ML20129J655

EDO Procedures Manual

ML20129J655
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/24/1985
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
NUREG-BR-0072, NUREG-BR-0072-R01-S5, NUREG-BR-72, NUREG-BR-72-R1-S5, NUDOCS 8507230198
Download: ML20129J655 (113)

Text

l EDO PROCEDURES MANUAL NUKEG/BR-0072 h

(

Revision 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION D ATE ISSUED ~-

,o SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 5 6-24-85

.I 1

{_ FILING INSTRUCTWNS PAGES TO BE REMOVED NEW PAGES TO BE INSERTED  !

PART PAGE NUMSER DATE PART PAGE NUMBER DATE I 1 thru 20 2-4-85 I 1 thru 29 6-24k85 II 9 thru 10 1-1-84 II 9 thru 10 6-24-85 '

III 35 thru 36 10-1-84 III 35 thru 36 6-24-85 IV 1 thru 12 10-1-84 IV 1 thru 16 6-24-85 13 thru 14 2-4-85

( 15 10-1-84 V 5 2-24-85 V 5 thru 6 6-24-85 6 1-1-84 11 thru 16 6-24-85 11-16 1-1-84 VI 1 thru 8 1-1-84 VI 1 thru 9 6-24-85 13 thru 14 1-1-84 13 thru 14 6-24-85 VIII 1 thru 8 2-4-85 VIII 1 thru 4 2 6-24-85

', 9 thru 14 1-1-84

,7 15 thru 36 2-4-85

-6 i

8507230198 850624 PDR NUREG

( BR-OO72 R PDR 01/01/84 11

f I. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS A. Functions of the ED0 B. OEDO Organization

,- C. Working with OED0 a

,. - D. 'EDO-Rulemaking Authority

1. General

2. Preparation of Rulemaking Paper

3. Notification of Commission for Rules to be Signed by the E00 E. -Control of NRC Rulemaking F. Control of NRC Rulemaking and Its-Timeliness G. Regulatory History Rulemaking Procedures H. Daily Staff No_tes

1. Purpose

2. Scope

3. Details of Reporting f

f,;, I. Weekly Information Report lg 1. Purpose i

2. Scope

3. Details of Reporting i

. J. Weekly Staff Meetings i-

{ K. Periodic Review of Major Office Programs l Exhibits

i ' .

3 - 06/24/85 I-1 i

I I. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS

' Q) '

A. Functions of EDO l

The Executive Director for Operations (ED0) is responsible for super-vising and coordinating policy development and operational activities of NRC program and staff offices. Specifically, the EDO:

j 1. Develops and promulgates rules, except proposed or final rules l involving significant questions of policy or involving 10 CFR Parts 0, 2, 7, 8, 9 Subpart C, and 110. '

2. Is responsible for administrative functions of the Commission including resolving EE0 and grievance matters (excluding grievance matters that arise from Commission level offices) and providing support services.

.U 3. Proposes any reorganization of the major offices which report to the EDO, consults with the Chairman prior to the Chairman's initiation of the appointments of the Directors of NRR, NMSS, RES, and IE, and appoints and removes, after consultation with the Chairman and without any further action by the Commission, all officers and employees of the offices reporting to the ED0 except:

Directors of NRR, NMSS, RES, and IE.

4. Ensures that the Commission, through the Chairman, is fully and currently informed about matters within its functions.

5. Performs any other matter or function explicitly assigned by the Commission or the Chairman.

13 t

v) a 06/24/85 I-3

= -. . _ . _ . . .

B. OED0 Organization The Office of ED0 consists of the Executive Directcr for Operations (ED0), the Deputy Executive Director for Operations (D/E00), the Assistant for Operations (A0/E00), the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements (DEDR0GR), and the Administrative and Correspondence Branch (0EDO:ACB). Their major job responsibilities are:

D/E00 - Specifically responsible for coordination of budget matters, OMB liaison, emergency planning matters, and the Executive Resource Board - as well as such other areas he may address for the EDO. Acts for the ED0 in ED0's absence.

ED0 - Monitors all correspondence and tasks assigned the staff ED0 or the Commission and establishes procedures for handling such work. Specifically responsible for interface with GA0 and the DOE coordinating committee. Available to staff for guidance in any of these areas and for ED0 guidance when required.

DEDR0GR - Supports the ED0's managerial and supervisory responsi-bility for the Regions. Also supports the ED0's management, control and tracking of generic communications with and requirements placed on licensees, permit holders and applicants. ,

Chairs the Committee to Review Generic Requirements and is specifically responsible for overseeing the prioritization and reduction of the current backlog of regulatory actions.

Frequently represents the ED0 before the Commission, Congress, other agencies, industry and the public.

OEDO:ACB - reviews ar.d processes all communications addressed or referred to the ED0; serves as liaison with SECY on the coordination of principal correspondence, etc.; functions as j central control point with OED0 and all the offices under it.

l 06/24/85 I-4

D C. Working with OED0 U

1. The A0/ED0 or OEDO:ACB should be contacted to arrange for briefings of the Commissioners, or regarding the status of a SECY paper, a piece of principal correspondence submitted, etc. Occasionally, offices may get telephone inquiries from the Commissioners' Assistants or from the Comission offices such as Congressional Affairs (0CA), Public Affairs (0PA), Policy Evaluation (OPE),

ACRS, etc. Consult your supervisor if there is any doubt in coordinating a task or assignment. The appropriate office contact should always be advised of contacts from the Commission.

D. ED0 RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

1. General

a. In attempting to reduce the number of relatively minor items

/ on which it must act, the Commission has directed that the

( ED0 exercise fully the rulemaking authority delegated to him in 10 CFR 1.40(d). That section authorizes the EDO to develop and promulgate proposed and final rules, subject to general pclicy guidance from the Commission except those:

involving significant questions of policy, or involving 10 CFR Parts 0 (Conduct of Employees);

2 (Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Pro-ceedings); 7 (Advisory Committees); 8 (Interpre-tations); 9 Subpart C (Government in the Sunshine Act Regulations); and 110 (Export and Import of Nuclear Facilities and Materials). .

NOTE: This covers any rulemaking notice affecting these parts, including corrections, minor changes, etc.

't.)

06/24/85 I-5

b. For purposes of general guidance, a rule is considered to involve "significant questions of policy," and therefore must be submitted to the Commission if it:

represents a major change in existing Commission policy, represents a major new issue, or will result in a major commitment of resources -

by a class of licensees.

Factors to consider in determining if a rule is considered to involve "significant questions of policy" are:

the impact on licensees and the public, the degree of controversy associated with the proposal, the existence of significant public health, safety, environmental or common defense and security questions, the applicability of existing precedent, the resources required for implementation.

Further guidance on a determination can be obtained from Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration. '

c. A minor change in policy would be involved if:

existing policy were essentially followed with minor modifications to fit a particular situation.

O 06/24/85 I-6

F

(-

l A minor new issue:

'[]

.V would be one that the Comission had previously considered in a similar context, would have limited impact,

did not present important health, safety, environmental, or safeguards questions, 6

would require only limited resources to implement.

Proposed and final rules which are of a minor, corrective or nonpolicy nature and do not substantially modify existing precedent should be submitted for the ED0's signature unless they fall within the excepted Parts of 10 CFR listed previously. Rules involving minor changes in policy or minor Q

O new issues should be handled in the same manner.

d. When the Comission has considered all significant questions of policy in connection with a proposed rule - either major or minor as defined above, the final rule may be submitted i

for the ED0's signature if:

1 i

no significant adverse coments or questions have been received on the notice of proposed rulemaking, no substantial changes in text are indicated.

1 Caution should be exercised, however, to ensure that major

[

I new rules involving matters of significant public interest are brought before the Comission when the coments received O.

i )

v 06/24/85 I-7

suggest that the Commission might wish to reconsider certain provisions of the proposed rule, even though the staff has determined that no revisions are required. For example, for this reason, final rules implementing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ordinarily will be required to be forwarded to the Commission for its review.

~

e. It is essential that the Commission be kept informed of each exercise of the ED0's rulemaking authority. Accordingly, the office responsible for preparing a rulemaking package for the

• ED0's signature must include the note to be inserted in the Weekly Information Report to the Commission for a proposed rule or the Daily Staff Notes for a final rule. See Section D. 3.a. and b. below.

2. Preparation of Rulemaking Paper The staff office responsible for initiating a rule must make an initial determination of whether the rule falls within the scope of the ED0's rulemaking authority (see Section D.1.).

a. If the rule does not fall within the scope of the ED0's rulemaking authority, the rule should be prepared for forwarding to the Commission in the normal Commission paper format. See Chapter III. ,

b. If the rule does fall within the scope of the E00's rulemaking authority, the rule should be forwarded by memorandum to the EDO. The memorandum should explain the basis and purpose of the rule. In addition, the originating office shall:

O 06/24/85 I-8

F b'\ Include in the memorandum, after the Office Director's signature, a certification statement prepared for ED0 signature (see Exhibit I for a sample certification statement). This statement should identify the rule and explain how it comes within the scope of the ED0's rulemaking authority.

. If appropriate, it should also reference previous Commission policy decisions relating to the subject of the rule, and Prepare a notice as in Paragraph D.3., below.

3. Notification of Commission for Rules to be Signed by ED0

a. In the case of a notice of proposed rulemaking, notification will occur by inclusion of an entry in the Weekly Information Report (see Exhibit 2 for a sample entry describing a pro-

[D posed rule). The Office originating a notice of proposed rulemaking shall prepare the appropriate entry and include it in the signature package which is sent to the Division of Rules and Records for review and transmission to the ED0 for action. OED0 will place the entry in the Weekly Information Report when/if EDO signs the rulemaking package.

. b. In the case of a notice of final rulemaking, the office originating the rule will prepare an entry (see Exhibit 2) for inclusion in the Daily Staff Notes in order to give the Commission the required notice. In this case, the ED0 will place the notice in the Daily Staff Notes and hold the rule-making notice for five working days after it is signed, to allow time to complete the Commission notification process, after which the rulemaking package will be forwarded to Rules and Records for final action.

06/24/85 I-9

c. Staff who receive any comments on ED0 rulemaking from the Commission pursuant to notices in Weekly / Daily Reports must advise OEDO promptly in order that appropriate action on the rule can be taken.

E. Control of NRC Rulemaking By ED0 memorandum of February 13,1984, " Control of NRC Rulemaking by Offices Reporting to the EDO," offices were informed, that effective April 1, 1984, (1) all offices under ED0 purview must obtain E00

• approval to begin and/or continue a specific rulemaking (2) resources are not to be expended on rulemakings that have not been approved by the ED0 and (3) RES will independently review rulemaking proposals forwarded for EDO approval and make recommendations to the ED0 concerning whether or not and how to proceed with rulemakings. The purpose is to assure that (1) candidates for rulemaking are early and promptly identified, screened and thereafter annually reviewed to determine whether or not to proceed with rulemaking (2) rulemakings are assigned priorities cvTnensurate with their importance relative to accomplishing the NRC mission and (3) rulemakings are timely, effective, efficient, and of high quality.

For each proposal to initiate or continue a rulemaking, the proposing office is responsible for preparing and forwarding a proposed rulemaking review package in accordance with the procedures set forth ,

in a May 30, 1984 EDO memorandum to Directors of affected offices. In summary, the sponsoring office is to forward recommendations as to whether or not to continue a rulemaking to RES for independent review of the matter. Twenty (20) days thereafter, the Director of RES will forward independent recommendations concerning the rulemaking along with the sponsoring Office Director's recommendations to the EDO (ATTN:

DEDR0GR). The ED0 will then decide whether or not to proceed with the rulemaking and inform affected offices of the decision. This process is repeated once each year for ongoing rulemakings.

O 06/24/85 I-10

F I

l l

l

/ F. Control of NRC Rulemaking and Its Timeliness

[

V)

Associated with the rulemaking review and approval process established on February 13,1984, E00 initiated by memo of June 12, 1985, a rulemaking tracking and feedback system to help manage the timeliness of rulemaking. The purpose of this system is to insure that rules '

l

. under the E00's purview are finalized within about 2 years of their l inception. See Exhibit 3 for detailed procedures.

l l4 G. Regulatory History Rulemaking Procedures i

By ED0 memorandum of April 5,1985, " Regulatory History Procedures",

procedures were established for the creation of a regulatory history of each proposed and final rulemaking initiated by the offices reporting to the EDO. See Exhibit 4. The objective of the regulatory history is to ensure that all documents of central relevance to a particular rulemaking are identified and accessible and to facilitate the resolution of any issues that may arise concerning the interpretation of a particular regulation. Further information on these procedures will be included in periodic revisions of the NRC Regulations Handbook, NUREG/BR-0053.

H. Daily Staff Notes

- 1.

Purpose:

To provide the Commission with a daily report of significant events. See Exhibit 5.

2. Scope: Reported items should include issues of sufficient importance that the Commission would find it valuable to be advised promptly. Entries should be brief; if necessary, they can be followed up in detail in the Weekly Information Report or by means of a separate paper.

06/24/85 I-ll

3. Details of Reporting

a. All offices will submit reports as required. Negative report is required from Program Offices only.

b. Typed reports (original or good xerox copy) are submitted to A0/EDO by 9:00 a.m. daily. Brief reports may be phoned in. .

Faxed reports must be received by 4:45 p.m.

c. Reports should be concise -- a sentence (several at the maximum) -- for each item. Use "who, what, when, why, where" criteria to assure clarity. See Exhibit 6 for a sample.

d. Examples of possible input:

CP/0L/FES issuance or important related activities.

Orders / Civil Penalties Significant meetings / actions Important correspondence received / Congressional hearings requiring testimony / feedback on hearings Foreign incidents (major exposures or releases, ,

degradation of systems, generic problems); expand in Weekly Information Report)

Exemptions, orders, events related to a hearing, releases, operating problems, failures (as appropriate to a daily report; otherwise report in Weekly Information Report) 0 06/24/85 I-12

• Staff briefings for a Commissioner's Office or a (v Congressional Office Visits by Commissioners to Regional Offices or Regional Facilities

. I. Weekly Information Report

, 1.

Purpose:

To provide a single weekly document to include a general summary of the week's activities.

2. Scope: Since this report serves to advise a broad range of readership (Commission, staff to Branch Chief level and above, general public via PDR and subscription), it should be a genuine summary covering ongoing as well as completed items. It should particularly include items which the Commission should be aware of but which do not deserve the more formal treatment of an information paper.

D

3. Details of Reporting:

a. Offices submit typed reports (original or good xeron copy) to A0/ED0 by COB each Friday using format shown in Exhibit 7. Faxed reports must be received by 4:45 p.m.,

- Friday. Negative report is required from all offices.

. b. Individual issue reports should be limited to a paragraph or two.

c. Input should include:

• Status of major issues and projects in which the office is involved and with which staff or the Commission has an ongoing interest.

06/24/85 I-13

Reports of meetings / task groups which may be of interest outside the office involved.

Actions undertaken or projected which may be of interest outside the office involved.

Information which might normally be circulated as an Information Paper, unless it is either too difficult to reduce to one or two paragraphs or too timely to wait for issuance of the report.

Preliminary Notifications issued during the week, summarized /information closing out the action when complete (IE).

F0IA/ Privacy Act actions, summarized (ADM).

LWAs/ cps /0Ls.

Licensing Actions.

Significant foreign incidents or information.

Status of TMI activities. .

Upcoming significant meetings (see 3.e.). ,

Items otherwise requested to be a part of this report.

d. Items which are " sensitive" should be provided as a separate entry with the notation " Deleted from PDR copy" added at bottom of page. These items will be incorporated into a separate enclosure marked "for internal distribution" and will be deleted from copies made available to the public.

06/24/85 I-14

i p

t p e. Procedures for Reporting Meetings Q

1. Submit meeting notices as a separate page with the Weekly Information Report, using the format shown in Exhibit 8.

2. Include meetings with external groups and any really significant internal meetings.

3. Report meetings to be held during the two-week period beginning 10 days after the reporting date (e.g., the December 10 report will include meetings scheduled for the 2-week period beginning December 20).

4. Adjust the report each week to reflect schedule changes and additions. For significant meetings, report last minute changes and additions in the Daily Staff Notes.

