ML20093C444
Text
v-l
. y%q%
UNITED STATES
-[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PJittCIPAL STAFF l s
a wasumaTow. o. c. 2 osse 4,,< fu?;?
e
~
.d ri A OE l
November 30, 1983 r/RA wes:
x y,.
^0 503 M d #
_d^
^
U and 50-330 OM, OL f4F File _ Jg MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases Region III FROM:
.Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
FOLLOWUP ACTION IN RECOMMENDATION FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION NRR procedures for notification to licensing boards of material and relevant new information, as reflected by NRR Office Letter 19, include guidelines for the content of recomendations for Board Notifications. One such guideline on content is:
e.
A statement as to the perceived significance of the information as it may affect current staff position.
(A clear assessment of the significance is not required at this time and the recom-mendation should not be delayed in order to pennit lengthy detenninations.
If a clear assessment and final resolution is available, it obviously provides for a clear Board submittal.
For all recomendations.which do not contain a final resolution, followup action is required to inform the Boards as to the ultimate staff disposition.) LUnderlining added. l,
Your recommendation for Board Notification-dated November 8,1983, does not indicate a final resolution and provides no indication as to what followup action, if any, will be taken by RIII. However, to comply with OL-19 pro-cedures we have issued the BN (Enclosure 1) reflecting that there will be staff followup. Accordingly, we request that you submit the requisite information regarding followup action when it is available so that we may close this issue with the Board. We further request that future notifications follow the procedures of OL-19 (See Enclosure 2).
f i
hu ector Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: J.Jeppler-p
/%0343 h DEC 51983
. - - ~ - ~. - -. -. _
f f
' p =.
+
UNITED STATES
. [
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 I
wAsHtwoTON, c. c. 20ssa t
November 21, 1983 Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL and 50-330 OM, OL MEMORANDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 FROM:
Thomas M. Novek, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION - STOP WORK ORDER ON PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT WELDS (BN 83-181)
This Notification is provided in accordance with NRC procedures regarding Board Notifications and is deemed to provide new information material and relevant to quality assurance /ouality control issues in the Midland OM-OL proceeding.' As noted in Enclosure 1. Consumers Power Company (the Applicant) issued a stop work order on November 3,198', be:ause of duplicate welding criteria contained within eight Project Quality Control Instructions (PCCIs),
used to control inspections of support e;ds for electrical instrumentation.
A concern arises from the potential that, if a PQCI is revised, not all other 4
PQCIs with duplicate welding criteria may be revised accordingly. In such a case, inspections could be perfomed to requirements which should have been superceded.
Initiation of phase I of the Applicant's Construction Completion Program (CCP) with respect to inspecticn of electricai inspection support welds could be affected by this stop work order in the future. At present, however, no work is being, nor has been perfomed because of earlier stop work orders reported by BN 83-167. The NRC staff and Stone and Webster, the third party overviewer of the CCP, will monitor the 8.pplicant's corrective actions regard-ing the eight PQCIs. The staff will report further to the Board as resolu-tions are achieved.
W
~
. r Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing 1
Enclosure:
R. Warnick meno dated November 8,1983
.cc: See next page
--+e.
y y
..,q.-
-y,-,g.-.-,.-w-_-,,,,-..,n,i g.
9-..__s-,_,
,.y..c,
--me,,
y.g p,_w e
99 y-.,y,wm-,,e-7 r,,,=pr_--..,p_m
-y9-
I"*.'pasr e
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^
{ [i 3( / ' g l
mEcloN 111 5-799 ROOSEVELT ROAD g
8, 4
SLEN ELLYN. ILLlNOIS 60137 g**<.f NOV 0 8 G8T MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director, Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
R. F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION FOR NOTIFICATION OF LICENSING BOARD In accordance with present NRC procedures regarding Board Notifications, the g
following information is being provided as constituting new information rele-gt vant and :naterial to the Midland OM/0L proceedings. This information deals with the licensee's November 3, 1983, decision to issue a stop work order pertaining to eight Project Quality Control Instructions (PQCI's) which control the in-spection of electrical instrumentation support velds.
s D
The eight PQCI's contain duplicate welding criteria. The potential exists that if a PQCI was revised, then all other PQCI's having duplicate welding criteria may not be revised. As a result, inspections could be performed to superceded requirements. This issue was identified by Stone and Webster during their over-
.heg view of the Construction Completion Prcgram (CCP).
