ML20126H187
| ML20126H187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/1983 |
| From: | Rehm T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Cunningham G, Jennifer Davis, Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126H018 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-601 NUDOCS 8506180277 | |
| Download: ML20126H187 (7) | |
Text
, ... .
". f% 0.s. HRC .
. I' mg [1, UNITED STATES E, Q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,-#g. gv ,/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 ,3 r6 w C 29 'Lu 9 05 ' .
- C 1p.[.1, December 28, 1983 gg3jgn[u,3 ' -
Vl:.1 e ,'ifIEJf. RILE ^. .
m_ .
m MEMORANDUM FOR: R. DeYoung, IE j J. Davis, NMSS t G. Cunningham, ELD i B. Hayes, 01 !
T. Murley, RI i J. O'Reilly, RII J. Keppler, RIII .
J. Collins, RIV i.
. J. Martin, RV j
- FROM: T. A. Rehm - > ,
Assistant for Operations, ED0
. .,; . - .'cs c .
- " -l-
SUBJECT:
DRAFT PAPER ON STAFF PROCESSING
?
'~ '- '
OF ALLEGATIONS - -
I believe your offices have been involved in the .
preparation of this paper, however, I am circulatina
.- for concurrence to be sure. .
ll .
If you concur - please do.'so by phone to my 2
secretary. If you have coments get them to -.
me by phone or fax by January 6, 1984. i. ~~ .
L..'
e
~
f/p,0,$
Af T. A. R'ehm ~
y- Y-P hs'E'- Assistant for Operations, EDO
?h. A :. O .: +
r:.:..';-( .
-u.. ../+7. 1 %:;;m
. . . . . e. . . .;
Enc 1osure: s
. 2: . - ..? ,
..'.- +
As stated
~: , -: ' " - -
, s.
cc: D. Eisenhut +
E. Case _
i
. .. . .. . .c s .
.,;y .
. . - . Y : , ; ~ .' . . . . :
e:: O -
l v; A w
- 7. .',.,j....: j .*
.' . ,- L .' .
- y. . ;;.
. - i
. . .. q';. .,;,..'....,1l
'" ". l s
'd .. s.
. . ' * . ;q j . .;.
, \
. r. . . .; k y ,
.....c*.-
[.i-. . n.fl. 4 1
850618'0277 850419 . .
.i :
.'. i'M ." ; . :. .i..', ;
'.1. 'M',* f u PDR F0IA -
.:.'s,; . b;O' ' y.'." ...S,, ' Cu.' . ,
t ADATO84-601 PDR :
- ami -
-3 ...,. .., ;n . .,. . .J. ;. , ;
f.,3. ;
i , ,
7,
[.. .
~
.:. : .k ;. -; .. ,p;;;
- . *,,}.'...
s..,'.
' . * .. .* , E_ l .'
L.'
[f.',f:i *
, ./ <
h.l '.' 3 '::V '[
. ,A Y' 1-
- I
- For: The Commission From: Nilliam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STAFF PROCESSING 0F ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING LICENSES Purcose: To inform the Commission of improvements being implemented in the processing of allegations.
Background:
In November 1982, an NRC Allegations Tracking System (ATS) designed to ensure that all incoming allegations are recorded was initiated. While that system appears to be working, certain improvements are needed to improve its usefulness as a management information system. One of the most important changes to that system will be to redefine " allegations" to include a broader set of safety concerns even if not provided by an
" alleger". This would include, for example, the technical audit reports received from two Congressmen regarding the Pullman contractor at Diablo Canyon. Such a redefining of that system will more appropriately focus the Staff's attention to all safety concerns regardless of their origin and will permit them to be evaluated in an integrated sense. This change l will be included in an NRC tianual Chapter to be issued early next Spring that formalizes the ATS.
At present, IE has the responsibility for the Allegation Tracking System; responsibility for the evaluation of allegations / concerns is divided among a number of Offices (OI, NRR, IE, NMSS, and the Regions) and the responsibility for Board Notifications and licensing recommendations resides in NRR.
Discussion: I. Recent Experience We have experienced difficulties in several recent licensing cases that indicate a need to improve our handling of allegations. These
. difficulties are briefly described below.