O

(,f J. Weekly Staff Meetings ED0 staff meetings are usually held on Thursday mornings and are attended by Program Office Directors (or their deputies or designees),

and such others as may be invited. These meetings provide offices with the opportunity to raise and discuss important issues that might eventually be brought to the ED0 for resolution and discussion. '

K. Periodic Review of Major Office Program ,

In order to provide for a more consistent and logical framework for review of the programs of major offices, ED0 initiated on November 17, 1982 a practice of quarterly briefings.

g J

06/24/85 I-15

I Office Directors are to utilize these briefings to air programmatic problems and acquire decisions necessary for prompt and efficient exercise of their programmatic responsibilities. The OEDO staff will conduct these briefings on a continuing basis, raise questions necessary to assure that important issues are addressed as clearly as possible, and advise the ED0 of appropriate decisions / problems. See Exhibit 9 for implementing instructions.

On December 1, 1982, the ED0 issued guidelines for coordinating NRC program areas. Program briefings should include discussion of these -

areas for which an office is " lead", as well as for programs which are entirely internal to an office.

O O

O 06/24/85 I-16

A

/ \ SAMPLE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT Q

[USE SINGLE SPACING]

Approved For Publication In a final rule published March 19, 1982 (47 FR 11816), the Commission a delegated to the ED0 (10 CFR 1.40 (c) and (d)) the authority to develop and promulgate rules as defined in the APA (5 U.S.C. 551(4)) subject to the limitations in NRC Manual Chapter 0103, Organization and Functions, Office of

. the Executive Director for Operations, paragraphs 0213, 038, 039, and 0310.

• The enclosed final rule entitled " Administrative Claims Under Federal Tort Claims Act" amends 10 CFR Part 14 to make it current and consistent with the regulation of the Attorney General, 28 CFR Part 14, to change the office where claims are filed and the NRC officials who are authorized to act on claims, and to provide procedures when NRC employee drivers are sued in State courts. In issuing this rule the E00 is acting in accordance with the general policy guidance provided by the Commission in a final rule establishing the Commission's administrative procedures for implementing the Federal Tort Claims Act (32 FR 3731).*

This final rule does not constitute a significant question of policy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 0, 2, 7, 8, 9 Subpart C or 110. I therefore find that this rule is within the scope of my rulemaking

'( , authority and am proceeding to issue it.

i Date [Name]

l Executive Director for Operations

• ...

• Between asterisks insert the necessary description for the particular

. rule in question. These words are taken from a particular rule to serve as an example.

l l

O v

l 06/24/85 I-17 EXHIBIT 1 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ - _ . ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ , , _ _ , . - _ . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ - -

SAMPLE WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT

• OR DAILY STAFF NOTES ** ENTRY

[USE SINGLE SPACING]

Proposed or Final Rule Signed by E00 On , 1982, the Executive Director for Operations approved a

[ proposed rulej [ final rule] which revises 10 CFR Part 14, Administrative .

Claims under Federal Tort Claims Act. This rule would add to Part 14 (a) procedures which NRC is to follow when claims are filed with NRC and one or more other agencies, (b) a requirement that NRC employee drivers who ,

are sued in State Courts report such proceedings to the U.S. District Court if the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, (c) provisions for payment of claims over $2,500.00 through the General Accounting Office, and (d) provisions limiting attorney fees as provided in the governing statute. The rule authorizes the Executive Legal Director to determine, compromise, and settle claims.

While about half of the 49 claims filed during the past 4 years have been filed by rental car agencies, the average amount allowed has been less than

$250.00. The Executive Director for Operations therefore certified under the Regulatory Flexibility Act that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This notice constitutes notice to the Commission that, in accordance with the rulemaking authority delegated to EDO, [the ED0 has signed this proposed rule for publication in the FR.] [the ED0 has signed this final rule and proposes to forward it on to the Office of the Secretary for FR publication, unless otherwise directed by the Commission.]

• Weekly Information Report for Proposed Rules

• • Daily Staff Notes for Final Rules -

O 06/24/85 I-18 EXHIBIT 2

s

1. "*%, UNITED STATES x_ ., g *t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g h WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

• e

\;,i ...* ./ Juh 121985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations a

SUBJECT:

CONTROL OF RULEMAKING AND ITS TIMELINESS In a March 21, 1985 memorandum to Comissioner Zech, I addressed the matter of controlling rulemaking to assure that rulemaking is necessary, effective, effi-cient, of high quality and timely. Specifically, I identified our actions asso-ciated with the rulemaking review and approval process that I established early last year. In the memorandum, I committed to establishing a rulemaking tracking and feedback system to help us manage the timeliness of rulemaking. I propose to ensure that rules under my purview are finalized within about 2 years of their inception, cx I have asked RES to establish such a tracking system and to inform me promptly

; of rule schedule slippage and reasons for such slippage so that I can take the necessary action to get the rule (s) back on schedule. I am particularly inter-f ested in identifying and taking action on those rulemaking actions which are being excessively delayed because of failure to reach staff consensus.

Rather than establish a new tracking system, the existing quarterly update of the regulatory agenda will be modified to accomplish this objective. This will be accomplished as follows:

(1) Each office director will establish for each new rulemaking a scheduled final action date which will be within 2 years of its incep-tion (the final action date is the date the final rule is expected to be published in the Federal Register). For ongoing rulemaking, the final action date should be as close to 2 years from inception

• as possible, and in no case should be more than 2 years from the date of this memorandum.

(2) Each Office Director will provide the following information for the next quarterly update of the regulatory agenda for each rulemaking sponsored by his/her office.

- The target date for final action on the rule.

- three intennediate milestones for the current phase of the rulemaking (i.e., ANPRM, NPRM, final rule) which can be used for tracking purposes,

. Begin Division Review,

. Office Concurrence Complete,

. Submit Rule to EDO.

06/24/85 I-19 EXHIBIT 3

O This information has been requested in the May 28 memo from Pat Norry on Quarterly Update of the Regulatory Agenda.

(3) For each subsequent quarterly u Office Director will either (a)pdate of the certify thatregulatory each rule agenda, each is on schedule, (b) note that the schedule has slipped and specify the action being taken to get it back on schedule, or (c) note that the schedule is not

• likely to be met, the reason for the slippage and a new target date for final action on the rule.

For any new rulemaking initiated since the last quarterly update each Office Director will provide the information listed in item (2) above.

(4) Copies of quarterly updates will be sent to RES/DRA0 as well as to ADM/DRR. RES will independently review the schedule for each rulemaking and submit a sumary report to the ED0 with .ecommendations where ED0 attention is needed.

(5) RES will also review the status of each rulemaking during the RES independent review of the rulemakings and make recommendations to EDO on scheduling as appropriate.

4a Willia . Dircks

)

s Executive Director for Operations G

O 06/24/85 I-20 EXHIBIT 3

{ _

/ 'o

~g UNITED STATES

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

t'q , ! I WASHINGTON. D. C. 20665

[ APR 0 51985 l

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert B. Minogue, Director

. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation John G. Davis Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director (V ) G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data James R. Shea Director Office of International Programs FROM: William J. Dircks

- Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY PROCEDURES In a February 15, 1985 memorandum to Chairman Palladino, issued jointly with the Office of General Counsel, I informed the Chairman that procedures  ;

would be developed for the creation of a regulatory history of each proposed and final rulemaking initiated by the offices reporting to the EDO.

This memorandum outlines the individual office responsibilities for the implementation of the regulatory history procedures. The objective of the regulatory history is to ensure that all documents of central relevance to a particular rulemaking are identified and accessible. This will facilitate the resolution of any issues that may arise concerning the interpretation of a e particular regulation. The following procedures will be applicable to any

( proposed or final rule submitted to the Federal Register for publication v after the date of this memorandum. The Rules and Procedures Branch, Office 06/24/85 1 21 EXHIBIT 4

of Administration, will provide further information on these procedures, as necessary, in the periodic revision of the NRC Regulations Handbook, NUREG/BR-0053.

Program Office Responsibilities Each office that sponsors a proposed or final rulemaking shall ensure that:

1. all documents of central relevance to the factual basis, coverage, meaning, and historical development of the rulemaking are identified, and maintained during the course of the rulemaking. Although the Project Manager's judgment will be necessary in some instances to determine whether specific documents are of " central relevance" to a rulemaking, the following documents should be included:

. the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Independent Review Package (containing the RES recomendations on whether to proceed with the rulemaking, the sponsoring Office's recomendation to proceed with rulemaking, and the evaluation of the rulemaking proposal against the six criteria required for theRESIndependentReview)

. prior drafts of the rulemaking transmitted for interoffice review

. formal Office coments on the drafts submitted for interoffice review

. source dccuments relied upnn in preparing the draft rule (e.g.

research studies, consensus standards endorsed in the draft rule) -

. documents which synthesize or organize data in a fann relied upon in the draft rule .

. supporting documer.tation such as the regulatory analysis, the Cost Analysis Group Report, environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, regulatory flexibility analysis, and OMB Clearance Package

. public comments submitted in response to a Petition for Rulemaking, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

. Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) minutes and recomendations concerning the draf t rule

, the ACRS coments on the draf t rule 06/24/85 I-22 EXHIBIT 4

i i

i

! t

. the Comission Paper transmitting the draft rule to the l Comission or the memorandum transmitting the rule to the l . ED0 for approval

. the transcript or sumary of the Comission meeting or briefing .

, on consideration of the draft rule  :

. the Staff Requirements memo containing the Commission recommendations on the draft rule

, the Federal Register Notice for the rule (Petition for Rulemaking Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice ,

of Proposed Register notice Rulemaking Final Rule, issued concerning or any)other Federal the rule l i

. any other documents of central relevance (e.g. interagency l correspondence,agreementstatecorrespondence)  ;

f Documents that fall within* any of the above categories must i be typewritten rather than handwritten to permit conversion  ;

into microfiche by the Document Control System (DCS). If the only record of substantive office review comments on a draft rule are contained as handwritten annotations on the draft itself, the Project Manager should sumarize these coments in ,

a typed note to the file. l

2. At the completion of a particular rulemaking action, i.e. ,

publication of the proposed or final rule, the project manager  ;

shall compile an index of all documents that comprise the i regulatory history file. The Project Manager is responsible for identifying a source of access for each document listed.

For irternal documents, this will require the Project Manager i

, to ascertain whether each document listed is available in the ,

DCS. The Project Manager must ensure that any internal document not already available in the DCS is placed in the DCS, and that t

' the record's accession number is identified for each document J on the index. In the case of published documents (e.g. NUREGS,  !

NTIS publications, books, articles, etc.), it will be sufficient  !

to include the bibliographic citation for that document. The

! Project Manager shall forward the completed indes to the Rules  !

i and Procedures Branch. Office of Administration, within sixty I days after the completion of the rulemaking. The title of the i index, and the file, should be the name of the rule and applicable -

- NRCcitation(e.g.10CFRPart50)asitappearsintheFederal  !

I Register notice, the Federal Register citation and date of j publication.

1-23 EXHIBIT 4 06/24/85 f i  ;

Office of Administration The Rules and Procedures Branch, Office of Administration, will be responsible for ensuring that a completed index of the documents comprising the regulatory history has been compiled for each proposed and final .

rulemaking. The Rules and Procedures Branch is also responsible for retaining the index and for disseminating copies of the index to interested NRC offices.

(SignesWilliam1.Direks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations cc: Herzel H.E. Plaine, GC O

O O

06/24/85 1-24 EXHIDIT 4

SAMPLE DAILY STAFF NOTES O / [\ uneTao starts NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i, waswnserow.o.c.seems June 1, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Connissioner Gilinsky Connissioner Roberts Connissioner Asselstine Connissioner Bernthal FROM: William J. Dircks

- Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

DAILY STAFF NOTES - MAY 31, 1983

.[E_

1. IE Information Notice 83-35, Fuel Movement with Control Rods Withdrawn at BWRs was issued May 31, 1983, to all boiling water reactor facilities holding an operating license or construction permit.

Region !

1. R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant The Region I staff will be conducting an enforcement conference on June 1 1983, with Rochester Gas and Electric Company management regardIng their failure to perform the appropriate post ma' ntenance testing on the containment personnel air lock in October 1982.

NRR

1. Clinton Power Station 1111nois Power company announced on May 24, 1983 that the fuel load date for the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 has been revised from January 1984 to January 1986.

O 06/24/85 1-25 EXHIBIT 5

SAMPLE DAILY STAFF NOTES ENTRY NRR DAILY HIGHLIGHT September 12. 1983

1. Seabrook Station. Unit No. 2 ,

The owners of Seabrook Station. Unit No. 2 passed a resolution to reduce expenditures to a minimum level. Construction will be reduced to an activity level consistent with " maintaining" the construction permit.

This action places Unit 2 in an extended construction delay. PSNH will fonnally submit a letter by the end of this month providing details of its Unit 2 plans along with a copy of the resolution that was passed.

2. Arkansas Nuclear One. Unit No. 1 ANO-1 was manually shutdown from full power operation at 7:00 pm CDT Septenter 7,1983 as a result of an unidentified leakage of greater than 1gpm(TechnicalSpecificationlimit)intheReactorCoolantSystem.

The licensee identified the leak as being from a 3/4" "C" Reactor Coolant Pump Seal drain line at a pipe to flange weld. The licensee determined that this drain line can be shut and, therefore, has installed blind flanges on this line upstream of the leak and all like drain lines of the other RCP seals.

Because this event was a shutdown for a limiting condition of operation, an unusual event was declared.

3. Peach Bottom Unit No. 3 On September 7, 1983, during startup of Unit 3 after an extended refueling and pipe crack repair outage, an increase in the unidentified leakage rate was recorded with the reactor at 15% power and 1000 psi. .

Unidentified coolant leakage as measured at the floor sump pump increased from 0.75 gpm to 3.0 gpm in less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Reactor pressure was then decreased to 500 psi and a search for the source of leakage was made. It was detennined that the "B" recirculation dischargepumpvalve(M0538)wasleakingatthebodytobonnetflange.

An initial repair attempt by readjusting the torque around the bonnet failed to stop the leakage. Reactor pressure has been further decreased to 50 psi and the Senior Resident Inspector (SRI) now indicates that the licenseo plans to seal weld the bonnet to stop leakage. Seal-welding has been used previously by TVA to correct similar leakage problems and is an acceptable fix. This proposed repair technique was scheduled to conenence on September 8,1983 and be completed in two to three days.

1-26 EXHIBIT 6 06/24/05

SAMLE WEEKLY INFOMATION REPORT ENTRY O 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l ITEMS OF INTEREST l Week Ending August 26. Ig83 Dresden Nuclear Power Station. Unit No. 3 At Saturday midnight, unidentified drywell leakage rose again after about a month to 3gpm requiring licensee analysis to determine the source.

Containment air sampling was done with no abnormal indications and surveillance intervals between sump pumping were shortened to two hours. A reading of over 4gpm was reached duri one of these two hour intervals but the subsequent four hour value was 3.6 which does not require a drywell entry. The licensee, based on his anal sis to date believes that the leak is either in a recirculation pump discharge valve or in a recirculation pump seal. Although a drywell entry is not required at this time, the licensee is considering a shutdown later this week so that entry can be made. The reading at 12:00 noon on August 22 was 3.25 gps.

Indian Point 2 - Strikina Workers Return to Ip-2 O Moders of Local #1-2 Utility Workers of America have begun to relieve management watchstanders at Ip-2 following Thursday's vote to accept Con Edison's contract proposal. Reorientation of the returning operators, which includes required reading, classroom training and parallel watchstanding, will continue throvi$ all three normal Monday shifts.

Management watchstanders will reta'n control of operations until 11 p.m.

Monday night when the Tuesday mid* shift reports for work. The Ip-2 resident inspectors are providing 24-hour coverage of the turnover activities.

. _ Beaver Valley Unit 1 After core reload during the week of August 15. 1983 the licensee experienced troublelatchingonerodclustercontrolassently(RCCA). On August 20, 1983, after removal of the upper core internals package, the ent're K row of fuel assemblies was found shifted about 1/4 inch. The nosale on assembly K-2 (now fuel assembly) was crushed down about 7/8 of an inch with its associated RCCA displaced down approximately 2 inches. Underwater camera inspection of the bottom of the upper core plate was performed on August 22,1983. It was found that the control rod guide tube asses 61y has been aligned by guide pins that have been incorrectly placed on the upper core plate. (Apparently,when these pins were installed during a recent repair effort, they were mistakenly placed in the bypass holes on the upper core plate.)

