ML20203P661

EDO Procedures Manual

ML20203P661
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/01/1986
From:	NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
NUREG-BR-0072, NUREG-BR-0072-S07-R1, NUREG-BR-72, NUREG-BR-72-S7-R1, NUDOCS 8605070619
Download: ML20203P661 (156)

Text

f )

EDO PROCEDURES mat!UAL NUREG/BR-0072

(' - Revision 1

(

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DATE ISSUED-SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 7 May 1, 1986 FILING INSTRUCTIONS PAGES TO BE REMOVED NEW PAGES TO BE INSERTED PART PAGE NUMBER DATE PART PAGE NUMSER DATE Index (page v),and all pages, including Index (page v),and all pages, includ'ing Exhibits in the following parts: Exhibits in the following parts:

I, III, V, VI, VIII I, III, V, VI, VIII, IX 5/1/86 Part VIII is now entitled " Investigations /

Allegations" (Vice Miscellaneous).

/O Miscellaneous is Part IX. New tabs are Q provided for these Parts.

l

, i PDR NURE9 BR-OO72 R PDR 11 5/1/86

(

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

i i

i r

i l

1 1

i l INDEX i I i i >

I. Office of the Executive Director for Operations i i II. Correspondence t

j III. Commission Papers and Memoranda IV. Commission Meetings

)'

V. Congressional Procedures i

i VI. Procedures for Responding to GA0 Requests and Reports l and OIA Audit Reports  ;

1 i VII. Tracking of Tasks (WITS) 1 j VIII. Investigations / Allegations ,

!~ IX. Miscellaneous i  !

T i

i

! i I

I i  ;

i '

l i

V 5/1/86

I. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS

+O A. Functions of the ED0 s

B. OED0 Organization C. Working with OED0 l D. EDO Rulemaking Authority

} 1. General i 2. Preparation of Rulemaking Paper

3. Notification of Comission for Rules to be Signed by the ED0 i

E. Control of NRC Rulemaking F. Control of NRC Rulemaking and Its Timeliness G. Regulatory History Rulemaking Procedures H. Daily Staff Notes

1. Purpose

2. Scope l 3. Details of Reporting '

I. Weekly Information Report

1. Purpose i

2. Scope

3. Details of Reporting l J. Weekly Staff Meetings {

4 K. Periodic Review of Major Office Programs i

3 S Exhibits 5/1/86 I-1 I

L' _ _ . - _ _ , .

'T I. OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS A. Functions of ED0 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:

1. Develops and promulgates rules, except proposed or final rules 4 involving significant questions of policy. Issues proposed and final rules under 10 CFR Parts 7, 8, and 9 Subpart C that are corrective or of a nonpolicy nature. Issues proposed and final rules under Part 2 only after obtaining the concurrence of OGC, ELD, ASLAP, and ASLBP. See NRC Manual Chapter 0103, paragraphs 0213, 038, 039 and 0310.

Is responsible for administrative functions of the Commission

(~]

V 2.

including resolving EE0 and grievance matters (excluding grievance matters that arise from Commission level offices) and providing support services.

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.

5/1/86 I-3 u _ _ . _ _ _ _

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

D/EDO - Specifically responsible for coordination of budget matters, OMB liaison, SCRB, and the Executive Resource Board - as well as such other areas he may address for the EDO. Supervises the activities of ADM, OSDBU/CR, RM, and AE0D. Acts for the E00 in ED0's absence.

A0/EDO - Assigns all correspondence and tasks given the staff by ED0 or the Commission; monitors progress and reviews for EDO, or provides to D/ED0 or DEDR0GR for ED0 review. Establishes pro-cedures 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. Supervises the activities of IP and SP.

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.

Represents the ED0 befnre the Commission, other agencies, industry and the public as required. Reviews technical issues for the EDO.

O l 5/1/86 I-4 1

n

• OEDO:ACB - reviews and processes all communications addressed or

/ i referred to the E00; serves as liaison with SECY on the Q coordination of principal correspondence, etc.; functions as central control point with OEDO and all the offices under it.

C. Working with OED0

1. A0/ED0 may be contacted for guidance in regard to specific issues assigned to staff (usually the WITS or " green tickets"), general guidance on how to proceed in regard to dealing with ED0 or the Commission, or in regard to inter office coordination. He is the point of contact to advise of Commission or Congressional contacts. He is available for any question related to this manual or which relates to staff procedures.

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

involving significant questions of policy, or involving the following 10 CFR Parts except for proposed or final rules in these parts that do not raise policy issues or are of a corrective nature: 7 (Advisory Committees);8(Interpretations);and9SubpartC (Government in the Sunshine Act Regulations),

involving Part 2 where any of the following Offices fail to concur: 0GC, ELD, ASLAP, or ASLBP.

5/1/86 I-5 l

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, i the resources required for implementation.

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

1

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

existing policy were essentially followed with minor i modifications to fit a particular situation. l 9

5/1/86 I-6

A minor new issue:

79

\v]

would be one that the_ Commission had previously considered in a similar context, would have limited impact, did not present important health, safety, environmental, or safeguards questions, 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 new. issues should be handled in the same manner,

d. When the Commission 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 for the ED0's signature if:

no significant adverse comments or questions have been received on the notice of proposed rulemaking, no substantial changes in text are indicated. 1 The ED0 should send such final rules to the Commission, 0GC and OPE three (3) working days in advance of its publication in the Federal Register."

Caution should be exercised, however, to ensure that major new rules involving matters of significant public interest are brought before the Commission when the comments received l j 5/1/86 I-7

suggest that the Comission 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 Comission for its review.

e. It is essential that the Comission 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 Comission 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 Comission in the normal Comission paper format. See Chapter III.

b. If the rule does fall within the scope of the ED0's rulemaking authority, the rule should be forwarded by memorandum to the EDO. The memorandum should l explain the basis and purpose of the rule. In addition, the originating office shall: i O

5/1/86 I-8

N Include in the cemorandum, after the Office Director's signature, a certification statement prepared for EDG signature (see Exhibit 1 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 EDO +

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-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) l 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, provide a copy of l the final rule to the Office of the Secretary for circulation in the Commission reading file, and hold the rulemaking 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 p final action.

5/1/86 I-9 l

c. Staff who receive any comments on ED0 rulemaking from the Commission pursuant to notices in Weekly / Daily Reports must advise OED0 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 EC0 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 commensurate 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 ED0 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 ED0 (ATTN:

DEDR0GR). The E00 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 5/1/86 I-10

.l

(] F. Control of NRC Rulemaking and Its Timeliness Associated with the rulemaking review and approval process established on February 13,1984, ED0 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 under the ED0's purview are finalized within about 2 years of their inception. See Exhibit 3 for detailed procedures.

G. Regulatory History Rulemaking Procedures 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 and/or that a record should exist that the Commission was notified. 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.

O l 1

5/1/86 I-11

l

3. Details of Reporting

a. All offices will submit reports as required. Negative report is required from Program Offices on'y.

b. Typed reports (original or good xerox copy) are submitted to A0/E00 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 l Important correspondence received / Congressional hearings 1

I requiring testimony / feedback on hearings Foreign incidents (major exposures or releases, degradation of systems, generic problems); expand in l Weekly Information Report) l Exemptions, orders, events related to a hearing, releases, operating problems, failures (as appropriate to a daily report; otherwise report in Weekly Information Report) l O

5/1/86 I-12

CN

• Staff briefings for a Comissioner's Office or a Congressional Office Visits by Comissioners to Regional Offices or Regional Facilities I. Weekly Information Report 1.

Purpose:

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

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

3. Details of Reporting:

a. Offices submit typed reports (original or good xerox 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 Comission has an ongoing interest.

O 5/1/86 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 l

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.

5/1/86 I-14

e. Procedures for Reporting Meetings

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.

j

3. Report meetings to be held during the two-week period i 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.

!v J. Weekly Staff Meetings i

E00 staff meetings are usually held on Thursday mornings and are l 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. One.

each month this staff meeting is expanded to include all Office Directors and Division Directors on a rotational basis.

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. l l

5/1/86 I-15  :

Office Directors are to utilize these briefings to air mid- and long-term programmatic problems and acquire decisions necessary for prompt and efficient exercise of their programmatic responsibilities. The OED0 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 EDO of appropriate decisions / problems.

See Exhibit 9 for implementing instructions.

On December 1, 1982, the EDO 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

5/1/86 I-16

\

SAMPLE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

[USE SINGLE SPACING]

Approved For Publication The Comission has delegated to the ED0 (10 CFR 1.40(c) and (d)) the l 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. i

• The enclosed [ proposed rule] [ final rule] entitled " Physician's Use of ^ '

Radioactive Drugs," would amend 10 CFR 35.14(b)(7) to allow licensees to use certain radiopharmaceuticals for recently developed diagnostic imaging procedures not listed on their respective labels.* l This [ proposed rule] [ final rule] does not constitute a significant question- l

' of policy, nor does it amend regulations contained in 10 CFR Parts 7, 8, or , '

9 Subpart C concerning matters of policy. I therefore find that this rule  !

is within the scope of my rulemaking authority and am proceeding to issue it; i

j Date [Name]

Executive Director for Operations

• Between asterisks insert the necessary description for the particuliar rule in question. These words are taken from a particula'r rule to serve as an example. -

-' /

S f

7 5/1/86 I-17 EXHIBIT 1 .

SAMPLE WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT

• OR DAILY STAFF NOTES ** ENTRY

[USE SINGLE SPACING)

Proposed or Final Rule Signed by ED0 On , the Executive Director for Operations approved a

[ proposed rule] [ final rule] which revises 10 CFR 35.14(b)(7) to allow licensees to use certain radiopharmaceuticals for recently developed diagnostic imaging procedures not listed on their respective labels.

This constitutes notice to the Commission that, in accordance with the rulemaking authority delegated to EDO, [the EDO 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 Federal Register for publication, unless otherwise directed by the Comission.]

• Weekly Information Report for Proposed Rules

• • Daily Staff Notes for Final Rules O

4 O

5/1/86 I-18 EXHIBIT 2 1

4 univso states

1. "'*%g% NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j gs-

] g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

. e a _

l  %,,,,,,s/ JUN 121985 .

. ~

EMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors .

FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

n.

