ML20009G902

SECY-78-212: Discusses Proposed agency-wide Policy Providing ASLBs W/New Info & Matl Relevant to Licensing Hearings

ML20009G902
Person / Time
Site:	02700039
Issue date:	04/18/1978
From:	Case E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	NRC/OCM
Shared Package
ML20009G898	List: ML20009G902
References
SECY-78-212, NUDOCS 8108050211
Download: ML20009G902 (16)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:C.-. Aor f 18, T978~ umiso STATES NUct. EAR REGUI.AToRY CoMMISSloN S ECY-78-212 O-POLICY SESSION ITEM i g i For: The Ccmissioners From: Edson G. Case, Acting Director i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 'Ihru: Executive Director for Cperatic

Subject:

RECONSIDERATIC OF 3 CARD NCTIFICATICN PIOGDURE Purcose: To consider a preposed agencywide policy of providing Licensing Boards new information relevant ard material to NRC licensing hearings. Catec*rl: This paper, a followup to SECY-78-27 dated January 19, 1978, covers a major policy cuestion. Discussion-Theaubject ofacard_notificationmas_ considered _by ._t the Comission en January 24, 1978. The staff pro-posed an agency-wide precedure for Board notification. F The Comission requested the Licensing Board Panel iff and the Appeal Panel to prepare a paper containing

A their suggestions for irplementation of this policy.

i< The February 7,1978 mencrandum from the Chairman of the Licensing Board Panel, and the February 8,1978 .i memrandum frca the Chairman of the Appeal Panel responding to this request, are provided as Enclosure 1. ? The basic view of the Panels is that everything of relevancy and materiality will be taken into acccunt r i in the staff's FES and the SER and Supplement to the i SER. Thereafter in a proceeding, but not before, the Boards would receive routinely the case-specific f docket information as well as any internally-generated \\ information, frcm NRR or other offices, that is j determined to be relevant and material to a particular i proceeding. Further, the ASL3P Chairman rec 0 mended y adeption of this revised procedure on a.six-month trial basis. The Chairman of the Appeal Panel indicated 5 Centact: Ecger S. Boyd, NRR b 492-7595 i t' 8108050211 810729 PDR ADOCK O2700039 C PDR ( ~,,,. ~

p) The Commissioners ;Q,i that the Panel woilld siioniLor closely the clutile and content of the correspondence and other documentation supplied to the Licensing Boards to determine the effectiveness of the proposed procedures and whether further changes are warranted. The staff now proposes to adopt these suggstions, recognizing that for any system of Board notification to be meaningful it must reflect the requirements and preferences of the Boards. Accordingly, we have revised the proposed policy memorandum from the ED0 to all Office Directors (Enclosure 5 of SECY-78-27) to reflect the revised procedure we are now asking the Commission to consider. The revised memorandum is provided as Enclosure 2. There are several elements of the revised procedure now proposed by the staf f that deserve specific mention and consideration by the Commission. These points were made in SECY-78-27, but should be repeated for clarity. First, the essential element of the proposed procedure has not changed significantly. It requires informing Boards of new information developed or received after publication of the staff's principal evidenticry documents. 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 supplements thereto. These documents, therefore, prcperly inform the Board, including necessary eval-uation, on the technical merits of the information in the view of the staff. Thus, in accordance with the Panels' suggestion, the Board would be put on the service list for environmental docket information following publication of the FES. Any internally-generated relevant and material new environmental information developed after publication of the FLS also would be sent to the Board. Similarly, the Board would be put on the service list for radiological safety docket information following publication of the Supplement to the SER that reflects ACRS comments. Any internally-generated relevant and material new radiological safety information developed after pub-lication of this Supplement to the SER also would be sent to the Board. O\\ i Q/

The Comissioners Routine transmittals, via t he service list, to the Appeal Panel and the Commission would occur during l those periods when the Initial Decisions are under ) their review. However, the staff would need to l screen such information to determine what other Boards should be informed. Secondly, the staff has proposed that internally-generated information, determined to be relevant and material for cases in the evidentiary phase of tne proceeding, would be provided to the Boards at the point when the staff determines that it is necessary to get more information from a source external to the staff about a problem. That is, if such new in-formation is determined to be of sufficient importance to seek further information, 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 many cases, however, application of this aspect of the procedure will involve an appreciable amount of time ano staff effort bef ore a determination to notify particular Boards can be made. Thirdly, the Board notification policy will be applicable to operating license proceedings, as well as construction permit proceedings. In operating license proceedings, the staff will continue its practice of sending information available to the staff relevant and material to the ultimate safety or environmental :ssues to sitting Boards in OL proceedings, regardless of the specific issues which have been placed in controversy in the specific operating license proceedings. This practice would not be extended to hearings on operating license amendments, however. In such cases, Board notifica-tions would be limited to the issues under consider-ation in the hearing. Fourthly, information provided to a Board via the service list is assumed to be relevant and material to the proceeding. The licensing staff will examine that information and provide OELD with an assessment of the significance of the information, which, in turn, will be provided to the Board. Internally-generated information will be evaluated to determine -- ~. ~.n.-.- n -

