ML20136A566
Text
O*
pusco e
'o
~,
UNITED STATES l'
c,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,4 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%; w 4..... f October 26, 1984 NOTE T0: Addressee List FROM:
Chet Poslusny Comanche Peak Action Items
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE ~ PEAK ACTION ITEMS Please let me know by November 2 if you do not concur with the due dates for your items as listed in the attached Comanche Peak Action Item package.
Provide verbal changes or mark ups with brief justification for delays, t'C $
Chet Posiusny W
/
Comanche Peak Technical Review Team (Mail Stop P-202) cc:
V. Noonan R. Wessman 8601020191 BS1113 PDR FOIA PDR GARDEOS-M
~
a
~l
"} M Addressee List R. Bangart, Region IV G. Zech, IE C. Hamer, MEB A. Lee, EQB P. Hearn, PSB J. Stang, CEB S. Diab, RSB C. Li, CSB A. Serkiz, GIB B. Mann, RSB S. Suh, CPB D. Terao, MEB J. Rajan, MEB R. Wright, EQB H. Garg, EQB i
D. Sellers, MTEB L. Lois, CPB M. Hum, MTEB J. Guttman, RSB J. Joyce, LCSB J. Clifford, PSRB F. Rinaldi, SGEB J. Fair, EGCB J. Bram er, MEB W. Jenson, RSB-M. Dunenfeld, CPB D. Hunnicutt, Region IV
.D. Landers, Teledyne D. Jeng, SGEB
~
S.-Hou, MEB B. Youngblood. DL Team Leaders r.:JcCalvo_-;
L. Shao P. Matthews R. Keimig H. Livermore D
2U)
-6
.e.
ey Ca.lue
- ew't UNITED STATES
'*h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
t e
WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
/
NOV 5 N MEMORANDUM FOR: See Attached List FROM:
Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Comanche Peak Technical Review Team
SUBJECT:
TRANSMITTAL OF DOCUMENTS FOR INFORMATION
~
Enclosed for your review and information are the following documents:
1.
Case Brief in Opposition to Applicant Request For Non-Disclosure Of Relevant Lipinsky Documents, dated October 26, 1984.
2.
Letter to H. R. Denton (NRC) from B. P. Garde (GAP), dated October 26, 1984.
3.
Letter to V. Noonan (NRC) from B. P. Garde (GAP), dated October 28, 1984.
4.
Letter to B. Hayes (NRC) from L. Clark (GAP), dated October 28, 1984.
Copies of these documents are being placed in the Public Document Room Comanche Peak Unit 1 and Unit 2, Docket Numbers 50-445
-446.
/
/
//
Project Director manche Pe Tec nical Review Team
~
~
~
D 2 68
\\
4 gy /// 3
- ~.,.
~.
,+
Addresse list E. Case J. McKnight (PDR)
R.C. Tang R. Wessman A. Vietti J. Gagliardo R. DeYoung B. Martin, Region IV D. Hunter, Region IV C. McCracken Team Leaders J. Calvo L. Shao P. Matthews R. Keimig H. Livermore e
e e
e 4
0 0.
A Y1N MM t
i
.-l A r -
fam.A v
d MD iilMfe!
s.;w f November 5.1984 POLICY ISSUE szer-84-249s (Notation Vote)
FOR:
The Comissioners FROM:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
STATEMENT OF POLICY: HANDLING OF LATE ALLEGATIONS; SRM-M8409058 PURPOSE:
To obtain Comission approval for issuance of a statement of policy presenting the criteria to be applied in addressing late allegations in the context of operating license reviews and Board Notifications.
BACKGROUND:
On June 20, 1984, the General Counsel provided the Comission with a discussion of factors and criteria relating to consideration of late allegations in the context of both formal and informal licensing activities.
SECY-84-249. Coments were provided by the Atcmic S.afety and Licensing Appeal Panel (memoranda dated July 6, 1984
.and August 1, 1984) and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (memorandum dated September 5, 1984). The staff's views were provided in SECY-84-249A, August 31, 1984. These documents were discussed at a Comission meeting on September 5,1984.
DISCUSSION:
As requested by the Comission, tne staff has developed a proposed statement of policy taking aeount of the views of OGC, the ASLB and ASLAP as well as the Regional offices, NRR and IE. Enclosure 1.