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, effia l cient, of high quality and timely. Specifically, I identified *#r actions asso-ciated with the rulemaking review and approval process that I established'early last year. In the memorandum, I comitted 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' 1

their inception. ,

I I have asked RES to establish such a tracking system and to infonn 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 particularlyminter- l ested in identifying and taking action on those rulemaking actions which=are being excessively delayed because of failure to reach staff consem.us.

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

(1) EachofficedirectorwillestabIishfor'eachnewrulemakinga scheduled final action date which will be with'n i 2 years of its"incep-l tion (the final action date is the date the final rule is expected-to j j'

be published in the Federal Register). For ongoing rulemaking, '

the final action date should be as close to 2 years from inception l l

~

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 I sponsored by his/her office. V

.f l

- The target date'for final action on the rule, t three inteinediate' milestones for the current phase -

of the rulemaking (i.e., ANPRM, NPRM, final rule) which i

can be used forftracking purposes,  ;,m i

. Begin Division Review, .

. Office Concurrence Complete,

. Submit Rule to EDO.

s 1-19p EXHIBIT 3 5/1/86 v-m-

. . - - .n . , , , -. .-..,,a- , ---a- -,e ---w-----nn- - - - - , - - ---.w -l - - - - - .- - -- - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 This infomation has been requested in the May 28 memo from Pat Norry O

on Quarterly Update of the Regulatory Agenda.

(3) For each subsequent quarterly u Office Director will either (a)pdate of the certify regulatory that each ruleagenda, 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 EDO with recommendations where EDO 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.

N Willia . Dircks l

Executive Director for Operations l

l l

l 2

i O

/1/86 I-20 EXHIBIT 3

! / \e UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i wAsHmorow.o. c.zosos h\ APR 0 51985 i

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 G. Wayne Kerr, Director

,O 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 infonned 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 l particular rulemaking are identified and accessible. This will facilitate the I resolution of any istues that may arise concerning the interpretation of a '

particular regulation. The following procedures will be applicable to any

, proposed or final rule submitted to the Federal Register for publication i after the date of this memorandum. The Rules and Procedures Branch, Office I-21 EXHIBIT 4 5/1/86

i 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 recommendations on whether to proceed with the rulemaking, the sponsoring Office's recommendation to proceed with rulemaking, and the evaluation of the rulemaking proposal a the RES Independent Review) gainst the six criteria required for

. prior drafts of the rulemaking transmitted for interoffice review i

j

. formal Office comments on the drafts submitted for interoffice review

. source documents relied upon in preparing the draft rule (e.g.

research studies, consensus standards endorsed in the draft rule)

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

. supporting documentation 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 l

. Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) minutes and recomendations concerning the draft rule

. the ACRS comments on the draft rule I-22 EXHIBIT 4 5/1/86

,O '

, . the Comission Paper transmitting the draft rule to the Comission or the memorandum transmitting the rule to the

! EDO 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 recomendations on the draft rule  :

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

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

. any other documents of central relevance (e.g. interagency correspondence, agreement state correspondence)

! Documents that fall within any of the above categories must

, be typewritten rather than handwritten to permit conversion into microfiche by the Document Control System (DCS). If the only record of substantive office review coments on a draft l rule are contained as handwritten annotations on the draft itself, the Project Manager should sumarize these coments in a typed note to the file.

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

l publication of the proposed or final rule, the project manager l 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 internal documents, this will require the Project Manager to ascertain whether each document listed is 6vailable 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 the record's accession number is identified for each document l l on the index. In the case of published documents (e.g. NUREGS,  !

l NTIS publications, books, articles, etc.), it will be sufficient to include the bibliographic citation for that document. The

! Project Manager shall forward the completed index to the Rules and Procedures Branch Office of Administration, within sixty days after the completion of the rulemaking. The title of the index, and the file, should be the name of the rule and applicable NRC citation (e.g. 10 CFR Part 50) as it appears in the Federal

, Register notice, the Federal Register citatfon and date of publication.

1-23 EXHIBIT 4 5/1/86

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.

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

i 1

l l

l 1

O l

I-24 EXHIBIT 4 5/1/86

SAMPLE DAILY STAFF NOTES l 8

[es. I uenTeo sTATas NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

l

$' staaNesseTON.D.C.30005 5 June 1, 1983

,e... / l MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Comissioner Bernthal j i

FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

DAILY STAFF NOTES - MAY 31, 1983 )

.lE,

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. l Region I

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 maintenance testing on the containment personnel air lock in October 1982.

NRR

1. Clinton Power Station Illinois Power Company announced on May 24, 1983 that the fuel load date for the Clinton Power Station, Unit I has been revised from January i 1984 to January 1986.

00000 i l

O I-25 EXHIBIT 5 5/1/86

SAMPLE DAILY STAFF NOTES ENTRY O

NRR DAILY HIGHLIGHT Septerter 12, 1983

1. Seabrook Station, Unit No. 2 l 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. )

I 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 September 7,1983 as a result of an unidentified leakage of greater than 1 gpm (Technical Specification limit) in the Reactor Coolant System.

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 detennined 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 determined that the "B" recirculation discharge pump valve (M053B) was leaking at the body to bonnet flange.

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 licensee 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 s~cheduled to comence on September 8,1983 and be completed in two to three days.

I-26 EXHIBIT 6 5/1/86

l SAMPLE WEEKLY INFORMATION REPORT ENTRY I

O OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ITEMS OF INTEREST l

Week Ending August 26, 1983

. 1 Dresden Nuclear Power Station. Unit No. 3 <

l At Saturday midnight, unidentified drywell leakage rose again after about a i month to 3gpm mquiring licensee analysis to deterinine the source.

Containment air sampling was done with no abnormal indications and I surveillance intervals between sump pumping wem shortened to two hours. A reading of over 4gpm was reached during one of these two hour intervals but 1 l

. the subsequent four hour value was 3.66gpm which does not require a drywell

entry. The licensee, based on his analysis to date, believes that the leak is either in a recirculation pump discharge valve or in a recirculation pump i

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 l reading at 12:00 noon on August 22 was 3.25gpm.

Indian Point 2 - Striking Workers Return to IP-2 Meders of Local #1-2 Utility Workers of America have begun to relieve

management watchstanders at IP-2 following Thursday's vote to accept Con i Edison's contract proposal. Reorientation of the returning operators, i which includes required reading, classroom training and parallel ,

watchstanding, will continue through all three norinal Monday shifts. I

Management watchstanders will retain control of operations until 11 p.m. I 1 Monday night when the Tuesday midashift reports for work. The IP-2 i

resident inspectors are providing 24-hour coverage of the turnover j activities.

. Beaver Valley Unit 1 After core reload during the week of August 15, 1983 the licensee experienced

, trouble latching one rod cluster contro assembly (RCCA). On August 20, 1983, after removal of the upper core internals package, the entire K row of

fuel assen611es was found shifted about 1/4 inch. The nozzle on assembly K-2 (new fuel assembly) was crushed down about 7/8 of an inch with its associated RCCA displaced down approximately ? 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 assembly 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 damaged assembly will be withdrawn, inspected and be replaced or repaired.

5/1/86 I-27 EXHIBIT 7

R-b RES M ETING NOTICES August 26. 1983 DOCKET DATE/ TIME ATTENDEES /

NLNSER LOCATION PURPOSE APPLICANT NRC CONTACT 8/27-28/83 Boston M 2D/3D UPTF Measurement Tests Zuber Zuber 8/28-9/1 Cambridge. M International Mtg on LWR CSR8. 0ML. Agrawal INEL LANL.

SNL 8/29/83 P-118 Semiscale Landry Landry 8/30/83 Idaho Falls. ID INEL MIST Supp)rt Young h

Young ;E m

- 8/29/83 1133-55 Meeting with Mr. Finzi of A3 AM Cortez M m CEC to discuss research Q coordination ~,

8/29/83 Re 78084 Meeting with DOE on waste 2 3:00 PM RES. MSS Minogue Forrtestal management S 81dg. M 8/30/83 1140-55 Meeting with Mr. Cottntil Minogue of Oak Ridge to discuss the Nuclear Safety Journal h 8/ 31/ 83 Hanover. MM 1/2 Scale Thernal Mixing Tests Reyes Reyes 9/1/83 Los Alamos. M LANL MIST Suppcrt Young Young h 9/1/83 1717 H Street ACRS Mtg - Severe Accident ACRS/SARP Larkins g AM Manag/BCL

- Wang

, 9/2/83 P-110 NRC/EPRI H Rvw. Mtg.

All Day Bethesda 2 CSR8/CHE8 Larkins NRR Branches EPRI e O G

i i

i MAJOR OFFICE PROGRAM REVIEWS Implementing Instructions 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 by EDO on those problem areas affecting the progress of '

j programs as far in advance as possible. l B. Method: On approximately quarterly basis, Program Office )

i Directors (NRR, NMSS, RES, and IE) will be scheduled to l brief ED0 on programs of interest - interoffice programs )

for which they are responsible as well as office l i programs. OEDO will provide a memo in advance of the )

briefing indicating programs of special interest; Office J Directors will add those additional programs in which 1 they perceive an appropriate area should be addressed.

Briefings will be concise and problem - as opposed to

status - oriented. No viewgraphs or formalization will be required. More in-depth briefings, if required, will i follow. I

~I f C. Scheduling: Two-hour blocks will be scheduled by the A0/EDO in

!. coordination with the Offices. )

{ i D. Attendance: 1) EDO, D/EDO, DEDROGR, A0/EDO, (senior person present will chair)  :

i

2) Office Director of the Office involved

3) Division Directors of the Office-involved or senior l Division member available 1

4) Directors of other offices will attend or have a i i member (s) present. They will observe and participate on discu:sion~of cross-cutting issues where relevant and i

should be knowledgeable.

5) Supporting staff is not required E. Agenda: 1. OED0 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 additionc1

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 list, offices should

! review the EDO Program Guidance and lead office assignments in the EDO memorandum on Guidelines for-Coordinating Program Areas. These items will j constitute the second set of agenda items.