The Ccamissioners if it is relevant and material to an on-going proceeding. L The staff has interpreted, and would propose to con-tinue interpreting, the stanaard of " relevant and material" licerally to include any new information L that could reasonably be regarced as putting a new j or different light upon an issue before the Board or as raising a new issue. As appropriate, the staff 1 would followup the filings of relevant and material internally-generated information with an assessment of why the information is oelieved to be significant and plans for addressing it. Finally, to make the proposed NRR practice an agency-f wide policy it will likewise be employed by NMSS in [ its domestic licensing r>roceedings. Other program and l EDO staff offices, if they develop cr ootain specific p new facts or information they consider might ce relevant [ and material to one or more proceedings, also will send g such informa: ion to NRR or NMSS with an indication of M why they bel wve tne information is relevant and material jj along with tne:r recommendation to notify appropriate i Boards. NRR or NBGS will review tne information, deter- .d mining which Boards, if any, are involvea, and send it "l to OELO with appropriate recommendations. OELD will decide ] if the new information is relevant and material to the A proceedings, and wnether or not to notify the Boards, j Appeal Panel, or Commission. In addition, NRR (or i NbSS) will advise tne other offices of the disposition J of the information submitted for potential Soard d notification. As experience is gained in applying these procedures -1 or an agency-wide basis, refinements will be possiole 3 s in considering internally generated information to assure that Boards will not be provided material be-f yond that potentially significant to the individual d proceedings. For example, the staff has already con-cluchd, anc the Chairmen of the ASLBP and ASLAP agree, i) that ccments received in the course of development of 3 regulations, codes, standarris, guides, etc., should I not be provided to the Boards. The details of tne proposed procedure, and the infor-mation flow cetween offices and NER divisions are quite comolex. For a synoptic overview we have developed two charts (Enclosure 3) which diagram the f process. Chart No. I shows the general responsibilities q of the staff offices and the information flow required j to irplement tne proposed procedure. Chart No. 2 j 3 h d x - 7. h

• J

' ~

• l~

f] '., N%. l ',,' _ '), -,9

The Commissioners, shows the specific NRR responsibilities and inter-actions necessary to assure that all new infonnation, 4 regardless of its sour e, is procerly considered to detennine its relevance and materiality, and/or j significance to specific proceedings, and that it is provided to the Boards as promptly as possible. Recommendation: That the Commission approve the Board notification 5 procedure described in this paper, the policy state-( ment from the Executive Director for Operations to o the staff, and the revised public announcement (Enclosure 4). Coordination: NRR, NMSS, I&E, RES and SD concur in the recomen-dations of this paper. OELD has no legal objection; however, to clarify any ambiguity regarding the matter, it should be noted that 0 ELD will not with-hold from the Boards or the Commission any information which NRR or NMSS recommends for transmission to the Boards or Commission. k 5 Scheduling: For an Open Commission Meeting as soon as possible. L n. m.,.. ,s. , =. - - - ~ 7 M / / Ai ,s 3 i ./ / ? / w:... \\, rn. s -e - g /Ecson G. Case, Acting Director y Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation p s 1 Enciosures: ( l. Memoranda from the ASLBP and ASLAB re Board notification -[ 2. Memorandum from EDO directing policy L 3. Charts outlining Board notification l practice y 4. Publir announcement i This paper is tentatively scheduled for consideration at an Open Meeting i during the Week of May 1,1978. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly i Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time. [ DISTRIBUTION: [ Commissioners 1 Commission Staff Offices ? Exec. Dir. for Opers. j f ACRS ( AS&LSP AS& LAP 1 Secretariat 1 Y.. .Sb L . 'h

w.

n/.

b i' n.* ~ =..w... y

, : rx..

I e ..,g. s ..e .m.- s., 8,. /- r c .,.. ~.. ..r. T l% . '.. 2., vg[.y _. 'g:, _ ' ? . z 3. . ~ - . m- . wa. - ......: r - ~,;. g. x gyw;: ,.,,s n.. u.,.,,;..a.m. aM,,. ... e... au... u :.... t..... ...c.u.n.s.a.. e:.- .m,.,,,. s ......m..-. e ., 7.

• at J

ENCLOURE 1 - +. i Memoranda from the ASLBP and ASLAB re Board notification g.: '* k g -. '$ $ "' f m*. ges' g 7 "I 1

e. 4 4&

. b. _.4- '. 6 f.g.* *

• • ','".".,e*,

3 w %,. =. ~ ' N I.'n.1 m. m . N h...*. r a.. .Eq I;. s . ~ ~ ,P g. g

k. t r '.