The licensee believes that there is no damage to the fuel elements. The i damaged assembly will be withdrawn inspected and be replaced or repaired.

06/24/85 I-27 EMilDIT 7

IES EETING NOTICES August 26,1983 b*

DOCKET ATTENDEES /

DATE/ TIME E9eER LOCATI(31 PURPOSE APPLICANT NRC CONTACT 8/27-28/83 Boston. M 20/30 IFTF Measurteent Tests Zuber Zuber 8/28-9/1 Cambridge M International Mtg on LWR CSR8. ORNL. Agrawal INEL. LAML.

SNL 8/29/83 P-118 Sentscale Landry Landry y, 8/30/83 E

Idaho Falls. ID INEL MIST Support Young Young g 8/29/83 1133-55 Meeting with Mr. Finzi of Cortez M L

s AM CEC to discuss research Q

)

coordination E o

8/29/83 ha 79084 Meettag with 00E on waste RES. MSS Minogue 5 3:00 PM Forrtestal management d 81dg. l7, i 8/30/83 1140-55 Meeting with Mr. Cottrell Minogue of Oak Rtdge to discuss h the Nuclear Safety Journal -*

l 8/31/83 Hanover. M 1/2 Scale Thermal Mixing Tests Reyes Reyes 9/1/83 Los Alamos. M LAIR. MIST Support Young Young I

h 9/1/83 1717 H Street ACRS Mtg - Severe Accident ACRS/SARP Larkins g AM Manag/8CL Wang

[ 9/2/83 P-110 1stC/EPRI H Rvw. Mtg. CSRB/CHEB Larkins All Day Bethesda 2 MRR Branches EPRI t

(O MAJOR OFFICE PROGRAM REVIEWS i V Implementing Instructions l

A.

Purpose:

To provide for periodic reviews of major NRC programs which will surface existing and developing problem areas and provide a mechanism for decisions or other actions i by ECO on those problem areas affecting the progress of programs as far in advance as possible.  !

l B. Method: On approximately quarterly basis, Program Office -

Directors (NRR, NMSS, RES, and IE) will be scheduled to i brief EDO on programs of interest - interoffice programs (

, for which they are responsible as well as office  :

l programs. OEDO will provide a memo in advance of the i briefing indicating programs of special interest; Office i

, Directors will add those additional programs in which  !

they perceive an appropriate area should be addressed.

Briefings will bo concise and problem - as opposed to i status oriented. No viewgraphs or formalization will be required. More in-depth briefings, if required, will follow.

C. Scheduling

Two-hour blocks will be scheduled by the A0/EDO in

! coordination with the Offices.

D. Attendance:

. ' 1) will EDO, D/EDOl DEDROGR, A0/EDO, (senior person presen chair

2) Office Director of the Office involved '

3) Division Directors of the Office involved or senior Division men.ber available

4) Directors of other offices will attend or have a .

member (s) present. They will observe and participate on (

discussion of cross-cutting issues where relevant and i should be knowledgeable.

5) Supporting staff is not required E. Agenda: 1. OEDO will advise an Office one week prior to a scheduled meeting by memo of programs to be

. addressed. These items will constitute the first '

set of agenda items.

! 2. Office Directors will table a list of additional l

programs at the initiation of the meeting which they wish to address because problems have surfaced or are anticipated to surface prior to the next meeting. In developing this IIst, offices should review the EDO Program Guidance and lead office assignments in the EDO memorandum on Guidelines for Coordinating Program Areas. These items will ,

,m constitute the second set of agenda items. j v) 1 06/24/85 1 29 Exit! BIT 9

I

3. Programs will be informally discussed with the specific focus being on:

I a) programs which have or will slip and the causes thereof; b) issues on which cross-office problems exist; c) issues on which an E00 decision will speed work or provide him an opportunity to imprint a program in a significant direction; d) program outputs which are sufficiently of a surprise nature that advance notice is useful.

4. Office Directors will lead the discussion with '

support by Division Directors as required. The chair will allocate time and summarize decisions at the conclusion of the meeting.

O 6

0 06/24/85 l-30 MHIBIT 9

r i

<~

(iii) EDO and Others j

The final. reply that went through the appropriate concurrence chain, i.e., the writer, Branch Chief, Division Director, Office Director, ELD and/or RM, I and other coordinating offices as needed, should be forwarded to the OEDO:ACB, with necessary background -

information attached.

EDO will review for concurrence all correspon-dence prepared for the signature of the EDO, Chairman, or the Comissioners.

OEDO:ACB will forward the above to SECY for i Cc mission review and concurrence as  !

appropriate. .

OEDO:ACB will send replies to Congressional inquiries to the Office of Congressional Affairs l (CA)forreviewanddispatch. [

b. Editorial work and the tone are the responsibility of the office preparing the paper or correspondence. Concurring offices should concentrate on substantive issues rather than editing smaller points. i 1 e i 1

I f

v i

l- l l 06/24/85 II-9 I

i

c. Office Directors and Regional Administrators are expected to establish systems which either delegate authority to deal with an issue when it is assigned or to assure that an efficient method of providing guidance is established. Staff should not be exercised in developing a paper which is overturned at the eleventh hour.

d. When asking other offices to review and comment on a draft of a SECY paper or a letter, try to note changes between drafts -

(if more than one) by using lines in the margin beside major changes, underlining, or handwritten indications. This will help the reviewer focus on changes from previously reviewed material rather than having to do a line-by-line comparison.

9. Staff Inquiries,

a. All questions related to correspondence, suspenses, etc.,

shall be directed to OEDO:ACB.

b. Staff may, as necessary, contact initiators of correspondence to understand better the problem, request, etc. When Congressional staff is an initiator, contact should first be made with OCA.

10. Format

a. See Exhibits 4 and 5

b. Signature blocks The names and titles for signature blocks for use on principal correspondence can be found in the NRC telephone directory.

O 06/24/05 11-10

(Sample letter to Congress forwarding Federal Register Notice)

A The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman

,- - Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the Subcomittee are copies of a public announcement and a proposed amendment to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations which is to be published in the Federal Register.

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is proposing to amend its requirements for the Material Control and Accounting (MC&A) of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) at fuel cycle facilities. These amendments will better reflect the low strategic significance of LEU by eliminating unnecessarily burdensome requirements and allow greater license flexibility when implementing the regulations by replacing prescriptive requirements with performance O capability statements. Through this action a greater distinction will be drawn between MCAA requirements for LEU and those for the more significant strategic special nuclear material.

The Comission is issuing the proposed amendment for a sixty-day public coment period.

< Sincerely,

[name), Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety

!, and Safeguards

Enclosures:

1. Public Announcement

2. Federal Register Notice

( cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan l

j 10ENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO THOSE ON ATTACHED LIST i

06/24/85  !!! 35 EXHIBIT 9

O The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Connittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc: Sen. Gary Hart .

The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power

• Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead O

O 06/24/85 111-36 EXHIBIT 9

p IV. COMMISSION MEETINGS b

General A. Guidelines

~

B. Types of Commission Meetings

1. Briefings

2. Decision Meetings

3. Affirmation Sessions C. Scheduling D. Documents for Commission Meetings p E. Staff Attendance F. Sunshine Act Voting Requirements G. Distribution of Closed Commission Meeting Transcipts H. Conunission Votes

1. Definition of Votes

2. Basis for Determining Voting Results

3. Recording of Commission Decisions Exhibits l

i 06/24/85 IV-1

. ~ . . _ _ . _ . . . . _ . - . . _ _

III. Commission Meetings Only formal actions which have legal impact in relation to third parties, such as adoption of a rule, would legally require a Commission vote "en banc".

Actions such as submission of a designated study, approval of a tiudget request, or appointment of certain officials still require the lesser formality of Commission votes submitted without meeting although they do not have such legal impacts.

Immediately before each open Ccmmission meeting, the SECY will place copies of SECY papers or other documents identified on the Commission schedule as the central issue for discussion on a table in the rear of the Commission meeting room for people attending the meeting. Papers dealing with issues which require discussion of non-releasable material will be considered in closed Commission session. (See " Sunshine Act Voting Requirements" under F of this section.) If a paper requires reference to information which is exempt from public disclosure, the exempt information must be furnished in a cross-referenced supplemental paper to assure proper protection of the material.

Unofficial transcripts of all open Commission meetings are kept in the Phillips and Willste Libraries for a period of six months and are available ,

to the NRC staff. These transcripts are unedited and unreviewed, and should not be quoted without verification from SECY. See G of this section for .

distribution of transcripts of closed Conmission meetings.

O 06/24/85 IV-2

i A. Guidelines V

1. The Commission desires as a matter of general policy to change the emphasis of Commission meetings and reduce the number of information and status briefings; conversely a greater percentage of time will be spent on meetings which result .in decisions and/or guidance to the staff for further action. It'is anticipated that informational briefings will be gradually replaced with information papers and briefings to individual Comissioners if they so desire. Information briefings for individual Commissioners may (if they so desire) be noticed, held in the Commissioners' Conference Room, and may be transcribed at the individual Commissioner's request. Hopefully it will reduce the amount of time and effort now expended by the Commission and staff on information/ status briefings. This change is not intended, however, to preclude the staff from recommending information briefings to the Commission where it believes that circumstances necessitate.

O)

\

\_/

2. The presentation to the Commission should be based on the assumption that Commissioners have read the background paper (s) and are familiar with its contents.

3. Briefings should be prepared to cover approximately one half of the allotted time; the remainder should be reserved for questions and answers.

4. At the outset, briefers should clearly identify the focus of the briefing, should indicate whether there are any health or safety implications, and describe any potential new resource requirements (both personnel and financial).

5. Briefers should summarize background history. Only the important events should be emphasized.

l u

06/24/85 IV-3

6. Briefers are requested not to read slides and handouts verbatim and only to discuss the high points to which they wish to focus the Comission's attention.

7. Every effort should be made to complete the briefing within the allotted time.

B. _ Types of Comission Meetings

1. Briefings - Information is presented by staff for Comission -

discussion or to obtain Comission guidance. A Comissioner vote is not anticipated. (See Section A - Guidelines.) The briefings may or may not concern a pending staff paper.

2. Decision Meetings - Discussion with staff of policy issues or license applications which have been presented to the Comission for decision.

3. Affirmation Sessions - Short meetings required by law to ratify, in all Commissioners' presence, votes previously cast by paper ballot on Affirmation papers circulated. (Staff is not required to attend.)

C. Scheduling Schedules of Commission meetings are reviewed and approved by the Commission at a weekly Agenda Planning Session chaired by the Chairman. Commissioners or their representatives and representatives from EDO, OGC, OPE, SECY, OCA and OPA normally attend and participate in the discussion of schedules for a six-week cycle - the current week and the five succeeding weeks. Comission meetings are generally scheduled to be held on Wednesdays and Thursdays, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. The next week's schedule and agenda items are published and distributed on Friday by SECY. Such information is also provided to the public through an automatic Telephone Answering Service (Number (202) 634-1498) which operates 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day.

06/24/85 IV-4

rm n D. Documents for Comission Meetings t

U

1. Papers

a. For Comission meetings at which a Comission paper is reauired, that paper must be to the Conmission five (5) working days before the meeting (e.g., received cob Monday by SECY for a meeting Tuesday the next week).

EDO should have at least three (3) working days for his review.

~

I

b. When a meeting is requested because of unusual circumstances or in order to allow a Comission meeting to proceed which otherwise might be cancelled because the 5-working-day deadline has not been met, EDO may, on request, authorize an office to:

i) Submit a draft for early review by EDO, or brief him, in p order to save the 3 days set aside for ED0 review.

ii) Submit on the above schedule a document complete except j for a minor portion to be submitted separately prior to-the meeting.

2. Briefing Outline and Viewgraphs '

a. For Commission meetings at which a Comission paper is not ,

required, a briefing outline must be submitted on the same schedule as outlined above. The detail should be suffict'ent to provide the Comission with the thrust and essential elements of what is to be discussed. See Exhibit 1.

\

06/24/85 IV-5

b. Viewgraphs, if utilized, must be provided to ED0 two (2) working days before a scheduled Commission meeting (e.g.,

received cob Thursday for a meeting Tuesday the next week).

For a Commission meeting open to the public, 50 copies should be provided; 25 copies for a closed meeting. Viewgraphs should have on each page a date, contact, Office and a telephone number. See Exhibit 2.

c. All viewgraphs should be prepared by the originating office, using the IBM 10-pitch selectric typewriter or speechwriter. -

The materials needed and instructions are available from copy centers at Phillips, Willste, Nicholson Lane, and H Street buildings.

E. Staff Attendance The " lead" office for a Commission briefing / discussion snould notify other offices whose attendance they desire as early as possible after a session is scheduled.

Each Director's office will advise ACB:0EDO (x27585) of their office attendance by noon one working day before a scheduled Commission meeting. Attendance should be limited to those who may be expected to contribute to the discussion and their backup. If an office wishes to have someone present just to keep track of Commission discussion on an ,

issue, such attendance must be limited to one person.

ED0 will review attendance lists and will advise offices if attendance requires adjustment.

O 06/24/85 IV-6

['N Please see that staff is advised of this procedure as it implies that V) attendance by individual staff is appropriate only with Office-level approval.

F. Sunshine Act Voting Requirements Comission meetings are publicly announced at least one week in advance. Meetings are open to public attendance unless it is determined, oy vote of three members of the Commission, that the meeting should be closed. If closed, the General Counsel is required to certify the justification for closing a meeting. In such cases, the SECY papers must indicate " closed session" under the scheduling block of the paper and the paper appropriately marked. See Exhibit 3 for the types of materials that are normally exempt from public disclosures, and the way for marking SECY papers on such issues. A recommendation for closing the meeting must be prepared in memo format to the Office of the Secretary. See Exhibit 4. A list of anticipated attendees,

/* if known at the time, should be listed or included as an enclosure to 5

\ the memo.

The Commission is also required to vote to hold meetings announced with less than seven (7) days public notice. Votes of three members are required. Briefings on Information Papers are generally scheduled for the individual Commissioner at his/her own request, with other Comm 4sioners invited to attend. If a majority of the Commission atte:4 the briefing, it will constitute a Commission meeting and be subject to Sunshine Act requirements.

G. Distribution of Closed Commission Meeting Transcripts In order to increase the awareness of the sensitivity of closed Commission meeting transcripts, SECY has initiated the following procedures for the distribution of these transcripts:

N, 1. All copies will be numbered and a record maintained by SECY of

'd when and where they are sent.

06/24/85 IV-7

I

2. Signed receipts will be obtained for all copies, i l

l

3. Copies may not be reproduced. Additional copies needed should be 1 obtained from SECY.

H. Comission Votes On each Affirmation or Notation Vote paper, the Comissioners may

" Approve," " Disapprove," " Abstain," "Not Participate," or " Request Discussion." Comission vote sheets are distributed to staff by ED0 for information. If action is required on a particular vote sheet it

-)

will be controlled by an E00 Control ticket. See Exhibit 5 for a I sample vote sheet. )

A quorum consists of " Approve" votes, " Disapprove" votes and those

" Abstain" votes needed to establish a quorum. Action is taken only when a majority of Comissioners participating in the matter (the quorum) has approved, or disapproved the item. Abstaining Commissioners are recorded as "Not Participating."

1. Definition of Votes a) Approved This constitutes agreement with the recommendations contained in the applicable Commission paper.

b) Disapproved This constitutes disagreement with the recommendations contained in the applicable Commission paper.

c) Request Discussion Sel f-explanatory.

O 06/24/85 IV-8

f'} d) Abstain This is a statement of not partici-

\_) pating in making the decision on the applicable Comission paper. However, it indicates a willingness to partici-pate for the purpose of establishing "a quorum required for Commission action," if needed. As such it will be counted for quorum purposes only.

This vote is otherwise treated the same as a vote of not participating.

e. Not Participating This is a statement of not partici-pating in making the decision on the applicable Commission paper. As such, the vote will not be counted in either determining the action of the Commission or the presence of a quorum.

p

2. Basis for Determining Voting Results The following rules are applied in determining the Commission voting results:

a) a quorum is required to act.

b) a quorum consists of those Commissioners participating M votes plus no votes plus the number of those voting to abstain which may be required to constitute a quorum).

c) action is based on the majority of those participating h votes plus no votes plus the abstain votes used for quorum purposes).