5/1/86 I-29 EXHIBIT. 9

.- . --__=.-.- - . . . - = - _ . .... .- - - _ - - - . - .. _______

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

a) programs which have or will slip and the causes thereof; b) issues on which cross-office problems exist; c) issues on which an ED0 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 l

O 5/1/86 I- 30 EXHIBIT 9 l

l -

i i

I- ,

l 'III. COMISSION PAPERS AND MEMORANDA i

h General i

t A. Types of SECY Papers

! 1. Consnission Meeting ,

{ 2. Affirmation

3. Notation Vote  ;

, 4.- Negative Consent .!

l 5. Information i

1

! B. Release of SECY Papers

{ C. Format Requirements l

1. Text

2. Resource Estimates j

a. Category 1 Estimates

{

j b. Category 2 Estimates  ;

j 3. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines  :

4. Sunshine Act

5. Scheduling

! 6. Federal Register Notices '

i' I t 7. Paperwork Reduction Act

! 8. Regulatory Flexibility Act

9. Backfit Analysis

! D. Miscellaneous

} 1. Style j 2. Stationery

3. Coordination, Routing and Dispatch

4. . Copy Requirements i

5. Distribution Sheet i

! E. Memoranda to the Comissioners i

Exhibits

'5/1/86 III-l

._.._,_.__._.__J

II. COMMISSION PAPERS

}

General j Commission papers, also referred to as SECY papers, include responses to issues raised by the Chairman and the Commissioners, those initiated due

! to petitions for rulemaking, and those initiated by the staff when it l identifies an issue or technical development which should be brought to the

. Commission's attention for information purposes or for action.

1 The SECY papers constitute the principal instrument by which the Commission receives information needed for making decisions. Certain decisional SECY papers are acted upon by formal Commission vote at a Commission meeting.

Other papers are acted upon by individual Commissioner notation vote and do

, not require a Commission meeting to complete the action. The " Commission meeting" is discussed in Chapter IV. See Exhibit 1 for an illustration of a f typical SECY paper and its standard entries.

i Exhibit 2 is a flow chart tracking a SECY paper through various offices from the time it leaves the originating office to its final disposition.

4

A. Types of SECY Papers Based on their purposes and contents, the SECY papers can be categorized into the following types:

4 i

l l

5/1/86 III-3 l

1. Comission Meeting Papers Purpose - To present major policy issues for discussion and decision by the Comission at a scheduled meeting.

Format - a) alternatives b) pros and cons of each alternative c) recommendations Note - a) A Commission meeting paper should include an objective analysis of the reasonable alternatives presented in the paper, and should show why an alternative is preferred and therefore recommended.

b) Do not simply present a staff's point of view and try to justify it in the paper.

c) These papers address major issues and the Comission usually are formally briefed by staff.

d) See Exhibit 3.

2. Affirmation Papers Purpose - To present relatively major policy issues - usually on rules and regulations - as compared to Meeting papers.

Included are those which:

a) do not appear to have far-reaching implications; b) represent only a small extension, modification, or elaboration of existing policy; or c) do not appear to set new precedent or to constitute a major departure from existing policy. Affirmation papers also are used to address the residual adminis-trative actions of policy paper issues, (e.g., approval of previously considered Federal Register Notices) and usually present specific items for Comission approval, such as an effective rule, denial or grant of a petition, or a statement of organization and functions of a newly created NRC office which includes a delegation of authority to the office director.

O 5/1/86 III-4 1

i G

Format - Alternatives are generally presented, although it is occasionally appropriate not to do so. A recommendation is presented.

Note - a) Affirmation papers are acted upon by individual Comissioners through Affirmation Vote Sheets and these votes are affirmed in a subsequent Comission meeting which usually has little in the way of discussion.

If unanimous approval is not attained and a meeting is required to resolve differences, it becomes a policy paper, for all intents and purposes.

b) See Exhibit 4.

) 3. Notation Vote Papers Purpose - To address matters which do not require a Comission decision at a meeting, but which nevertheless require Comissioner concurrence and/or coment. A typical example is a proposed rule.

Format - Alternatives are generally not presented, although it is occasionaliy appropriate to do so. A recomendation s is presented.

Note - a) The Discussion section should include sufficient information for the Comission to understand clearly and easily what is before them for coment

! and/or concurrence, b) Notation Vote papers are acted upon by individual Comissioners through Notation Vote Sheets which are distributed with the paper. Final decision does not involve affirmation, at an open meeting, so i

decisions are reached by the Commission more quickly.

c) See Exhibit 5.

4. Negative Consent Papers Purpose - To address issues which the Comission would like brought to its attention before action is taken, but which do not require the formality of a Comission vote.

Comission assent is presumed from the lack of action to j

preclude the recomendation from being implemented, i.e., negative consent. A typical example is a review i of a staff position on an Emergency Operations Facility at a nuclear power plant.

5/1/86 III-5

Format - No alternatives but a recommendation is present.

Note - a) The Discussion section should include sufficient infonnation for the Commission to understand clearly and easily what is before them for comment.

b) The Commission is granted a 10-day time frame in which to act. Subject to Commissioner contrary views and receipt of a subsequent Staff Requirements Memo from SECY, the staff recommendation is accepted.

c) See Exhibit 6.

5. Information Papers Purpose - To forward to the Commission information on significant matters. No Comission action is requested or required.

Format - No recommendation contained.

Note - a) Information papers should only be used when the information is of greater length or of greater urgency than inserts in the Weekly Information Report satisfy.

b) Condense the information in " executive summary" fashion, and the introductory paragraph should show why the item should be of interest to the Commission.

c) Information papers will not be used to obtain Comission approval or negative consent. If Commission approval is requested, it must be obtained through an appropriate Notation Vote or Negative Consent paper.

d) See Exhibit 7.

l l

O 5/1/86 III 6 l

/'~'N B. Release of SECY Papers to the PDR

. U

1. If it is anticipated prior to submission of a Commission paper to the ED0 that release to the PDR is advisable, note in the Recommendation section of the paper that staff recommends the paper be placed in the PDR.

2. If, after a paper is published, the staff desires to release the i paper for some reason other than an F0IA request, the first

. contact should be to the EDO who will advise whether SECY should I

be requested to survey the Commission and request release.

3. If a paper is discussed in an open meeting, it is automatically placed in the PDR.

C. Format Requirements

1. Text If the text of the paper or memorandum is more than five typed pages, single spaced, the paper should contain a concise summary which sets forth the major issues (e.g., technical, policy, legal), the recommendation of the office sending the paper, and reference to any dissenting views and personnel and financial resource requirements.

l If the subject of the paper has had a prior history before the l Commission, the references (staff paper numbers, meeting dates, memoranda, etc., and Commission actions on them) should be l provided in a preliminary background paragraph.

i I

If the paper (or more usually the enclosures) recommends revised text in something the Commission has been asked previously to approve, then the additions and the deletions to that text should Ox be clearly identified.

5/1/86 III.7

Thest requirements apply to any paper or memorandum sent for Commission approval of a policy or significant course of action. l

2. Resource Estimates l

A Comission Paper which has resource impacts (funding and/or man-pcwer) on the NRC must so indicate. Resource estimates can be ]

presented together with the pro / con discussion of each alternative ]

(see Exhibit 8) or discussed in a separate paragraph. However, the l estimates must be summarized separately as in Exhibit 8. The summary must include all NRC resources (not just those of the requesting l

office) and must specify possible sources of resources (such as reprogramming) to implement any new initiatives.

1 If no resource impact is expected, the Discussion section should state that the action involves no new resource requirements. (See l Exhibit 1.)

The Commission Papers recommending program changes that have O

resource impacts generally fall into the following categories.

While the requesting offices have the primary responsibility to determine which category a paper falls under, the EDO may change I the category based on his own review and OEDO staff recommendation.

a. Category 1 Estimates

)

l Those which have little resource impact and/or which seek preliminary Commission guidance - most papers in this category require resources within the requesting office's availability.

The originating office will prepare a preliminary resource estimate for each alternative presented in the paper. After the Commission reviews the paper and has reached a decision on the alternative, the originating office may be required to prepare a '

detailed resource estimate for the selected (preferred) alterna-tive to allow the Commission to make a final decision.

5/1/86 III-8

9

[b b. Category 2 Estimates Those which have significant resource implications and/or are being proposed to the Commission for final decision - usually these papers propose courses of action that require resources beyond the requesting office's availability. These papers are required to contain fully developed and detailed best estimates l l

when they are submitted to the EDO. There they will undergo OED0 staff review before being forwarded to the Commission.

Important resource considerations during such review would include overall NRC availability, Congressional reprogramming thresholds, and the need to pursue budget supplementals or amendments.

3. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines The Executive Director for Operations announced the adoption of new Regulatory Analysis Guidelines in a memorandum to Office

Directors and Regional Administrators, dated December 13, 1982.

The revised guidelines replace the Commission's guidelines for preparing value impact analyses (SECY-77-388A, December 19, 1977). A regulatory analysis must accompany each rulemaking action submitted for review by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements and by the Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements, or for decision by the Executive Director for Operations or the Commission. In addition, the Office of State Programs should review all papers which contain an analysis of impacts upon State and local governments.

For detailed information concerning the preparation and content of a regulatory analysis, refer to the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines presented as an attachment to the December 13, 1982 memorandum (NUREG-BR-0058).

O 5/1/86 III-9 l

4. Sunshine Act All papers which have a potential of appearing as an item on the Commission meeting agenda must, in order for " Sunshine Act" procedures to be met, include a statement in the Scheduling block:

"If scheduled on the Commission agenda, recommend this paper be considered at a [ closed] [open] meeting." [See also IV.E.]

5. Scheduling This block should be filled out for every paper requiring Comission action.

a. If there is a circumstance which requires or makes it advisable that Commission action be completed by a certain date, the date and an explanation should be stated, e.g.:

" Commission action is requested by January 31 in order to leave 60 days for comment, 60 days for revision and ACRS review, and 30 days for final Commission approval. This will allow the rule to be in place by July I to meet the conditions of the Commission Order of June 1980."

• • or**

" Commission action is requested by June 15. The Department of State advises us they intend to act by June 16 with or without NRC input."

• • or * *

"While no specific circumstances require Commission action by a particular date, the Commission should be aware that this action is on the critical path to any further directicn to licensees on installation of water level indicators in B&W reactors."

b. If there are no such circumstances, the entry should read:

"No specific circumstance is known to staff which would require Commission action by any particular date in the near term."

