications.
- 13. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), November 12, 1985; relief request from hydrostatic testing requirements.
- 14. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), November 22, 1985; relief request from hydrostatic testing requirements.
- 15. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), January 10, 1986; relief request from hydrostatic testing requirements.
1
- 16. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), January 23, 1986; relief request from interval start date.
J
- 18. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), April 18, 1986; relief request from hydrostatic testing requirements.
- 19. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), May 15, 1986; relief request from hydrostatic testing requirements.
- 20. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), November 18, 1985; withdraws relief request submitted November 16, 1984.
- 21. H. Nicolaras (NRC) to H. B. Tucker (DPC), November 7, 1984; approval of common interval start date.
- 22. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), December 2, 1983; request for common interval start date.
- 23. NRC to DPC, July 22, 1985; request for additional information on the Inservice Inspection program.
- 24. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), October 8, 1985; response to request for additional information.
- 25. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), October 23, 1985; transmits omitted attachments to October 8, 1985 letter.
- 26. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to J. F. Stolz (NRC), August 28, 1986; response to several staff concerns regarding inservice inspection.
- 28. W. O. Parker, Jr. (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), January 13, 1981; relief request main feedwater system check valves.
- 29. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), February 15, 1982; transmittal i
of B&W report on high pressure injection / makeup safe-end task force.
- 30. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), September 9, 1986; hydrostatic tests applicable to second interval.
- 31. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), December 3, 1986; relief request main steam power operated valve 2MS 84.
- 32. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to H. R. Denton (NRC), February 9, 1987; relief request reactor coolant pump.
- 33. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to NRC, March 2, 198*; relief request main steam check valves.
2
\\
- 34. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to NRC, March 5,1987; relief request low pressure i
service water valve.
- 35. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to NRC, April 7, 1987; relief request penetration room ventilation system (Unit 3) and purification demineralizer (Unit 3).
- 36. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to NRC, April 9, 1987; relief request penetration room ventilation system (Units 1 and 2).
- 37. H. B. Tucker (DPC) to NRC, September 25, 1987; transmits six 2nd-interval relief requests.
b 8
3
4 000 g
j UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-e n
,I W ASHIN GT ON, D.C. 20556 April 22, 198?
OFFCE OF THE SECRETARY The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Wa s h i n g to re, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to your April 12, 1988 letter requesting the Commission's views on the provision in the Senate-passed Price-Anderson Act extension which would provide for Federal indemnification of persons producing or using radio-pharmaceuticals.
The Commission believes that both the Senate-passed bill, and the bill amendment on the same subject that was pending before your Subcommittee about one year ago, present the same fundamental policy concerns.
Section 170a of the Atomic Energy Act, which expired on August 1, 1987, granted the NRC discretionary authority to require financial protection and to extend indemnity to persons possessing NRC materials licenses.
The 1957 legislative history of the Price-Anderson Act states that:
It is not expected that ordinarily the Commission will use the [ discretionary] authority given it with respect to these latter three types of materials [ sections 53, 63, and 81].
However, there may be rare instances in which the licensee of a facility may have larger quantities of materials or such quantities of especially dangerous or hazardous materials as to warrant the imposition of the provisions of the bill.
The small amounts of radioactive materials possessed by nuclear pharmacies and hospitals, coupled with the short decay period for radiopharmaceuticals, has convinced the Commission that extending Price-Anderson coverage to nuclear pharmacies, hospital nuclear medicine departments, and radiopharmaceutical manufacturers would be inconsistent with the original concept of Price-Anderson as expressed in the language quoted above.
The Price-Anderson Act should not become an available alternative for all those users of auclear materials who have encountered some difficulty in obtaining liability insurance at favorable rates.
8805100051 000422 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
. We woulo also like to address criticisms raised by representatives of the National Association of Nuclear Pharmacies (NANP) on our previous reapanse to your cuestions and on our responses to questions by Congressman Markey and Senator Johnston.
The information we provided was, to the best of our knowledge, accurate.
However, the questions we were asked to respond to were premised on differing versions of the basic indemnification amendment.
We were correct in stating that the Commission has discretionary authority to extend Price-Anderson coverage to nuclear pharmacies licensed by NRC, but we have never maintained that we had such authority with regard to Agreement State licensees.
In addition, the amendment originally offered before your Subcommittee provided for coverage of misadmin-istration and malpractice claims.
This is no longer true for the version of Price-Anderson recently passed by the Senate.
The NANP has also stated on a number of occasions that the Commission was incorrect in its estimates of approximately 7500 licensees that would be covered by the proposed amendment by counting radiopharmaceutical manufacturers in those estimates.
The proposed Senate amendment does, however, include these manuf ac turers, as explained in the following statement by Senator Breaux on the Senate floor on March 16, 1988:
In this respect, the language of the amendment is quite clear.
The amendment only covers persons conducting medical and related activities of operating nuclear pharmacies or hospital nuclear medicine departments.
In our Committee report we indicated that the "related activities' addressed by the amendment only included the manuf acture of the radiopharmaceuticals, since the intent of the provision is to remove barriers to the production and distribution of these items.
134 Cong. Rec. S2338, (Daily Ed., March 16, 1988).
With regard to NANP's comments on the availability of commercial insurance, we understand from insurance industry representatives that many nuclear pharmacies, radiopharmaceutical manufacturers, and hospitals do maintain comprehensive general liability insurance (CGL) policies.
These CGL policies contain a provision entitled "Broad Form Nuclear Exclusion."
This exclusion, however, does not exclude radioisotopes f' om its coverage.
Therefore, any claim arising out of radioisotopic exposure for personal injury or bodily damage should Le covered under the CGL policy.
While some nuclear pharmacies or hospitals may not choose to purchase CGL policies, this i s not a situation unique to this particular industry.
. You asked for the Commission's recommendations on how, if the Congress should decide to extend indemnification along the lines of the Senate-passed bill, legislation could be drafted to aitigate our policy concerns.
Our concern goe' i the fundamental purpose of the Price-Anderson Act, ina we do not believe it can be obviated by legislative draf ting.
However, if the Price-Anderson Act is to be used es a solution to liability insurance problems for a class of licensees, as provided in the Senate-passed bill, then we would likely need to request adoitional funds to implement the new program.
We have not budgeted for the 6 to 8 additional FTE that would be needed.
Consideration should also be given to whether the indemnity should be extended to individual practitioners to avoid a disparity in treatment between institutions and individuals (our figure of 7500 licensees includes individuals).
Finally, the Congress should recognize that the Commission cannot exercise any regu'atory oversight over individual Agreement State While we expect Agreement States to perform their licensees.
regulatory functions diligently, it is nevertheless still
' enate-passed bill for the Commission to be possible under the required to indemnify a licensee for damages arising out of a regulatory violation where the Commission itself did not issue the license.
Such a requirement would not be helpful to the State program.
We can appreciate why Agreement State Agreement indemnity coverages may be thought to be desirable to avoid a de f acto economic penalty on Agreement State licensees, and we do not recommend that Agreement State licensees be excluded from Mcwever, in view of the risks and uncertainties coverage.
associated with this new kind of coverage, the Commission believes tha' section 170f. should be amended to authorize the Commission to charge other than a nominal fee for this Federal indemnity.
We here that our comments will assist you in your review of the Senate bili extending the Price-Anderson Act.
We would welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff to elaborate on our views or to discuss additional concerns that yoe may have.
Sinccrely, hwp cv.M LandoW.Ze[i,Jr Rep. Mancel lujan, Jr, i
1
,c
- - - - =