ML20154A461
| ML20154A461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/25/1984 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Deyoung R, Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150E588 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-355 NUDOCS 8809120227 | |
| Download: ML20154A461 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
,o . .. . ] . .. < .
October 25, 1984 Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director, NRR Richard C. DeYoung. Director, IE Thomas E. Murley, Regional Administrator, Region !
James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator, Region 11 James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region 111 Pobert D. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV John B. Martin, Regional Administrator, Region V From: Guy H. Cunningham, 111 Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
POLICY STATEMENT: !MNDLING LATE ALLEGATIONS The attached policy statement takes into account connents provided in response to L. J. Chandler's note of Octobar 10, 1984 A somewhat different version was prepared by OGC and sent to /ou under cover of note dated October 17, 1984; in part, OGC's revision has been incorporated in the attached. j Please review the proposed policy statement and provide your Office / Region concurrence by c.o.b. October 26, 1984 -
,.7 f,! AQ Guy d. Cunningha d !
q Executive Legal Director cc: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman, ASLAP B. Paul Cotter, Chairman, ASLBP Heriel H.E. Plaine, General Counsel, OGC g 91 g 7 000B23 / 0 /A- f' f- 3 55, pr HALLDB-355 PDR
STATEMENT OF POLICY:
MANDLING OF LATE ALLEGATIONS IN INFORMAL LICENSING REVIEWS The purpose of this policy statement is to explair the policy which the Comission expects to follow regarding the treatment of allegations, received from sources outside the Comission, in operating licensing reviews. The focus of this statement is on NRC staff and Comissica pre-licensing safety reviews of uncontested issues, and Comission pre-licensing effectiveness reviews of contested issues. The treatment of allegations in fo: mal r.djudicatory licensing proceedings will be gov-erned by the Pules of Practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2. Apart from this policy statement, the Ccmission has directed the initiation of a rule-making to establish the standards which will be apolied by licensing and appeal boards in considering late contentions and noticns to reopen closed recorcs 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 s ,
responsibility to make this deterinination and if there is a serious ques- I l
tion as to the ability to make such finding, no license may be issued and '
the time necessary to resolve such ques' tion must and will be taken.
Yherefore, in the context of late allegations, it is necessary that ap-propriate criteria be applied to enable the decisiontrIakers, be it the Comission's staff or the Comission itself, to expeditiously determire e
r l
w . _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - . . -- - --
the significance, in terms of safe operation of the facility, of any allegations made.
I 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 whethet to authorize the issuance of an operating license was to be made. The allegations have on some occasions related to matters in controversy and on others have related to issues not under consideration by a par.ticular adjudicatory tribunal. Experience has shown that of ten significant com-mitments of staff resources 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 significar.ce. The effect of the receipt of large numbers of late allegations has, on occasion, been deiay in the licensing process and diversion of staff resources from I other pressing safety issues. f Ideally, all allegations concerning a particular facility will be resolved before any license is authorized. If, however, because of such '
i factors as the number of allegations and/or the tardy submission of them.
[
all allegations cannot be resolved in a timeframe consistent with reason- !
, able and responsible licensing action, it may be necessary to give prior-ity to those allegations which, because of their potential impac' on !
safety, must be resolved before licensing action can be taken.
' Initial Screening of Allegations i
Any concerns bearing on the safety of a facility should be brought '
! promptly to the attention of the applicant or licensee in the first
t 3
instance.
If, however, this approach is unsatisfactory, any person is free to bring such concerns directly to the NRC.
In so doing, it should be stressed that the Commission views with disfavor the submissio allegations for the purpose of delaying a licensing decision. Thus, to i
eliminate unnecessary delay in the licensing process to the extent pc,ssible, any allegations concerning the design, construction, operation or management of a nuclear power plant should be brought to the Comission's attention as promptly as possible.
All allegations should be specific and documented to the fullest extent possible.Those submitting allegations should be aware that appropriate protection against retaliecory action by an applicant or licenste is afforded by statute, in reviewing allegations, the appropriate Crmission staff office will first determine whether, if true, the allegation is caterial to the licensing decision in that it would require denial of the license sought j ,
' the imposition of additional conditions on such license or further anaiy .
sis or investigation.