I~s,g., pg

.5.,.

.:,s '* < 1;. a

s. _. e

-P 2 ' t.1 h ..c ?.;~.~,* '. -.. ~% ~ n~. , x. >, n-v., s' z' ' 8' 9-r

• M...,Mc.Q -

~ s Q... '..n' -

• s MR '*

w

• .q.

b.P..- ,b g. E. 5 k e f .s } *M ,l- _b _g .. e .'s . m. ,y 1* _, ', _ \\

g '3

---

v.wreu vr.uar---- -

~ inclosure 1 r NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t { g.,#<y, j %. w-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENslNG BOARD PANEL f .j WAsmNC TCN. D C. 20555 y February 7,1978 MEMCRA!!DUM FOR: Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner 3radford Jy& _ - f "Js R. iore/fnairman, ASLBP a FROM:

SUBJECT:

STAFF'S ?!C !FICATI0tt TO BOARDS OF RELEVAi!T t1EW ItiFORMATI0t! This memorandum is in response to the Commission's directive to the ASLBP and ASLAP to furnish their recommencation in regard to Staff notification of Hearing Boaros. Appeal 30ards, and the Commission of relevant and material new information pertaining to in?vidual licensing cases. Our basic differences with the Staff racommendation contained in Mr. Case's I Memorandum to the Commission car.ce:n the colicy to be adooted prior to the ( issuance of the Staff documents in an individual case. There_ documents are Q discussed belcw. We basically agree with the Staff's recommendation insofar T as it applies once those documents are available. Our reasoning is as a follows: 9 W Paragraph V(f)D) & (2) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 2 provides as follows: [I "(1) In contested proceedings, the board will determine ,a controverted matters as well as decide whether the ( findings.equired by the Act and the Comnission's re'!ulations snould be made and ahether, in accordance with Part 51, the construction oermit should be issued ?" as proposed. Thus, in such proceedings, the board will determine the matters in contrrversy and may be called upon to make technical judgments of its cwn on those matters. As to matters pertain:ng to radiological health and safety which are not in controversy, boards i 4 are neither required nor expected to duplicate the f i review already performed by the staff and AC.'IS, and they are authorized to rely ucon the testimony of the f staff, the applicant, and the conclusions of the ACRS, F which are not centroverted by any party. ( A p W d s / puPE 0 H .i04 wub20 Lj el k; Mim."%.: t '.'.s.f h

• bih &,A n p t:.'$s 's,_s L.m;7y.:

. :p nw u.

m....

.-.} / -. i' ;,:l. ^[' ' g ;.. ;. ;

l Ccclissicn February 7,1970 ,i "(2) In an uncontested case, boards are neither required nor expected to duolicate the radiological safety review already performed t,y the staff and the ACRS and they are authorized to rely upon the testimony of the staff and the applicant, and the conclusions of the ACRS. The role of the board is not to conduct a de novo evaluation of the application, but rather to decide whether the application and the record of the proceeding contain sufficient information, ar.d the review of the applica-tion by the Commission's staff. including the envircnmental review pursuant to the flational Environmental Policy Act of 1963, has been adecuate, to succc : t.be findings proposed to be made by the Director of Regule. tion and the issuance of the construc-tion permit proposed by the Director of Regulation. In doing so, the board is expecteu tc be cincful of the fact that it is the aoplicant, not the staff, wno is the proponent of the construc-tion pe. tit and who has the curden of proof." This role has been judicially appro In Union of Concerned Scientists

v. AEC. et al., d99 F.2d 1069 at 10i' 974) tne District of Columota Circuit neld that "[t}he role of the nSLB is not to compile a record, it is to review a recorc already ccm:iled by the Staff and the ACRS, who have d

responsibility for the sufficiency of that record." Prior to the issuance of the final Staff documents in question in regard to a particuiar proceeding, the Staff is compiling the record which will ultimately be reviewed by a Board. As pointed out in Mi-Yore's Memorancum to t!r. Gossick, involving the Boards and Cc:. mission in the StaffJanuary 17 review and record-compiling process by furnisning all correspondence and docca.cm.ation has serious policy imolications. It runs counter to the judicially approved role of Boards laid out ir Union of Concerned Scientists by directly involving Boards in 2$ process. the Staff's review ano record-compiling m ,1 The Staff notes tnat much of the information proposed to be furnished would be of little use to the Boards (Case F!ecorandum p.12). This would cer-tainly seem to be the case crior to the issuance of the Staff documents, because prior to that time the Board is not reviewing the record compiled by the Staff. If the judicially aoproved role for Boards is to be follcwed, this informa:icn should be evaluated and included in the Staff documents wnich the Board must review, as is presently the case. O V