O 5/1/86 III-10

O V

6. Federal Register Notices and Congressional Letters 4

A Federal Register Notice and letters to Congressional Comittees are prepared as attachments to a SECY paper dealing with rule-making. The Federal Register Notice is prepared for signature by the Secretary of the Comission. The NRC Regulations Handbook, NUREG/BR-0053 and 0055, August 1982, prepared by the Office of l Administration, provides guidance in the drafting and preparation 3

of various types of Federal Register Notices. The Handbook

discusses content and format requirements applicable to the various types of Federal Register Notices. The Handbook also sets out sample documents that illustrate proper compliance with these requirements. Sample documents include an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Proposed Rule, a Final Rule, and a response to a petition for rulemaking.

For copies of the Handbook and assistance in preparing a Federal g Register Notice, contact the Chief, Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration (492-7086).

Compliance with the reqeirements applicable to a Federal Register Notice will reduce delay hs documents are processed for publica-ation by the Office of the Federal Register.

Letters to Congressional Comittees are prepared for the signature of the Office Director that originated the action. See Exhibit 9 for a sample letter to appropriate Congressional Comittees from an Office Director informing them of a rulemaking action.

Note that requirements concerning the preparation of a Federal Register Notice and letters to Congressional Comittees are

applicable to rulemaking actions prepared for the ED0's signature under the delegation of authority to the ED0 (see Chapter I).

O 5/1/86 III-11 l

1

7. Paperwork Reduction Act Each rulemaking paper which contains an application, recordkeeping or reporting requirement must contain a statement concerning paperwork reduction requirements.

For detailed requirements concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act, see the ED0's April ?4, 1981 Memo to Office Directors regarding Implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act, NUREG/BR-0053 and 0055, August 1982. Further information on procedures related to the Act will be published in NRC Manual Chapter 0230 " Federal Reports Management."

8. Regulatory Flexibility Act Each rulemaking paper must contain a statement concerning the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act as follows:

Note that, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared which is summarized in Appendix A to the notice and which will be made available to the public for comment.

Note that, a copy of analysis will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

OR Certify that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). [Present a succinct statement indicating the basis for this conclusion.]

Note that the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small EiiiTness Administration will be informed of the certification and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

O 5/1/86 III-12

p For detailed instructions concerning the implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, refer to NUREG/BR-0053 and 0055, August 1982, NRC Regulations Handbook or the guidance document, 2

prepared by the Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration.

9. Backfit Analysis l

On December 31, 1985 tFe Comission directed that each rulemaking paper containing a proposed rule be accompanied by a backfit analysis and that, for the "next few" proposed rules issued for

public coments, in addition to comments on the merits of the proposed rule, public coments should be requested on whether the backfit analyses for these rules adequately implement the backfit rule. Further, on March 5,1986, the Comission directed that the backfit analysis provided with a rulemaking package for public coment should contain sufficient detail in addressing each consideration listed in the backfit rule so that anyone wishing to

] comment on the analysis may do so without requesting additional i detail or documents. In addition, the analysis should clearly state, based on the facts considered, how the staff decided that the proposed rule would provide a substantial increase in public health and safety and that the costs are justified in view of this increased protection.

i D. Miscellaneous

1. Style - Be concise and clear.

2. Stationery See Exhibit 10.

O 5/1/86 III-13

3. Coordination, Routing and Dispatch a) All Commission papers should be prepared for the signature of the Executive Director for Operations. The concurrence copy of the paper should have the initials of the Office Director responsible for the paper, or those of a person acting for the Office Director. These initials will indicate that the Office Director supports the paper. The concurrence blocks for other organizational entities should also be included.

Either the handwritten initials of the concurring official or the typed name and date of concurrence should be included.

The A0/ED0 determines if a SECY paper needs to be reviewed by the Office of General Counsel (0GC) or the Office of Policy Evaluation (OPE) on legal and policy issues. The A0/ED0 will work with the originating offices to incorporate OGC and OPE comments on the paper.

Significant staff disagreements should be summarized in the Discussion section of the peper. ELD or OGC may select "no objection" to indicate that the paper is acceptable with regard to legal issues.

Offices preparing papers should set a time limit for allowing their subordinate managers to resolve concurrence difficulties with managers of other offices. This limit generally should not exceed one week. If, after this time, a concurrence has not been received by subordinate staffs, Office Directors and Regional Administrators involved should attempt to resolve it. If this does not succeed, the problem should be referred to the E00 for a decision, promptly.

b) Commission papers should be forwarded to the ED0 with a covering memorandum which (1) emphasizes major issues which would be a value to the EDO in review prior to signature, and (2)summarizesconcurrences/nonconcurrences.

5/1/86 III-14

)

A

4. Copy Requirements a) Since all SECY papers are signed by the EDO, the original and an official file copy of the SECY paper are forwarded to OEDO:ACB for review and signature by the EDO. The original, one copy, and one official file copy are required for Information Papers, b) If enclosures to a SECY paper are bulky, such as NUREG reports, eight (8) copies should be provided to ED0 fcr distribution only to the Commissioners, SECY, OGC and OPE.

t

5. Distribution Sheet a) See Exhibit 11. This is prepared by the originating office to advise SECY as to how many copies of the paper they need to reproduce and to whom the copies should be sent. The j distribution numbers listed are for guidance only and can i

be changed, b) Once the paper is approved and signed by the EDO, the s

OEDO:ACB dates it and sends to SECY for reproduction.

E. Memoranda to the Commissioners Purpose - To respond to a question raised by the Commission, or to address a matter which requires limited distribution to the Commissioners.

Format - Memoranda to the Commission responding to specific requests for information from individual Commissioners normally are signed by the Executive Director for Operations. Care should be taken, however, that memoranda are not used as a substitute for commission papers. Direct memoranda to the Chairman or Comissioners from an Office Director are appropriate if the office is replying to a direct, verbal question. Such memoranda should have an ED0 "thru" line and should be transmitted through him.

Note - Unless the matter is private, without exception, memos to any Commissioner and OGC. should (See Exhibit 12.be cop)ied to all Commissioners, SECY, OP 5/1/86 III-15 <

1 i

4 STAFF PAPER SUMARY i

l For: The Commissioners i

i j From: [name]

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

PROVIDE FULL SUBJECT / TITLE

Purpose:

State the reason for presentation of this paper to the l Comission (to inform, request decision, etc.).

i t

, Category:* This paper covers a major / minor policy question or routine i matter requiring Comission consideration. State whether resource estimates are Category 1 or Category 2.**

Issue:*** Concise statement of the substantive issue. A sentence should suffice.

Decision List the criteria which must be applied to each alternative l Criteria:*** in order to select the best decision.

Alternatives:***

List the visible at aalternatives one after the other so that glance. (Noprosandconsordiscussion.~ they)are Sumary: If the text of the paper is more than five typed pages, single spaced, the paper should include a concise  ;

sumary which sets forth the major issues (e.g., ~

technical, policy, legal), the recommendation of the office sending the paper and reference to any dissenting views and personnel and financial resource requirements.

Contact:

Name, Office Telephone Number

• This block is not necessary in an Information, Negative Consent, Notation Vote or an Affinnation Paper. However, it is required for the latter two where recomendations impl reprograming of existing resources).y new NRC resource requirements (or

• • Category 1 estimates are preliminary. Category 2 estimates are more detailed. (See Page III-6.)

O ***This block is not necessary in an Infonnation, Negative Consent, Not of importance. .

.i i

III 17 EXHIBIT 1 5/1/86 ,

Background:

All papers should contain a background paragraph with informatie.r. to remind the reader of relevant past actions wid explain why the paper is being presented.

Staff paper numbers, meeting dates, memoranda, etc.,

and Comission actions on them should be referenced if the paper has had a prior history with the Comission Discussion: The discussion section should include a concise discussion / explanation which stands by itself, i.e.,

does not simply refer to an enclosure. Details should be included in an enclosure. Any resource implications and value/ impact sumary coments must be addressed, backed up by enclosures, if necessary. If there is no resource impact, state "This action involves no resource requirements."

In major policy papers, decisions should be followed by each alternative, listing for each.the resource estimates and pros and cons which result from applying criteria to the problem (if extensive, this may be included in an enclosure). Following this, sumary remarks on why a particular alternative is chosen and other relevant infomation may be added.

If the paper (or more usually the enclosures) recomends revised text in something the Comission has been asked previously to approve, the additions and the deletions to that text should be clearly identified (i.e.,

line-in,line-out).

Recomendation:* State exactly what you recomend, i.e., do not make the reader refer to the text. Include notes - to fill out what the Comission should know is also going to take place as a result of recomendations; e.g., Note:

Congressional Comittees and licensees will be notified.

Scheduling: Note deadlines to be met, if any. Indicate whether closed /open session is recomended. (Ifnoneofaboveis appropriate,omitentireline.)

l

[name]

Executive Director for Operations l l

Enclosure (s): 1

1. l 2.

• This block is Jot necessary in an Infomation Paper.

5/1/86 III-18 EXHIBIT 1

{$ TRACKING OF A SECY PAPER Same Day ORIGINATING W Supense Date l OFFICE

- OEDO:ACB ' and Signed W i r EDO, AO/EDO and Staff l

5 l

l

][!l

.a l *i' - Comments -

SECY C -

OEDO ~

MN 4- OEDO I

OGC V

a DPE 1

Commission s- Voting Re-dts, 1 I Meeting Commission

(' m _ __

l 5 (paper, beBot,etc.) Decisions, etc. Originating y

E COMMISSION  ; SECY OEDO -

Office and/or Q t Staff m

a

w. ,

(

(if required) s v

(Sample Comission Meeting Paper)

• SEE NOTE BELOW For: The Comissioners From: [name]

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

US/IAEA SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT

Purpose:

To obtain Comission action on the final draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement.

Category: This paper covers a major policy matter. Resource estimates, Category 1, preliminary.

Issue: Whether the final draft text of the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement should be approved by the Comission.

Sumary: This paper presents alternatives for Comission action

regarding approval of the final draft text of the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Since August 1975, NRC manpower assignment has been at a very low level but has included meetings with AIF and the establishment of an NRC working group. Staff recomends that the Comission approve the draft and direct staff to proceed, permitting the draft agreement to go forward to the IAEA Board of Governors. The recomended alternative will require 3 NRR staff full time and one representative l from three other Federal agencies to donate 1-2 days per month on this activity,.plus 6 NRC full time staff each year for the next 4 fiscal years.

Background:

The progress of negotiations for the draft US/IAEA Safe-guards Agreement, potential problem areas, and related NRC actions have been reported to the Comission in SECY-75-206 dated May 2, 1975; SECY 75-170 dated June 11, ,

1975; and SECY 75-411 dated August 1, 1975. In '

addition, Comission meetings were held on October 12 and December 15, 1975.