(1) Safety Significance - Presently, for each allegation received by the hRC, an Action Office is designated (such as Regions, NRR, IE, 01, or N!!SS). Each Action Office is to perform the necessary evaluations or inspections to resolve the allegation. If the allegation is determined to'be valid, and if the safety significance of the issue warrants, appropriate regulatory action is taken (such as stop work Orders or requiring correction of the deficiency before issuance of an operating license). This approach, which a
1
n is similar to our approach to the resolution of 12.205 petition, has been working reasonably well for individual allegations, particularly where there.are only a few allegations
/ ' on a given project.
For projects with a large number of allegations or concerns raised, however, difficulties have been experienced in developing the safety significance of the allegations. This is principally because with numerous allegations we do not have a systematic approach for their individual resolution nor for assessing the collective safety significance of the set of pending allegations on a particular project. In addition, there are no schedular guidelines for completing such assessments. A more systematic program for the assessment of the significance of plant-specific allegations is needed.
(2) Operatino License' Decisions - It has become clear that an important element to. consider, when making a decision to issue an operating license, is the status and safety significance of all pending allegations and safety concerns. In some cases,'
we have noticed an increasing number of concerns being surfaced as the licensing decision date nears. We have not had 3 systematic administrative controls in place that ensure timely and appropriate management level attention to this matter.
The preferred situation is to have all allegations resolved prior to issuino an operating license (or authorizing full power operation}. For plants that are nearing the date of licensing, we need to ensure that as many as possible of the pending allegations are resolved prior to that date and, in fact, that they are resolved in a systematic, routine way prior to an OL decision so as to avoid an increasing accumulation of such issues at the last minute. Normally, this can be achieved by proper advanced planning and prioritization. In some instances, as when there are a very large number of allegations, a special allegation management effort may need to be established (e.g.,
as is being done for Diablo Canyon).
(3) Board Notification ' Issues - Many times, the existence of a substantive allegation can be material and relevant to issues before a licensing board (ASLB, ASLAB, or Conuntssion). Our present procedures do not require all allegations to be routinely
.; reviewed to determine whether they contain new information that is material and relevant to issues in a licensing proceeding.
In addition, the schedule for resolution cf allegations has been
/, independent from schedular needs of licensing boards, when such i
information is pertinent ,to board decisions.
h o
II. Improvements -
The key elements of the improvements being implemented are outlined below. A more detailed description is contained in Enclosure 1.
(1) In general, the present split of office responsibility for review and resolution of each allegation will be maintained.
(2) The NRR Project Manager will play a more active and central role by an awareness of all allegations and the progress of their resolution; and by alerting management of schedular difficulties or the development of substantive safety issues that could affect licensing decisions.
(3) IE will continue to be responsible for the ATS which will be expanded to show schedules for resolution, thus becoming more capable of being an Allegation Management System.
(4) Lead Offices for allegations will:
(a) Make an early (generally within 30 days of receipt),
preliminary determination of' safety significance and the need for any regulatory action (similar to the approach to the review of 2.206 Petition).
(b) Sche'dule the resolution of each allegation (to be consistent with the licensing schedule),
(c) Recommend Board Notifications to NRR, (d) Develop and maintain case files for each allegation, which will include documentation of all preliminary and final resolutions.
(5) For each OL application, NRR will develop a plan for assessing the collective significance of allegations consistent with licensing review schedules. This will require consultation with 01 and Regions. A listing of allegations for each case, similar to that developed for Diablo Canyon (Enclosure 2) will be maintained. Consistent with the Commission's August 5, 1983 Statement of Pclicy, Investigations and Adjudicatory Proceedings (48 Fed. Reg. 36358), Enclosure 2 is presently being withheld from public disclosure.
Underlying these improvements is a recognition of the key role played by the NRR Project Manager as the principal focal point for all information related to licensing issues for any operating
^
a license application. In the past, the processing of allegations has'largely been accomplished within the Regional organizations.
- with technical assistance as needed for Headquarters. This is
,s appropriate, and will continue to be the case, particularly for those allegations related to site-specific construction-related issues. Perhaps because of this, the NRR Project Manager, and in fact the Headquarters Offices, while being cognizant of pending allegations, have tended to view allegations and their resolution as a regulatory function which is principally within the purview of the Regional Offices. With the increasing awareness that allegations must be accorded deliberate consideration as an element in the overall licensing decision process, it is appropriate that timely infomation on all allegations / concerns be made available in a central location, that all allegations are resolved in a timely manner (at least in an interim fashion), that the resolution of such concerns are documented appropriately, that such information is'provided to hearing Boards in a timely manner, and perhaps most importantly, that the collective safety importance of such concern is factored into licensing decisions. For pending operating licenses, that central location for such considerations must be the NRC Project Manager.