Commission February 7,1978 p] \\'~' The Staff argues (Case Memorandum, p.12) that furnishing this information prior to the issuance of the Staff documents "... will assist the Board in its enderstanding of the development and resolution of an issue that will come before it. However, an issue will only come before the Board if framed by the parties, and, as the Staff concedes, the parties do receive all the information in question and are thus in a positicn to frame issues based upon that information. Absent such issues, the Board's function, as pointed out in Union of Concerned Scientists, is to revicw the adequacy of the record ccm:Ilea oy the Staff. In carrying out this responsibility, the Board has ample authority to require the Staff to furnish whatever backup documentation may be necessary. In short, we can see no advantage to te gained by furnishing 30ards and the Commission with correspondence and documentation prior to the issuance of the Staff docu-ments as the Staff recommends. Once the Staff documents are issued, we believe that furnishing such corres-pondence and documentation would serve a useful purposa, and we concur in the Staff's recommendation in this respect. At that stage in the hearing process, as contrasted with the earlier stage, Boards are in the process of reaching conclusions and authorizing Applicants to engage in certain activi-ties. The informaticn in question could well have a direct bearing on the conclusions being reached and consequently should be promptly furnished. Therefore, we reccmmend that the hearing prccess be divided into two periods. The first period would commence with the publication of a notice of hearing and run until the Staff has taken fornal public positions a reflected in the issuance of the FES and Site Suitability Report with respect to environmental and site suitabili y matters, and SER Supplement No.1 (reflecting the ACRS comments) with respect to health and safety na tta s. As we understand th present practice described beginning at page 5 of the Case Memorandum, Boards are not informed of relevant new inforcation coming to the Staff's attention prior to the start of the hearing on the theory (with which we totally agree) that all relevant information will be discussed in the Staff documents. We therefore believe that this practice should be continued with one modification. He believe that relevant new information coming to the Staff's attention with respect to any completed Staff review n v J

~ Ccemission February 7, 1978 k should be furnished only after the iss.uance of the formal Staff document concerned. He believe that this cractice is more consistent with the policy ciscussed above than the practice of waiting until the start of the hearing as is currently the case. The seconc ceriod would commence with the publication of the referenced Staff documents. During this second period, the more encomcassing pro-cedure as set forth in Alternati e 3 of the Case itecorandum would be followed. As we understand these procedures as set forth beginning at page 11 of l the Cast 'emorandum, and as we propose they be modified, once the refer-3 enced Staff documents have been issued, Boards would routinely be supplied with all correspondence and documentation between the Staff and Applicant relevant to the specific Staff document which has been issued. This infor-I mation would include, either with its transmittal or soon thereafter, an asses < ment by the Staff of its significance. Other NPC offices would advise.';RR or liMS$ of information which they consider relevant to any particular proceeding, und this information would also be foraarded to f. - Soards with an explanation of its_signif_icance as out.ljneiabove.*/ In conversations with representatives of the Division of Technical Informa-l i tion and Cocument Control, it has come to our attention that much duplica-tien and needless information might be furnished under this recommendation. y; This would include pleadings which are already served on the Soards and a j[ Commission as well as documents which they originate. It would also include matters of a purely administrative nature (such as documents informing i applicants and licensees of the proper form for certain communications). 'p Documents such as these should be eliminated. There remains for consideration the time frame within which the various } Soards anc Ccr.:.ission should receive these documents. We recor. rend that h Licensing Boards receive service of the documentation in question from 4 issuance of the Staff docucents until such time as the Licensing Soard f1 finally and completely disposes of the matter pending before it. There-after, service of the documentation should be made on the Appeal Board

• / The procedures here outlined are for construction permit cases but

[f are equally applicable to operating license, license amendment and early site review cases. We recognize that the Staff documents will differ to scme extent depending on the type of case. l 4 h. 1 E h Mh p

1 Comiission , February 7,1978 having jurisdiction of the catter. This service should continue until such tiir:e as the Appeal Board finally aca completely disposes of the I Thereafter, service of the docurentation in cuestion should be matter. made on the Comission until such time as final Comission action is taken. We believe adoption of the above procedures on a six-conth trial basis is approp ri ate. We believe they are in keeping with the role of Soards as set forth in Apcendix A to Part 2 and judicially approved in Union of Concerned Scientists. Further, we believe that they totally meet Staff concerns tnat any new Staff responsibilities be easy to administer, in that they provide that it is not necessary to furnish information prior to the issuance of the final Staff documents in cuestion, but thereafter all relevant new information be furnished. Mr. 30senthal endorses the foregoing recce.mendation anJ has prepared his own cemorandum to that effect. a

---

' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.; 1

ej

=; ' =Y il mes R. Yor, Chairman 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ";j cc:'/Edson G. Case Lt.'!. Gossick k. i i .c 1 s A t, V o h _m .u. m - - ~ ~ - - s - - " #

tv u.cgH Gut.AIURY COMMISSloN . [f 'g .y.