No work was being performed which was affected by the stop work order, however,
'ef the order will prevent the licensee from initiating phase 1 of the CCP as it 3uT) relates to the inspection of electrical instrumentation support welds until 00-corrective actions have been taken and the stop work order rescinded.
~
Q If you have any questions or desire further information regarding this matter, f.,,
please call me.
1; f&
~
R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases S
b
. ~.
I I.
~
.\\
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
{
wasmwoTos, o. c. zones r
~
f.
October 1,1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: All NRR Employees FROM:
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation *
SUBJECT:
NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 19, REVISION 2 PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFICATION TO LICENSING BOARDS OF RELEVANT AND MATERIAL NEW INFORMATION This Revision supersedes and replaces NRR Office Letter No.19 Revision 1, dated December 9,1980.
Effective immediately, all NRR personnel will use the following revised.
orocedures for assuring prompt and appropriate action on notifying Licensing
. ~.
Boards, Appeal Panel and the Comission of new infomation which is con-sidered by the staff to be relevant and material to one or more licensing p
proceedings. These revised procedures reflect the experience we have gained J
since issuing Revision 1 on December 9,1980.-
The major changes in this procedure from Revision 1, which were specified in SECY 82-122 dated March 18, 1982, reflect the following:
1.
The increased role of the Regions in the Board Notification j /
process.
_ 2.
More emphasis on meeting the Guidelines for Board Notification set forth in ALAB-551 regarding an explanation of the information to be submitted.
3.
More emphasis on the need to account for new material in the SER or by providing a sumary list of the items not in the SER to the Board 30 days prior to the hearing.
9 9
/
I fA 4
2.-
[
In addition, the procedure has been changed to reflect the need for time-liness in the processing of Board Notifications and to specify the processing of Board Notifications arising from allegations, This Office Letter places an obligation on all NRR staff members to be alert to the significance of new infomation that is developed in the course of s
their review and to consider whether this information could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an issue before Boards or as raising a new issue after publication of the staff's principal evidentiary 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 that potentially significant to the individual licensing proceedings.
/
w Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Board Notification Procedure cc:
E. Christenbury, OELD
(
R. Rosenthal, ASLAP P. Cotter, ASLBP 0
0 9
9-e ee-=n m
w
+ +
w,w--e
-+
www wwy.-w ar*w e-
-P-*-"
pow-wi-**-vS-8*'Nw
=-
WW-F7--*==--**ww-"**M*-
8-"M9* * - ' 'W***r' v'
I r
BOARD NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE A.
BACKGROUND Following Canmission approval of its Board Notification policy on May 4, 1978, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued NRR Office Letter No.19 dated July 6,1978, which contained Board Notification procedures to be im-plemented by NRR.
The term " Board Notification" refers to new information which is considered to be relevant and material to one or more licensing proceedings, i.e., material relating to an issue before a Licensing Board, Appeal Panel, or the Commission which can reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light on that issue, or raising a new issee.
(Notethat the term " Board" will be used in this procedure to refer to Licensing Boards, Appeal Panel and Commission.)
, In a memorandum dated May 10, 1978, the Commission requested that an evalua-tion of the Board Notification policy be prepared when approximately one year of experience was available.
SECY-80-129, dated March 10, 1980, provided an assessment of then current procedures and proposed changes to those procedures to correct problems encountered in carryit g out the Board Notification policy.
In its approval of SECF80-129 policy changes, the Commission requested another review of the new policy after one year of experience was gained. The review was com-pleted and forwarded to the Commission as SECY-82-122 dated March 18, 1982.
There were three significant changes to the Board Notification policy recommended in SECY-80-129 and approved by the Commission.
1.