This policy statement presents criteria for addressing late allegations in the context of licensing reviews and in Board Notifications. These criteria reflect a refinement of the criteria used in connection with Diablo Canyon. See SECY-84-249A. With respect to. licensing reviews, the policy statement notes that the staff will first determine whether the allega-tions present concerns which are material to a licensing decision and are new. If, because of the large number of allegations and the timeframe in which they are received,
. full consideration of all allegations cannot be accom-plished without undue delay in the licensing process, the allegations will be further screened to determine an appropriate priority for their resolution. Crit:ria to be considered in this regard are:
M, y M (1) the likelihood that the allegation is correct;
,f and l fe'3 $
Nntxt:
L.J. Chandler, OELD e c 6
X28658 a._._-
r
-2 (2) the need for prompt consideration of the allegation taking into account the safety significance of the allegation relative to the activity to be authorized. Allegations relating to design, construction or operation as well as quality assurance and management conduct are subject to these considerations.
With respect to the foregoing, OGC would provide explicitly for a balancing of th) significance of the allegation and the public interest in avoiding delay.
In addition to the foregoing, the staff will revise its current Board Notification procedures to provide for an initial screening of allegations prior to submission to a board. Revisions will address the need to first eliminate frivolous allegations and to provide to boards only those which are relevant and material (as determined under the existing procedures) and which the staff determines warrant further scrutiny.
Apart from this policy statement, OGC is developing a codi-fication of long-standing caselaw regarding the standards for reopening a record and for considering late-filed contentions. This rulemaking will also address the require-ments for such matters based on late allegations in the context of formal licensing activities pending before the Commission's adjudicatory boards.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve issuance of the proposed statement of policy and revision of the staff's Board Notification procedures.
. <L William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations : Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations
- O O
r-
. Comissioners' coments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Wednesday, November 21, 1984.
Comission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, November 14, 1984, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPE OI OCA OIA OPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO ELD ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY
{
t f
i e
f r
r i
i I
n.
e STATEMENT OF POLICY:
HANDLING OF LATE ALLEGATIONS The purpose of this policy statemenc is to explain the policy which the Comission expects to follow regarding the treatment of late allegations, received from sources outside the Comission, in operating license reviews and in the board notification process. The initial focus of this statement is on NRC staff and Comission pre-licensing safety reviews of uncontested issues, and Commission pre-licensing effectiveness reviews of contested issues. The treatment of allegations in formal adjudicatory licensing proceedings will be governed by the Rules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2.
Apart from this policy statement, the Comunission has directed the initiation of a rulemaking to establish the standards which will.be applied by licensing and appeal boards in considering late contentions and motions to reopen clcsed records based on allegations, in addition to the long-standing criteria already applied in these contexts.
The most fundamental tenet flowing from the NRC's statutory mandate under the Atomic Energy Act is that a license may be issued only if it can be found that the activity to be authorized presents no undue risk to the health and safety of the public. There can be no abdication of the responsibility to make this detennination and if there is a serious ques-tion as to the ability to make such finding, no license may be issued and the time necessary to resolve such question must and will be taken.
t l
Therefore, in the context of late allegations, it is necessary that ap-propriate criteria be applied to enable the decisionmaker, be it the Comission's staff or the Comission itself, to expeditiously determine l
_-._._-..._,,_,r.,,
,,,,m-,
,.,,y,_
,-~..
___,.,,m%.,,m.gy,_,_.--
,m.y_..._,%-,,_m..
m.m m.
2-i the significance, in terms of' safe operation of the facility, of any allegations made.
In connection with its review of a number of recent cases, however, the NRC has been confronted with the task of addressing large numbers of allegations which were brought to its attention very shortly before, and in some cases on the eve of the date on which a decision on whether to authorize the issuange of an operating license was to be made. The alle-gations have on some occasions related to matters in controversy and on others have related to issues not under consideration by a particular I
adjudicatory tribunal. Experience has shown that significant commit-ments of staff resources often must be dedicated in the eleventh hour to address large numbers of allegations many of which have proven to be unsubstantiated or of little, if any, safety significance. The most pronounced effect of the receipt of large numbers of late allegations has been diversion of staff resources from other pressing safety issues.
Ideally, all allegations concerning a particular facility will be resolved before any license is authorized. If, however, because of such factors as the number of allegations and/or their tardy submission, all allegations cannot be resolved in a timeframe consistent with. reasonable and responsible licensing action, it may be necessary to give pr'iority to
't those allegations which, because of their potential impact on safety, c
must be resolved before licensing action can be taken.
Initial Screening of Allegations Any concerns bearing on the safety of a facility should be brought 4
promptly to the attention of the applicant or' licensee in the first a
A 9
+
..y..
v.
-.,_v_-
-,. -..___.,_,--...,-p-._,..-,,_
_m,-,,,,c,w...,,, _,..,,,,
e n-u t-a 3-instance.1/ If, however, this approach is unsatisfactory, any person is free to bring such concerns directly to the NRC.