.,,' N '

'.'.'K -5 2

M - W ASrcGTON. D. C. M515 3 y >.. s~,.4..a a \\..,,. February 8, 1978 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Hendrle Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford , O ]/ FROM: ..'y Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Apoeal Panel

SUBJECT:

STAFF NOTIFICATION TO BOARDS OF RELEVANT AND MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION I endorse the recommendation contained in Mr. Yore's February 7, 1978 memorandum as constituting a sufficiently reasonable accommodation of the interests of all concerned to warrant being put into effect on a six-month trial basis. In this connection, it seems to me to make especially good sense not to burden the adjudicatory boards with copies of correspondence and other material cenerated crior to the submission of the final environmental.statementT~ site suit-ability report and suoplement No. 1 to the safety evaluation F report. A board should be able to assume -- at least in [ the absence of a specific claim to the contrary -- that L those documents (taken together with the other formal sub-i missions such as the SER itself) have come to grips with lj all pertinent disclosures during the course of the staff review. t Sheuld Mr. Yore's recommendation be acceoted, the Appeal Panel will use the trial period to monitor closely the i volume and content of the correspondence and other docu-mentation supplied to the adjudica:ory boards during what Mr. Yore has referred to as the "second ceriod". Our our-r poso vill be to ascertain, inter alia, the extent to which i i.- practice the new reporting precedures actually (1) serve J to provide the boards with information having a discernible 'A bearing upon cuestions appropriately subject to adiudication in a licensing proceeding: and (2) tax the now available. resources of the Appeal Pinel. At the conclusion of the i trial period, the Cc=miss;:n will be furnished with the J Appeal Panel's judgmen respecting both the efficacy of those procedures and our nsed, if any, for further technical personnel or docket rec seace to scrutinize and hcuse the additional :.aterial. d s Os P 'd V 5 )d 7 3 09DS O l v 3 ..,e,.,.,.;;. y... ..,4 . a. ey i ;.. . ;. cv q_ J../ .-:, tc:ag.m e.

l Ccemission February 8, 1978 I would add only my hope and expectation that the staff will exercise some restraint in its implementation of the 2 new reporting procedures. Beyond doubt, there will be correspondence or other documents passing between the staff and applicant with respect to a particular permit or license application in adjudication which cuite obviously could have no possible relevance to any issue which had been or T.igh: be raised in the course of the proceeding. The like-lihood that the new procedures will accomplish their intended objective -- and that time and resources will not be wasted -- wi.i.1 be substr.ntially enhanced if material in that category is not forwarded to the boards. 21 cc: James R. Yore ) i Lee V. Gossick Edson G. Case b w Aw n h n 6 d. A k ?, s ~ H

!s

'1 H,, s v y _,.._n_ _ _._~~_.,-- - ~~ ~

..., s. .e .. r... e ' z y-, tf., ,._.,, m..x, ;... 1ry J. _.3. a..

d......;?.5*

T'.. ~.

te_

r. :. =., r,,.,r.,. -. -

.:q ,. -c. ...r; 2. t.. ,.,. :....m. ;.:,..,,. c. ,M..v.-~~..,-:....

w

w.. - w.,,~.,e-is. su.

~... .g.m., ..,.,3 3. %..,..~ ~- m., i-- _ 3: ENCLOSURE 2 l Memorandum from E00 directing policy a.' g. I :.4. E =. .t a S .paa.-

• e

> ~- ,we -..w,,,.. .w .g.. 4* wp* p. - 1 su h ,I 'A 7i-. s*.s-' j ^ l s, s't f.' *. ' '.

• Y,e. %; -

• R "f ~.1,p

_s l .')<+,,,...'

. ?,,

• __.e.

,1 - l ..,g .s.-. .[, '1-r - ' 7, l'i( ' h ,. "i i ', , ~, .~j', 'd .. cs ; r - ...,? u,. .... -,,y-: a:. . c. ; m...- ,. l eh 0, j - a sg. .\\<- = - - i... 7 s z g-s ee&v. b .ge4 N a ,gE' ,.h 4-* e g=, e .J. .. ' -3.- 7,+ 7 ^- " .~ D-L..' '.. w ,'..?T ..go. '.. - f%.. A, y *.,.,, C;,N ' ,<.s -.+.. +.- 3.wm ; M..J ,. #p. ' t.... ..4 A N -. - .?

