ML20129H554

Submits Dpv Expressing Need for Clarification of 10CFR50.73 Re Reporting Requirements

ML20129H554
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/09/1996
From:	Joseph Furia NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20129H482	List: ML20129H480 ML20129H492 ML20129H554
References
NUDOCS 9611050280
Download: ML20129H554 (2)

Text

. -

T ,,

l. .

ATTACHMENT II September 9. 1996 MEMORANDUM FOR: Hubert Miller. Regional Administrator THRU; ins Director k  !

(

j JamesT.WigkeactorSafety Division of ,

THRU: John R. White, Chief Radiation Safety Branch ('

FROM: Joseph T. Furia, Senior Radiation Specialist

SUBJECT:

DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL VIEW In accordance with NRC Directive 10.159, the following Differing Professional View (DPV) is submitted.

Title 10 CFR 50.73(a)(2)(i)(B) requires licensees to report through the LER j system "any operation or condition prohibited by the plant's Technical '

Speci fications. . . . " The requirements for establishment and control of locked /high radiation areas is generally found in the administrative section  :

of plant Technical Specifications (TS). Additionally, the general requirements for implementation of radiation protection procedures are expressed in the administrative section of TS, and without clear understanding <

of intent. could be interpreted to mean that any matter involving procedural non-compliance may require reporting in accordance with 10 CFR 50.73. 1 I

Continuing lack of clarity on this matter was recently demonstrated when the i Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) from a Region I utility contacted me to inquire on the re>ortability. in the form of an LER, of an evident failure to maintain certain ligh radiation areas controlled with regard to posting, barricades, or locked access. The RPM noted that draft NUREG-1022. " Event Reporting Systems 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73: Clarification of NRC Systems and Guidelines for Reporting." previously circulated by the NRC for comment in 1991, was inter)reted to require that only programmatic breakdowns of the program for loc (ed/high radiation areas needed to be reported as an LER. The RPM indicated that this interpretation (position) was verbally reinforced by NRR representatives at a previous EPRI/NEI meeting. - Since there are not large number of LERs dealing with radiological protection program implementation issues, as compared with actual findings and observations detailed in inspection re> orts. I am reasonably certain that most licensees are generally l

adhering to t11s unwritten guidance or understanding of the agency's i expectations in this matter.

l

!' Regardless of the accuracy of the RPM's understanding in this matter, it

appears that to continue in this manner puts the NRC staff in an extremely vulnerable situation relative to consistent application of regulatory j requirements, l 2

Recent discussions between James Wiggington. NRR. and John R. White. Chief.

j radiation Safety Branch. RI. indicate that the NRC HQ staff has generally j 9611050200 961031 PDR

i. ORO NRRA 1 l %. c a v . PDR .g

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _. . _i

r .,' ,., ,! ,..~,. .

Hubert Miller 2  !

discouraged licensee's from filing LERs involving discre) ant conditions involving certain administrative requirements in the Tecinical Specifications, i including the control of high radiation areas unless the failure is indicative of a programmatic breakdown in performance. The rationale for such position, as'we understand it, appears to be intended to limit re)orting of discrepant conditions involving non-safety related requirements, iowever. I am not aware ,

of any formal agency guidance or direction that currently promotes that  ;

position.

While I understand and appreciate the technical merits of constraining reporting requirements relative to safety significance. I am concerned that informal communication to the NRC staff and licensee's relative to the i agency's expectation in this matter could appear as a case of regulatory inconsistency resulting from promulgating guidance that relies on a draft .

NUREG publication, internal NRC correspondence undocumented staff consensus.  !

and verbal communication to regional . staff and licensees who have inquired on the matter.

Whether this is an accurate reflection of NRC intent and purpose in this matter is immaterial. Given the current regulatory climate. I believe that an approach that gives this perception is not in concert with the published ex ectations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as recently expressed by th Chairman.

Accordingly. I believe the following should be accomplished:

I (1) The NRC staff should develop the agency's position on this matter based

on a rationale that is supportable from a regulatory perspective.

y including rulemaking as necessary: and.

(2) In the interim promulgate formal guidance to the regional staff and licensees on the agency's expectations relative to this particular matter l

1 1

1 f

i

_- - . . .-.