ML20043H188
| ML20043H188 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/09/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006220153 | |
| Download: ML20043H188 (2) | |
Text
_
- i.>
7 4
aseg#
3 UNITa0 STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULA' LORY COMMISSION g
usmwovow.o. c.nossa r
September 9,1987 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Office Directors Regional Administrators FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
$UBJECT:
GUIDANCE FOR NRC REVIEW 0F LICENSEE DOCUMENTS In the course of conducting regulatory activities. licensees may request staff review and coment on draft licensee documents before they are formally submitted to the agency. This memorandum provides guidance for the staff review of such licensee, vendor, or applicant draft documents. Guidance regarding public release of NRC draft and predecisional,information is contained in other EDO guidance documentation.
As a regulatory agency, the NRC staff has the obligation of overseeing licensee activities for compliance with conditions of a license and with the regulations and orders of the Comission. ' A review or discussion of a draft document by the NRC would be inappropriate if the review would have the real or perceived appearance of impropriety (such as where the staff member ste p out of the role of regulator and into the role of advisor) or of giving more of an advantage to one-licensee than to another. The decision whether it is. proper for the NRC to review a draft of a particular licensee document should be based solely on the need for the NRC to review the draft in carrying out its reflulatory obligations. Any document obtained from a licensee which the l'censee indicates is a draft, should be clearly marked as such.
Consistent with this policy. NRC review of drafts of the following licensee.
-applicant, or vendor enforcement-related documents, would be improper.
Licensee documents arguing that violations did not occur.
Licensee documents arguing the appropriateness of sanctions imposed on it; e.g., civil penalties.
Licensee documents arguing whether or not an order should be imposed.
Responses to 50.54(f) letters and similar requests for information specifically requested under oath or affirmation (excluding appropriate technical licensing documents).
In other cases, an examination of draft documents from a licensee, applicant, or vendor which the NRC desires and which is in the interest of the NRC in carrying out its public health and safety responsibilities as contrasted to purely assisting the licensee, may be proper.
Included in this category are draft documents that:
Could assist an inspection or an assessment of corrective actions.
9 9006220153 870909 f
.\\
v A-aN,..
.p.
l Could form the basis for a confirmatory order.
Could form the basis for a settlement agreement.
It is also the Comission's policy to address all matters of safety in public.
Consequently, it is the Comission's policy generally that any document, including those labeled " drafts " considered by the staff in reaching a regulatory decision should be placed in the appropriate docket file and the Public Document Room (PDR) unless the document falls within one of the exempt categories listed below.
Categories exempt from this general policy are:
j 1)
Documents or portions of documents that fall within the exempt
-categories of 10 CFR 2.790 (e.g., proprietary information and investigatory material). These should be placed in the appropriate docket file only.
If a proprietary document is involved, to the extent possible a non-proprietary version should 1,e placed in the PDR. However, if such a proprietary document is requested by the public. 0GC should review the determination for proprietary treatment.
2)
Documents that resident inspectors and others examine during onsite inspection and oversight.
In conducting an onsite inspection a substantial number of documents, includ<ng draft documents, may havetobeexaminedtoprovidebackgroundinformationrepardingthe facility. Placing all such documents in the PDR would p ace an 1
unnecessary burden on the agency, and nipht hamper the necessary flow of background information from the icensee to the inspectors.
For these reasons, the material need not be placed in the PDR if the material does not leave the licensee's premises or is returned to the licensee upon completion of the inspection. All draft material relied upon by an inspector to prepare an inspection report or to make inspection findings must be retained by the inspector because a L-draft document by its nature may be changed or destroyed by the licensee. Material retained after inspection must be placed in the appropriate docket and placed in the PDR if the material does not fall within one of the exempt categories of 10 CFR 2.790.
3)
Draft proposals concerning a confirmatory order or settlement agreement if an Office Director determines that it is in the interest of the public health and safety to consider such proposals in preparing the final regulatory document.
The policies in this memorandum will be incorporated into an NRC manual chapter and supersede all previous guidance on this subject. Original Signed By:
James M. Tafor Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations f
.