... to

1 a,** j UN!TED STATES [' 'k NUCLEAR REGU;.ATGiW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 a 5 AEbDRANDUM FOR: E. G. Case, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y C. Smith, Director, Office of Nuclear Material [~ Safety and Safeguards E. Volgenau, Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement' R. liinogue, Director, Office of StandarJs Development S. Levine, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research H. Shapar, Executive Director, Office of the Executive Legal Director 0 FRON: Lee V. Gcssick, Executive Director for Operations s SUBJECI: NRC POLICY ON NOTIFICATION 'IO LICENSING BOARDS O OF RELEVMT_ AND MATERIAL NEW Ii4EORMATION._._ ~ hy The Commission has approved an agency-wide policy regaraing staff noti- .h fication of Licensing 13oards, Appeal Panel, and the Comission of new information which is considered by the staff to be relevant and material r to one or more proceedings. tu

t Tne new palicy requires that:

y d 1. After the publication of the FES and SER supplement, in each domestic licensing proceeding, the Licencing Board, the Appeal Panel cr the Commission, as approprinte, shall be served g copies et all correspondence and accumentation transmitted between staff and applicant relevant to the license application b involved. 2. Specific determinations will be made by the staff, whether l_ L information relevant in one proceeaing is also relevant to F other proceedings. Such information will be transmitted to E OELD with an appropriate recommendation regarding transmittal to Boards, Alpeal Boards or tne Commission. 3. All information provided to the Boards or the Commission should .i incluce, at the time of transmittal, or as soon thereafter an reasonable, an evaluation by the staff of the significance of the information. These evaluations will be transmitted to 'l the Boards or Commission by OEID. =; 1 b' i S x mm-~w.-~wm=u

] Multiple Addressees Enclosure 2 4. All NRC program and EDO staff offices wi.ll provide information, including internally-generated information, to NRR or MSS that they consider might be relevant to a particular domest-ic licensing proceeding. Recommendations regarding informing . Boards will be transmitted by NRR or NMSS to OELD. OELD will make the final decisions on notifying Boards. The basic test for such information flow to the Boards or the Commission is that of relevancy and materiality; i.e.,. wnether the new information could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an issue before the Board or Commission, or as raising a new issue which it might inquire into. If the staff is not aole to make a determination as to relevancy and materiality, the information should be sent to the Board, or the Comission, for it to make the determination. The obligation to supply relevant and material new information to the Boards or Commission applies in construction permit proceedings, and should likewise be applied in operating license proceedings even if some i7 formation is not relevant to the matters placed in controversy or y raised by the Board. In the case of OL hearings, all information avail-aole to the staff that is relevant and matarial to the ultLtate safety ,,i E} or environmental issues should be providea. The policy applies in operating license amendment proceedings only tc the issues under consider-ation in tne hearing. In all cases, however, it should be understood >q that the standard for determining what is relevant and material is to be interpreted liberally. H.. _~ Information generated within the 'HC is likewise subject to this report-i ing procedure. It is not intended that such matterr be reported immediately l upon ebeir conception. In general, for sucn matters, Boards or the Com-mission should be informed at the point when the staff durermines the need y to obtain nure information from outside the NRC staff about the matter Q raised from such sources as licensees, vendors, contractors, or other y

agencies, g

+. ((. Each program and EDO staff office should develop detailed procedures for implementing this policy. 2 To assist in developing these procedures, adoitional or clarifying criteria are outlined below: F I r k L e M b e + f -4 f.m y 3....;y.. p fN C N. ?] 2_ , _ 3.....g* y f )f. 5 ki & m _ _ ;_. - ' Maj),h!.%i

~ Multiple Adoresees Enclosure 2 v 1. Following publication of the basic staff evidentiary documents l (FES, SER plus Supplement) NRR and NMSS will place specific Boards on the service list to receive incoming and outgoing correspondence. They will provide OELD with an assessment of the significance of the information for transmittal to the Boards. 2. NRR and NMSS will provide OELD with copies of internally-generated information, viewed as relevant and material, for determination as to whether to transmit to the Boards or Commission. OELD will be provided with an assesst.ent as to the significance of this new information. 3. NRR and NMSS will develop accounting and followup systems to keep track d all specific Board notifications after the pub-lication of the staff's evidentiary documents to assure that the Boards are informed of the staff's assessment of the sig-nificance of tne information prcvided, and that information pro-posed for Board notification is nandled in a prompt and efficient manner. 4. Cetermination of relevancy and r:ateriality of new information to all ongoing proceedings is required. When new information ceemed relevant and material to one proceeding is developed, NRR or NMSS, as appropriate, will consider whether the material is appropriate for other Boards, the Appeal Panel, or the Commission. Recommendations, along with the information, will be provided to OELD. OELD will advise NHR or NMSS of the disposition of the informarion, and NRR or NMSS, in turn, will advise the originator of tne disposition. 5. Each month OELD will provide to all offices, a list of active proceedings pending before Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards or I the Commission. l i l l 6. I&E routinely provides incoming Part 21 reports, Part 50.55(e) reports, LER/AOR reports, and outgoing I&E Bulletins to NRR or NMSS. I&E will identify such documents potentially relevant and material to engoing proceedings, an$ will advise ( NRR or NMSS. I&E will also review its " Morning Reports" for information that should be disclosed to Boards and inform NMSS or NRR. l \\m i

