ML19294A901
| ML19294A901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/06/1978 |
| From: | Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyd R, Harold Denton, Mattson R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19294A895 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR SECY-79-88, NUDOCS 7905080144 | |
| Download: ML19294A901 (26) | |
Text
-
s ENCLOSURE 1 sance J ' /
UNITED STA.
y"3, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ^
O 4 / $
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i.
JUL 8 578 MEMORANDUM FOR: Roger S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management, NRR Harold R. Denton, Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, NRR Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of Systems Safety, NRR Victor Stello, Jr., Director, Division of Operating Reactors, NRR Jerome D. Saltzman, Chief, Antitrust Division, ELD, NRR FFOM:
Edson G. Case, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations NRR OFFICE LETTER NO.19 SUBJlrr:
PRTEDURES FOR NOTIFICATIQ1 'IO LICENSING BOARDS OF RELEVANT I..
AND MATERIAL NEW INFORMATIO1
+
t-Effective imediately, all NRR divisions will use the enclosed procedures for assuring prompt and appropriate action on notifying Licensing Boards, Appeal Panel and the Comission of new information which is considered by the staff to be relevant and material to one or more licensing proceedings. These procedures have been developed in accordance with an agency-wide policy (SECY-78-212), approved by the Comission on May 4,1978, for notifying Licensing Boards of relevant and material new information. The Comission also stated that, after a period of one year, the agency-wide policy and procedures j
will be reviewea and modified, as necessary, to reflect experience.
r t
The basic thrust of the enclosed procedure is that everything of relevancy
[;
and materiality will be taken into account in the staff's Final Environmental
[i Statement and the Safety Evaluation Report and supplement addressing the ACRS t.
report. 'Ihereaf ter, in a licensing proceeding, but not before, the Boards will receive routinely, case-specific docket information, as well as any l E.
internally-generated (i.e., staff generated) information, from NRR or other offices, that is determined to be relevant and material to a particular 4
proceeding. In the recent past, many elements of this procedure have been f;I; used in NRR in notifying Boards of new relevant and material information.
- J This Office Ietter formalizes previous practices and includes new requirements, b:
I This Office Letter places an obligation on each NRR staff member to be alert I
to the significance of new information that is developed in the course of his or her work and to consider whether this information could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an issue before Boards or F
as raising a new issue af ter publication of the staff's principal evidentiary 79050801W
1
(
Rcger S. Boyd, et. al. JUL 6 1978 i
documents. This is the central theme of the procedures and requires the exercise of good judgment to assure that Boards will not be burdened with material beyond tnat potentially significant to the individual licensing proceedings. However, when in doubt, the standard of " relevant and material" should oe interpreted liberally.
In order to provide NRR professional staff personnel with the Board's viewpoint regarding notification procedures, I am i
enclosing recent memoranda from the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and
{
Licensing Appeal Panel and the Chairnan of the Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Board Panel, e
0 (10, Edson
. Case, tEg DiEctor Office of Nuc ar Reactor Regulation l'
f!-
Enclosures:
i 1.
Procedure 2.
Memo, J. Yore to Comissioners dtd. 2/7/78 3.
Memo, A. Rosenthal l
o Comissioners E
dtd. 2/8/78
,s 9
k.
.2 i....
t c
I.
- t L.
7 T:
b t
t
ENCLOSURE 1 PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFICATION TO LICENSING BOARDS OF RELEVANT AND MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION 1.
INTRODUCTION The essential element of the new policy requires infoming Licensing Boards, Appeal Panel and the Comission, as appropriate, of new infor-mation developed or received after publication of the staff's principal evidentiary documents.
i.e., the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or Final Environmental Statement (FES). This consideration is based
{,
on the assumption that, prior to the publication of these documents, all relevant and material matters are discussed in the application and amendments thereto, the staff's SER or FES, if appropriate, and supple-2 ments thereto. These documents, therefore, properly infom the Board, including necessary evaluation, on the technical merits of the infomation in the view of the staff. Thus, the Board is put on the service list for receiving environmental docket infomation following publication of the FES. Any internally-generated (i.e., staff generated) relevant 1
and material new environmental infomation developed after publi-cation of the FES also is sent to the Board. Similarly, the Board is put on the service list for receiving radiological safety docket infor-hL mation following publication of the supplement to the SER that reflects I
the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) coments.