In this regard, it should be stressed that the Connission views with disfavor the submission of allegations for the purpose of delaying a licensing decision. Thus, to eliminate unnecessary delay in the licensing process to the extent possi-
.ble, any allegations concerning the design, construction, operation or management of a nuclear power plant should be brought to the Consission's attention as promptly as possible. All allegations should be specific and documented to the fullest extent possible. These submitting allega-tions should be aware that appropriate protection against retaliatory at. tion by an applicant or licensee (including its contractors and subcontractors) is afforded by statute.
In reviewing allegations, the appropriate Commission staff office i
will first determine whether, if true, the allegations are material to the.
licensing decision in that they would require denial'of the license sought, k
the imposition of additional conditions on such license, or further analysis or investigation. Allegations which, even if true, are not material to the licensing decision or which on their face or after initial inquiry are determined to be frivolous or too vague or general in nature will receive no further consideration.
As to allegations which are material to the licensing decision, the Connission staff will next determine whether the information presented is new in the sense of raising a matter not previously considered or tending I
i t
1/
The Connission encourages the establishment of programs by utilities
[
l for the purpose of identifying and resolving allegations affecting j
safety in a timely manner as design and construction of a nuclear facility proceeds.
4 Y
___,_,,._,,...__._,.,,...-_____._..__.._..-,,_.,.,.._.m_..-_,.m,_,
I e
- l
-to corroborate previously received but not yet resolved allegations. In i
making this determination, all information available to the Comission
)
will be considered, including that previously provided by an applicant or licensee and that obtained by the Comnission in the course of its review and inspection' efforts or from its investigation of prior allegations.
Already-available information may be-sufficient to resolve certain alle-gations. However, if an allegation is found to be both material and new,
[
l further inquiry is warranted and will be undertaken.
j Further Review If the staff determines that, as a result of the number of allega-tions or the timeframe in which they are received it appears likely that full consideration of all allegations cannot be accomplished consistent with responsible and timely Comnission action, the Consission staff will j
i conduct a further screening of the allegations to detennine their l
significance to safety and therefore what priority should be assigned relative to the activity to be authorized.M The following screening i
l criteria will be considered:
I I
2/
As a general matter, the Commission has authorized issuance of oper-
~
ating licenses first for low power testing (o(up to 5% of rated power) and subsequently for full power operation peration above 5% of i
rated power). In some cases these steps have been further refined,
.for example, into fuel load, hot system testing, criticality and t
zero power testing. Other refinements too are possible and may be
{
authorized, i
i I
I i
L i
l l
i s
?
5-
- 1. The likelihood that the allegation is correct, taking into con-sideration all available information including the apparent level of knowledge, expertise and reliability of the individual submitting the allegation in terms of the allegation submitted and the possible exis-t tence of more-credible contrary information.
- 2. The need for prompt consideration of the allegation recognizing the public interest in avoiding undue delay.
If it is determined that an allegation raises a significant safety concern regarding, for example, the design, construction or operation of a facility or about quality assurance or control or management conduct, which brings into question the-safe operation of the facility at a given stage of operation, the allegation must be addressed prior to authorizing that stage. For pur-poses of this policy statement, an allegation will be considered safety significant if the allegation ;would, if true, (1) raise a significant question about the ability of a particular structure, system or compo-nent to perform its intended safety function or (2) raise a significant question of management conduct or implementation of the quality assurance program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the plant's capa-bility of being operated safely. Allegations which are not of safety significance will be resolved in the normal course of business independ-i ent of license issuance.
Board Notification procedures Separate from the. foregoing criteria for screening allegations, parties to ongoing adjudicatory proceedings are reminded of their obliga-tion to bring allegations to the attention of'the presiding board.
It should be stressed that all parties have such an obligation to promptly i
e
...,_._.,y 7
,,,,,,.-_,-._.,,_.-_..._-,,_..__,,-.m,.,.,.-_..,_.-,,..m.
4 4
?
. j 4
inform boards of relevant and material information that may affect the decisionmaking process.
]
The Commission's staff, however, in accordance with its obligations l
for board notification has, in the past, appropriately submitted allega-tions to boards promptly and without awaiting their resolution or deter-l mination of significance relative to the decisionmaking process. While such practice is consistent with the Connission-approved board notification po'licy, it has resulted, on occasion, in presenting boards with new information, the significance of which is not readily apparent.
Consequently, 'in the future, staff board notifications of allegations shall not be made until the staff has made at least an initial screening-l
{
of the allegatiens. Only those allegations which are found not to be frivolous, which are relevant and material to the decisionmaking process (as determined under existing board notification procedures) and which I
are detemined to warrant further scrutiny should be submitted to the presiding tribunal. Notwithstanding the need for such screaning, board
. notifications should be made promptly consistent with the need and time required for screening, taking into account the ' nature, scope and number of allegations involved..The staff's board notification procedures should i
j be revised accordingly.
For the Commission, i
t Samuel.J. Chilk 4
j
~
1 i
a l
I
.