~ Multiple Addressees Enclosure 2 L /. RES and SD, when developing or receiving information that could be relevant and meterial to a pr9ceeding, will send such infor-mation to flRR or ftMSS with an assessment as to relevancy and d_ materiality. f1RR or flMSS will review the information, and send y it on to OELD with appropriate recommendations. Comments received in the course of development of regulations, codes, h.g i standards, guides, etc., need not be provided to the Boards. 8. EDO staff offices, if they develop or nbtain information they consider relevant and material to vne or more proceedings, will send such information to fiRR or f4 MSS with an appropriate recom-mendation. g a Written office procedures implementing this policy must be in effect within 45 days of the date of this memorandum. Draf t copies of these pro-y cedures should be provided to the Assistant to the EDO within 30 days b of the date of this memorandum, who will rirculate all copies and arrange 1 for a coordination meeting. f!, N Copies of charts prepdred by flRR outlining the information flow and 9 various office responsibilities are attached for your information. These can also be used as part of an overall training program for technical f'3 9 staff member responsibilities for keeping Boards informed. E.f. - l .y: fd A PA 4b I.ee V. Gossick rjf Executivt Director for Operations ,4D

Enclosure:

As stated C6 A cc: EDO Staff Offices h-

T V

bs t e i: e d N f \\ k> bu , b' m_wmacam.nwenne.nwmm:n-rn ;

7. ,.o' Y.e .U.: 6 . we. s

;;.+ -

s.. J.*4 Vi ). '...-

• f*t o...,-

est.. _st;ta ,_,. l ,;2-. , $.- g - 4 .-,s:

e. w...>-

. 3 ~..,.,.~, _,%.,,w..,u..,.k.m.,... ~. A..., ....c. . m... p. .n..... c,...-,. u .n,. b ..

• b.e.'N 4.::;_.

... := - - Etn MllREA - =

w. ~ =--

Charts outlining Board notification practice .Z .,._:w.,.. 4g,, . g,- n c., h. :*

a.. )s..,;..

• S O. h..ed.,**
• t s

h ,s.=,[.4.. o.- . n, w . c. :w. =... 3.. . h..,,n, _.- ..eg, a,

• e.

.c'g, ' &s.',, J,...,,. r ...w t-9 .pt N<A4,,_ 1.-e' m ....a .t .,,fpQ.Y, .M.['9 '.:l.:.Tlf.,1 ".)fl.- y? ^ a ge 2* ., + .A, g.',c.. ..,.p ~,.. a ;, .c -., b~-. "l,'y*$' . p..?:5::;; . ;s.p..,

• 4

1. E"I4, b

..-..:.... x, a A.LI m'. a,. - =

• rpe* :

e 9,, % ' e ee L

if i ?1i lN] 2 {'( 5 } '* z-

p<,e

- 2 F t i - h,r i 2 E g*j i s n-sII ' I ? 1 II ld (fI 5 f 4 $ E gi l ga S so _508 h 4 O* Ih fk hI I t.,Ii! II'} li..:ii (1 } i $,,}.. a ; p, a r 1 z i O

i..

si l *jl $ '}*!EEiUA ljjilijiljIlll', $1j! 1 2 3 45 5f

-..!

3.$od5If O

L.. j; F 2 I[ 31 g n I I )f w 2 i ...s 35 f. i 141 !3 -d l31 4 8 s!,e j E 8 - 5 . ty! w 3 1 I I ). lIt4*h I*l b e is iI.v 8-q i* di fa J 2= 3** u 1 2 5 "a i - jjf I i* l t: g 1 o i. t l13 6.{ 2 E i 2 d 0 2 3 { 4 s i a is i lf j i I el t'g24 h 6 + i j,,f