Any internally relevant and material new radiological safety information C
developed after publication of this supplement to the SER also is sent h~ ~
to the Board.
I4I
f
}
1 Routine transmittals, via the - vice list, to the Appeal Panel and the Comnission occur during tho.e periods when t,e Initial Decisions are under their review. However, the staf f must screen such infomation to determine what other Boards should be infomed.
The Licensing Boards will remain on the service list until a final disposition is detemined i
by t he Commission.
The Appeal Panels, which are placed on the service list following the Initial Decision by the Licensing Boards, will also remain on the service list until final Commission disposition. The term " Boards" will be used in the remainder of this Of fice Letter as referring to the Licensing Boards, Appeal Panel and Commission.
{.
The procedure requires that internally-generated infomation about a f t-problem, determined to be relevant and material for cases in the eviden-tiary phase of the proceeding, be provided to the Boards at the point f
when the staff determines that it is necessary to get more infomation
[1.
about a problem from a source external to the staff.
Tha t is, i f such I
new infomation is determined to be of sufficient importance to seek further infomation, analyses, tests, etc., from licensees or vendors,
NRC contractors, or others outside the NRC staff, then the issue has developed to the point where concerned Boards should be informed. In E-many cases, however, application of this aspect of the procedure will involve an appreciable amount of time and staff effort before a deter-mination to notify particular Boards can be made.
t The Board notification policy is applicable to operating license proceed-ings, as well as construction permit proceedings. In operating license proceedings, the staff will continue its practice of sending infomation available to the staff relevant and material to the ultimate safety or s
I-environmental issues to sitting Boards regardless of the specific issues D
which have been placed in controversy.
This practice includes proceedings f
for the conversion of provisional to full-tem operating licenses but is not to be extended to hearings on operating license amendments.
In
[
such cases, Board notification is limited to the issues under consideration in the hearing.
F.
k h.
i
, Information provided to a Board via the service list is assuned to be relevant and material to the proceeding.
The licensing staff will examine that infomation and provide the Office of Executive Legal Director (ELD) with an assessment of the significance of the infomation, which, in turn, will be provided to the Board.
In addition, the staff will review the infomation for possible applicability to other proceedings.
Internally-generated infomation will be evaluated to detemine if it is relevant and 5
~
material to one or more on-going proceedings. The staff has interpreted, and will continue to interpret, the standard of " relevant and material" liberally to include any new information that could reasonably be regarded I,
as putting a new or different light upon an issue before the Board or as raising a new i ssue. The staff will follow up the filings of relevant fI and material internally-generated infomation with an assessment of why the l
infomation is believed to be significant and plans for addressing it.
Y i
j, To make the proposed NRR practice an agency-wide policy, it will likewise be employed by the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS)
(
in its domestic licensing proceedings.
Other program offices and the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) staff offices, 6
if_t. hey develop or obtain specific new facts or information they consider might be relevant and material to one or more proceedings, also will
(
send such infomation to NRR or NMSS with an indication of why they believe g
the infomation is relevant and material, along with their recommendation r
[.
to notify appropriate Boartis.
NRR or HMSS will review the infomation, j.
determining which Boards, if any, are involved, and send it to ELD with appropriate recomendations.
ELD will decide if the new information is relevant and material to the proceedings, and whether or not to notify
[
the Boartis.
In addition, NRR (or NMSS) will advise the other offices of p
the disposition of the infomation submitted for potential Board notification.
t
(
e I
t i
h
+
4_
As experience is gained in applying these procedures on an agency-wide basis, refinements will be possible in considering internally-generated infonnation to assure that Boards will not be provided material beyond that potentially significant to the individual proceedings. For example, the staff has already concluded, and the Chairmen of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board agree, that connents received in the course of development of regulations. codes, standards, guides, etc., should not be provided to t he Bo a rd s.
i F.s I
t 2
t
! v..