Contact:

[name],NMSS .

492-7551

• NOTE: The original paper contains no resource estimates in the text. l Thus it was necessary to provide some fictitious estimates for illustrative purposes. In addition, the text has been modified.

5/1/86 III-20 EXHIBIT 3

i l

l Decision 1. Does the alternative provide for a solution  ;

Criteria: compatible with US domestic and international  ;

interests. ,

I

2. Will Comission actions in the future be unnecessarily constrained?

! 3. Will relationships with IAEA be affected?

Alternatives: a. The Comission may approve the provisions of the draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement and direct the

- staff to proceed with working out the details of implementation on a routine or expedited basis,

, making such staff assignments as required to meet  ;

an assigned target date.

l b. The Comission may defer approval of the provisions 4 of the draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement and  ;

! direct the staff to provide details of the impact l l of its implementation on the NRC and the industry.

c. The Comission may defer approval of the provisions I of the draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement as l written until decisions are reached on industry

classification and clearance programs.

Discussion: Since 1972 the Department of State, with advice and assistance from AEC (NRC/ERDA) and ACDA, has engaged in s formal negotiations with the IAEA to prepare an agreement f for implementing the 1968 Presidential offer to place nuclear activities in the US under IAEA safeguards.

NRC now has a final draft text of the Agreement which ,

the Department of State and the US Mission in Vienna are -

eager to present to the IAEA Board of Governors for consideration as soon as possible, preferably at '

their September 1976 meeting. Prior to doing so. -

however, it is necessary that the text of the draft Agreement be reviewed and concurred in by the other interestedUSAgencies(NRC,ERDA,andACDA). A copy of the final text of the draft Agreement is enclosed for review at Enclosure 1.

Since the last submission of infomation on this subject to the Commission in August 1975 NRC actions in regard to the Agreement have proceeded but at a very low level of manpower assignment because of the immediacy of other programmatic requirements. Actions have included:

5/1/86 111 21 EXHIBIT 3 ,

a. A meeting with the Safeguards Policy Comittee of the Atomic Industrial Forum to discuss the provisions of the Agreement and its expected effects on the US industry. Subsequently, a letter was received from the Chairman of the AIF's Safeguards Policy Comittee expressing appreciation for the meeting and stating the acceptability of the Agreement provisions to Comittee members. A copy of the letter is at Enclosure 2.

b. An NRC working group has been established to develop and dacument a clear exposition of the internal assignment of responsibilities for the many tasks required to assure smooth implementation of the Agreement. The group is made up of representatives of ELD , IP, SP, IE, NRR, and is chaired by NMSS (Powers). The group has identified a number of action items required to implement the Agreement. A tentative schedule for completing the required actions has also been prepared. Copies of these items are at Enclosure 3.

After approval of the Agreement by the IAEA Board, a great deal of NRC activity will be required, necessitating a higher management assignment of priority and a larger comitment to manpower resources. The Agreement will not come into effect until the United States informs the IAEA that it is ready for implementation. As pointed out by the schedule at Enclosure 3, some of the implementing actions may require over a year to accomplish depending on the amount of resources applied to them.

The alternative approaches to this issue are evaluated as follows:

Alt. 1: The Comission may approve the provisions of the draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement and direct the staff to proceed with working out the details of implerentation on a routine or expedited basis, making such staff assignments as required to meet an assigned target date.

PRO: a. Permits the draft Agreement to go forward to the Board of Governors at an early date when all required US approvals have been given; and, l

5/1/86 111 22 EXHIBIT 3  ;

l l

b. demonstrates Comission confidence i that the details of implementing the

, Agreement can be resolved satisfactorily.

CON: This alternative would comit the Comission to the provisions of the Agreement:

a. In the absence of firm estimates of the impacts and costs of implementa-tion on the NRC and the industry; and,

b. without certainty concerning the possible effect that pending decisions on classification and .

material access clearance programs l will have on the manner in which the Agreement is implemented.

. RESOURCE ESTIMATE:

Current program -- Three NRC staff employed full time and one representative from three other Federal agencies donate 1-2 days per month on Agreement-related activities.

Preparation of value-impact analysis for implementing the Agreement will require 6

-staff months (2 staff members full time for 3 months). Costs to NRC and industry of implementing the Agreement cannot be calculated with confidence pending final detennination of numbers and types of facilities to be placed under IAEA safeguards control. However, our rough estimate is 6 NRC full time staff members (3 in addition to current program) will be required each year for the next 4 fiscal years.

Alt. 2: The Commission may defer approval of the provisions of the draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement and direct the staff to provide '

details of the impact of its implementation on the NRC and the industry.

O 5/1/86 III-23 EXHIBIT 3

PRO: Removes the uncertainties associated with Alternative 1.

CON: a. Delays presentation of the draft Agreement to the IAEA Board of Governors.

b. May not be practicable since implementation cetails in sub-sidiary agreements are nonnally not detennined until after the Agreement is approved by the IAEA Board of Governors.

RESOURCE ESTIMATE:

Same as for Alt.1 for current program and value-impact analysis. However, implementa-tion costs could exceed those of Alt. 1 if a crash effort and reprograming is required.

A rough estimate is that 8 NRC full time staff would be required for the next two fiscal years and four the third fiscal year.

Alt. 3 The Comission may defer approval of the provisions of the draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement as written until decisions are reached on industry classification and clearance programs.

PRO: Assures that Agreement commitments are not made until the impacts of l

' possible industry classification and clearance programs are fully known.

CON a. Brings US/IAEA Agreement considerations to a dead stop.

b. Will be viewed as an act of bad faith by other affected Agencies, the IAEA, and other IAEA Member States.

RESOURCE ESTIMATES:  ;

Current program continues (3 full time I NRCstaff).

O l

! 5/1/86 III- 24 EXHIBIT 3

Recomendation: That the Consnission:

1. A) prove Alternative 1: Approve the provisions of tie draft US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement and direct the staff to proceed with working out the details of '

implementation on a routine or expedited basis, making such staff assignments as required to meet  :

an assigned target date.

2. Note:

a. that the appropriate Congressional Comittees will be infonned; and,

b. that an Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared on subsequent associated rulemaking action since the actions to be taken are essentially procedural in nature and will not have significant environmental impact.

Scheduling: This paper should be scheduled at an Lo en session. No specific circumstance is known to staff which would require  !

Comission action by any particular date in the near O tenn.

[name]

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Final Text of Draft Agreement

2. AIF Letter

3. Tentative Schedule l

O 5/1/86 111 25 EXHIBIT 3

(Sample Affirmation Paper)

For: The Comissioners From: [name]

Executive Director for Operations Subiect: 10 CFR PART 50--GENERAL REVISION OF APPENDICES G AND H, FRACTURE TOUGHNESS AND REACTOR VESSEL MATERIAL SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS

Purpose:

Obtain Comission approval of a notice of final rulemaking.

Issue: Modification of NRC regulations involving the requirements for fracture toughness of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, including surveillance of neutron radiation embrittlement of the reactor vessel beltline materials.

Background:

On November 14, 1980 the Comission approved and issued for public comment the proposed rulemaking on this issue. Meetings were held with the ACRS Subcomittee on Surveillance Requirements and the full Comittee to exchange views on issues relating hereto. A copy of a working draft was sent to you for infonnation on May 16, 1981. This working draft included staff responses to the ACRS letter of February 20, 1981.

Discussion: Appendix G. " Fracture Toughness Requirements," and Appendix H, " Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program Requirements," have undergone only limited revision in over nine years of use. In this general revision, the requirements of Appendices G and H have been updated to be more consistent with current i technology and pertinent National Standards. Some of l the amendments are intended to clarify the applicability of these requirements to older plants; that is, those built to ASME Codes earlier than the Sumer 1972 Addenda to the 1971 Edition, which often requires consideration

Contact:

[name],RES 443-5903 5/1/86 III-26 EXHIBIT 4

U of proposed alternatives to specific requirements. The amendments specify when acceptance of a proposed alternative must take the form of an exemption granted amendments modify requirements that have proved to be unduly conservative. A number of other amendments by the Comission and when acceptance may be granted by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation as being equivalent to the NRC requirements.

Thirteen replies to the November 14, 1980 notice of proposed rulemaking on this issue were received from utilities and vendors concerned with the application of specific requirements. An analysis of the coments received and the staff response is given in Enclosure 4, and a sumary is given in the Supplementary Information section of Enclosure 1.

Recommendation: That the Comission:

1. Approve publication of the amendments to Appendices G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 (Enclosure 1) as a final rule.

2. Note the staff conclusions set forth in Enclosure 3, which provides the analysis called for by the Periodic and Systematic Review established by Task IV.G.2 of the TMI Action Plan.

3. Certify that this rule will not have a significant l economic impact on a substantial number of small t

entities, in order to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

4. Note:

a. That the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 will be published in the Federal Register, and will become effective 60 days after publication.

b. No environmental impact statement, negative declaration, or environmental impact appraisal I need be prepared in connection with the-amendments because the action taken by the amendments will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

c. The reporting and recordkee;iing requirements contained in this regulation have been

, approved by the Office of Management and

( Budget, OMB approval No. 3150-0011.

5/1/86 III 27 EXHIBIT 4

d. The Office of Public Affairs concurs that a public announcement is not needed.

e. The NRC staff will inform the Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Subcomittee on Energy and Power of the House ,

Comittee on Interstate and Foreign Comerce,  !

the Subcomittee on Environment, Energy and l Natural Resources of the House Comittee on Government Operations, and the Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works of this action by letter such as Enclosure 5. I

f. The Federal Register notice of ru~lemaking will be distributed by ADM to power reactor licensees / permit holders, applicants for a construction permit for a power reactor, public interest groups, and nuclear steam system suppliers.

g. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed by DRR of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities together with the reason for it.

Scheduling: If scheduled on the Comission agenda, recomend this paper be considered at an open meeting. No specific circumstance is known to staff which would require Comission action by any particular date in the near term.

[name]

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice

2. Regulatory Analysis Statement

3. Analysis with respect to the periodic and systematic review of regulations 4 Analysis of public comments and staff response

5. Draft Congressional Letter O

i 5/1/86 III.28 EXHIBIT 4

}

(Sample Notation Vote Paper)

O For: The Comissioners From: [name]

Executive Director for Operations ,

Subject:

PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 35 " HUMAN USE OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL" l

Purpose:

To obtain Comission approval of a notice of proposed rulemaking.