When "No Action" results, the SECY paper will be returned to the originating office without action.

06/24/85 IV-9

3. Recording of Comission Decisions SECY records Commission decisions in the form of SECY memoranda or Commission Orders to staff which the staff receives two to three days after the meeting. These include a basic statement of Commission action on the recommendation (s) of a paper and an expression of individual Commissioners' views when appropriate. .

Requirements for additional action by the staff are also included with appropriate action dates. Short term actions will be tracked by EDO:ACB by E00 Control ticket and long-term actions in WITS.

(See Chapter VII for discussion of WITS.)

O O

06/24/85 IV-10

l l.

l l

(Sample Briefing Outline)

BRIEFING ON NRC INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT STUDY ACTIVITIES

' PURPOSE

-The purpose of this briefing is to provide the NRC Commissioners with information on those near-term and long-term IE study activities directed toward determining how much and what type of inspection and enforcement activity is enough to properly support the NRC mission.

SCOPE ,

The briefing will present an overview of the coordinated study activities within IE, describing the current list of planned in-house and contractual activities, resource requirements, and related on-going efforts.

l. BRIEFING OUTLINE N I. Introduction II. Purpose, Methodology and Approach III. Dimensions of the Study i IV. Study Subsystems and Modules

( A. Policy Studies B. Studies of IE Techniques C. Resource Allocation Methodology A

f a

4 06/24/85 IV-11 EXHIBIT 1

-,-----,,ee-- ---w,,..-.,---.--,y--,-~--yv. , _ - - - . , - - . - - - - . - - - - - -

_r,-,- - , -.,,wo,,, ,- y-, ,--w ,,

l l O

$ lilSTORY - GENERAL PROPOSED CLEARANCE RULE PUBLISilED FOR COMENT (1977)

COMISSION ESTABLISilED llEARING BOARD (1978)

BOARD RECOMMENDED (1979)/AND COMMISSION DIRECTED (1980) c

- DEVELOP AN ACCESS AUTHORIZATION RULE FOR ,E POWER REACTORS - INDUSTRY RUN PROGRAM 9

SAFETY / SAFEGUARDS REVIEW COMITTEE (1982/1983) 3 5

GA0 REPORT (1983) l cn SEARCH AND VITAL 8REA CONTROL ISSUES (1977-1983)

M m

(Name, Office)

(Tele No.)

(Date)

\ GUIDELINES FOR MARKING AND WITHHOLDING MATERIAL FROM PUCLIC DISCLOSURE

-[Q A. Material co'nsidered appropriate for withholding from public disclosure includes:

1. Information specifically authorized by Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and in fact classified pursuant to an Executive Order (exemption 1 of the Freedom of Information Act). Such information includes, for example:

, a. documents containing information concerning measures for the physical protection of significant quantities of strategic nuclear material;

b. documents containing information concerning measures for the physical protection of nuclear facilities (i.e., production or utilization facilities or any other facilities or activities) involving such material provided that the dis-closure of such information may be reasonably expected to facilitate theft, diversion or sabotage; and

c. documents containing information concerning control and accounting procedures for significant quantities of strategic nuclear material, including but not limited to inventory dis-Q crepancy data generated under such procedures. This infor-mation shall remain classified for at least a period of six months after it is generated, or any longer period of active ongoing investigation. At the expiration of six months or the conclusion of a related investigation, whichever is later, such data may be declassified.

2. Material specifically exempted from disclosure by a Federal statute other than the F0IA, such as Restricted Data (exemption 3 of the F0IA).

3. Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential (exemption 4 of the

. F0IA). Such information includes, for example:

a. documents furnished to the NRC and determined to be

" proprietary" under 10 CFR 2.790(b);

b. other documents furnished to the NRC containing " company proprietary" information;

\

06/24/85 IV-13 EXHIBIT 3

c, documents which identify a licensee's (or applicant's) procedures for safeguarding licensed special nuclear material (plutonium, uranium-233, or uranium-235 enriched above 20%; and

d. documents which identify a licensee's (or applicant's) detailed security measures for the physical protection of a licensed facility or plant in which licensed special nuclear material is possessed or used.

4. Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal

• privacy (exemption 6 of the F0IA).

5. Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but -

only to the extent that the production of such records would (i) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (ii) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (iii) constitute an unwarranted invasion of pers,onal privacy, (iv) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enfo'rcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency con-ducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, (v) disclose investigative techniques and procedures, or (vi) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel (exemption 7 of the F0IA).

B. Markigs of such information should be as follows:

(1) Security classification markings made in accordance with NRC Appendix 2101, Part III.

(2) Official Use Only, Proprietary Information and Safeguards Information markings made in accordance with NRC Appendix 2101, Parts IV, XVI and XVII.

(3) With other markings specifying the basis for withholding from ,

public disclosure (for example, " Exempt from disclosure under F0IA exemption because"), the name and position title of the person authorizing such marking, and the date on which the marking was authorized. -

0 06/24/85 IV-14 EXHIBIT 3

(Sample Sunshine Act Mimo Recommending Closed Meeting)

1. ig UNITED STATES 8[ o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Og g,...../

MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission FROM: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations 4

4

SUBJECT:

[TitleofPaper]

It is recommended that the subject paper be scheduled for a closed meeting in accordance with the following Sunshine Act exemption (s)

[Listnumberofexemption(s).]

[ Statement describing how specific exemption (s) apply to the subject item.]

[ Statement as to why public interest would be furthered by a closed meeting.]

[Listattendees,bothNRCandexternal,ifknown.]

(

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations u

D 4

1 1

L 4 i

06/24/85 IV 15 EXHIBIT 4

(Sample Comissioner Vote Sheet) ,

NOTAT10N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET JShea. IP (copies FYI provided TRehm by EDO)

T0: SAMUEL d. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM: CHAIRMAN PALLADINO

SUBJECT:

SECY-83-388 - PROPOSED EXPORT OF REPROCESSING INFORMATION UNDER PART 810 TO WEST GERMANY APPROVED DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:

O l -

l l

• [ bs V " 31bNAIUKL

\ 9/st/c3 UAIL l

SECRETARIAT NOTE: PLEASE ALSO RESPOND TO AND/OR COMMENT ON OGC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ON.E HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

06/24/85 IV-16 EXHIBIT 5 l

NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80

(0UESTION INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAT) l

( )

( ,/ OVESTION 6. (B) WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING AND TRANSMITTING RESPONSES TO RM OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE?

. ANSWER.

WHEN A QUESTION IS ASSIGNED TO MORE THAN ONE OFFICE -- FOR INSTANCE, NRR/RES/NMSS -- THE FIRST OFFICE LISTED IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING A REPLY THAT HAS BEEN C0ORDINATED WITH THE OTHER OFFICES. THE SECONDARY OFFICES SHOULD SEND THEIR INPUT TO THE ANSWER TO THE PRIMARY OFFICE.

THE PRIMARY OFFICE ASSIGNED WILL THEN TRANSMIT VIA DATA PHONE

()

THE FINAL COORDINATED STAFF RESPONSE TO THE APPROPRIATE RM OR OTHER OFFICE WORD PROCESSING CONTACT.

WHEN THE PRIMARY OFFICE ASSIGNED DOES NOT HAVE WORD PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO THEM, PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL (EVEN IF IT IS CUT-AND-PASTE) AND ONE COPY (EACH WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS) TO RM

, OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE.

WHERE MAG CARDS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, PROVIDE THE ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY AND THE MAG CARDS (APPROPRIATELY INDEXED) TO RM OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE.

l SIMPSON/ED0 G )'

[DATE}

06/24/85 V-5

C. Congressional Testimony Testimony for Congressional Hearings should be typed on word processing equipment in double space on bond paper using a speechwriter element (orator or rhetoric). One copy of the testimony is to be provided to ED0 for forwarding to 0CA. OCA will obtain any Commission comments and coordinate revisions with staff and EDO. OCA will prepare final .

testimony or request staff to do so. See Exhibit 3 for sample ED0 and Chairman testimony.

D. _ Congressional Hearing Transcripts and Inserts for the Record Congressional transcripts for editing of staff's remarks are forwarded by OCA to E00 or direct to staff appearing at the hearing. Involved staff are to edit their remarks by marking up the transcript and forwarding direct to 0CA. If there are no comments or they are minor, a call to OCA will be sufficient. Inserts for the record which are required *<ill usually be noted, but staff should double check. When required, inserts should be sent to ED0 for review and forwarding to OCA. See Exhibit 4 for a sample " Insert for the Record."

E. Congressional Correspondence Letters from Congress are Principal Correspondence and should be pre-pared in accordance with the instructions in Chapter II, Correspondence. .

Refer also to NRC Manual Chapter 0240, Correspondence Management.

F. Procedures for Handling Legislation and Executive Orders

1. New Legislation

a. Requests for new legislation will be dealt with in two categories:

(i) As required. When a specific need is identified that is important and urgent, staff will notify the Commission, justifying the need and outlining the requirements. On 06/24/85 V-6

l MEMBERSHIP AND ADDRESSES OF L

NRC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES l

j []/

On matters related to NRC activities generally, all correspondence should be y addressed to:

PRINCIPAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation l Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: Sen. Gary Hart

- The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives g3 Washington, D.C. 20515 G] cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead j Or.. matters related to budget, correspondence should also be addressed to:

l The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Comittee on Appropriations

. United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. John Myers The Honorable Mark Hatfield, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy and Water Development Comittee on Appropriaticns United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

, cc: Sen. J. Bennett Johnston

/%

06/24/85 V-11 EXHIBIT 2 P

,m .. . _.-. .-__

. , _ , -__.-.,y_..--.-. _ _

On matters related to international affairs, correspondence should also be addressed to:

The Honorable Dante B. Fascell, Chairman Comittee on Foreign Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. William S. Broomfield The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, Chairman .

Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 ,

cc: Sen. Claiborne Pell The Honorable Thad Cochran, Chairnan Subcommittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Processes Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: Sen. John Glenn

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w*************************

On matters related to NRC's research program, correspondence should also be addressed to:

The Honorable Marilyn Lloyd, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Research and Production Committee on Science and Technology United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Sid Morrison -

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • +*********************

The following Subcommittees have interface with NRC and, depending on the subject matter, should be kept informed of significant NRC actions and activities:

The Honorable John Dingell, Chairman Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. James T. Broyhill 06/24/85 V-12 EXHIBIT 2

The Honorable Mike Synar, Chairman Subcomittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Comittee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. William F. Clinger, Jr.

.. The Honorable James Weaver, Chairman Subcomittee on General Oversight, Northwest Power, and Forestry Management Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Charles Pashayan, Jr.

All should be addressed as "

Dear Mr. Chairman:

" or "

Dear Madam Chairman:

" as appropriate.

O U

e O

06/24/85 V-13 EXHIBIT 2

~

Sample CongrJ,SSional Testimony Fermat O

PREPARED TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY -

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PRESENTED BY NUNZIO J PALLADINO, CHAIRMAN TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE g

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

~

LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1983 SUBMITTED: SEPTEMBER 23, 1983 0

06/24/85 V-14 EXHIBIT 3

-~ THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I AM PLEASED TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU AND YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE TODAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE

" NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1983." SEVERAL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE NRC STAFF ACCOMPANY ME TODAY. BEFORE BEGINNING OUR TESTIMONY, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR EXPEDITIOUSLY HOLDING HEARINGS ON THIS SUBJECT.

THE CURRENT NRC LICENSING PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ENACTED 29 YEARS AGO IN THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT. THAT LICENSING PROCESS WAS A PRUDENT COURSE TO FOLLOW WHEN THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY WAS IN ITS EARLY CONCEPTUAL AND DEVELOPMENT YEARS. IN THE EARLY YEARS THERE WERE MANY FIRST-TIME NUCLEAR PLANT APPLICANTS, DESIGNERS AND CONSTRUCTORS, AND MANY NOVEL DESIGN CONCEPTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE PROCESS WAS STRUCTURED TO ALLOW LICENSING DECISIONS TO BE MADE WHILE DESIGN WORK WAS STILL IN PROGRESS AND TO FOCUS ON CASE-SPECIFIC REVIEWS OF Y INDIVIDUAL PLANT-SITE CONSIDERATIONS.

06/24/85 y-15 EXHIBIT 3

Sample Insert for the Record INSERT FOR THE RECORD HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS HEARING ON EffERGENCY FREPAREDNESS

[DATE OF HEARING]

Insert for page 56, line 1293 At the hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held on July 8,1983 concerning emergency preparedness at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, a question was raised regarding evacuation time estimates. In response, reference was made to portions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Initial Decision of May 1982, which reflects the determination of the maximum evacuation time estimate as ranging from approximately two and one-half hours under optimal conditions to approximately seven and one-quarter hours under adverse weather conditions.

A copy of relevant sections of that Decision is attached.

A review of documents after the submission of the Commission's testimony for the August 2nd hearing disclosed that an additional evacuation estimate was prepared by the licensee, Southern California Edison, in the context of addressing the complicating effects of earthquakes on emergency preparedness. In light of the Commission's decision which foreclosed consideration of this issue by the Licensing Board, however, that time estimate was not addressed in the Licensing Board's Initial Decision.

Nevertheless, it had been considered by the Staff in its safety evaluation of the facility which was completed prior to the Commission's decision. SCE's evaluation concludes that under severe evacuation route disruption, evacuation of the 10-mile north sector could require up to 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br />. A copy of the pertinent page of the StaU's evaluation, contained in Supplement No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Repnrt, NUREG-0712, is enclosed for your information and inclusion in the hearing record.

Attachments:

As stated .

O 06/24/85 V-16 EXHIBIT 4 L

l l

l l

l VI. PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO GA0 REQUESTS AND REPORTS AND OIA AUDIT

'O REPORTS A. Introduction B. GA0 Audits f

1. Initial Contact l i

2. Preliminary Survey - Quick Data Gathering {

3. The Audit i

i - C. Draft GA0 Report r D. Final GA0 Report  ;

1. Initial Contact f

2. Suspense Dates

3. 60-Day Response Requirement  ;

i

4. Format and Content E. Annual Compilation of NRC Actions Taken on Comptroller General  !

Recommendations j l

F. Follow-up 5 i

G. OIA Audit Reports l i Exhibits l l t

' . I l  :

h I

f i

j t

I i

I I

06/24/85 VI-1 l l

1

A \

V

I. PROCEDURE

S FOR RESPONDING TO GA0 REQUESTS AND REPORTS AND OIA AUDIT REPORTS t

\

A. INTRODUCTION One of the General Accounting Office's (GAO) principal functions is to audit program activities, financial transactions, and accounts of the Federal Government agencies, and to report to the Congress and the audited agencies its audit.results.  ;

An audit may be initiated in response to Congressional inquiries, private citizen requests, or due to GAO-identified needs. A GA0 draft report on its audit findings is sent to the audited agency for comment. The final report usually contains recommendations that require actions to be taken by the agency.

The purpose of this procedure is to explain GA0's auditing procedures and to lh 77 provide NRC staff guidance for interaction with GA0 during its activities within NRC.

B. GAO AUDITS

1. Initial Contact

, Effective April 1,1985, the responsibility for coordinating GA0's activities within NRC was transferred from the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) to the Office of the Executive Director for Operations (EDO). The NRC point of contact with GA0 is the Assistant  :

for Operations, EDO. Prior to initiating any planned work, GA0 i will inform E00 of their intention, purpose, scope, etc. EDO, in turn, notifies the Comission, Commission offices, and arranges for an entrance conference, if necessary, attended by GAO, EDO, and offices affected by the audit (as determined and notified by the E00). During this conference, GA0 will brief the NRC staff l ,G 06/24/85 VI-3 l

on its audit objectives, method of operation, schedule, etc. NRC participants will provide GA0 with a brief overview of how their operations relate to GA0's identical interests and the current status of the area to be audited. The NRC points of contact for the audit are established by the ED0 in this meeting.

2. Preliminary Survey - Quick Data Gathering Occassionally, GA0 may wish to gather certain background information in as short a time as possible for planning succeeding -

phases of the audit. An entrance conference may not be needed if it is clear as to which office can best provide the needed data.

E00 may ask GA0 to contact directly designated persons in the Office in question.

3. The Audit After the initial contact, GA0 will contact offices directly for needed records or information throughout the office process.