F h.
b.
f i
5 t
. 11. PROCEDURES A.
DETERMINATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION BY TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUPS AND PROJECT MANAGERS Applicable To:
Division of Systens Safety Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Division of Project Management i
Individual staf f members are responsible for reviewing all infomation received in the course of their assigned tasks to detemine whether it may be related to licensing proceedings and may represent relevant and
,i material new information which should be provided to appropriate Boards.
f,.
Infomation received from outside sources and considered to be suitable g
for Board notification should be handled in an expeditious manner. Some examples of infomation from outside sources are: (1) the reporting of errors discovered in a vendors Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) models 1
or codes which could result in changes to analyses previously evaluated and discussed in the SER, and (2) the reporting of geological features which could result in significant changes to those previously reported by the applicant and evaluated by the staff as discussed in the SER.
L-
}
2' Internally generated infomation that could reasonably be regartfed as
{
putting a new or different light upon an issue before Boards should also
){
be reported as expeditiously as practicable.
However, the Comission's policy recognizes the difficulty of detemining the point when an indi-t vidual staf f member's perceived concern has developed into a staff issue g.
of sufficient importance that Boards are to be notified.
In accordance E'
with the Comission's policy, internally generated infomation should be
(
provided to Boards at the point when the staff determines that it is necessary to get more infomation about a problem from a source external to the staff. That is, if such new infomation is determined to be of suf ficient importance to seek further infomation, analyses, tests, etc.,
i.
t
5 t
l i
from licensees or vendors, NRC contractors, or others outside the NRC staf f, then the issue has developed to the point where concerned Boards should be informed.
b The treatment of technical infonaation contained in technical papers and
[
journals presents another problem in notifying Boards. As for internally i
generated infonnation, technical papers and journal articles should be provided to Boards at a point when the staff determines that (1) such f
infonnation is of sufficient importance to call into question, staff positions and criteria or (2) the staff has determined to seek further p
infonnation, analyses, tests, etc., from licensees, vendors, NRC con-tractors or others outside the staff.
s t.
r
'g 1.
Staff members should provide the following information, through I
their management, to the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors l
for radiological matters and Assistant Director for Environmental e
f, Projects for environmental matters.
(Examples of Board notification reconciendations from the staff are enclosed.)
k'.'
a.
The item recommended for notification of Boaros.
L -:.
}'
b.
Considerations regarding relevancy and materiality; i.e.,
putting a new or dif ferent light upon an issue before the e
t c.
Board or raising a new issue.
If there is any doubt as to materiality or relevancy of information, it should be forwarded g
as a recommendation without such considerations but should
<J include a statement of the doubt.
x c.
A statement as to the. perceived significance of the information I
g as it may affect current staff positions.
A clear assessment of i
the significance is not required at this time and the recommenda-tion should not be delayed in order to permit lengthy determina-tions.
If a clear assessment and final resolution is available, L
1 i
. it ooviously provides for a clean Board submittal.
For all recommendations which do not contain a final resolution, which should include the majority, followup action is required to in-fona the Boards as to the ultimate staf f disposition.
d.
If the information relates to a specific project, a statement as to possible applicability to other projects.
7 2.
The introduction examples, and the routing of information in item 1 J,
above, of this procedure, are directed to the determination of Board i -
recommendations for facilities licensed under Part 50. NRR also has a responsibility for identifying information potentially relevant and I
material to Boards considering facilities licensed under Part 70 and z
(
under the cognizance of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and h'
Safeguards (NMSS). Staff members should make any such recommendations
(
through their management, to the Assistant Director for Light Water bI Reactors. The infonnation provided should, to the extent possible, confona to that listed in item 1 above.
Vs 3.
Procedures B and C state that recommendations may be Judged by the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, Assistant Director for tL: -
Environmental Projects or Director, DOR not to be material and relevant
[ '.
and a memorandum to that effect will be provided to ELD and the originator.
If the originator still feels that the information he has o
'I identified should be provided to Boards, he should so state in a follow-c-
up recommendation.
It will be processed through the normal Board i,,
Notification channels. Although comments may be added indicating dis-
{'
agreement by those who udged the infonnation not to be relevant and s
[.
material, it will be forwarded to ELD for Board submittal.