Change the time threshold for initiating the formal Board Notification procedures from the issuance of the ACRS Supplement and FES to 30 days before the start of the evidentiary. hearing.
2.
Eliminate the routine transmittal to the Boards of staff correspondence and notices to applicants and licensees.
Staff correspondence and notices to applicants and licensees would be sent to the Board only if it is determined to meet the guidelines for Board Notification, i.e., new information considered material and relevant.
p
.._.-,.g.
y,-9 y
ew,a-*
w y, y y9-w-yp,%,
,w,-.,-e,,,- -..
--- ~.- -,
.__..._m..
3.
Incorporate the gtlidelines for staff appraisal and evaluation of Board Notification matter set forth in ALAB-551, as follows:
a.
Supply an exposition adequate to allbw a ready appreciation of the precise nature of the Board Notification matter; b'.
Supply an exposition adequate to allow a ready appreciation of the extent to what the Board Notification matter might have a bearing upon the particular facility before the Board; c.
In the event a conclusion with regard to the safety or environ-mental significance of the Board Notification matter is pre-sented, set forth the reasoning underlying that conclusion o
sufficient to allow the Board to make an infonned judgment on the validity of the conclusion; and d.
Where the Board has limited jurisdiction, spell out the possible relationship between the subject matter of the notification and one or more of the issues before the Board.
SECY 82-122 reported on the first year's experience with the new policy of SECY 80-129 and was transmitted to the Commission.on March 18, 1982.
It ;
cited the need for a procedure change to accommodate NRC organizational changes (i.e., Regionalization), and improve the juality and timing of the notifications relativ,e to items 1 and 3 above.
(
l After the formation of the Office of Investigations a procedure was
. established to process Soard Notifications involving allegations.
. SECY 82-340, dated August 17,1982' described to the Consnission the procedure to be used by the NRC staff for processing Board Notifications involving allegations received by the NRC staff. This procedure has been revised to specifically address the treatment of these notifications.
1 B'. DETERMINATION OF RE' COMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION BY TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUPS AND PROJECT MANAGERS 1
The Board Notification policy is applicable to operating license pro-l ceedings as well as construction permit proceedings.
In these proceedings, the staff will send new information relevant and material to safety or environmental issues to the Boards regardless of the spe'cific issues which have been placed in controversy. This practice includes proceedings for the conversion of provisional to full-tenn operating licenses.
In hearings concerning operating license amendments, Board Notification is limited to the issues under consideration in the hearing. All staff members are re-sponsible for reviewing all infonnation received in the course of their assigned tasks, including reports identified by the Research and Standards Coordination Branch as being appropriate for consideration for Board Noti-j fication, to determine whether it may be related to licensing proceedings i
and may represent relevant and material new information which should be l
'provided to appropriate Boards.
l
,. ~ ~ -
,_..__.-_._....._~.__....____.__.._m____.-._._
.m....
I Information received from outside sources and considered to be suitable l
for Board Notification must be handled in an expeditious manner. - Some examples of information from outside sources are:
(1) the reporting of errors discovered in a vendor's Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) models or codes which could result in changes to analyses previously evaluated and discussed _in the SER, (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, and (3) those reports identified by the Research and Standards Coordination Branch as being appropriate for consideration for Board Noti fication.
All such information should be transmitted to the Director, Division of Licensing, according to the procedures of Section B.1, below within 2 working days of its receipt.by the staff.
F Internally generated information that could reasonably be regarded as putting a new or different light upon an issue before Boards should also be reported as expeditiously as practicable. However, the Canmission's policy recognizes the difficulty of determining the
. point when an individual staff member's perceived concern has developed into a staff issue of sufficient importance that Boards are to be noti-fied.
In a.:cordance with the Commission's policy, internally generated information should be provided to Boards at the point when the staff determines that it is necessary to get more information about a problem from a source external to the staff. That is, if such new information 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.
As for internally generated information, technical papers and journal articles should be provided to Boards at a point when the staff de-termines that (1) such information is of sufficient importance to call into question staff positions and criteria, or (2) the staff has de-tennined to seek further information, analyses, tests, etc., from licensees, vendors, NRC contractors or others outside the staff.