Category: This paper covers a significant policy on licensing of byproduct materials.

Issue: Simplification of the regulations for licensing of human use of byproduct material.

Background:

By memorandum dated January 7,1982, the Comission 1 issued its FY 1983-87 Policy and Planning Guidance i (PPG). The key guidance elements were the Comission's intent that (1) regulations. reflect the reality of nuclear technology, (2) the regulatory process,-

particularly the licensing program, be efficient and cost effective, and (3) regulatory decisions be reached without unwarranted delay. ,

Discussion: The staff is proposing a major revision to 10 CFR Part 35, Human Use of Byproduct Material. It includes procedures for streamlining the material licensing process and combines the general and specific medical licenses.

The NRC issues licenses to medical facilities and individual physicians for the use of radioactive materials in medical diagnosis and treatment of humans.

• During the past three decades, nuclear medicine has grown annually at a rate of about 15 percent. There are currently 2,631 NRC medical licensees. In 1981, NRC staff received 73 applications for new licenses, 244 renewal applications, and 2,303 amendment applications for a total of 1,620 requested licensing actions.

Contact:

l O [name),NMSS 427-4052 5/1/86 III-29 EXHIBIT 5

O Key features of the proposed rule change designed to meet these objectives include:

Consolidation of those requirements for nuclear medicine that are not dispersed throughout existing regulations, branch policy positions, standard conditions of licenses and guidance protocols into a concise and coherent set of regulations.

Reduction in the amount of infonnation that must be submitted with a license application by focusing on information essential for safety and eliminating nonessential information.

Substantial savings may be realized by NRC medical licensees as described in the Value/ Impact Statement (Enclosure 3). Total savings for licensees resulting from all of the proposed changes in licensing could be

$8,492,700 to as much as $11,906,500 per year.

The concepts embodied in the proposed rule have been reviewed at meetings with comittees of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, the Health Physics Society, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and informally with other professional groups such as the American College of Radiology and American College of Nuclear Physicians. Based on the verbal reaction of these groups there appears to be a broad basis of support in the medical comunity. The Advisory Comittee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes endorses the proposed rule.

Recomendation: That the Comission:

1. Approve a not. ice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure

1) that would consolidate all human use requirements for the new medical standard license into 10 CFR Part 35.

2. Certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a negative economic impact on small entities since it is expected that the rule will result in substantial cost savings to licensees. This certification is necessary to satisfy the requirements for the new medical standard license into 10 CFR Part 35.

O 5/1/86 III- 30 EXHIBIT 5

O

3. Note:

a. The rulemaking would be published in the Federal Register for a 60-day public coment period;

b. The staff conclusions, set forth in Enclosure 2, provide the analysis called for by the Periodic and Systematic Review of Regulations;

c. Neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be made in connection with this rulemaking because it is nonsubstantive and insignificant from the standpoint of environ-mental impact. (Enclosure 3);

d. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act;

e. The proposad rule contains information

\ collection requirements that are subject to review by OMB. Upon Comission affinnation, formal request for 0MB review and clearance will be initiated;

f. The Agreement States have requested that a l

representative designated by them be allowed to present their views on this proposal to the Comissions when the Comission meets to consider the proposal;

g. A public announcement (Enclosure 4) will be issued when the proposed rule is filed with the Office of the Federal Register;  ;

h. The appropriate Congressional Comittees will be informed (Enclosure 5); and

i. Copies of the Federal Register notice of  !

proposed rulemaking will be distributed to all  !

Comission licensees. The notice will be sent I to other interested parties upon request.

'O 5/1/86 III-31 EXHIBIT 5 1

Scheduling: If scheduled on the Comission agenda, recomend this paper be considered at an open meeting. No specific circumstance is known to staff which would require Comission action by any particular date in the near term.

[name]

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

2. Periodic and Systematic Review

3. Value/ Impact Analysis

4. Draft Public Announcement

5. Draft Congressional Letter O

O 5/1/86 III- 32 EXHIBIT 5

(SampleNegativeConsentPaper)

O l

For: The Comissioners From: [name]

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

PRIMARY EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FACILITY FOR THE PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Purpose:

To request the Comission to review the staff disappproval of the primary Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station.

Discussion: A BECo April 15, 1983 submittal (Enclosure 1) states

that the primary EOF for the PNPS consists of five i mobile trailers permanently installed as integrated i units. This EOF is located approximately one quarter of i

a mile from the reactor containment and has a protection factor of approximately 1.0. As confirmed in the BECo letter of December 6, 1982 (Enclosure 2), the ventilation system is not equipped with HEPA filters.

BEco further states that this primary EOF meets the requirements of General Design Criterion 19 for a design basis / loss of coolant accident. ~According to the BECo

' letter of June 1,1981 (Enclosure 3), the total 30 day doses to occupants of the E0F are approximately 3.1 rem whole-body and 5.6 rem to the thyroid. This analysis is based on the assumption that the release is from the PNPS 335 ft stack and that the radioactive plume will i

not reach ground level at the EOF. In the event the primary EOF becomes uninhabitable, a backup EOF has been established in the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency Area II Headquarters which is approximately 20 miles from the PNPS site in Bridgewater.

The trailers for the construction of the primary EOF were moved onsite in June 1980 and construction was

! completed in March of 1981.

Contact:

[name],IE

! 492-4426 O

5/1/86 III- 33 EXitIBIT 6

I l

i i

1 It is the staff's position that the PNPS primary EOF is unacceptable from the standpoint of radiological habitability. The BECo assumptions used to determine that the E0F meets GDC-19 are dependent upon all releases being elevated by the plant stack and the assumption that this elevated radioactive plume will not reach ground level at the E0F. The use of certain meteorological conditions cannot be depended upon as a protective device unless extensive plume trajectory and site analysis studies establish that the assumed conditions will always be present. In our view a more realistic evaluation of rossible plant release pathways and plume trajectories under adverse meteorological conditions would show that the E0F would not meet GDC-19 and the EOF personnel could receive radiation doses in excess of the levels set forth therein.

Recommendations: That the Comission:

1. Disapprove the habitability of the primary E0F at PNPS and require the licensee to change his EOF concept to meet the Comission's guidance.

2. Note that the staff intends to inform BECo that it does not accept the primary E0F at PNPS because it does not meet the Comission's guidance on habitability and to request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f) that BECo provide its plans for establishing an EOF which meets the Comission's guidance. A proposed draft of the letter to be sent to BECo is enclosed (Enclosure 4). The staff intends to send this letter within 10 working days of the date of this paper unless otherwise instructed by the Comission.

[name]

Executive Director for operations

Enclosures:

1. Ltr from BECo dtd 4/15/83

2. Ltr from BEco dtd 12/6/83

3. Ltr from BECo dtd 6/1/83

4. Draft ltr to BEco O ;

5/1/86 III 34 EXHIBIT 6

_ . - _ - __ - - = .. __ _-- -

(Sample Information Paper)

For: The Commissioners From: [name]

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

RESULTS OF OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS

Purpose:

To infonn the Conmissioners of historical and current rates of license issuance and examination failures for Reactor Operators and Senior Reactor Operators.

Discussion: The enclosed tables report licensing action results, such as license issuances, denials or withdrawals and

pass / fail rates (percentages in parentheses) for each NRC licensing examination component. These results are reported for two periods

fourth quarter FY 1982 (Table

1) and for all of FY 1982 (Table 2).

The total nusber of licensing actions processed in the fourth quarter was slightly less than for the third quarterFY1982,(SECY82-460). The pass / fail rate O remained consistent during the overall period. Written examinations continue to contribute most to the failure rate.

The basic features of the computerized administrative system are now operational. The tasks of testing and entering the backlog of data are underway.

[name]

Executive Director for Operations l

Enclosures:

1. Table 1

2. Table 2

Contact:

[name],NRR

49-29595 O

5/1/86 III- 35 EXHIBIT 7

a_/

SAMPLE

SUMMARY

OF ESTIMATED NRC RESOURCE IMPACTS FY 79 FY 80 FY 81 Alternative 1 (Recomended) j

$ 5,000 5,000 10,000 l People 3 4 6 i

Alternative 2 I I

J 5,000 5,000 15,000 People ,

3 4 8 )

l Alternative 3 (CurrentProgram) l

$ 5,000 5,000 5,000 People 3 3 3 Alternative 4 AI (NMSS Decision Unit 525097 )

- - 5,000 3

O ASSUMES that implementation of fir,a1 Agreement starts in FY 81. These are all NMSS resources, no other Office's resources will be required.

Al Resources from other NMSS program areas which could be reprogramed if additional resources weren't provided by the Comission. Note that reprogramable resources (Alt. 4) plus current program (Alt. 3) add to totals estimated for Alt. 1, the recommended alternative.

c/ Safeguards Regulatory Improvement.

O' 5/1/86 III- 36 EXHIBIT 8

1 i (Sample letter to Congress forwarding Federal Register Notice)

I O

i The Honorable Morris K. Udall, Chairman i

Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives

~

Washington, DC 20515 l

i

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Enclosed for the information of the Subcommittee are copies of a public i

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 Commission 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 i regulations by replacing prescriptive requirements with performance capability statements. Through this action a greater distinction will be

('N) y . drawn between MC&A requirements for LEU and those for the more significant j strategic special nuclear material.

j The Commission is issuing the proposed amendment for a sixty-day public i comment period.

Sincerely, "

1 1

I [name), Director

{ Office of Nuclear Material Safety 1 and Safeguards

Enclosures:

1. Public Announcement 2 Federal Register Notice [to be attached by OCA when the FRN is signed]

I cc: Rep. Manuel Lujan 1

IDENTICAL LETTERS SENT TO THOSE ON ATTACHED LIST i

5/1/86 III 37 EXHIBIT 9

__+------~,w,-,.,--,,-,w--n,.._u

+ -- ,--_.-~ -. . . - , - . , - . , , . . . , . . . , . . , , , . - _ , , , . , - . , . , . . , . ..n., ,, . . . _ , . , , . . - - . -

The Honorable Alan Simpson, Chairman O

Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation Comittee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc: Sen. Gary Hart The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcomittee on Encrgy Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead O

O 5/1/86 III-38 EXHIBIT 9

(Sample SECY Paper Letterhead)

For all papers , begin typing 16 Papers should be typed on linesTrm the top of the page. plain bond paper. They will O [ g Stop typing 12 lines from bottom t. l be reproduced by the of page. Die inch lef t and right f Secretariat on prepn nted margins or less if paper is lengthy. .....# staff paperrstationery.