F i
(
d
t s
,~ B.
PROCESSING OF BOARD NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Applicable To: Light Water Reactors Environmental Projects The responsibilities of the Assistant Director for Light Water t,
Reactors and the Assistant Director for Environmental Projects are I
identical with the exception that the Assistant Director for Light t
+
Water Reactors is responsible for coordinating all recomendations i
i i
received from offices other than NRR.
In addition the Assistant j
Director for Light Water Reactors is responsible for directing any I
s recommendations related to facilities licensed under Part 70 to the
[
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
(!.
i
(
Recommendations made by other offices or by individual NRR steff members for Board notifications are handled in a different manner than the automatically-provided service list items.
Separate procedures i
I are therefore provided for each situation.
h.'
t Recommencations - NRR Staff and Other Offices i
h; All Board notification recomendations from NRR staf f related to radio-i i
j logical safety, as well as from offices other than NRR, are provided to the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors.
NRR Staf f recom-
{
mendations related to environmental matters are provided to the Assistant Director for Environmental Projects.
The information to be provided r, -
by HRR staff members is discussed in Procedures A and C. The infor: nation i
(,
to be provided by other of fices (e.g., SD, RES, I&E) is discussed in the
[
procedures prepared by those offices but should include an assessment ii of the significance of the infornation.
x.
.f t
(.
t
I 9_
l.
The Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors shall establish and maintain a log of all recomendations from NRR staff on radiologi-cal safety and all recommendations from offices other than NRR.
The Assistant Director for Environmental Projects shall establish and maintain a log of all recommendations from offices other than k
NRR provided by the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors t
i and from NRR staff on environmental matters. These logs shall include all subsequent actions related to the recomendations.
2.
The Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors forwards all re-comendations received from other offices relating to environmental matters to the Assistant Director for Environmental Projects fb (2 working days from logging). All further logging, considerations, etc. will be bandled in Environmental Projects. All recommendations f
received from other offices which relate specifically to operating plants under the cognizance of the Division of Operating Reactors (DOR) will be forwarded to the Office of the Director, DOR. (2 s
working days from logging). All further logging, considerations, f
etc. will be handled by D0R (See Procedure C).
- 3. The Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental
}*
Projects) reviews all recomendations to detemine whether they are relevant and material.
If it is determined that a recommendation jn l
is not considered to be relevant and material, a memorandum to that g,
effect is sent to the Office of the Executive Legal Director (ELD) and the recomending parties (5 working days from logging).
If the information and accompanying recommendation are not clear enough for a detemination to be made, the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects) will request clarifying infomation fro.? the originator (5 working days from logging).
a L
b h
+.
. 4.
Recornendations containing infomation considered to be directly related to the licensing process are then reviewed for applicability to specific cases (6 working days from logging).
5.
For olants in the review process prior to Boards being placed on che service li st (i.e. pre-SER supplement or pre-FES), the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects) will prepare memoranda to the cognizant project managers and approp-riate technical review groups advising them that the item must f-be discussed in the SER supplement or FES.
A copy will also be sent to the originator. The project manager is responsible for seeing that the item is covered unless it has been detemined that resolution has been completed and that Board notification i s not required.
Final disposition should be logged.
y 6.
Recommendations for Board notification for cases in the service b
list time period are forwarded to ELD (7 working days from logging).
y
[
These recommendations, to the extent possible at the time, will contain an assessment of the significance of the infomation.
r Copies will be sent to the originator and technical review groups as appropriate.
It should be noted that all recomendations shall j
be disposed of in a memorandtn to ELD. Doubts on the part of
({
any staff members as to the materiality and relevancy or significance
(-
of the iten should be included in the memorandum to ELD.
7.
Copies of all findings by the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects) with regard to Board recommenda-7-
p
,t tions are sent to the Office of Director, 00R in order that an assessment can be made as to applicability to proceedings under thei r cogni zance.
\\'
. 8.
The Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects) shall review Board notification recommendations made by DOR to detemine applicability to plants under DPM (DSE) cognizance (5 working days from logging).
t l
Service List Documents ELD has established procedures which require notification of the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects) of those proceedings before Boards. The licensing assistants in Light Water
{
Reactors are responsible for placing individual Board members or Commissioners on the service list for a particular proceeding immediately upon issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Supplement which considers the concerns of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
l The licensing assistants in Environmental Projects are responsible for placing individual Board members or Commissioners on the service list I
for a particular proceeding imediately upon issuance of the Final
(.;
Environmental Statement (FES). This results in the Boards automatically receiving all correspondence between the staf f and applicant.
1.
Tne Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects) shall maintain a log of all service list items sent to i
Boards.
i.
[.
2.
Copies of each logged item will be provided to the project manager, b'
who will evaluate them for significance and applicability to other
(,
proceedings. Any recommendations regarding applicability to other f
proceedings shall be forwarded to the Assistant Director for Light f
Water Reactors (Enviromental Projects) (5 working days from logging).
i O
e
. 3.
The project manager will prepare a memorandun ta ELD through the Assistant Director with recommended wording to the Boards as to the significance of all service list items which are not self-explanatory (6 working days f ron logging).
The document to ELD shall be logged with the item.
Items considered sel f-explanatory do not require a mencrandun to ELD but the log shall show that such items were judged to fall into that category.
i i
i
=
?
i I'
E-a f.
E..
t t
I*
I
C.
BOARD NOTIFICATIONS - OPERATING PLANTS IN PROCEEDING 5 FOLLOWING COMPLETluN UF BUAHU/CUMMIS$10N CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE UPERAllNG LICENSE t
Applicable To: Division of Operating Reactors (Division of Project Management when appropriate)
A separate procedure is provided for operating reactors since there are unique differences in the requirements for Board noti-f1 cations for operating plants beyond completion of Board consider-ations regarding the operating license.
Notifications need only f
be considered during the time period that a E' card proceeding exists and only information relevant and material to specific issues in the hf proceeding has to be included in notification considerations.
It i
should also be noted that research and test facilities licensed under Part 50 are under the cogiizance of the Division of Operating Reactors t
(00R). Board notification procedures also apply to these facilities.
j -
1.
ELD will provide DUR with periodic updates of a list of current proceedings for facilities under the cognizance of DDR and a u '
detailed list of issues under consideration for each proceeding.
~*
2.
The Office of the Director, DDR, will establish and maintain k
the record-keeping system related to all Board notification matters.
This will include a log of current proceedings and a detailed list of issues under consideration for each c
t.:
b proceeding as obtained from ELD.
k.'
[
3.
Specific Board recommendations for operating plants made by other I[
offices will be forwarded to the Director, D0R by the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors.
These recommendations will be logged.
The Office of the Director, DOR, will determine whether i
l-k
x the recormiended information is, in f act, applicable to a given proceeding.
The Director, DOR, will forward final recomendations on Board notification to the Office of the Legal Director (ELD) (7 working days frm legWj), Doubt on the part of staf f members as f
to the materiality and relevancy or significance of the item shall be included in the memorandum to ELD.
Recommended board notifications made by the Assistant Directors for Light Water Reactors and Environmental Projects to ELD j
will be reviewed for applicability to plants under the cog-i nizance of DUR (5 working days from logging).
Ii!
4.
All DOK staff members are responsible for reviewing all infonnation received in the course of their assigned tasks to determine whether it may De related to specific issues before a Board proceeding.
The Project Managers may assume that those recomendations made by the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors or the Assistant Director f Environmental Projects have been assessed by DUR management 3 :
unless specifically requested to assess applicability. The staff member should provide the following information tnrough their manage-a ment, to the Office of the Director, 00R.
(Examples of Board noti-i, fication recommendations from the staff are enclosed.)
E
[-
a.
The item recomended for notification of Boards.
L
- b.
- b.
Considerations regarding relevancy and materiality; i.e.,
g' putting a new or different light upon an issue before the
[
board or raising a new issue.
If there is any doubt as to tp' materiality or relevancy of infonnation, it should be forwarded g.
as a recomendation without such considerations but should in-clude a statement of doubt.
