ML20235Z595
| ML20235Z595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/02/1989 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Breaux J, Byrd R, Conyers J, Darman R, Glenn J, Sharp P, Socolar M, Udall M, Whitten J GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE, HOUSE OF REP., GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, SENATE, APPROPRIATIONS, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903160006 | |
| Download: ML20235Z595 (19) | |
Text
--
~
/
[o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN The' Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by.the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, hMfo W.
j.
Lando W.
e h, J r.
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc:
Senator Mark 0. Hatfield h
,uf()
all I
e903160006 890302 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDC
,p l,-
M'"%'o,,g UNITED STATES
'8
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
j '
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN l
i The Honorable Jamie L. Whitten, Chairman Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom -
mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our.last summary report dated January 25, 1988.. This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law.91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, i
4.
4 Lando W.
h,
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc:
Rep. Silvio Conte l
3
a
,/
o UNITED STATES
^,,
l 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
g March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Glenn, Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs
-United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This sun: mary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, W.-
,s Lando W. Ze
. Jr
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc:
Senator William V. Roth, Jr.
i
/.
%'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
o
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Breaux, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works l
United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I'am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations-concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the 1
Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, bt, hs J rf Lando W. Ze
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc:
Senator Alan Simpson i
i r
- j.,'
I.'
- 't[pster I
UNITED STATES c*t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, k.
Jr.h.
Lando W. Zec
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc:
Rep. Frank Horton l
y -- -- -- ~
~
u m p?
UNITED STATES f'
y
'},.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- g g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 e
a k
/
March 2, 1989 I
CHAIRMAN
.The Honorable Morris Udall, Chairman Subcommittee:on Energy and the Environment.
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
'20515-
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions-taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations coicerning.'the NRC which'were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It' includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since.our last summary report dated January. 25. 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."~
Sincerely, Lando W. Z h,J.
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc:
Rep. James V. Hansen l
l i
i
pa uruq l
4 UNITED STATES 8
- ' 't, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
.q$
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 2, 1989 CHAIRMAN I
The Honorable Philip Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United I
States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, i
l ut.
,s.
Lando W. Ze
, JrU
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions t
cc:
Rep. Carlos Moorhead l
l
UNITED STATES l
't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 March 2, 1989 l
CHAIRMAN 1
1 The Honorable Richard Darman i
Director Office of Management and Budget Washington, D. C.
20503 1
Dear Mr. Darman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, (N.
/ 4 Lando W. Ze Jr
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions I
m
__._.._._m.
o UNITED STATES
~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
)
g.
{
,qg WASHINGTON, D. C. 20566
%....# o March 2, 1989
+
CHAIRMAN.
The Honorable Milton J'. Socolar Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C.
20548
Dear Mr. Socolar:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recom-mendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the Comptroller General.
It includes significant actions taken on recommendations in reports issued since our last summary report dated January 25, 1988.
This summary is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative' Reorganization Act of 1970."
Sincerely, 6v.
Lando W. Zec, Jr
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions i.
1 l
l L_-.____________________
~
.e -
... t- :,
l L
SUMMARY
OF NRC ACTIONS RESPONSE TO GA0 REPORTS Page 1.
NRC's Decommissioning Cost Estimates Appear Low A-2 1
2.
Agencies Overlook Security Controls During Development A-3 3.
Actions Needed to Ensure'That Utilities Monitor and Repair Pipe Damage A-4 4.
Nuclear Waste: Repository Work Should Not Proceed Until Quality Assurance is Adequate A-6 5.
Nuclear. Regulation: Stricter Controls Needed for Radioactive Byproduct Material Licenses A-8 l
I I-A-1
1
+
l GAO Report - NRC's Decommissioning Cost Estimates Appear Low September 20, 1988 i
(GA0/RCED-88-144)
Recommendation The GA0 report recommended that NRC reexamine its estimates to determine whether they appropriately reflect all the costs'that utilities and fuel cycle operators believe are needed to decommission their facilities. As part of the reexamination, NRC should use information being developed to decommission Shippingport and the information gained in resolvin differences between the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL)g the and TLG Engineering, Inc. (TLG) estimates for the Washington Public Power Supply System Unit 2 plant.
NRC Response - November 18, 1988 The NRC recognizes both the uncertainty in estimating decommissioning costs and the differences of opinion that exist with respect to the adequacy of licensee funding provisions. Therefore, the NRC has underway several research programs to provide additional information in this area. One program will obtain additional technical information from the conduct of actual decommissioning projects. Currently the program is focused on the Shippingport reactor, which is in the process of being decommissioned. Another NRC program will obtain source term data from reactors so as to better assess radionuclides I
present at the time of decommissioning. A third NRC program will provide a current technical assessment of decommissioning technology, safety, and costs.