, The 'following guidelines apply to recommendations for Board Notification:
1.
Staff members should provide promptly (i.e., within 2 days) the following minimum information, through their management, to the Director, Division of Licensing. Memorandum trans-mitting recommended items should be hand-carried through concurrence to destination.
9 f
k 4
s
_-.~.,_.,..--.
v.vvc-e.mmm.,
,_,y.,._
, -.--,.-, mm_
m.,
W
/,
~
a.
The item recommended for notification of Boards.
b.
An exposition adequate to allow a ready appreciation of g
the precise nature of Board Notification matter.
c.
Considerations regarding relevancy and materiality, i.e., putting a new or different light upon an issue
' before the Board or raising a new issue.
d.
An exposition adequate to allow a ready appreciation
- of the extent to what the Board Notification matter might have a bearing upon the particular facility before the Board.
e.
A statement as to the perceived significance of the information as it may affect current staff position.
(A clear assessment of the significance is not re-quired at this time and the recommendation should not be delayed in order to permit lengthy determina-tions.
If-a clear assessment and final resolution is available, it obviously provides for a clear Board submittal. For all recommendations which do not
(
contain a final resolution, followup action is re-quired to inform the Boards as to the ultimate staff disposition.)
f.
In the event a conclusion with regard to the safety or environmental significance of the Board Notifica-tion matter is preser.ted, set forth the reasoning underlying that conclusion sufficient to allow the Board to make an infonned judgment on the validity of the conclusion.
g.
Where the Board has limited jurisdiction, spell out the possible relationship between the subject matter of the notification and one or more of the issues before the Board.
2 h.
.lf the information relates to a specific docket, a statement as to possible applicability to other dockets.
E d
4 4
--w4
_.,----....+,.,m.-
+-e.
,.w,-
ar,,,..w,v,m.,.w.-,.,,,.,,,_m,
.,,,.m,w.,
,.%-m.,_venww,w.w,..,
-,,-w_.
.-... -. ~...
. (
The above information represents the minimum content of a pro-posed notification as submitted to the Director, Division of Licensing. The safety or environmental significance / assessment of the matter and the basis for any conclusions must be pre-sented to the Board either in the initial notification or in a followup notification.
2.
NRR also has a responsibility for identifying information potentially relevant and material to Boards considering facilities licensed under Part 70 and under the cognizance of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Staff members should make any such recommendations through their management
. to the Director, Division of Licensing. The information pro-vided should, to the extent possible, conform to that listed in Item 1. above.
The Director, Division of Licensing, will forward the Board Notification material to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
3.
Recommendations may be judged by the Director, Division of L1:ensing, not to be material and relevant and a memorandum to
_.. that effect will be provided to the originator.
If the originator still feels that the information should be provided to Boards, he or she should so state in a followup recommendation.
Such a followup recommendation will be processed, through the nonnal Board Notification channels. Although ca ments may be added indicating disagreement by those who judged the information not to be relevant and material, it will-be forwarded to the Board.
4 Board Notifications on differing professional opinions will follow the procedures of NRC Manual Chapter 4125, " Differing Professional Opinions."
5.
Due to the increased scope of the Region's responsibilities under Regionalization the Regional Administrators will transmit potential Board Notification information directly to the Director, Division of Licensing. The procedures of this Section B apply for these notifications. The Old Board Notification Procedures are contained in IE MC 1530.
l I
6.
The.0ffice of Investigations will transmit information recommended for Board Notification to the Director, DL. The Director, DL should obtain OI comments on Board Notifications involving
. allegations (SECY 82-340 dated August 17,1982.)
f i
k 1
i f
%,,_,,,.,.,_,,,_,.__._.,,,ym,,
,,.,,__,.,_,,,.y.,,,_,__,.,,.,,_,,,y,_m,_,,_
,,y_..p.,,
g..
- r C.
PROCESSING OF BOARD NOTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1.