I
l c.
A statement as to the perceived significance of the infomation as it may affect current staff positions. A clear assessment of the significance is not required at this time and the recommenda-a tion should not be delayed in order to permit lengthy determina-
{
- tions, if a clear assessment and final resolution is available, j
it ooviously provides for a clear Board submittal. For all recommendations which do not contain a final resolution, which g_
should include the majority, followup action is required to in-t -
form the Boards as to the ultimate staff disposition.
[,
d.
If the information relates to a specific project, a statement as
[
to possible applicability to other projects.
p.
The Uffice of the Director, UUR, will 109 all such recommendations, con-sider the validity of the requests, as in Item 2 above, and forward final i
h, recommendations to ELU (7 working days from logging) with a copy to the originator.
A copy of recomendations trade by the DOR staf f which relate specifically to plants under the cognizance of DPM (DSE) will be provided i
to the Assistant Uirector for Light Water Reactors (Environmental Projects).
{'..
b.
Information received from outside sources and considered to be suitable
[
for Board notification should be handled in an expeditious manner. An example of information from outside sources is the reporting of errors kI. :
discovered in a vendor's Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) models c.,
t-or codes wnich could result in significant changes to analyses pre-4' viously evaluated and discussed in evidentiary documents.
C
[F Internally generated inforTaation that could reasonably be regarded as p
putting a new or different light upon an issue before Boards should also be reported as expeditiously as practicable. However, tne Commission's policy recognizes the difficulty of determining the point when an indi-vidual staff meuber's perceived concern has developed into a staff issue ii*
1
. of sufficient importance that Boards are to be notified.
In accordance with the Comnission's policy, internally generated information should be provided to Boards at the point when the staff detennines that it is necessary to get more information from a source external to the staff aoout a problem. That is, if such new information is determined to be of suf ficient importance to seek further information, analyses, tests, etc.,
froia licensees or vendors, NRC contractors, or others outside the NRC staff, then the issue has developed to the point where concerned Boards should be informed.
i The treatment of technical information contained in technical papers and
[f journals presents another problem in notifying Boards. As for internally generated infonnation, technical papers and journal articles should be provided to Boards at a point when the staf f determines that (1) such information is of sufficient importance to call into question, staff positions or criteria and (2) the staff has determined to seek further information, analyses, tests, etc., from licensees, vendors, NRC con-tractors or others outside the staff.
r 6.
This procedure is directed to the determination of Board / Commission I.>-
recommendations for facilities licensed under Part 50. NRR also has a responsibility for identifying information potentially relevant and material to Boards considering facilities licensed under Part 70
,n and under the cognizance of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and k'.,
Safeguards (NMSS). Staff members should make any such recommendations c
through their management, to the Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors.
The information provided should, to the extent possible, k
conform to that listed in item 3 above.
i i
If there is any doubt as to materiality or relevancy of information, it should be forwarded as a recoumendation without such considerations but should include a statement of the doubt.
I.
t
e /.
The Of fice of the Director, DOR will send to the Assistant Directors for Light Water Reactors and Environmental Projects copies of recor:nended Board notifications sent oy DUR to ELD to permit an assessment of applicaoility to plants under their cognizance. DSS and DSE will be advised of any information that may be appropriate j
for consideration in the licensing process.
i.
6.
The following procedures apply to plants in the review process for 3
full-term operating license reviews and renewal reviews, including
{~
research and test reactors.
f.L a.
y t-Prior to Boards being placed on the service list (i.e., prior to SER issuance) the Director, DOR will prepare memoranda to the cognizant project managers and technical review branches advising them that an item must be discussed in evidentiary I
documents issued prior to the service list time period. The f-project manager is responsible for seeing that the item is covered unless it has been determined that resolution has been k'
completed and that Board notification is not required. Final disposition of the item should be logged.
.6 b.
The licensing assistant is responsible for placing individual b ),
Board members or Commissioners on the service list immediately upon issuance of the SER.
This results in the Boards auto-matically receiving all correspondence between the staff and applicant.
J' t-..