This program will update earlier PNL studies by incorporating results from the two programs above as well as other information developed since the PNL studies were prepared. This effort will also include a review of differences between the PNL and TLG estimates.
l These programs will implement the GA0 recommendation to reexamine decommis-l sioning cost estimates to determine whether they appropriately reflect all the costs that utilities and fuel cycle operators believe are needed to I
decommission their facilities.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
l l
A-2
.~
3 I
1 l
GA0 Report - Agencies Overlook Security Controls During Development May 31, 1988 i
(GA0/IMTEC-88-11)
Recommendation (Chapter 4) l The GA0 Report recommended that agencies review sensitive information systems i
that are currently under development to evaluate to what extent a sound security foundation has been laid for their implementation. Consideration of these evaluations should be included in the formulation of agency information l
security plans required by the Computer Security Act of 1987.
I NRC Response - July 27, 1988 The NRC identified all information systems that were either in the design stage or under development to determine if they involved sensitive informa-tion. Consistent with the provisions of the Computer Security Act of 1987, these reviews were completed by July 31, 1988. The Comission agrees that greater emphasis needs to be placed upon the inclusion of cost-effective security controls into systems under design and development, and will address and evaluate security issues in the early stages of any system design and development. Consideration will be given to these evaluations in the NRC formulation of infonnation security plans required by the Computer Security Act of 1987.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
i l
l A-3
.f' l
GA0 Report - Actions Needed to Ensure That Utilities Monitor i
and Repair Pipe Damage i
April 4, 1988 (GA0/RCED-88-73)
Recommendation No. 1 (Chapter 4)
The GAO report recommended that the NRC require utilities to inspect all nuclear plants to develop data regarding the extent that erosion / corrosion exists in pipe systems, including straight sections of pipe.
NRC Response - May 31, 1988 Many nuclear utilities initiated inspection programs on their own initiative l
shortly after the December 1986 Surry accident.
In addition, many utilities already had in place inspection programs that addressed piping systems with two-phase flow. However, the extent of the inspection programs varied.
During the second calendar quarter of 1987, the Nuclear Utilities Management and Resource Council (NUMARC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) developed uniform guidelines for the inspection, repair, and replacement of single-phase pipe systems susceptible to erosion / corrosion. These guidelines address both curved and straight sections of pipe. By letter dated June 12, 1987, the NRC informed NUMARC that the industry program for single-phase pipe systems was acceptable, subject only to minor comments. The industry is also developing a similar inspection program to provide a uniform approach to two-phase pipe system programs. Recent reports from NUMARC indicate that all plants have committed to conduct inspections for erosion / corrosion.
The NRC's objective is to assure that proper action is taken to correct problems.
In the meantime, the objective of having plants establish programs to detect and correct pipe wall thinning has been achieved by the industry efforts described above. Thus, it was not'necessary for the NRC to issue further specific requirements.
The industry program results will be closely monitored by NRC.
If not effective, the NRC will promptly issue requirements covering needed industry actions.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
Recommendation No. 2 (Chapter 4)
The GA0 report recomended that the NRC require utiliti?s to replace pipe that does not meet the industr W minimum allowable thickr.ess standards.
NRC Response - May 31, 1988 As stated in NRC Bulletin 87-01, all licensees have either explicitly or implicitly comitted to maintain the functional capability of high-energy piping systems. An impnrtat part of this connitment is that piping will be maintaired within allowable thickness values. Thus, there is no need for the Commissicn to issue requirements since the comitments satisfy our safety Concerns.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
A-4
i s
Reconnendation No. 3 (Chapter 4) l The GA0 report recommended that the NRC require utilities to I
periodically monitor pipe systems and use the data developed during i
these inspections to monitor the spread of erosion / corrosion in the plants.
l NRC Response - May 31, 1988 As stated in response to recommendations 1 and 2, all operating plants have completed, or are scheduled to complete, an initial erosion / corrosion-inspection of single-phase pipe systems and any needed repair or replacement of piping. The industry (NUMARC/EPRI) guidelines stated that future inspection frequencies will be based on individual plant results from the first inspection.