However, GA0 will notify ED0 of any deviations from stated audit objectives, or any problems or policy issues that arise during the course of an audit. ED0 should be advised by offices in all instances in which information requested by GA0 includes classified or proprietary information. Classified information should be handled within established procedures; i.e., need to .

know determined and security clearance verified. If classified material is related tn the audit, that generally constitutes a "need to know." Questions should be referred to EDO.

4. ED0 issues a quarterly report on the status of all ongoing GA0 activities concerning NRC operations to the Chairman, Conmissioners, and Office Directors.

O 06/24/85 VI-4

, ~'

C. GA0 DRAFT REPORT

(  !

x_/

1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the GA0 draft audit reports are sent to ED0 for NRC's review and coment. E00 imediately distributes copies to the Commission and its staff offices (OPE, OCA, etc.).

2. Depending on the subject of the draft report, appropriate offices are assigned by the EDO, through its E00 Control ticket system, to review and coment on the report. A suspense date is indicated on the Control ticket.

3. OED0 determines, after discussion with offices, whether a meeting with GA0 is desirable in order to clarify facts, contest conclusions, etc.

a. If a meeting is scheduled, a lead office will be assigned to mark up a copy of the draft report. NRC does not attend GA0 l (~'y meetings without a coordinated view. Such mark-up will

,C) consolidate the comments of all offices concerned, and a cover sheet summarizing the major points of issue will be included. The package will be furnished to GA0 at the meeting.

2

b. If no meeting is required (or upon receipt of a revised draft), a lead office will be designated to prepare a consolidated staff response to the GA0 Director for EDO signature. The content of the letter should address any major facts, findings, or conclusions with which the staff finds difficulties, either factual or policy reasons, and should be in accord with the anticipated Comission response to the recomendations (see D.3.). If the staff has no differences in the draft, the letter need merely so p

06/24/85 yI.5

state. This letter will normally be published in the final GA0 report as an appendix. (See Exhibit 1 for example.)

c. The draft letter will be sent by OEDO to the Office of the Chairman for review.

4. NRC is normally given 30 days to respond to a draft GA0 report.

If more than 30 days is required, Public Law 96-226 requires that

• the Chairman request exemptions from the Comptroller General and limits extensions to 30 additional days. Staff is, therefore, -

expected to meet deadlines.

5. On some occasions, GA0 may request NRC comments in less than 30 days. In these instances, on a case-by-case basis, ED0 will determine the best method for handling the request. If a meeting is set up for the NRC staff to offer oral comments to GAO, GA0 will forward a copy of the meeting minutes or a revised draft to ED0 as soon as possible to ensure that the oral comments have been accurately interpreted by GA0.

D. GA0 FINAL REPORT

1. Initial Contact GA0 provides E00 with twenty-five (25) copies of the final report.

~

ED0 will make distribution to the Commissioners and the appropriate NRC offices (e.g., those that reviewed and commented on the draf t report). -

0 06/24/85 VI-6

.~

j 2. Suspense Dates

-( v} In its memorandum distributing the final GA0 report, ED0 indicates the dates by which the draft response should be sent to the Commission and by which the response is due at the Congressional Comittees . EDO assigns to appropriate offices, by ED0 Control ticket, the task of preparing the draft statements. ED0 usually

'

• allows the offices about 30 days. Overdue responses are also monitored by ED0 by means of the quraterly GA0 status report.

3. 60-Day Response Requirement If the final GA0 report contains recommendations to NRC or to Heads of Federal Agencies, the Chairman is required to submit to the Congress a written statement on the actions taken within 60 days of the date of the report. ED0 is responsible for coordinating and finalizing the responses to GAO, OMB, and Congressional Committees.

4. Format and Content

a. Response should be in the form of a Notation Vote paper with forwarding letters to Congressional Committees, GAO, and OMB from the Chairman, NRC. This response is a Commission (as opposed to a staff) response and should stand by itself separately from staff comments on the draft.

b. Substance should include such introductory comments as the l

} NRC should make to correct findings or to contest l conclusions. Each recommendation should be addressed, indicating NRC concurrence, non-concurrence, or that action is complete. A brief description of either why NRC does not iO O

06/24/85 VI-7

concur, or the action we propose to undertake /have undertaken, and a date for completion of action should be included if that is relevant.

c. An example is attached as Exhibit 2. Appropriate addresses are listed at Exhibit 3.

E. ANNUAL COMPILATION OF NRC ACTIONS TAKEN ON COMPTROLLER GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act requires NRC to submit an annual statement to the House and Cenate Appropriations Committees summarizing NPC actions taken during that calendar year on all GA0 report recommendations made no more than 60 days before NRC's first request for appropriations. Significant actions taken on GA0 reports issued in prior years are also included in this statement. The statement is compiled by RM, based on all 60-day response letters prepared during the year. RM then circulates this statement to the operating offices for updating. The annual compilation is due to the Committees each year with NRC's first request for appropriations.

F. F0LLOW-UP Each recommendation for which NRC has committed action will be entered in WITS and followed to completion. .

G. OIA Audit Reports The Office of Inspector and Auditor is responsible for conducting NRC internal audit activity at all levels of operation. Once OIA completes its audit, a draft report is forwarded to the ED0 soliciting comments on the recommendations in the report prior to finalizing and sending it O

06/24/85 VI-8

to the Comission. - Coments are required within 30 days of the date of

@ the report.

EDO forwards the report to the appropriate Office by ED0 control ticket to. prepare a response to 0IA for ED0's signature. See Exhibit 4. Each recommendation in the report must be addressed. All open items will be entered in WITS and followed to completion.

G e:

06/24/85 VI-9

Sample Letter to Congress Forwarding NRC Response to Final GAO Report n\s_/.

The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on Governmental l

Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 60 days of publication, we hereby submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report entitled, "The Problem of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level Waste: Where Do We Go From Here?"

t The Commission in its responses to several GA0 recommendations (Item Nos. 3, 4 and 7 of the Enclosure) believes that the protection of the public health and safety could be enhanced through legislation that would establish minimum technical and procedural standards for the development and operation of low-level waste disposal sites. This legislation should assure that

['~')\

(,_, uniform minimum national standards are followed in these areas for both i Agreement and non-Agreement States. Over the past year the Commission has testified before several Congressional Committees in favor of such legislation.

Specific comments on the GA0 recommendations are presented in the Enclosure.

Sincerely, (Name)

Chairman

Enclosure:

Responses to GA0 Recommendations cc: Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton IDENTICAL LETTERS TO THOSE ON ENCLOSED LIST

[G 06/24/85- VI-13 EXHIBIT 3

O The Honorable Jack Brooks, Chairman Committee on Government Operations i United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Frank Horton The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: Sen. Gary Hart The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead The Honorable Charles A. Bowsher Comptroller General of the United States "

General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 The Honorable David A. Stockman Director Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. 20503 0

06/24/85 VI-14 EXHIBIT 3

(T VIII. MISCELLANE0US

'J A. Resolution of Inter- and Intra-Office Differences B. Keeping the Commission Informed

. C. Communications Between Staff and Commissioners' Offices.

D. Communication of Staff Concerns to Management E. M00 Between ACRS and ED0 F. Coordination of ACRS Full Committee Meetings G. Policy on the Distribution of Draft Inspection _ Reports and Policy on Control of NRC Reports and other Documents H. Policy in regard to Dealing with those who provide Information O' to the NRC and Release of Information to Licensees.

I. Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations J. Procedures in Dealing with FBI / Department of Justice

. K. Distribution of 01 Investigation Reports L. Public Speaking Engagements M. Policy and Procedures for Direct Distribution of Proposed and Effective Regulations to Licensees and Other Interested Persons N. Procedures for Foreign Travel

I k

-L 06/24/85 VIII-1

. --..--..--..,,__.~.-----.,-..,-------,-.-i.w-.--c---,,w-. ----- -,- _--e,--.,- , , -w w - ,-- - ------ , - - - - - . -

0. International Technical Assistance Activities P. Use of Blue Bag Service Exhibits i

• i ~

i O

W l

O ,

06/24/85 VIII-2

,q VIII. MISCELLANE0US

)

A. Resolution of Inter- and Intra-Office Differences Office Directors and Regional Administrators are expected to have the necessary mechanisms in place to assure that they are made awcre of differences which are being worked out with other offices, as well as of

. conflicting opinions within their own offices. When advised that difficulties in resolution will/may affect a suspense date, either Office or Division Directors must become involved with their counterpart. If this is not effective, the Office must make a prompt decision either to bring the issue to the attention of the ED0 or, if a Comission paper is involved, to outline the difference with a non-concurrence by one or more parties.

B. Keeping the Comission Informed In " keeping the Comission advised," it is desirable to comunicate in writing in order to eliminate possible misperceptions.

The "non crisis" method of notification is via the Daily Staff Notes.

The " crisis" method is to use datafax facilities. The " Preliminary Notification" developed by IE is a good example and can be used in

~

preference to or as supplementary to phone calls. (See Exhibit 1.)

C. Comunications Between Staff and Comissioners' Offices Any member of the NRC staff should feel free to contact a Comissioner's office to provide factual information or notice of forthcoming events l concerning items known or believed to be of interest to that Comissioner. Contacts initiated by Comissioners' offices requesting factual information should be answered directly without hesitation. It l

l l'

06/24/85 VIII-3 I

i is normally expected that, in either case, the staff member's immediate supervisor will be informed promptly about contacts of substance; the '

supervisor should, in N rn, advise upper management as appropriate.

Responses which involve significant staff efforts or that represent office views on policy should be made in accordance with established NRC procedures. See Chapter III.

D. Communication of Staff Concerns to Management NRC employees are urged to communicate their safety, safeguards, environmental or antitrust concerns to their management (supervisor) without fear of adverse effects on their careers. This communication is very important in allowing NRC to accomplish its mandate to (1) protect the public health and safety, (2) protect the environment, (3) protect and safeguard nuclear materials and plants in the interest of national security, and (4) assure conformity with antitrust laws. This communication is endorsed by NRC policy and is strongly supported by NRC Commissioners and management. Office Directors and Regional ,

Administrators are to emphasize this policy to their management and staff.

E. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and NRC Staff - Executive Director for Operations _ (F00)

A Memorandum of Understanding between the ACRS and ED0 was issued effective .

June 15, 1983 (modified August 15,1983), to establish procedures for ACRS participation in major NRC policy and rulemaking activities of the ,

NRC at a sufficiently early stage to permit constructive interaction during formulation of safety related rules or policy statements. See Exhibit 2 for a copy of the MOU.

F. Coordination of ACRS Full Comittee Meetings The following procedures have been established to provide for centralization of the process of forwarding issues to ACRS for consideration at Full Committee Meetings.

06/24/85 VIII-4

[ On the first business day after the 4th of each month, Offices should U provide to A0/ED0 a projection of items to be presented to the Full Committee for the next 3 monthly meetings (e.g., on July 5 for meetings in August, September and October). No report is required if no topics are to be submitted. Provida information for each month in format shown in Exhibit 3. General guidance for what issues are relevant for ACRS consideration and for generally keeping ACRS informed is contained in the ACRS/ED0 Memorandum of Understanding.

ACRS has indicated that they will provide ED0 a list of items they propose for consideration by the 1st of each month. When that is received, it will be provided to those concerned.

G. Policy on the Distribution of Draft Inspection and Investigation Reports and Policy on Control of NRC Reports and Other Documents On October 7,1983, the ED0 issued a policy statement on distribution of draft inspection and investigative reports. Additionally a general V policy statement that addresses the release of all NRC reports and other documents either in draft or final form was issued on December 3, 1984. These policies are contained in Exhibit 4.

H. Policy in regard to Dealing with those who Provide Information to the NRC and Release of Information to Licensees Procedures regarding these matters were issued by the EDO on January 6, 1984 and April 24, 1984. See Exhibit 8. These procedures are also addressed in proposed NRC Manual Chapter 0517, " Management of Allegations" issued to Office Directors and Regional Administrators on September 19, 1984.

I l

l-H m

06/24/85 VIII-5

. . , _ . . _ - - _ . - . . - - . - - , ~ . . . ~ . _ _ _ _ . - , _

r I. Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations This Commission published a policy statement on the handling of late O

allegations in the Federal Register on March 19, 1985. See Exhibit 6.

This policy statement will be incorporated in Manual Chapter 0517

" Management of Allegations" which will be finalized when the Commission reaches a decision on the issue of confidentiality.

J. Procedures in Dealing with FBI / Department of Justice See procedures issued on October 24, 1983, at Exhibit 7.

K. Distribution of OI Investigation Reports In order to avoid the unintended release of correspondence or material pertaining to an 01 investigation report, such material should not be entered by staff into the Document Control System (DCS) or sent to NRC Central Files or PDR without coordination with 01. Offices are responsible for ensuring that procedures are in effect to comply with this requirement.

L. Public Speaking Engagements

1. Speaking engagements are necessary to communicate to the public and industry NRC's regulatory role and positions. Managers should "

approach the Office of Public Affairs for advice when necessary.

2. Management should make careful judgment to assure that speeches take on a regulatory stance which cannot be misconstrued as one of proponent / opponent of nuclear power. Meetings which suggest a

" debate" between " pro" and " anti" nuclear speakers should be approached cautiously, as identification with one side or another of the issue is difficult to avoid.

O 06/24/85 VIII-6

3. It is management's responsibility to approve speaking engagements

> p'\

Q on the part of staff personnel,

a. Office Directors / Regional Administrators may set up their own procedures for review.

b. ED0 will approve the speeches of Office Directors and Regional Administrators which deal with significant issues, new policy or new policy implementation. They will be submitted to EDO, ATTN: A0/E00, 3-7 days before approval is needed. Those which deal with routine matters need not be submitted.

4. Forthcoming public speaking engagements are listed in the E00 Weekly Information Report.

M. Policy and Procedures For Direct Distribution of Proposed and Effective

,A Regulations to Licensees and Other Interested persons t

'v

1. Policy

a. All substantive 1/ proposed and effective regulations will be mailed to affected licensees and other known interested persons. " Interested persons" includes, for example, standards writing groups, trade associations, trade pub-lications likely to be read by affected licensees, public interest groups, persons who comented on a proposed rule, and other persons who have expressed an interest in the regulation.

II In those cases where the amendment is considered minor and does not affect the public health or safety, or NRC's regulatory requirements, e.g.,

inconsequential gramar, address, or title changes, the task leader should seek his/her Division Director's approval to forego the direct mailing in fG the interest of economy.

06/24/85 VIII-7

r

b. Commission papers recommending proposed or effective regulations will contain a statement that affected licensees and other interested persons will receive a copy of the amendment by direct mail,

c. The task leader responsible for the development of a regulation will be responsible for assuring that copies ,

of the final rule are made available to persons who commented on the proposed rule.

d. In the case of a regulation affecting Agreement State licensees, the Office of State Programs will inform the Agreement States of such.

2. Procedures Effective immediately, as a service to the program offices, the Office of Administration will assume responsibility for distributing each proposed and final rule to affected licensees and other interested persons maintained on computer based mailing lists. As soon as a rule is published in the Federal Register, the Rules and Procedures Branch, DRR, ADM will forward a copy of the published notice to the Document Management Branch which will distribute it to the proper persons. If a particular rulemaking proceeding has generated ,

public comments, the program office will continue to be responsible for mailing copies of the notice to the commenters. ,

In the event of special distribution considerations, the contact person should contact the Chief, Document Management Branch, TIDC, on extension 49-28585.

The notation section of a Comission paper accompanying a rulemaking notice should contain this paragraph:

Copies of this notice will be distributed to affected licensees and other interested persons by the Office of Administration.

06/24/85 VIII-8

O N. Procedures for Foreign Travel  !

Procedures for approval of foreign travel apply to all NRC employees I

and NRC contractors. Administrative approval of foreign travel via Form 445 should be requested during the early stages of planning for a trip and not during the last week before a trip begins. NRC Form 445 should  ;

be forwarded to the Office of International Programs / Travel /EDO 30 days before the begin date of the travel. Forms submitted later than 30 days <

prior should have an explanation for the delay accompany the form. l Foreign travel related to meetings, symposia or conferences external to OECD countries must be approved by EDO (thru IP) before the traveler  ;

commits to the event. This approval should normally be requested by I memo, to ED0 thru IP, as soon as the event is known. When IP receives f a general invitation directly, they will evaluate the importance of the event and recommend to the ED0 before soliciting attendance. I i

All foreign trips of any nature will include a justification in the l remarks section if more than one person is involved in all or part of  !

the travel involved. Office Directors and Regional Administrators should include on each request the names of all known travelers (NRC l employees and contractors) sponsored by their office that will be making the same trips. IP will inform ED0 as to the total number of i travelers from all NPC offices and contractors that plan to make the I

. same trip. When subsequent requests are received for other travelers to make the same trip, it may be necessary to review the initial approval and make changes accordingly.