With regard to resource implications, for most cases, the j additional effort involved in implementing these procedures can be absorbed within existing office resource levels. In special
. cases, a dedicated full-time team may need to be established i
, for a short period of time (as in Diablo Canyon). NRR has '
designated a full-time allegation coordinator to further develop the implementing procedures, assist in appropriate revisions to the NRC Manual, and, in general, ensure that the revised procedures are promptly put in place for all upcoming operating license cases.
The above-mentioned improvements, which are being finalized and will be incorporated in the NRC Manual, will provide for more organized and systematic management of allegations related to pending operating licenses.
I Hilliam J. Dircks
, Executive Director for Operations L
Enclosures:
ji 1. Procedures for Resolution of Allegations Related to j Operating License Application 1 Reviews.
- . 2. List of Allegations, 1 *g p#".
Diablo Canyon - Commissioners, SECY, OPE and OGC only. 5
, Ser cener.m
ENCLOSURE 4 PROCEDURES FOR RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATION REVIEWS
- 1. The general procedures that are in use within the Regions for screening and assess'ing allegations will continue to be followed.
A copy of these procedures was furnished to the Commission by EDO memorandum dated October 28, 1983.
- 2. The Allegation Tracking System will continue to be maintained by IE. It will be revised to reflect, for each allegation, the schedule for resolution.
- 3. The NRR Project Manager will iaaintain a detailed sumary of all allegations and the progress of their resolution; and is respon-sible for alerting management of schedular difficulties or the development of substantive safety issues that could affect licensing decisions.
- 4. Lead Offices for allegations will:
(a) Make and document (generally within 30 days of receipt) nreliminary detemination of safety signifiance, and the need for any regulatory action, (similar to the approach to the review of 2.206 Petition).
(b) Schedule the resolution of each allegation (to be consistent with the licensing schedule),
(c) Recomend Board Notifications to NRR, (d) Develop and maintain case files for each allegation, which will include documentation of all preliminary and final resolutions.
- 5. To provide greater assurance that Hearing Boards are informed of infor-mation that may be relevant and material, the existing procedure for screening and assessing allegations is being modified to:
(a) Ensure that notification of the existence of an allegation is promptly made to the appropriate NRR Project Manager.
(b) Provide that the Action Office will determine, within thirty days s
of receipt of an allegation, whether a Board Notification should be recomended, and, if so, will forward such recommendation to the Director, Division of Licensing, NRR (with copy to the Project Manager). The Action Office case file record for each allegation
> will include an entry, approved at management level, regarding the the disposition with respect to board notification (including a determination that no board notification is warranted).
L[
i
~ ' '
( ',. * * *
(c) Provide that, if the initial board notification is preliminary in nature, a follow-up notification is sent to boards when the evaluation is completed, or whenever significant relevant infor-mation is identified during the course of evaluating the allegation.
(d) Ensure protection of the identity of all allegers when confidentiality is requested.
- 6. Thirty days prior to the Construction Completion date (applicant's estimate) for each pending OL, each Action Office will forward to the Division of Licensing an evaluation of the safety significance of all allegations not scheduled to be resolved before the Construction Completion date, with a recommendation as to whether any or all of them constitute grounds for delaying issuance of (or'otherwise restricting) an operating license. The NRR Project Manager will compile these inputs and provide an integrated judgement and recommendation as to the safety significance of all pending allegations (collectively, and, if appropriate, individually) as identified by all Action Offices.
- 7. Thirty-days prior to a Commission decision on authorizing full-power operation, a report similar to (3) above will be prepared. The NRR Project Manager will notify all Action Offices of the date this report is requested.
- 8. During the period from thirty days prior to the Construction Completion date until the Commission meeting on full-power authorization, the Receiving Office for any new allegation will, within two working days, telephonically notify the NRR Project Manager of its receipt and the identification of the Action Office.
f e
4
- , . - _ -