POLICY ISSUE (Commission Meeting) y ~.m, s,

RULEMAKING LSSUE (Affirmation) f ~ ~ ,,,

N,

)

O POLICY ISSUE (Notation Vote) f ~ m ,,,

N,

)

POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT) l r ~ s ,,

's.....

POLICY ISSUE O <intermetion>

5/1/86 III-39 EXHIBIT 10

i Sample SECY Daper Distribution Sheet Nec perin a UA NUCLEAR REQULATORY CoteadissiON noni .o NRcM a2 RECOMMENDED DISTRIBUTION Office of the Secretary

{ tsTEN$#ON ORIGINATeNG OFFICE TITLE 08 PROPOSED PAPim AlD A l CONTACT

[

Sw$ U 27010

/

PAPER TYPE lIssF081.s ATeO,e l MEETaNG l l .F FIRM ATION lKlNOTATIOss l lNilATIVE GniiNT l Ots,RituTION dotere .es apr aun sur.Neri

O stECsPeem, fa,,$ meCs,t =,

1 3 Cu*..mes.se [ t .pamens,m.,s.N 2  : Com o .- 1 . == Co 1 3 ConsasessaOhim g 3 RISCU,tv5 Lt L oem.fTom

[ t ooMasessoas. A g3 Commassecue.n g . ... o 3 su,. fin.,sonou ,RoGR.MB

{ t CoseGAE5580su.t .79.em.

,W. Luc .Femsts 3 esWCLE.a ns.C,on REGut.,som 1 9

[ . Git.4 6 Couss5&L _

p . .uctua .,==u,. . . o.

L , e,os. . .oo,, ,

asuCLE.it m. Gut. om, RG.S. Aces

[ 4 ,oteC, Evhu.,lom g te j te S. C se t ... . 3 9

afe4TSr. . $v4u.,som o o,.II.. sons.L o...

Ima.tt 4 ocB.ow.8si.GE. .WesestM W,eks2.,aose .suD Csvit meGee,3 E cod m

> ooc s..,-. - ,

g. C,,o . ... C. .,

. ,o,.... --..a.

1 ...e .. ..C, . . _

1 . . . ..C . . ... 1 ,

1 , o.=evo. .as. .. 6 o, ;..,,o . ...e o 1 . .,6 ,.

m ,.

. o. . -,, . . . .. .C,o. o, .

.,-....oo..,

1 ,

C.e C

. .  :.......C..e .. < n, , ... C.C.

SU8707AL

=

TO TOTAL.O,cO,,u + fg7 f7 -

Nu na 0, cO in ,,U n RETURN ORIGINAL TO e.as. I oftG.est.,some l as.st gro, f Af $ k $ NA III- 40 ETHIBIT 11 5/1/86

I l

(Sample Memorandum to the Connission)

O MEMORANDUM FOR: Chainnan Surname Comissioner Surname Comissioner Surname Comissioner Surname Comissioner Surname FROM: [name]

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

LICENSING SCHEDULE Start body here, 3 SPACES after " SUBJECT."

The signature block is at page center at the end of the text. The contact appears on the first page regardless of the length of the memorandum.

The descriptive terms are in all Caps.

O

• [name]

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Schedule

2. Data Analysis cc: SECY OPE OGC

Contact:

[name),NRR Telephone No.

• Signature block appears at end of memorandum.

• • Contact goes on first page regardless of length of memorandum.

O 5/1/86 III 41 EXHIBIT 12 i

i l

_ - - = _ . . - . . . . . . . _ - . .._ _ .

Congressional Procedures O

V.

A. Provision of Information to Congress i B. Procedures for Handling Congressional Questions from i

Authorization and Appropriations Committees During the Period of Hearings and Other Congressional Questions C. Pre-Briefings for Congressional Hearings D. Congressional Testimony i

. E. Congressional Hearing Transcripts and Inserts for the Record I F. Congressional Correspondence l G. Procedures for Handling Legislation and Executive Orders i

1. New Legislation

2. Legislation Before Congress

3. Enacted Legislation

! 4. Executive Orders l H. Guidelines for Transmittal of Sensitive Documents to Congress i

Exhibits '

I i

I. . ,

i e'

05/01/86 V-1  :

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

l V. CONGRESSIONAL PROCEDURES

$ A. . Provision of Information to' Congress 1 ,

i The Senate Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation and -the House l Subcomittees on Energy and the Environment, and Energy Conservation and l Power constitute the NRC's principal oversight Subcommittees. The NRC is obliged to keep these three subcomittees " fully and currently j informed" of its activities. Exhibit 1 is a list of information 1

(though not inclusive) that should be sent to the Congress through the l Office of Congressional Affairs. Each office should take necessary i j steps to assure that these Congressional Subcomittees receive the information on a timely basis.

1

Exhibit 2 provides the membership and addresses of NRC Oversight 1

Comittees.

l -

Procedures for Handling Congressional Questions from Authorization and

~

B.

gpropriations Comittees During the Period of Hearings and Other j Congressional Questions l-l In the spring, Authorization and Appropriations Comittees often i

forward letters with up to 100 questions requiring an answer. Such ,

j letters are handled as follows:

1. Comittee sends questions to Commission (Chairman, SECY, or i Congressional Affairs (CA).

I 2. CA receives copies of all questions (serves as Comission contact) i and forwards to EDO, indicating those questions which are i essential to the suspense. ,

3. EDO makes assignments to offices 1/ (indicating both prime and-support responsibilities), sets deadlines, numbers questions,.

attaches format (pages V-4 and V-5) and EDO controls with EDO.

Control ticket marked " Priority." '

J j 1/ Questions to be antsered by OPE /0GC/0IA, etc., will be worked out by EDO in coordination with CA. Those responses will not be forwarded to RM, but j will be married up with package forwarded by EDO when it arrives at CA.

j Responses should, if at all possible, be forwarded via comunicating word j processor to preclude retyping when revisions are required.

i-l 05/01/86 V-3 i

4. ED0 forwards Control ticket to Office of Resource Management (RM),

with copies to Offices assigned action.

5. RM contacts offices separately with assignments if suspense requires speed and, whenever possible, provides reference to pertinent background information (related Q&A's from current or previous years, etc.).

6. Offices with primary responsibility for questions 1/ gather input from secondary Offices to transmit and provide coordinated responses to RM, one question per page (see enclosed instructions, pages V-4 and V-5).

7. RM reviews responses for consistency with policy and with budget program and resolves problems with appropriate offices.

8. RM provides package of responses reviewed by offices to EDO. 2/

9. ED0 reviews and forwards approved package to CA.

10. CA coordinates responses with Comission and Comission staff (OPE,0GC,etc.).

11. CA resolves Comissioner differences, forwards final approved responses to Comittee, provides original of Comission approved responses to E00 and RM.

12. RM makes final distribution to all offices.

Congressional questions not related to Authorization and Appropriations Hearings are also received for staff response (e.g., other hearings on varioussubjects). The procedures outlined above apply to those types of questions as well as budget questions except that an Office other than RM (e.g., NRR) may be assigned the responsibility for coordinating the replies.

-1/0n receipt of questions, offices must immediately review entire list to assure assignments are correctly made. The minor problems of offering or requesting input can be worked out directly with other offices. Mal-assignments of questions can be resolved between offices and RM advised, or RM will resolve or refer to E00 as appropriate.

-2/RM will forward to ED0 responses available to meet suspense date; l inputs received later will be forwarded in supplementary packages as required.

l 05/01/86 v-4

(0UESTION INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAT)

. QUmSTION 6. FROM TIME TO TIME CONGRESSIONAL QUESTIONS ARE RECEIVED AND ROUTED TO RM (OR THE APPPROPRIATE OFFICE TO COORDINATE THE RESPONSES. INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS AR ,

ASSIGNED TO VARIOUS OFFICES FOR ACTUAL PREPARATION OF THE ANSWERS.

(A) WHAT IS THE TYPING FORMAT FOR RESPONDING TO

! CONGRESSIONAL QUESTIONS?

ANSWER.

QaAS ARE TO BE TYPED ON WORD PROCESSING EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF COMMUNICATING WITH RM (OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE) VIA DATA PHONE (I.E., IBM 5520, IBM DISPLAYWRITER, IBM SYSTEM 6 OR, IBM MAG CARD 2).

! TYPE EACH 08A ON A SEPARATE PAGE USING'10 PITCH, ORATOR OR RHETORIC TYPE STYLE, AND DOUBLE SPACING. SIDE MARGINS ARE 10 AND 75; TOP ANI BOTTOM MARGINS ARE 1 INCH.

I TYPE EACH QUESTION AS A SEPARATE JOB ON THE WORD PROCESSOR!, THIS WILL AID IN LATER TRANSMISSION OF Q&AS TO THE' IBM 5520 Is OCA.

i r

SIMPSON/ED0

[DATEl 05/01/86 V-5

--w., y - _,, - _ _

QUESTION 6. (CONTINUED) IF SUCCEEDING PAGES ARE REQUIRED IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION, TYPE THE QUESTION NUMBER AND PAGE NUMBER AT TOP OF EACH PAGE.

TYPE QUESTIONS WITH MULTIPLE PARTS (A, B, C, ETC.) ON A SEPARATE PAGE PER PART, AS SHOWN IN SAMPLES.

IDENTIFY QUESTIONS AT BOTTOM RIGHT MARGIN ON EACH PAGE, INDICATING COMMITTEE, ORIGINATING OFFICE, AND CURRENT DATE. SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS SHOULD REFLECT THE REVISED DATE.

IF ENCLOSURES ARE TO BE INCLUDED WITH A RESPONSE, INDICATE ON 08A (AS SHOWN BELOW) AND TYPE QUESTION NUMBER ON EACH ENCLOSURE.

O ENCLOSURES:

SAMPLE 08A FORMAT l

l SIMPSON/EDO l

[DATE}

05/01/86 V-6

I l

(QUESTION' INSTRUCTIONS AflD FORMAT) '

. e ,

l QUESTION 6. (B) WHAT ARE THE PROCEDURES FOR PREPARING AND TRANSMITTkNG RESPCNSES TO RM OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE?