14 li f.s y

• i 1

gi st ta E 5 il l} $!}! !I

• i-i:. -

-r. ; 3, o g., i o g o s r ): 3 I5 P1 F

• 3,,

!lEsl$ j 'I I a t.l.,a.l!!s*j!. l !!il ~ ~

'.aw I l il i

j e I !,r% a2. , g6 5: a e O f i o4 "6 d 7 2 [ W' O 1 t F< O 4 !, I tt 3 s-O $b lc l2e55 $ I i a 2 0 4 il i j i ii' 11 1 silii!13 Il ; Jj ! U S O 1r i cc Ilo3i 4-- 7% !r I= j=- [ O { a c I c1 1 alta,8! 3: t u.' 2 )f r; e il }i s 2 3 islj[},j !!1! jt; }ll }

j c) j($j}$il6 81 4 1

c-i! O + ! tr -} } 23

• II P

s m ] =t:e s = x 0 2 '= l = "3 e '.-l l {1 i af 2d J_ d,.b{ 8! s o.( $, $. { 23 2 II 55 i H g i !rI* i" ,.04i 3l sii i M I h'

• 4 57 e 4 p 1. I f s,I } E I ~ d.

m I + sa!. t: 4 -I 1; o ->!-5-i l.- jt:21 e t< $ g.i i 1: c: 4 o e I il!s g 3 os-255 $$3 USA i, 2 E ?! :3ld $3 Ejj:TjlIl l,~j !IIIS;jE [5 ! j:i m 3 5 I ? .4aso,jist. ![!3[ $I {! Il"ll: EI< ! <! 13 lo s 3 6 is 2 2 i ' y

• [ ! { 4.-

ip, 16 o**

s. p l 31 _i ai,la "t

is H i e it :s 2 a i ;i g. ! !. g,,8 i r e-i iA A i Wi -!' ci?iti!II* l 3 J i-{ 2112ili s }3 II I a 13 is 18 gI or ~j. a is E. 3 = .s S E 7 1313

1;! =P:t J {. s i i

{j'

4 }s

-e .! h )j; y t's 1 I f EIte llll l l , ' b. ti '5 'z l i i Isf o 1 I 2 3: p I j;il I-lj ~. s [E l II .1 }g s j l l 3}.1.. l t 111 1 ji e lI IIII2' 11,f IIi3 i I _w. ilitia i = I h I I i h z 6-, l l a< l i l I 51 i f si E l.il F j'1 3 3. t I i 1 St I5i 4 I! 5 l 4 c e4 >'t J. it t rus) t I I '1 1 ]5. 2. '?jgj!! c 32: V ~ 3 1 4S 2Is] I, l l 1 2 + I ' n[ I2 ;.h., ,il j, i i 2!!o,s 1 s i i iir l E jij = B i 3 d i ia I c I( E j'

• I o

it' i i, !>bb s s e $b .j;h55 kb5$Y$ 2 $I, I* a e -i 1 t ' ! ": - }* s i } j.2 o i e 5 g s., !i. 9 p . iM ; =Ilili I 114> i A g yg<ssi } 3 nos I 431 5 YE bbi i sLtib) 3i g siin,ui o I A I il l ________.__n _ __._ J e g g ,j m c2 I! C fj di Iif i}li),' 6 m lII ca14!a o o ~~ c: ij af IE 1 e h 18 9 9 l t. tt 21. 3 ;; q r h in 7 5 !!!a!, !!!e! II E!!i. ED 3 m i o er 1*I I! O + N'Y3] n}! }I Afi' ij 3 za I 3$f!: g if y P t t

f :

f J!i l c b 5 5 z) Y ;; = q,, . =o iut iu , i, u.;t:,,it,;: n.,f .e 5._ g3 .3_ 330 ii 4 81 6 i l miI A 5 ;1b fr i rI >3 I* !$ iji !yt l!s l J !!} u its 1

~ l nclosure 4 O N f4RC 1 XPAfil)S PRACT!CI FOR fiOfil YitlG d LICEf451tlG BOARDS A!!Olli filW lill0RfiAT10l1 W Y-d The flucle::r Regu;atory Comission announc2d tcday a new policy to further assure that its Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards and the 1 Comission promptly receive copies of any new information which is releve' to their consideration of applications to build and/or operate commercial nuclear facilities which are pending before them in an adjudicatory hearing. J.; k The purpose of the new Comission policy is to assure that adjudicatory decisions are based upon all known and available information. ,l 4 Under the policy, which is effective immediately and is to be .i c applied agency-wide, the flRC staff will: h y d M) Routinely supply individual Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards h E and the Comission, as appropriate, with all correspondence and b. documentation between the fiRC staff and the applicant for a construction [t permit or operating license developed after the issuance of the staff's ~ T Final Environmental Statement and Supplement to the Safety Evaluation ( Report. The Supplement is prepared following review of the Safety [: - Evaluation Report by the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards. j 3 d, O i

u l ' Enclosure 4 l (2) Provide individual Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards and the Comnission, as appropriate, with NRC internally-generated information that is determined to be relevsnt to a particular hearing. (3) Provide the Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards or the Commission, as appropriate, with an assessment of the significance of the new information provided to them under these procedures as soon as practical. 1 a 3 4 5 3 3 P S 1 B a Y 5 .}}