O. International Technical Assistance Activities International Programs (IP) publishes on a monthly basis a status l report on NRC International Technical Assistance Activities. NRC will '

i support such activities as long as they contribute to safety, have a

! potential for feedback of information to NRC, and do not pose an u .

I 06/24/85 VIII-9 ,

I

unacceptable burden on staff resources. If the program office feels it necessary to turn down a request for assistance, IP should be provided with possible alternative approaches, e.g., the use of qualified non-NRC personnel. If there are questions on these matters, the issue should be referred to the ED0 who will review the report monthly to assure that the overall situation remains in bounds.

P. Use of Blue Bag Service NRC blue bag service is available for delivery of urgent correspondence between NRC Headquarters locations. The use of this service is limited to Office Directors and above and requires the written authorization of an official at the level of Division Director or above on Form NRC-234, " Blue Bag Mail Service" card. (See Exhibit 8.)

Note that the card is signed at both the sending and receiving offices.

Thus, the card also serves as the proof of delivery. However, if you simply need proof of delivery for non-urgent communications, use NRC Form 253, " Messenger / Courier Receipt" (Exhibit 8) instead of the Blue Dag Service. Both of the forms can be obtained through NRC supply rooms or by submitting a requisition to the Warehouse.

Unclassified correspondence to be placed in a Blue Bag should be taken to the Mail Room servicing the sender's building or given to the mail person servicing the office, along with the completed Form 234. The .

correspondence will be placed in a blue bag and delivered to its destination on the next available mode of transportation, i.e., Special ,

Messenger, Mail Shuttle, Passenger Shuttle, or hand-carried.

Classified material must be transported by authorized messenger only and prepared in accordance with established security procedures. See NRC Appendix 2101, Part I!!. The Form NRC-234 must indicate the classification of the document, i.e., Secret or Confidential. In addition, an NRC Form-253 must be completed and accompany the classified Blue Dag material. If secret material is transmitted, NRC Form 126,

" Classified Document Receipt" is required. (See Exhibit 9.)

06/24/85 VIII-10

Blue Bags should not be retained in individual offices; they should be returned to the Mail Room or the mail person delivering the material after the Form 234 has been signed by the recipient and the contents removed.

Any questions concerning the Blue Bag services should be directed to the Chief, Mail and Messenger Branch (X-27485).

6 06/24/85 VIII-11

i  !

i l i j SAMPLE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION ,

I i  !

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PN0-V-81-07  !

{

j February 5, 1981 l

! This oreliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE l l safety or oublic interest significance. The information oresented is as  :

l l . Initially receiveel without verification or evaluation and is basically all that is known by LE staff on this date.

l

( FACILITY: University of Hawaii

!, Honolulu, Hawaii

! Licensee No. 53-00017-23 1

i j

SUBJECT:

NEWS MEDIA INTEREST IN OCEAN DISPOSAL

! Region V received a telephone inquiry from a staff member of the Hawaii State '

2 Senate Environment Committee. The staff member stated that a headline story ,

appeared in a Honolulu newspaper yesterdy evening (02/04/81) describing ocean >

, disposal of radioactive waste by the University of Hawaii. The staff member was l anticipating that the news article will generate interest and he wanted to gather j some background information for members of the Senate Environment Committee, '

t Region V provided information on the general subject of sea disposal, the rela-i tive hazards that could be expected from the University of Hawaii's disposals, j the responsibilities for military disposals versus commercial disposals and EPA's role in sea disposal. The University of Hawaii had made sea disposals during the l period of 1954 to 1970. The total activity was probably less than 100 mci of j byproduct materials.

l Region V was notified of this situation by a telephone call from a staff member of the Hawaii State Senate Environment Committee at 10:20 a.m. on February 5

~

1981.

This Preliminary Nottffcation is for information only. No further action is j planned by Region V.

i. CONTACT: F. Wenslawski, 463-3757 j H. Book, 463-3755 I

Distribution: Transmitted H. St. 2:25p.  !

1

)* Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Bradford S. J. Chilk, SECY C. C. Kammerer CA l

i l Commissioner Kennedy ACRS (For Distribution) I j Transmitted: MNBB P. Bldg. IE:X005 (IE:HQ Dist) I 1 W. J. Dircks, E00 H. R. Denton, NRR i

! C. Michelson, AE00 R. H. Vollmer, NRR Landow (6 min /page) j J. J. Fouchard..PA R. J. Mattson, hRR J. J. Cummings, CIA l

N. M. Haller, MPA D. F. Ross, NRR

R. G. Ryan, SP D. Eisenhut .NRR g MAIL i H. K. Shapar, ELD 5. H. Hanauer, NRR C"Rinogae,50 XI:X005 Willste Bldg. Document Mgt. Br. (For

,s J. G. Davis, NM55 PDR/LPOR)

Regional Offices R. J. Budnitz, RES RV Form 211 06/24/85 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION EXHIBIT 1 VIII-13 1

O MEMORANDUM 0F UNDERSTANDING PARTIES: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) - ACRS Chairman; NRC Staff - Executive Director for Operations -

SUBJECT:

ACRS PARTICIPATION IN NRC RULEMAKING AND POLICY MATTERS The purpose of this memorandum is to establish procedures for ACRS partici-pation in major NRC policy and rulemaking activities of the NRC at a suffi-ciently early stage to permit constructive interaction during formulation of safety related rules or policy statements.

The following has been agreed upon to facilitate ACRS participation in rulemaking and major policy issues involving nuclear safety matters within the purview of the ACRS.

1. Areas of ACRS interest will be identified on behalf of the Committee by the ACRS Executive Director.

2. The NRC Staf f will be responsible for ensuring that ACRS comments regarding nuclear safety rules and major nuclear safety policy matter.s*

under development by the NRC Staff are obtained and taken into account at appropriate stages in the development process of these items. This function will normally be the responsibility of the cognizant NRC Staff Office.

3. The Project Engineer supporting the ACRS Regulatory Activities Subcom-mittee will serve as the ACRS contact for rulemaking and major policy matters. The ACRS Coordinator in the responsible of fice will be the

• contact in the NRC Staff.

4. When a proposed rule or a major policy matter involving nuclear safety is under consideration by the NRC Staff for eventual transmission to -

the Commission, the ACRS should be informed of the anticipated NRC Staff action when the basic requirements are being formulated, and an opportunity for ACRS discussion should be provided. This may be achieved by the ACRS Coordinator / Project Engineer providing ACRS with copies of the pertinent task initiation form (af ter user of fice endorsement) or other relevant office documents. Any written reaction by the ACRS on the need for, scope and direction of the proposed task will be considered, and responded to by the EDO.

• A major policy issue is a safety-related matter that must be brought to the attention of the Commissioners and/or requires their action before being implemented.

06/24/85 VIII-14 EXHIBIT 2

p I 2.

!s.J

4. The NRC Staff will provide the ACRS with a status report on proposed rules on a quarterly basis that provides timely information on the status of proposed rules.

5. Normally, ACRS comments on a rule or major policy matter will be provided to the EDO at the following two stages:

a. Prior to submittal to the Commission for action regarding publication of a proposed rule or major policy matter for public comment, a hearing, or other action as appropriate. This would

• normally occur before CRGR review.

b. Prior to submittal to the Commission for action regarding implementation of the final rule or major policy matter unless no substantive revisions are made by the staff in preparing the matter for final Commission action. This would normally occur after the public comment period and/or after completion of a related hearing and before CRGR review.

The cognizant NRC Staff office (ACRS Coordinator / Project Engineer) will ensure that schedules for the development of a specific rule or a major policy matter include sufficient time (normally about two O months) for ACRS review prior to submittal to CRGR/EDO, as feasible

) and as required, at both stages.

Twenty-five copies of a rule or major policy matter will be provided to the ACRS for review by the ACRS Coordinator / Project Engineer at the stages identified in paragraph Sa. and b. with a memorandum addressed to the ACRS Executive Director requesting ACRS review and also includ-ing a proposed schedule for review and publication, as appropriate.

The ACRS Executive Director will keep the EDO informed of the schedule for ACRS comments / recommendations to the EDO.

. When sending a rule or major policy matter to the ACRS for review, the Staff office involved (ACRS Coordinator / Project Engineer) will ensure that the ACRS is provided with a copy of other related documents such

, as differing judgments on technical issues among the NRC Staff, public comments, NRC Staff's resolution of public comments, etc.

6. In addition, ACRS will have the option of reviewing a specific document during its public comment period and at such other times as considered appropriate by the cognizant ACRS Subcommittee. Under such circum-stances, the NRC Staff (ACRS Coordinator / Project Engineer) will be informed as early as possible of anticipated ACRS full Committee and Subcommittee activities and will provide the time, to the degree practicable, required for the ACRS input.

'I w

06/24/85 VIII-15 EXHIBIT 2

_ __ __ _ _ _ _ ,_ .. . -~ _ . _ _ _ _

s.

O

7. Ten copies of a rule or major policy matter will also be provided to the ACRS for information by the ACR5 Coordinator / Project Engineer at the following stages with a memorandum addressed to the Exec-utive Director, ACRS, indicating that they are sent to ACRS for information:

a. When a proposed rule or major policy matter is sufficiently -

developed for CRGR review and comment (e.g. , when a proposed rule or a major policy matter is sent to other NRC offices by the originating office for final review and comment),

b. After incorporation of CRGR comments on a proposed rule or a policy matter, when it is sent to the Commission for approval to be published as a Federal Register Notice for public comment.

c. After approval by the Commission, when a proposed rule or policy matter is sent to be published as a Federal Register Notice for public comment.

d. After CRGR review of a proposed final rule subsequent to the public comment period, when it is sent to the Commission for approval for implementation,

e. Final document, when it is sent to be published as en effective rule.

8. All ACRS comments will be forwarded to the EDO with copies to the cognizant Staff office (ACRS Coordinator) and the Con, mission. The ACRS Coordinator will ensure that copies are provided to sppropriate NRC Staf f Of fices and the EDO will assure consideration of ACRS .

comments by the NRC Staff. Commission papers will address ACRS comments including those not resolved by the Staff.

9. In particular cases, procedures in this Memorandum of Understanding may be altered consistent with the needs of the Commission or as appropriate in those cases where the ACRS is participating directly in a related rulemaking hearing as outlined in 10 CFR 2.809. The ACRS Chairman or Executive Director should be consulted on such changes.

O l

6 06/2a/85 EXHIBIT 2

O 4.

10. This Memorandum of understanding will take offact on June 15, 1983.

It supersedes the previous Memorandum of Understanding on this subject between the ACRS and the NRC Staff.

than (Date) d/ &

William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations A// /U

/ (Da~te)

$ h/N W fsse C. Ebersole, Acting Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards O

4 0

06/24/85 Vill-17 EXHIBIT 2

ATTACHMENT 2 Areas of ACRS Interest Per item I of Memorandum of Understanding dated June 15,1983, ACR5 Partici,"ation in hKC Rulemaking and Policy Matters for purposes of implementing the MOU noted above, the ACRS has identified the following areas of interest which consist of safety-related rules, pro-posed rule changes, or Appendices in the areas noted below. Policy matters which impact on safety considerations in these areas are also of interest. -

. Part 20 - Standards for Protection Against Radiation

. Part 21 - Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance

. Part 50 - Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities

. Part 55 - Operators' Licenses

. Part 60 - Otsposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories

. Part 61 - Licensing Requirenents for Land Olsposal of Radioactive Waste

. Part 70 - Domestic Licensing of Suecial Nuclear Material

• . Part 71 - Packaging of Radioacthe Material for Transport and Transportation of Radioactive Material Under Certain Conditions

. Part 72 - Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent fuel

• in an Independent Spent fuel Storage Installation

. Part 13 - Physical Protection of Plants and Haterials

. Part 100. Reactor Site Criteria With respect to new rules, proposed changes, or Appendices to Part 2 or 51 whicn impact on safety-related aspects of the regulatory process (e.g., limits on the scope or nature of the safety review process), the ACRS also has an interest to a degree that copies should be provided for leformation consistent with step 7 of the referenced M00.

• Deleted by 0-9-83 ACRS memo and 8-15 03 DEDO memo. .

mecut we frector

/3 f.5 (UaTu 06/24/85 VI!!-18 EXHIBIT 2

'N . . p . . 7_s, v)

I l

$ APRIL l 2 Title / Issue Purpose Priority Related Documents l (This should include topics (Only 3 type (High: if it is (Mat document (s) not  %'

in which we know ACRS has entries: important to staff in possession of ACRS 4 now will be available i an interest as well as those " Request ACRS to deal with it T we wish to put forward on comment." this month;* and when will they be ,,

our own volition.) Status Report." Medium: if ACRS forwarded) (If an item Discuss matters of general interest.)

must eventually requires a closed deal with it; Low: session, that should be l

l I

if staff doesn't noted.) '

i need action but is 7 offering the 8.

suggestion of a 2 meeting.) 'I

• ACRS can handle 8 l < 3-5 "High Priority" o i C items a month.

l 7  :

G Samples 3 i

Meeting with a Regional Discuss matters of High (EDO) None g a general interest '

i Director l c" R.G. 8.8 Rev. 4. "Information Request ACRS High (RES) R.G. 8.10. " Operation -l Relevant to Ensuring that r e ts Philosophy for Maintaining ,

Occupational Radiation Exposures Occupational Radiation g Exposures As low As

• at Nuclear Power Plants will be As Low As Reasonably Achievable" Reasonably Achievable" 7 l Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 30 Request ACRS High (RES) Proposed rule and Regulatory y I 40, 70 and 72 on Emergency concurrence in Analysis will be provided on o

! Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and staff position 12/15/83 l 0 Other Radioactive Material t g Licensees Trends and Patterns Program Plan Status Report Medium (AE00) Briefing Package (4/1/84)

Implementation of R.G.1.97 Status Report Low (IWtR) Briefing Package (4/11/84)

[

I %w, \ 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

% ms a m.o.c.nem OCT 0 7 W MEMORANDUM FOR

Richard C. DeYoung. Director, IE Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, RI -

James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator, RII James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, RIII John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, RIV -

John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, RV FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

POLICY ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT INSPECTION AND INVEST!GATION REPORTS I have reviewed your consents with regard to the policy on distribution of draft inspection reports stated in my memoranda of March 24 and July 30, 1982.

I have also discussed our policy on release of draft investigation reports tith the Directors of O! and 01A.

The primary motivation of this policy statement is to ensure that official NRC documents, and their inspection and investigative conclusions, are >ublished without any taint, either real or perceived, of improper influence >y those we regulate. Moreover, we will reinforce policies which strengthen the authority of the NRC field staff to comment freely on safety issues at the preliminary stages of. fact collection and evaluation. The basic problem to be addressed by this policy is the fact that licensees shall not be afforded opportunities to modify NRC documents to their advantage outside the public arena. ,

In order to give suitable consideration to these issues, the policies stated in y memoranda of March 24 and July 30, 1982 are superseded by the following:

A. Ob.iectives The following statements reflect the basic objectives of this policy statement:

1. To ensure that sufficient flexibility is provided to the Regional Administrators so that they and their staffs will not hesitate to disseminate safety-related information to licensees during the inspection / investigation process, prior to distribution of the final reports, and

2. To ensure that inspection / investigation findings accurately represent the facts collected by, and the conclusions drawn by, the NRC staff, without improper influences by licensees or their agents 06/24/85 yIgi_po ETHIBIT 4

i l

2 O on the content and/or conclusions of NRC reports of inspections or i l investigations, j

g. Safety and Security Issue Comunications  !

l NRC policy recognizes that nuclear safety and security concerns must be  :

addressed by prompt, positive actions. Accordingly, safety or security  !

infomation must be promptly and clearly identified to responsible l 1 licensee management to obtain prompt licensee evaluation and, if appro- l

! priate, safety-related corrective actions. Such clear comunications are  :

necessary to maintaining required levels of safety and security at licensed facilities. When such comunications are made as a result of concerns that arise during the course of an inspection / investigation, the fact of the comunication should be noted in the inspection /investiestion l report, and a copy of any written commasnication should be included in the j report. l l Where approved by regional management, inspectors may, in preparation {

for exit interviews or enforcement meetings, provide to the licensee a i I listing of significant issues developed in the course of an inspection, I in order to facilitate comunication of inspection findings which require corrective action. However, notes, draft reports, draft evaluations, O draft notices of violations or non-compliance, or other material containing preliminary inspection conclusions, findings and recomendations are not to be provided to the licensee, except as required by safety or security concerns, as noted above.

griefing materials prepared by the staff for use in meetings with l licensees occasionedprior regional management by inspection to distribution activities shou'd be at a meening, andreviewed appendeby'd to the inspection report.