Allegations which, even if true, are not material to the licensing decision or which on their face are frivolous or too
' vague or ,cneral in nature will receive no further consideration.
' As to allegations which are material to ti.e licensing decision, the Comission staff will next determine whether the information presented is new in the sense of raising a matter not previously co.1sidered or which j
tends to corroborate previously received allegations. In reaching this decision, all information available to the Commission'will be considered ,
including that previously provided by an applicant or licensee and that obtained by the Comission ir.Mbe course of its review and inspection i
l I
_ _ _ _ . ~ ~ ~ * ^ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~'
t efforts or frorr its investigation of prior al'egations.
Already-available information may be sufficient to resolve certain alle-gations. However, if an allegation is found to be both material and new, :
further inquiry is warranted and will be undertaken. 1 Further Review 1
If the staff determines that, as a result of the number of allega- [
tions submitted af ter the issue en which the allegation m&y have bearing !
has been closed in the staff's evaluation or, in cases where the issue i has not been addressed, after the entire staff evaluation has been completed, it appears likely that full consideration of all allegations i cant.ot be accomplished consistent with responsible and timely Comission action, the Comission staff will conduct a further screening of the ;
allegations to cetermine what priority should be given to Ln individual concern raised relative to the activity to be authorized.O The ;
following screening criteria will be applied t
- 1. The likelihood that the allegation is correct, taking into consideration all available infortration including the apparent level of
[ knowledge, expertise and reliability of the individual submitting the i
! allegation in terms of the allegation submitted and the possible l existence of more credible contrary information. ,
1 i
! {
1 As a general matter, the Commission has authorized issuance of oper.
! */
atingsubsequently and licenses firstforforfulllow power power testing (o(up operation to 5%
peration of rated above 5% ofpower) [
rated power). !n some cases these steps have been further refined, [
i for exampl-, into fuel load, hot system testing, criticality and ;
i zero power testing. Other refinements too are possible and may be !
authorized.
l ,
l :
I
[ -- - _ _ _ . - -
i
,' .. o -
5-
- 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 concern about the design, constri!ction 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 auth9tizing that stage. For purposes of this policy statement, an allegation will be considered safety significant if the allegation would, if true. (1) raise a serious question about the ability of a particular structure, system or, component to perform its intended func-tion or (2) raise a serious question of management conduct or implemen-tation of the quality assurance program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the plant's capability of being operated safely. Allegations which are of minimal safety significance will be resolted in the normal course of business independent of license issuance.
Separate from the foregoing criteria for screening allegations which will be applied by the NRC, it is appropriate to remind parties to ongo-ing adjudicatory proceedings of their obligation to bring allegations to the attention of the presiding board. It should be stressed that all parties have such an obligation to inform boards of relevant and material information that may affect the decisionmaking process.
The Comission's staff, however, in accordance with its obligations for board notification has, in the past, appropriately submitted allega-tions to boards promptly and without awaiting their resolution or deter-mination of significance relative to the decisionmaking process. While such practice is consistent #,th the Comission-approved board
1
.* a notification policy, it has resulted, on occasion, in laying before '
boards' new inforration, the significance of which is not read'ly 1
apparent. Consec,ently, in the future, staff board notifications of allegations shall not be made until the staff has made at least an initial screening of the allegations. Only those allegations which are '
found not to be frivolous on their face, which are new and material to i the decisionmaking process and which are determined to warrant further ;
scrutiny should be submitted to the presiding tribunal. To the extent 1
that other parties to a proceeding may have received allegations, they too should make every reasonable effort to screen the allegations prior ;
to submitting them to a, board. Notwithstanding the need for such screening, board notifications by any party should be cade promptly consistent with the need and time required for screening, taking into l account the nature, scope and number of allegations irvolved. The \
staff's board notification procedures should be revised accordingly. ;
i i
f i
k i
i
- . -- . - - - - . - _ . _ . -