The Director, DUR shall maintain a log of all service list items sent to Boards.
E 1
1 m
h-
F
' Copies of each logged item will be provided to the project manager, who will evaluate them for significance and applicability to other proceedings. Any recommendations regarding applicability to other proceedings shall be forwarded to the Director, D0R (5 working days from logging).
i 8
The project manager will prepare a memorandum to ELD through the Director, DOR with reconnended wording to the Boards as to the significance of all service list items which are not self-explan-atory (6 working days from logging).
The document to ELD shall f
be logged with the item.
Items considered self-explanatory do l' f not require a memorandum to ELD but the log shall show that I
such items were judged to fall into that category.
9.
Under this procedure it may be determined that reconnendations are not relevant and material.
Final determinations are provided to ELD and j
the originator.
If the originator still feels that the information he has identified should be provided to Boards he should so state in I
a followup reconmendation.
It will be processed through the normal
'1 Board notification channels. Although comments may be added indicating f [.
disagreement by those who judged the information not to be relevant L
and material it will be forwarded to OELD for Board submittal.
[l 4
[
+,
V.
c.
k i
i f
i L
t I
8 UNITED STATES k
['
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g %.-.....f EXAMPLE 1 MEMORANDUM T0:
D. B. Vassallo FROM:
Assistant Director, DSS
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION - CONTAINMENT DESIGN PRESSURE -
CESSAR PLANTS The Yellow Creek safety review indicated that a Main Steam Isolation Valve (MSIV) failure yielded the highest containment pressure for a Main Steam Line Break (MSLB) and a higher pressure than for the worst case loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA).
Postulating this failure results in the volme L
of steam between the failed MSIV and the turbine stop valves (a plant t
dependent parameter) being released to the contaiment.
F
[
The enclosed table provides the status with respect to MSIV failure con-
)
sideration of plants which reference CESSAR.
It is estimated that a MSIV failure could result in a containment pressure increase of up to 4 psi for those plants which did not consider such a c
[
fa il ure. However, the actual pressure increase is a function of plant active and passive heat removal capabilities.
Based on our understanding of the effect of a MSIV failure on the contain-ment pressure response, we do not feel it is necessary to reopen the MSLB accident analysis for the subject plants at this time. We recommend that
'. ~,
the applicants be asked to provide revised MSLB analyses, considering a i,.,
MSIV failure, at the OL stage or PDA 2 stage of review.
This approach is being taken since the containment design pre sures provide at least a 10 percent margin above the peak calculated pressures. Also, the CESSAR FDA
! F.
mass and energy release data will include the effect of steamline flow restrictors and revised steam generator inventories, which according to Combustion Engineering, should reduce the severity of the MSLB accident.
Since containment pressures could be higher for the MSLB than stated in r
L,',
issued Safety Evaluation Reports appropriate Boards should be advised of the infomation in this memorandur O
t L.
F l
Assistant Director, DSS i
t..
C' e
.. -. -.. ~ -
3.
.~
Plant MSIV Single LOCA MSLB Design Failure failure Pressure Pressure Pressure Considered Assumption (psig)
(psig)
(psig)
Cherokee-Perkins No Not 42.6 38.0 46.75 Discussed WPPSS 3 & 5*
No Spray 42.0 23.2 52.0 Palo Verde 1-3 No Spray 47.0 48.0 60.0 (CSB: 51.0)
SWESSAR-CESSAR Yes MSIV 43.4 42.6 48.0 Yellow Creek Yes MSIV 38.2 41.1 45.25
- The analysis was based on a mass and energy release model (FLASH-2) that has since been updated and a containment model (100$ revaporization) that we no longer find acceptable.
i j
UNITED STATES
.t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=*
b WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
%, w p EXAMPLE 2
[
MEMORANDUM TO:
D. B. Vassallo l
FROM:
Assi stant Director, DSE I
{
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDED BOARD NOTIFICATION I reconnend that the enclosed letter be provided to the Douglas Point
[..
Licensing Board.
Although the staff does not anticipate a change in its position regarding the Brandywine fault, we have decided to conduct an additional field trip, including conversations with some of the geologists identified in the letter, to determine whether further detailed review of
{g the Brandywine faul t is warranted.