C. Release of Draft insoection Reoorts

l. Under no circumstances should draft inspection reports, either in their entirety or excerpts from them, be released to licensees or their agents or to any source external to the NRC without the express permission of the b .

1 For the purposes of this policy, a draft inspection report is the i

! preliminary draft of the document which will provide tie account and '

conclusions of an official NRC inspection. It is to be considered a  !

i draft inspection report from its initial development and throughout l l the period of supervisory and management review, untIl final publication I and distribution in accordance with IE Manual Chapter 1025.

In the event any draft inspection report is inadvertently or otherwise I released contrary to this policy, the EDO should be promptly advised in j writing. The ED0 will take or recomend action as appropriate.

I 06/24/85 VI!!-21 gxHgggy 4

1 3 l Release of Draft Investigation Reports 9'

D.

For the purposes of this policy, a draft investigation report is the preliminary draft of the document which will provide the account and findings of an official NRC inquiry or investigation. It is to be considered a draft investigation report from its initial development, and throughout the period of supervisory and management review, until .

final publication.

It is important to realize that O! is required by Commission directives .

to inform Regional Administrators of safety and security issues as they are developed in the course of an investigation. Regional Administrators shall act on this infonnation in accordance with the policies set forth above for the prompt connunication of safety and security issues, and in addition shall observe the following procedure.

The Regional Administrator shall infonn the Director. 01, in advance that information related to an open investigation is being considered for release to the licensee because safety or security concerns require initiation of corrective actions before publication of the investigation report. The Director. 01, should review the infonnation to be released and advise the Regional Administrator of the anticipated effect of its release on the course of the investigation. The Regional Administrator will release the infon.ation only after determining that the safety or security concerns are significant enough to justify the risk of compromising the effectivaness subsequent enforcement of the options.

or prosecution investigation Any and, possibly,f such release o information should be recorded in the investigation report.

Pursuant to Consission approved O! policy, draft 0! reports of i investigation will not be circulated outside the NRC without the

• specific approval of the Chainnan. (01Adraftreportsofinvestigation will under no circumstances be reviewed with or given to licensees, their agents, or to any source external to NRC, without the express permission of the Director OIA.) Requests for such permission should be made through the EDO.

l In the case of an emergency appearing to require immediate action, NRC ,

personnel shall provide the licensee with any infonnation they judge the circumstances warrant. If time permits, regional management should be l consulted first.

1

( O l

06/24/85 Vill-22 EMilBli 4

r i 4 l O l t

The foregoing policies are effective immediately. The EDO  !

appropriate evaluation period for this policy, will incorpo. rate following this an policy into the NRC Manual. Also, the ED0 is reviewing existing procedures and practices related to other types of communications under the  !

cognizance of other NRC Offices and will issue policy guidance where j deemed appropriate. '

3 i f -

l 4

Willi J. Dircks  ;

i Executive Director

, for Operations cc: M. Denton '

J. Davis 1 R. Minogue l S. Messenger ,

i B. Hayes l 4

o  !

i l

l .

4 l

l 1

06/24/85 Vill-23 EXHIBIT 4 i l

DEC3 3 64 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

POLICY ON CONTROL OF NRC REPORTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS On October 7, 1983, 1 issued a policy statement regarding the distribution of draft irspection and investigation reports. Since that time, other events have occurred that indicate the need for a general policy statement that addresses the release of all NRC reports and other documents, either in their draft or final form. That policy statement is enclosed. The major premise of the enclosed policy statement is that documents will not be provided to one licensee or member of the public unless they can be made available (generally through thePublicDocumentRoom)toall.

Nothing in the enclosed policy statement sho- ' 'e construed as a relaxation of e October 1983 policy statement. Rather, it is my intent that the procedures developed in response to the enclosed policy statement be consistent with the specific directions in my October 1983 policy statement. As an amplification of my October 1983 policy, you should also establish procedures to ensure that O! is promptly informed whenever a material false statement is suspected.

Additionally, matters being referred to O! should be coordinated with O! prior to advising a licensee of the potential referral. To assure overall consistency and completeness your procedures should be forwarded to DEDROGR for review and coment.

By copy of this memo, I am directing the Office of Administration to incorporate these policies into appropriate NRC Manual Chapters.

(SlpedWilllas L Dltskt William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech V. Stello, DEDROGR SECY OPE OGC O

06/24/l15 yiI1 74 EM10!T 4

i  !

l l

!O i

j p0LICY ON CONTROL OF NRC REPORTS AND QINER DOCUMENTS l

j f l I

INTRODUCTION l

l.

j MC must act promptly and positively on nuclear safety and safeguards concerns.

Such concerns must be identified promptly, documented and sede known to respon-1 sible licensee management to obtain prompt evaluation and appropriate cor- l j

• rective action. At the same time. MC documents must be developed and issued  ;

without improper licensee or public influence, or the appearance thereof, and -

I must be made available to the public in a timely menner, consistent with MC i i regulations, policies and procedures. .

I

! QWECTIVU (

i The objectives of this policy statement with regard to both plant-specific and I generic MC reports and other documents (referred to hereinafter as

• documents")

are:

1. To provide MC staff with general policy guidance on the release and

distribution of draft and final documents.

2. To assure that staff documents are deve and issued without improper

) influences, real or perceived, by the or by applicants. Iicensees, j preittees or their subcontractors er agents (referred to hereinafter as

licensees") and are made available promptly to the public. ,

3. To assure that sufficient flexibility is provided to Office Directors and l Regional A ministrators so that they and their staffs will not hesitate to

disseminate appropriate safety or safeguards inferention to licensees. l before distribution of final documents. I

.S.lGI.

j For the purpose of this policy, the term ' documents" encompasses all written i

material considered to be MC records neder 10 CFR Part g. A draft document is 1 to be considered a draft from its initial development throughout the period of review until its issuance as a final document. A final document is one that I has been s11md or otherwise approved for publication and distribution. Final l 1 documents w'11 he distributed in a menner that will ensure that the public, the l l licensees. MC contracters and Government agencies have access to information l 1 they need to fulfill their responsibilities. Finsi documents provided to I i licenseeswillbeplacedinthepublicDocumentRoom(POR). l j Any decision under this plicy to place documents in the p0R sust also be con- l

sistent with MC regulations, policies and precedures regarding confidentiality. (

security, safeguards, proprietary, and Privacy Act Information and investigative l metters.

06/24/85 VIII.M EXHIBIT 4 1

Draft documents, or information contained therein, are not to be discussed with, given to, or shown to any licensee or the public by NRC staff without prior approval.

Predecisional interagency or intrangency semoranda and letters shall not be provided to licensees or the public or placed in the PDR without prior management approval.

In the event any document is inadvertently or otherwise released by the NRC. .

its contractors or other Government agencies contrary to this policy, the EDO should be advised promptly in writing of the occurrence and the corrective action to be taken by the responsible Office to avoid recurrence of such release. Normally, under such circumstances, the released document should be placed in the PDR.

EXCEPTIONS In the event there is an emergency, or a significant safety or safeguards issue appears to require tenedtate action. NRC personnel, at their discretion, may discuss with, show to, or provide the licensee with any pertinent material they believe the circumstances warrant.

In the normal course of conducting regulatory activities, communications with licensees, vendors industry representatives and other Government agencies are at times necessary regarding initial NRC staff positions license conditions, confirmation of action letters, inspection findings, preparation of bulletins and information notices events at other facilities, etc. Such communications can be held in advance of the final NRC documents for the purpose of (1) gaining factual information. (2) assessing the cost, feasibility and benefit of. or alternatives to, proposed actions, or (3) alerting licensees to initial staff positions or safety findings in order that corrective actions can be initiated promptly. This policy statement is not intended to impede such exchanges of information. Any written connunications provided by the staff to l

l licensees or the public shall, however, be placed in the PDR.

l Draft research reports, studies, data or other documentation based on ,

information obtained from a licensee or vendor, which may be discussed or exchanged with those parties and other >articipants in a study or research program, are not subject to restraint uncer this policy statement.

Draft proposed and final rules, policy statements and other documents pertaining to materials regulated by the Agreement States may be sent to the Agreement States for connent and are not subject to restraint under this policy.

Nothing in the policy statement shall automatically preclude the release of agency records pursuant to a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act.

06/24/M Vll!-?6 EXHIDIT 4 f

O IMPLEMNTATION program and Regional Offices are expected to develop and implement procedures that reflect this policy. IE. MSS and NRR. in coordination with Regional Offices, should develop generic procedures for use by the Regional Offices regarding ins respectively.pection, fuels and materials licensing and reactor licensing, O

O D

0 06/24/85 VI!!-27 EXHIBIT 4

i UNITED STATES Igo 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

! 1 wasmwarow.o. c.nossa January 6, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors Regional Administrators , 5 FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations .

SUBJECT:

POLICY IN RECARD TO DEALING WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE NRC Our policies in dealing with persons bringing irregularities and deficiencies in safety perfomance to our attention require clarification and emphasis in order to assure that they are dealt with properly and the issues they raise are correctly treated.

NRC resources must be utilized in ways which maximize our ability to key on safety related problems. Citizens who voluntarily step forward with information regarding safety matters must be looked on as a valuable adjunct to our programs. Moreover, a part of NRC's effectiveness and credibility with the public is a fonction of our relationships with tnese people. In this regard we should be professionally courteous in our interfaces, complete in our technical reviews of issues they raise and observant of procedures which recognize the special problems faced by persons who come to us with allegations regarding improper safety conditions and practices.

I am asking IE to take the enclosure of this memo and translate it into Manual Chapter fomat. I will expect them to coordinate the MCM with you -

once more, although I am aware many of your coments have been incorporated. In the meantime, it will serve as interim guidance with one exception; before directing that citizens must be advised of their privilege .

of anonymity I wish to clear this point with the Comission and will do so when IE provides me the MCM for approval.

7 William . Dircks Exe:utive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated 06/24/85 VIII-28 EXHIBIT 5

POLICY IN REGARD TO DEALING WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE NRC O

General Issues

1. Those who provide allegations to NRC staff must be treated with respect,

. consideration and tact. Under no circumstances should they be dealt with brusquely or under an atmosphere of interrogation.

2. When a number of allegations point to or reinforce indications of a broader problem it is appropriate to assume that such a problem may exist. Prompt action to. broaden the scope of our inquiry should then be taken to determine whether or not such is the case. l

3. While the safety significance of an allegation is an important factor in determining the extent and promptness of staff resources connitment, it should not affect the staff treatment of the person making the i allegation as given in Item 1 above.

NRC Procedural Practices

1. When allegations are received in writing, a prompt attempt to make personal contact must ordinarily be made in each case. When received telephonically, complete details should be acquired along with availability of the person making the allegation to meet with NRC.

If documents are involved, they should be identified and acquired by NRC

-- the person making the allegation should not nonna11y be required to obtain them.

06/24/85 VIII-29 EXHIBIT 5

2. Contact, when made, should draw an interested and professional res.ponse from NRC. I am directing IE to prepare a simple package that can be provided to individuals making allegations and will make clear to them how NRC deals with allegations.

3. Follow-up on allegations, whether they are general or specific, should focus not only on the specific allegation but on the overall area of concern, including the potential for generic implications.

4. Allegations should be screened for importance and the more serious addressed first. Serious or not, all allegations should be addressed as l

promptly as resources will allow.

O

5. When a plant visit with a person making the allegation is necessary to find the exact location of a problem and the individual is willing to make such a visit, it should be made. Access issues should be addressed on a case by case basis. Travel costs for the individual can be offered if necessary. Care should be taken to avoid embarrassment or abuse of the individual, e.g., visit can be scheduled for an off-shift / weekend, ,

licensee accompaniment prohibited, etc.

6. When responsibility for the handling of an allegation is transferred from one organizational unit to another the person making the allegation should be notified by the individual who is relieved as contact in order to assure continuity. A single point of contact should be the rule.

06/24/85 VIII-30 EXHIBIT 5 l

l

7. Follow-up of allegations should be professional in scope and depth. If it is appropriate that an inspection be made, it should be made.

8. Without exception, the individual making the allegation should be promptly advised of the results of inspection follow-up action so that they are aware that their problems were addressed. If for some reason there is unusual delay in providing the results, the person should be advised so that he does not feel his allegations are being ignored.

1 l

9. An " audit trail" - to include personal interview records - should be established so tiiat NRC actions can be properly justified if necessary.

All allegations should be entered in the allegation tracking system.

10. The final report should set forth the facts clearly, dispositively, and in a style that does not belittle or disparage the person who brought a safety matter to our attention.

~

Licensee Actions

1. Licensees should be encouraged to take allegations seriously. Programs such as interviews of all employees who terminate should be encouraged.

Such programs should be monitored by NRC . Licensee actions do not relieve us of our responsibilities, but effective licensee actions may reduce somewhat the number of allegations we receive. ,

06/24/85 VIII-31 EXHIBIT 5 l

l

2. It should be advantageous under some circumstances to have the lic.ensee 0

address the validity of allegations to the NRC. If so, confidentiality l

must not be breached. Lict.9 sees can be asked to address the validity of allegations only if in so doing the person making the allegation is not ,

exposed. One vehicle for accomplishing this is a 50.54(f) letter.

The person making the allegation must be informed that this is not handing the issue over to the licensee, but that NRC will review the licensee's report. Such a review should, of course, not be peremptory.

Confidentiality

1. Staff should recognize that in many cases individuals making allegations feel that they lay their jobs on the line when they approach the NRC.

All our activities must be sensitive to this, even when no explicit confidentiality agreement has been executed. Identities of sources will not be voluntarily exposed by the NRC unless it is clear that the individual concerned has no objection. As a general rule, the 'need to know' approach -

should be used when dealing with the protection of an person's identity.

2. Staff should assure that it is clear to all concerned if and on what tems anonymity of a person making an allegation is to be protected. In every case the individual shall be asked if anonymity is desired. A clear record should be maintained for the files to preclude later mis-understandings. A Confidentiality Agreement (see attachment) should be executed with the individual, if necessary and possible.

MII-32 EXHIBIT 5 06/24/85

5-

, 3. If at any time for any reason confidentiality is breached or jeopardized, the person should be so advised, the reason explained and remedial measures

. taken, if possible.

Attechnent:

Confidentiality Agreement O

O a

O 06/24/85 VIII-33 EXHIBIT 5

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT I have information that I wish to provide in confidence to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). I request an express pledge of confidentiality as a condition of providing this information to the NRC. I will not provide this information voluntarily to the NRC without such confidentiality being ,

extended to me. '

It is my understanding, consistent with its legal obligations, the NRC, by agreeing to this confidentiality will adhere to the following conditions:

(1) The NRC will not identify me by name or personal identifier in any NRC initiated document, conversation, or comunication released to the public which relates directly to the infonnation provided by me. I understand the term "public release" to encompass any distribution outside of the NRC with the exception of other public agencies which may require this infonnation in furtherance of their responsibilities under law or public trust.

(2) The NRC will disclose g identity within the NRC only to the extent re-quired for the conduct of NRC related activities.

(3) During the course of the inquiry or investigation the NRC will also make every effort consistent with the investigative needs of the Commission to avoid actions which would clearly be expected to result in the disclosure of n ident-ity to persons subsequently contacted by the NRC. At a later stage I understand that even though the NRC will make every reasonable effort to protect y identity, g identification could be compelled by orders or subpoenas issued by courts of law, hearing boards, or similar legal entities. In such cases, the basis for granting this promise of confidentiality and any other relevant facts will be communicated to the authority ordering the disclosure in an effort to maintain my confidentiality. If this effort proves unsuccessful, a representative of the NRC will attempt to inform me of any such action before disclosing g identity.