In addition, a similar inspection program is being developed by the industry )
for two-phase pipe systems. The Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO issued'a significant operating event report on erosion / corrosion and is inspecting all plants to assess-licensees' implementation of short-and long-term programs. Additionally, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI Committee is developing requirements and standards that require utilities to monitor erosion / corrosion in safety-related secondary piping systems. The NRC has monitored industry progress and inspected ten plants to detennine the short-and long-term adequacy of individual plant programs.
The NRC staff concluded that short-tenn actions were satisfactory but staff action was necessary to assure the adequacy of industry long-term inspection programs.
We consider this GAO recommendation closed.
l I
i i
l l
I I
A-5
~
- [;
(
l Y
GA0 Report - Nuclear Waste: Repository Work Should Not Proceed Until Quality Assurance Is Adequate November 1, 1988 (GA0/RCED-88-159) i Recommendation (Chapter 2) l The GAO report recomended that the Department of Energy not proceed with site
.l characterization work until all quality assurance (QA) programs related to l
regulatory-related work are in place and meet NRC standards and NRC has notified DOE that it accepts the QA program.
NRC Response - December 28, 1988 NRC agrees with-the intent of the recommendation. On May 11, 1988, the NRC
' staff provided comments to DOE on its Consultation Draft Site Characterization Plan (CDSCP) for Yucca Mountain that make essentially the same point as the GA0 recommendation.
NRC and DOE staffs met on July 7 1988, and agreed to a phased plan for NRC review and acceptance of the DOE QA program for site characterization. This plan contains specific actions that both DOE and NRC need to take in order for the staff to gain sufficient confidence to accept the DOE program before site characterization begins. We believe that the GA0 recommendation can be met by implementing this plan in parallel with our review of DOE's Site Characterization Plan (SCP). The Site Characterization Analysis documenting our review of the SCP will specifically address the resolution of the QA issue.
We consider this GA0' recommendation closed.
l Recommendation (Chapter 3)
The GA0 report recomended that the NRC use the NRC's nuclear waste quarterly progress reports as a vehicle for bringing these concerns to the attention of senior NRC management.
NRC Response - December 28, 1988-I l
We agree that both status and problems should be contained in the quarterly progress reports to the Comission. The staff's objecticn to the CDSCP described in our response to recommendation 1 was reported to the Commission in a recent quarterly progress report. Subsequent reports have contained detailed information on the implementation of the July 7,1988 phin to revoive the QA issue. NRC is sending these quarterly progress reports to the Director of DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive War,te Management to assure that DOE senior management is also aware of NRC's concerns and actions the NRC staff considers are needed to resolve them.
A-6 1
r In addition to providing quarterly status reports for Comission review, the staff continues to periodically brief the Comission. On May 4, 1988, the staff presented the results of the review of the CDSCP to the Commission and high-lighted the QA objection. On November 16, 1988, the staff briefed the Comission on concerns with DOE's design control (an aspect of QA) for the exploratory shaft facility, one of the most important near-term issues in the DOE program. Additionally, on January 5, 1989, the staff briefed the Comission on regulatory responsibilities and schedules for the High Level Waste Repository program.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
Recommendation (Chapter 3),
The GA0 report recommended that the DOE and the NRC incorporate into the pre-licensing consultation agreement procedures for ensuring that issues will be resolved on mutually agreeable schedules.
NRC Response - December 28, 1988 We agree that issues arising from interaction between NRC and DOE should be resolved early in the process and on mutually agreeable schedules. However, we do not believe that modification of the pre-licensing consultation agreement is necessary at this time since the existing NRC/D0E procedural agreement contains sufficient provisions for identification and resolution of issues. These provisions include technical and management meetings between DOE and NRC to discuss plans and approaches for resolving issues, stationing of NRC representatives at the site, and early release of site characterization data by DOE to NRC.
Our recent progress in resolving issues in two areas demonstrates that the existing procedural agreement is working. On July 7-8, 1988 NRC and DOE staffs met and agreed to a master list of open items (issues) that need to be I
resolved before the QA program is considered to be qualified. The staffs also agreed to schedules for their resolution. On October 19-21, 1988, DOE and NRC staffs met to agree on a consolidated list of issues for the exploratory shaft facility. Many of these issues were resolved at that meeting and approaches for resolving the remaining issues were discussed. All outstanding issues are being tracked, and several subsequent meetings have been held to address important issues.
As a result of recent progress to establish.nutually agreeable schedules for the early resolution of issues, we believe that the existing agreement covering pre-licensing consultation between DOE and NRC is effective and that additional procedures addressing issue resolution are not needed at this time.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
l l
A-7 1
9 GA0 Report - Nuclear Regulation: Stricter Controls Needed for Radioactive 8yproduct Material Licenses November 15, 1988 (GA0/RCED-89-15)
Recommendation I
The GA0 report recomended that the NRC develop detailed license denial criteria and define the circumstances that require a pre-license inspection or information verification procedures.