The key to commencement of Board Notifications on a specific case is the establishment of the date for the beginning of evidentiary hearing and issuance of related notice by the Board.
Prior to 30 days before the hearing, new material which is considered j
material and relevant to a proceeding is presented to the Boards via SER supplement or other documents. However, if there are
,j items that have not been appropriately disposed of, a sisnmary
[ list is to be provided by the project manager to the Board 30 days before the start of the hearing. For cases within 30 days of (or during) the evidentiary hearing, new material found material and relevant shall be forwarded promptly to the Board according to these procedures.
The il project manager is responsible for ccnducting a review i
of recent Board Notifications and other case specific infoma-tion to ensure that items which are material and relevant to the proceeding and are not addressed in the existing licensing documents (e.g., FES, SER, SSER) or testimony are on the summary list described above, The list should identify the method to be used for disposal of these items- (e.g., testimony, SER supplement or followup Board Notification.)
2.
OELD will provide DL with periodic updates of a list of current proceedings for facilities under the cognizance of DL, indi-cating whether the Licensing Board. Appeal Board or Commission has jurisdiction over proceedings.
3.
The Office of the Director, DL, will establish and. maintain the record-keeping systen related to all Board Notification matters. This will include a log of current proceedings and a detailed list of issues under consideration. A systen will be maintained which tracks incoming recommended Notifications and outgoing Notifications which require followup action.
( 4.
The Director, Division of Licensing, shall review alI recommen-f I
E datIons and determine whether they are relevant and material r
i i
(1 working day from logging).
- Recommendations containing in-i 4
fomation considered to be directly related to a specific case are also reviewed for applicability to other cases.
If it is detennined that a recommendation is not considered to be rele-vant and material, a memorandtsn to that effect is sent to the recommending parties.
If the infonnation and accompanying recommendation are not clear enough for a determination to be made, the Director will request clarifying information from the originator.
4 e
4
_______,,--____.-,_._,__,m
___, __- __,,__,_.._ _ m -
.-s
.. m.
7-(
-7 5.
If the recanmendation involves an allegation; and is determined by the Director, DL,to be appropriate for Board Notification, the
. Director DL,will transmit the draft notification to the Director.
Office cf Investigations (01) for prompt assessment / concurrence.
The OI prompt assessnent will '(1) assure that the Board Notification is written in a manner which would not compromise an investigation, and (2)make a preliminary determination of the authenticity of the allegation. The level of detail in the BN document will meet the minimum level of detail described by the BN criteria (SECY 82-122, 3/18/82) even though the actual allegations (original copy) may not be transmitted to the Board. The safety or environmental concerns of the notification must be preserved in this process. The OI should transmit their comments to the Director, DL,within 5. working days of receipt of the draft Board Notification.
6.
.The Director, Division of Licensing, will make a written detennination and forward the Board Notification to the cogizant DL Assistant Director for action.
a.
For instances prior to 30 days of the evidentiary hearing, the item will be brought to the attention of the Board through incorporation.
in the SER or as supplemental staff testimony. A copy of the memor.
andum will be sent to the originator. The project manager is respon-sible for seeing that the item is covered in evidentiary doctments unless it has been determined that the item has been resolved
'and that Board Notification is not required. Final disposition shall be reported to the Office of tre Director, DL (Board Notification Coordinator).
b,,For instances within 30 days of (or during) the evidentiary hearing, the item must be brought promptly to the attention of the Boards (issue within 2 working days from reccipt of the Director's memorandum). Copies of the Board Notification shall be sent to the originator, technical review group, Office of the Director, DL (Board Notification Coordinator) and OELD (Hearing Division Director and Chief Counsel).
c.
A finding by the Director, Division of Licensing, with regard to Board recommendations should be reviewed by the DL Assistant Directors for applicability to proceedings related to applica-tions for construction permits, post-CP proceedings, applications for operating licenses, as well as proceedings relating to issuance of license amendments. Proceedings related to research and test facilities licensed under Part 50 are to be taken into consideration also.
i
-..__,,.__.-~._._____n.__.-
_ -.. _. _.,