1 r
This matter could be of interest to the Board if they are in the process of reaching conclusions regarding geology at this site.
I L
Assistant Director DSE t.
I',
Enclosure:
~
l:
t...
s _.
t-(
m,
=
i i
h-(*
i t
+
8/UU Piccadilly Placc Springfield, Va. 22151 February 23, 1970 Mr. R. McMullen, Geologist Geology Section. G33, DSE U.S. Nuclear Regulartory Commiselon Washington, D. C.
20555
Dear Mr. McMullen:
I appreciate receiving a copy of your memo to Mr. Stepp summarizing our conversation of February 7, 1978, t
To clarify your memo, I would add the following com=ents.
Both of thy anomalies di,ecussed in your memo of February 14,
,f 0 1978, the faults in the gravel pit and the dislocation of the Crestview School, were brought to my attention by Dr. Segovia y
from the University of Maryland.
The faults in the gravel p'it were also observed by Carol Shifflet of the U.S.G.G. and one other Geologist.
We all viewed cut and fill structures in other pits in the area.
l Thqse s tructures are not the same type of feature.
I agree that these faults may not be evidence of recent faulting but they are evidence of faulting after the deposition of the
[;
gravels.
They are not found in most of the other gravel pits in this area but primarily in this one in close proximity to
)
l*'
the Brandywine Fault.
One additional fault in the Gravels was observed by Dr. John Gibbons and I in 1972 in a pit between IL Piscataway Road and Tippett Road.
This one may be associated I',
b with the lef t splay of the Brandywine Fault.
All of these faults do evidence movement later than Miocene and can not be
[, [ '
ignored just because the data are confusing, we do not under-stand them or do not know how they got there.
If these gravels s'
are Pleistocene then evidence says that movement must have occurred in late Pleistocene or later.
r I
I do not believe that anyone hau d etermined the sense of i
movement of the cracking in the Crestwood School nor viewed everything that is to be seen.
From our conversation I under-stand that although you did look at the outside of the school, you did not examine the school completely either.
Therefore, it seems that ne one has made a complete stud; of what is available and all conclusions are based on less than complete data.
No additional facts have been developed to support or
Fage 2 refute either conclusion - differentini eettling due to con-1 utruction problems or tectpnic movement.
We are all c%preauing opinions with prejudice. /In f ac t no s tuuy has been ecE;D eted77 h
I have been told that the school is at least partially on compacted fill; I have not reviewed or seen any construction j
plans that confirm this.
Cracking may indeed be simply due to a construction problem as you suggest.
However, a fault n the subsurface has been capped by a g_
seismic reflection survey to at least 2500 feet (0.8 kilometers) south of the Crestwood School.
Structures exist near the sur-face in at least one place above this fault.
They have been 5
interpreted by several Geologists as faults which are surface expression of the deeper fault.
The swale east of the School f0 has been it,terpre ted as -t,he surf ace projection of the northward continuation of this fault.
A subtle short photo lineacent F
occurs parallel to this trend southeast of the school in the
{
line of deforma tion.
Deformation of the School could be caused by differential ecmpaction on 'sither side of this line og move-ment along this line.
~
f I would also not agree with the flat statement that "the t
lide of borings drilled by FEFC0 acroa9 the Brandywine fau.lt L
zone shows that movement on that fault ceased in the Miocene".
Also, I would modify the following s tatement to read:
There
[. ',.
is a relatively low level of seismicity now in the area when ccm i'
pared to other parts of the Coastal Flain and Piedmont.
s There is no proof at this time that the Brandywine fault is capable.
I applaud your plan to check out the Gravel pits north of the School.
To the contrary, I regret that apparently the
[.. '
decision has been made to discount the deformation of the School
[,'
without an additional study.
N I. '
It should also be noted that although we met in the office of Washington Gas and I am employed by them that this continued
[
work on the Coastal Flain faulting is private research coa-pletely and unconnected with this company, t
Sincerely,
,,,.( nb Frank H. Jhcobcen, Jr.
t I
-