I also understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived my right to con-fidentiality if I take any action that may be reasonably expected to disclose my identity. I further understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived nty rights to confidentiality if I provide (or have previously provided) infonnation j to any other party that contradicts the information that I provided to the NRC l

or if circumstances indicate that I am intentionally providing false information -

to the NRC.

Other Conditions: (ifany) .

I have read and fully understand the contents of this agreement. I agree with its provisions.

Date Name:

l Address:

Agreed to on behalf of the US Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

Date Signature O

Name:

Title:

VIII-34 EXHIBIT 5 06/24/85

.g'q,,

(m j

)  !(f.

$ 4- j-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Sp=fk ..

• APR 2 41984 MEMORANDUM FOR: EDO Office Directors Regional Administrators

, FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO LICENSEES

REFERENCE:

Memo, Dircks to Office Directors and Regional Administrators, " Policy in Regard to Dealing with Those who Provide Information to the NRC " dated January 6,1984 4

The reference above deals with the general issue of dealing in a prompt and efficient manner with information provided to NRC with due regard for

( confidentiality of those who provide such information. This memorandum 1 deals with the narrower issue of release of such information to licensees / vendors. In addition to the need for expeditiously resolving any issue related to safety, recent experience has shown that considerable resources are being used to deal with allegations for NTOL plants. The l policy set forth in the memo is intended to improve this situation.

The principal guidance on this point is that the licensee / vendor should be advised of potential safety concerns raised by allegations as soon as feasible in order that appropriate review and subsequent action can be taken i to protect the health and safety. I expect that once information from i

. allegers is received, and the Office / Region understands the information, that the licensee will be advised specifically by letter of the area of concern and will be requested to address it, subject to further audit by

, NRC. However, the anonymity of sources should be protected and the effectiveness of investigations / inspections should not be compromised, i.e.,

premature release should not allow licensees the opportunity to cover up problems or appear to do so.

There are two exceptions to this guidance. The first exception is where we cannot release the information with sufficient detail to be of use to the licensee / vendor without compromising the identity of the confidential source. In such a case release should normally not be made unless the release is necessary to prevent an inninent threat to the public health and safety. I should be consulted in any case where it appears a need to release O

V

06/24/85 VIII-35 EXHIBIT 5

l 1

the identity of a confidential source. The second exception is where a l licensee / vendor could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge gained from the release of information especially if wrongdoing is involved. The Regional Administrator for inspections and the Director of the Office of Investigations for investigations should make the decision of whether -

or not to release the information to avoid compromising NRC action.

I recognize that when a large number of issues are raised at the same time, ,

as has occurred with several plants as they approach issuance of an OL, the difficulties in executing this policy are enhanced. However, at such a time, the requirement for a licensee to know where his problems lie is also high. We should concentrate on organizing the process in order to deal with these particular situations.

I am requesting that IE incorporate this policy in an appropriate Manual Chapter.

(sigd C;"/z::1. t!.~.h William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations O

06/24/85 VIII-36 EXHIBIT 5

M030 Fedaeal Regiatee / Vol. 50. No. 53 / Tuesday, hf arch 19, 1985 / Notices

( Statement of pooley: Handling of Late The most fundamental tenet flowing from the NRC's statutory mandate under the Atomic Energy Act is that a license y,j,;,3 3,,,,,;,8,g 33,'8,,3,,,

Any caocerns bearing on the safety of Allegations may be issued only ifit can be found a facility should be brought promptly to that there is reasonable assurance that the attention of the applicant or aoEsecy: Nuclear Regulatory the activity to be authorized presents no licensee.'If, however, this approach is Commission. undue risk to the health and safety of unsatisfactory, any person is free to acnoss: Statement of policy: Ilandling of the public.%ere can be no abdication bring such concerns directly to the NRC.

Late Allegations. of the responsibility to make this To eliminate unnecessary delay in the determination and if there'is a serious licensing process to the extent possible.

susassany:This policy stdement question as to the abilit o make such any person who has an allegatio,n

• presents the criteria the Coramission finding, no license may issued and concerning the design. construction.

will follow in addressing late a!!egations the tirne necessary to resolve such operation.or management of a nuclear received from sources outside the question must and will be taken, power plant hcs a duty to bring such Commision. in the context oflicensing Therefore,in the context oflate information to the Commission s

• reviews. It also directs that the staffs allegations. it is necessary that attention as promptly as possible. All pracedures for notifying Atomic Safety. appropriate criteria be applied to enable allegations should be specific and cnd ucensing Boards. Atomic Safet the decisionmaker, be it the NRC's staff documented to the fullest extent cnd Licensing ppeal Boards, and e or the Commission itself, to possible. Dose submitting allegations in Commission of the receipt of allegations expeditiously determine the good faith should be aware that be revised to provide for an Initial, significance.in terms of safe operation 8PPropriate protection against coarse screening pnor toissuance of a of the facility, of any allegations made. retaliatory action by an applicant or Board Netification. In connection with its review of a licensee (including its contractors and appscTnft DATE: March 19,1985. number of recent cases, the NRC has subcontractors)is afforded by Section een pUstT sEn tosponesances coseTaCT: been confronted with the task of 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of addressing large numbers of allegations 1974.42 U.S.C. 5851. All parties and Lawrence J. Chandler. Offico of the Executive Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear which were brought to its attention very persons are reminded that Federallaw Rettulatory Commission. Washington

• shortl before,and in some cases on the imposes penalties upon an person who D.C. 20555. Telephone:301-492-8658 n ent onaHy makn any la se statement eve o[the date on which a decision on or fePresentation to any agency of the surnsesswTany suponesanom whether to authorise the issuance of an

% United kn.

i Statenwnt of Policy operating license was to be inade.Some I" a o metters in ,pp," I'" 3(,I,,Q,fgg' office will d , The purpose of this policy statement is to explain the policy which the

'h* I'8,a y

previously uncontested issun nd under first determine whether,if true, the Commission ex cts to follow regarding allegations are material to the licensing consideration by a particular the treatment o late allegations

• adjudicatory tribunal. Significant received from sources outside the commitments of staff resources often 'The Cosminission samureen the nubhshinent Commleeinn. In operatina license eipresesses by st&Ha for the purpose of

must be diverted at the last rninute to "'""** *"U"*M"8 ""'8'"'"* *"'*""8 "F reviews and in the board notification address I numbers oflat #

process. The focus ofjhis statement la allegation any of which have proven eci on NRC staff and Commission pre- to be unsubstantiated or oflittie,if any licensing safety reviews of uncontested safety significance.

lesues, and Commission pre.hcensing ideally, all allegations concerning a immediate effectiveness reviews of particular facility will be resolved

. contested issues.The treatment of before any license is authorized. If, allegations in formal adjudicatory however, because of the number of licensing proceedm : will continue to be allegations and/or their tardy governed by the Ru es of practice in 10 submission. all allegations cannot be

• Cllt Part 2. Apart from this policy resolved in a timeframe consis' tent with l state nent, the Commission has inillated reasonable and responsible licensing a rulemaking to codify NRC caselaw action,it sney be necessary to give  !

I criteria for reopening a closed evidentiary record in a formallicensing hriority Causeto of bee their aHegatim nichon potentialimpact I

I proceeding and to specify further the safety, must be resolved before licensing documentary (*ases for motions to action can be taken. i i

reopen. Including those which may be based on allegations. 49 FR 50189

[ December 27.1984).

f a i

'%)

VIII-37 EXHIBIT 6 06/24/85

2. He need for prompt consideration Dated at Washington, D.C., on this 13th decision in that they would require of the allegation recognizing the pubhc day of March 1965.

denial of the license sought, the interest in avoiding undue delay. If the Imposition of additional conditions on For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

staff determines that an allegation raises such license, or further analYsis or a significant safety concern regardmg.

Joha c. w .

investigation. Allegation which.even if j"####""###*

for example the design, construction, or true, are not material to any licensing operation of a facility or about quality (FR Doc. 854544 Filed 3-18-65; 8:45 aml decision or which on their face or after assurance or control or management "*'****"***

Initiylinquiry are determined to be conduct which brings into question the frivolous or too vague or generalin safe operation of the facility at a given nat:re t] provide sufficient information stage of operation, the allegation must for the staff to investigate will receive be addressed prior to authorizing that no furth:r consideration. stage.For purposes of this policy As tm cllegations which are material statement, an allegation will be 13 thelicensing decision, the considered safety significant if the Commission staff will next determine allegation would. if true. (1) raisa a whether the information presented is significant question about the ability of new in the sense of raising a matter not a particular structure, system, or previlu:ly considered or tending to component to perform its intended corrobr te previously received but not Jafety function or (2) raise a significant y:t resolved allegations. In making this question of management competence.

determination, all information available integrity, or conduct or about Ia the Commission will be considered. implementation of the quality assurance including that previously provided by an program sufficient to raise a legitimate c pplicant or licensee and that obtained doubt as to the ability to operate the by the Commission in the course of its plant safely. Allegations which are not review c nd inspection efforts or from its safety significant will be resolved in the investigation of prior allegations. In normal course of business independent some cases,information already of license issuance.

tvril:ble to the NRC may be sufficient Board Notification Procedures to resolv] certain allegations. However, if cn cliegation is found to be both Parties to ongoing adjudicatory m:t:ri:1 and new, the staff will proceedings have an obligation to bring inv;stig:te the allegation further. allegations to the attention of the presiding board. All parties have an Further Review obligation to inform-boards promptly of If the staff determines that, as a result relevant and materialinformation that may affect the decisionmaking process.

of the e7mber of allegations or the timefr me in which they are received it The Commission's staff. in accordance cppe:rs likely that full consideration of with its obligations for board cll cllegations cannot be accomplished n tification has in the past submitted consistent with responsible and timely allegations to boards promptly and Commission action, the Commission without awaiting their resolution or determinaton of significance relative to st:ff will conduct a further screening of the decisionmaking process.This the cliegations to determine their practice is consistent with the significance to safety and therefore mmini n-approved had .

what priority should be assigned n tification policy.However,it has relativ] to the activity to be authorized , resulted, on occasion. in presenting The following screening criteria will be boards with new informction, the considered: significance of which is not readily

• 1.The likelihood that the allegation is apparent. Consequently. in the future.

correct. : king into consideration all staff board notifications of allegations cvillible information including the will not be made until the staff has c pparent level of knowledge, expertise, made at least an initial screening of the and reliability of the individual allegations. Only those allegations submitting the allegation in terms of the which are found not to be frivolous, silegation submitted and the possible which are relevant and material to the existence of more credible contrary decisionmaking process (as determined information. under existing board notification procedures) and which are determined

' As : generet matter, the Commisalon has to warrant further scrutiny Will be authertzed issuance of operatins hcenses nrst for submitted to the presiding tribunal.

3*" P=*8tma lup lo s4 of rated powerl and Board notifications should still be made Ibo a re ed w a UIs$he rep. promptly, consistent with the need and have lasen further renned, for esample, into fuet time required for screening. The staffs load. hot system testang. criticahty and zero power board notification procedures should be teshes. Other refinements too are posed 4e and may revised accordingly.

be authorized.

06/24/85 VIII-38 EXHIBIT 6 J

,a ne ,

g^ UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Og k,,

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20806 October 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors and Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks ,

Executive Director for Operations l

SUBJECT:

PROCEDURES IN DEALING WITH FBI / DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The following procedures apply effective this date:

A. Special Functional Areas:

1. Contacts with FBI in regard to security matters - including background investigations and internal security activities -

will be handled by the Division of Security direct with FBI.

NRC personnel, when contacted by FBI personnel on background investigations for security clearances, need not report such contacts; contacts made in regard to internal security matters 4

O 2.

should be reported to the Div'sion of Security.

Contacts with FBI in regard to threat assessment, contingency

, response planning and other matters covered in the NRC/ FBI

" Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperation Regarding Threat, Theft or Sabotage in the Nuclear Industry" will be handled by letSS according to their standard procedures.

3. Contacts by and with Regional Administrators in regard to l

! general NRC matters of coordination, such as status reports,  !

, with FBI Regional offices and other law enforcement agencies need not be reported unless substantive matters are discussed.

i If substantive matters are discussed, the provisions of persgraph B will apply.

B. Receipt of information - whether by telephone, visit or in writing -

, from law enforcement agencies on all matters other than those listed in paragraph A will be handled as follows:

4 1. Regions: All contacts will be referred to the OI Regional Field Office which will in turn advise OI letadquarters of the nature of the contact as appropriate.

1 06/24/85 VIII-39 EXHIBIT 7

2. Headouarters Offices: Contacts will be referred to 01 (Contact: Division of Field Operations, Telephone: 27246).

OI will consult with EDO as necessary and advise the calleroftheappropriateNRCcontact(s). Contacts will the'n be advised to respond to queries.

3. 01 will be responsible to determine the nature of the FBI /D0J contact and, where appropriate, advise staff of investigations which relate to matters of health and safety and OIA of matters ,

touching upon the conduct of NRC employees or contractors.

Due regard will be paid to the sensitivity of the information.

C. Referral of information to DOJ/ FBI will be handled as follows:

1. DIA will be the single point of contact for referral to DOJ/ FBI of information touching upon the conduct of NRC employees or contractors.

2. OI will be the single point of contact for referral to DOJ/ FBI of information touching upon the conduct of licensees, applicants, vendors or their contractors.

Offices and Regions will issure that this policy reaches and is understood by all employees of the a9cacy.

(Siped) William J.Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations 5

0 06/24/85 VIII-40 EXHIBIT 7

Sample Blue Bag and Messenger / Courier Receipt

• NRC eonu 234 8* "I u.s. NUCLE AR MEGULATOAV CowusetlON BLUa BAG MAIL SERVICE ,j g

, et BLUE sAo MAIL SENDER'S RECEIPT Cornpiete this Portsen and Give to Mail Person with Meterial Being Meiled.

T SENT .I SENT

, TO: *j DATE Tanet LATE Tinst '. ev:

l 3 RECEIVED . To:

OATE .

PROM:

TiedE

.]

i l ev: seien,,e/

90 NOT KEEP SLUE SAS - Reemre k to the Meu Ponen e .. .. . ., , ereses. i.ee e se.

e pee a.s - . . _ . .mer i.n u-een UA NUCLEAR REGULATORY -

massanauwcounian nacuer 45896

~~--- .... ....,.. ....e. .....

-- - v - r

...=: - . . - . . . . , , . . .

t ll=:: 4 2.'e's '"'""" " ' ' ' ' " ' -

~ ~

""""t _..__.m -..

e

.esa see. glll".l-l"g:lll:r""""lll3::"_e.~

. . ; e ,ves. - ,. ,

s. a .---  ;

RECIPIENT RETURN THl$ COPY TOSENDER I l

i VIII-41 EXHIBIT 8 06/24/85

U s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOPe NRC FORM 126 n2-m CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT RECElPT C'RCM 2101 TO POSTAL NUMSER DATE MAILED msTRucnoms

1. Verrfy edessese's clasedied maa.noadeen

2. Desmee document tw sub,ect.

er tale and origenior. Des secres F 7 and acteuntable Conisdentant on.

aosurse widic ie i e w docu.

PROgg snone e g Dr.. Ape ,or Dag ,

a snow ciend.co..on and e.we enerbngs 4 Forward ersynet and abpicote to addressee g L _J s - e.n.e. -nen..e.orno, siened arenes I, edeouse 8000EPft0m Py 06r8 or aunesa N'

SduBTBE'" - gp eumspesED, DOCUMEaff As sags CA O l

t I

I O

l l

l =

l a

TO AVOO TRACER ACTION PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THIS RECEIPTTO SENDER IMMEDIATELY.

I have received the document (s) listed above and assume responsibility for safeguarding in accordance with security regulations.

s, e es see-o.o er m esemeemameone engrunwe of secoere "

es es umme ordy by snad eessum) l 06/24/85 VIII-42 EXHIBIT 9 1

1

120555078877 1 1AN US NRC ,

AD,Y-DIV 0F TIDC POLICY F. PUB MGT BR-PDR NUREG W-501 WASHINGTON DC 20555 h

4 0

I a

l o

l O

4

.. ...--- .. .... - - _- . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . - . . ._ . . - . . - . ---._--'