NRC Response - January 12, 1989 The NRC will provide additional guidance on license denial criteria and pre-license inspections. ' We believe that our basic license denial criteria are sound, but in the past we may have allowed some applicants too much leeway.in correcting major deficiencies in their applications, even when this required several supplementary submittals over several months or longer. We will provide additional guidance for issuance of denials in cases where applicants are not promptly responsive to requests to correct deficiencies, and cases where there are questions about competence of the applicant.
With respect to pre-license inspections, staff guidance issued in 1984 recommends pre-licensing visits for applicants with large programs. Management has placed increased emphasis on pre-licensing visits in recent years. The NRC will update the 1984 guidance to require, rather than recommend, pre-licensing visits for applications involving large programs. This will make the guidance more consistent with curreint practice.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
Recommendation The GAO report recomended that the NRC finalize regulations that would provide at least a minimum level of financial assurance that licensees can pay for the cleanup of accidental spills and releases.
NRC Response - January 12, 1989 The NRC agrees that it would be desirable to complete this rulemaking.
However, due to resource limitations ard higher priority tasks with greater health and safety significance, the NRC currently has been unable to bu:lget for this activity.
Under existing requirements, NRC licensees already have the responsibility to I
clean up following accidents.
Further, NRC did issue a decommissioning rule in 1988 which requires many licensees to prepare formal decommissioning plans and provide financial assurance for decommissioning. Although the rule does not cover financial assurance for accidents or apply to all licensees, we believe that the rule, in general, improves the assurance of finar.cial i
I responsibility for t. number of major materials licensees.
l A-8 j
i
s 4
.In addition, the government can. take ' protective action in cases where there is an immediate threat to public health and safety.and the licensee.is unable to take protective action.
In this way, the government would ensure the protection of public health and safety. ' Based on past experience, such cases are rarely expected to occur.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
Recommendation The GA0 report reconsnended that the NRC require.that broad scope or, at a minimum, medical treatment licensees begin ifcense renewal actions 1 year in advance and that NRC conduct inspections before extending the licenses.
NRC Response - January 12, 1989 The NRC does not believe that it is necessary to require the byproduct material licensees identified by GA0 to submit renewal requests one year in advance of license expiration. The fundamental issue is the need for sufficient staff to review license renewal applications promptly after they are subnitted.
The NRC is instituting a program to reduce renewal delays by improving efficiency and increasing management attention. Consideration is also being given to increasing resources for renewals, subject to budget constraints.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.-
Recommendation The GA0 report recommended that the NRC review its policies for imposing civil penalties on licensees who repeatedly violate administrative requirements in order to determine whether further guidance on appropriate enforcement actions is needed.
NRC Response - January 12. 1989 A recent revision to the NRC Enforcemer.t Policy clarifies that licensees who repeatedly commit minor violations may be subject to civil penalties.
NRC 1
will also explore developing additional internal guidtnce and training to assure consistency in applying this policy.
Itse NPC Enforcement Policy prwides for flexibility in issuing civil penalties j
of. varying amounts, based on tDe severity of the violations. The Policy 1
provides examples to categorize violations into five severity levels.
Civil j
penalties are normally considered for the most serious violations, categorized I
as severity levels I, II, or III. Recurring violations at severity level IV i
and any willful violations are also cor.sidered for civil penalties. Most i
I recently, the Policy was amended on October 13, 1988, to add an example of a reverity level III violation appropriate for a civil penalty as one that includes violations which individually could be categorized at a level'IV or 4
V, but which when grouped together represent a potentially significant lack of i
attention or carelessness toward licensed responsibilities.
A-9 l
i
The final decision whether to issue a civil penalty requires a case-by-case.
l determination after considering the Enforcement Policy and the circumstances of the case. When there are recurring severity level IV or V violations, consideration is given to various escalated enforcement actions, including having enforcement conferences with the licensees at the NRC regional offices, assessing civil penalties, and, if appropriate, issuing orders modifying or suspending licenses.
Given the existing policy and the judgment that must be exercised, further criteria mandating civil penalties are not appropriate or necessary. However, NRC intends to explore developing additional internal 1
guidance to promote greater uniformity and assure that the criteria are being consistently implemented.
We consider this GA0 recommendation closed.
i i
i A-10 l
_J