< ANSWER.

WHEN A QUESTION IS ASSIGNED TO NORE THAN ONE OFFICE -- FOR INSTANCE,-NRR/RES/NMSS ---- THE FIRST OFFICE LISTED IS. RESPONSIBLE FOR SUBMITTING A REPLY THAT HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE,OTHER 0FFICES. THE SECONDARY OFFICES,SHOULD SEND THEIR INPUT TO THE ANSWER TO THE PRIMARY OFFICE.

g THE PRIMARY OFFICE ASSIGNED WILL THEN TRANSMIT VIA DATA PHONE _

THE FINAL COORDINATED STAFF RESPONSE-T0 THE APPROPRIATE RM OR

~

OTHER OFFICE WORD PROCESSING CONTACT.

WHEN THE PRIMARY OFFICE ASSIGNED G DOES NOT HAVE WORD PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE TO THEM, ?ROVIDE THE ORIGINAL (EVEN IF IT'IS CUT-AND-PASTE) AND:0NE COPY (EAC# WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS)'TO RM OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE.

WHERE MAG CARDS HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DATA COMMllNICATIONS ARE ._.

NOT AVAILABLE, PROVIDE THE ORIG)NAL AND ONE COPY AND THE MAG CARDS (APPROPRIATELY INDEXED) TO RM OR THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE.

6 SIMPSON/ED0

[DATE]

J ,

05/10/86 V-7.

C. pre-Briefings for Congressional Hearings On March 24,1986, ED0 issues instructions for pre-briefs for the Chairman for Congressional Hearings. The Chairman has been asked to schedule his pre-briefs not earlier than five (5) working days before the hearing and to identify a member of his staff who will provide to the staff any particular questions that may be generated prior to a pre-brief.

Whenever a Congressional hearing is scheduled at which the Chairman is to testify, offices are to provide relevant Q&As to the E00 seven (7) working days in advance of the hearing in order that the E00 and other affected offices as necessary may have two (2) full days for review. The office preparing testimony should provide draft testimony on the same schedule. Office Directors should assure that Q&As are properly reviewed beforehand and that they are prepared to discuss them at the Chairman's pre-brief. On those occasions where the schedule has to be collapsed, a revised schedule will be provided.

D. 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 OCA. 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 testimony.

E. Congressional Hearing Transcripts and Inserts for the Record l

Congressional transcripts for editing of staff's remarks are forwarded I by 0CA to ED0 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, 05/01/86 v-8

a call to OCA will be sufficient. Inserts for the record which are required will usually be noted, but staff should double check. When required, inserts should be sent to E00 for review and forwarding to 0CA. See Exhibit 4 for a sample " Insert for the Record."

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

Refer also to NRC Manual Chapter 0240, Correspondence Management.

G. 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 Comission, justifying the need and outlining the requirements. On Comission approval, 0GC will work out legislative wording and support and OCA will follow the issue through to sub-mittal to Congress.

(ii) Omnibus legislation. Yearly--usually in June--0GC will 4 request from staff a list of legislation or changes to existing legislation recomended for Congressional consideration beginning the next January. EDO will develop a 4 list categorizing requests as (1) imediate need, (2) more information required before request is firm, or (3)

Comission guidance required. 0GC will review, acquire a ,

Comission decision, and follow through.

05/01/86 V-9 i

b. Legislative Drafting and Process Once legislation is agreed to by the Commission, 0GC will develop O

language with staff assistance. As it now stands, 0GC will then submit to 0MB, but will not be constrained to leave before them, beyond a reasonable limit, legislation with a health and safety impact.

c. Legislation of Other Agencies Legislative requests by other agencies are passed by OMB through OGC for comment. 0GC will sort out those which affect NRC and will forward to E00 (with a copy to ELD) for development of comments which OGC will pass back to 0MB, advising 0CA of the content.

2. Legislation Before Congress Review of Committee / Subcommittee Reports and Bills 0CA will provide EDO (with a copy to ELD) copies of draft bills and committee reports relevant to staff interests with a cover note indicating action necessary.

3. Enacted Legislation When enacted bills become law, 0GC will identify and provide ED0 (with a copy to ELD) the bill and supporting material promptly for analysis and appropriate directions to staff.

4. Executive Orders OGC will review Executive Orders and Presidential Memos and forward promptly for action to E00 those which are appropriate to staff responsibilities.

O 05/01/86 V-10

H. Guidelines for Transmittal of Sensitive Documents to Congress On January 30, 1986, the Commission approved guidelines for the transmittal of sensitive documents to Congress. These documents are defined as those within the agency's possession which have not been disclosed to the public and which may be withheld from public disclosure under the F0IA or Privacy Act.

The lead office for implementing these procedures is OCA. In the event 1

requests for such documents are received elsewhere in NRC, they should be referred to 0CA for handling. ED0 offices should also notify A0/EDO.

OCA will coordinate the release of sensitive documents with appropriate offices depending on the nature of the records requested. Types of documents involved are:

1. investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes;

2. classified documents (NSI and RD);

3. documents containing proprietary information;

4. agency files containing personnel or medical information, the public disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

5. documents containing safeguards information;

6. draft documents containing inspection and enforcement findings, either in their entirety or excerpts from them.

7. staff. drafts, predecisional memoranda and letters containir g advice, recommendations or opinions prepared in or by an office reporting to the EDO on matters pending agency review and decision;

8. documents containing confidential commercial information, relating to the awarding of grants, contracts or other agency procurement actions, disclosure of which may jeopardize the agency's competitive position; n

v 05/01/86 y-11 i

9. classified documents originated by another agency; and

10. documents used in or related to the deliberative, consultative or decisionmaking activities of the Commission or the Commissioners themselves.

Offices are responsible for calling attention to sensitive documents and for advising OCA through A0/E00 of any determination authorizing the public release of sensitive documents or documents previously withheld pending F0IA review.

See " Internal Comission Procedures" for a complete copy of the guidelines.

O O

05/01/86 V-12

i i

[ PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO CONGRESS .

j Simpson Comittee (Senate Subcomittee on Nuclear Regulation) l Ottinger Comittee (House Subcomittee on Energy Conservation l and Power)

Udall Comittee (House Subcomittee on Energy and the Environment)

} ALL OFFICES 1. Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking ALL OFFICES 2. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking l ALL-0FFICES 3. Notices of Final Rulemaking l ALL OFFICES 4. Notices of Filing of Petitions for Rulemaking i

ALL OFFICES 5. Notices of Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking J

j ALL OFFICES 6. . Notices of NRC Meetings Regarding Rulemaking ALL 0FFICES 7. Notices Regarding NRC Policy Statements ALL 0FFICES 8. Notices Regarding Memoranda 'of Understanding j

ADM 9. Report of Proposal to Establish a New System of Records ADM 10. NRC's Annual Report on the Administration of Freedom of '

Information Act RM 11. Budget Justification Books RM 12. Authorization Bill and Bill Analysis

! RM 13. Responses to Authorization Committee Questions l RM 14. Markup of Authorization Testimony I

! RM 15. Infonnation on Reprograming Actions as they occur l

j RES 16. Topical Reports announced in the Federal Register, all i

Regulatory Guides and Draft IAEA Safety with Federal l l Register Notice.

IE/NRR 17. Show Cause Orders Issued to Licensees I NRR 18. Limited Work Authorizations ,

i i

i

[continuedonnextpage]- i s,

05/01/86 V-13 EXHIBIT 1  :

! i

.k

NRR 19. Notices of Availability of ER NRR 20. Notices of Issuances of DES and FES IE 21. Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual Occurrence IE/NMSS 22. Preliminary Notification of Safeguards Event IE 23. Notification of Significant Enforcement Action ADM 24. Notice of Rule Change on License Fees ALL OFFICES 25. Formal Reports of Major Studies and Workshops SDBU/CR 26. Quarterly Report on Status of NRC EE0 Activities AE0D 27. Quarterly Abnormal Occurrence Reports AE0D 28. Individual Abnormal Occurrence Reports ADM 29. Grant of Waiver to Normal Contract Procedures PA 30. Press Releases ALL 0FFICES 31. NRC Comments on GA0 Reports SECY 32. Significant ASLBP and ASLAP Board Orders ACRS/SECY 33. Summaries and Announcements of ACRS Meetings SECY 34. Weekly Agenda of Commission Meetings ED0 36. Daily Staff Notes ED0 37. Weekly Information Report AE0D 38. Power Reactor Licensee Event Reports SECY 39. Public Speeches delivered by any one of the Commissioners ADM 40. SES Anr.ouncements RM 41. Operating Units Status Report (NUREG-0200)

RM 42. Construction Status Report - Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0300)

RM 43. Standards Development Status Summary Report SP 44. State Legislation Activities Report SP 45. Federal Register Notices, Section 274b Agreements e

05/01/86 V-14 EXHIBIT 1

MEMBERSHIP AND ADDRESSES OF NRC OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES s On matters related to NRC activities generally, all correspondence should be

) addressed to:

%J PRINCIPAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES 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 Envircnment i Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs i

United States House of Representatives j 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

- (s cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead On matters related to budget, correspondence should also be addressed to:

The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515 l

cc: Rep. John Myers 4

The Honorable Mark Hatfield, Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: Sen. J. Bennett Johnston f \~

05/01/86 V-15 EXHIBIT 2 l

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

The Honorable Dante B. Fascell, Chairman Committee 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 Sen'te Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: Sen. Claiborne Pell The Honorable Thad Cochran, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation and Government Processes Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 cc: Sen. John Glenn On matters related to NRC's research program, correspondence should also be addressed to:

The Honorable Marilyn Lloyd, Chairman Subcomittee on Energy Research and Production Comittee 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 Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. James T. Broyhill O

05/01/86 V-16 EXHIBIT 2

e l The Honorable Mike Synar, Chairman Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 t

i cc: Rep. William F. Clinger, Jr.

The. Honorable James Weaver, Chairman Subcommittee on General Oversight, Northwest Power, and Forestry Management

, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives j Washington, D.C. 20515 cc: Rep. Charles Pashayan, Jr.

l All should be addressed as "

Dear Mr. Chairman:

" or "

Dear Madam Chairman:

" as l appropriate.

I i

i i

1 I

e r

e f

I i

l i

05/01/86 V-17 EXHIBIT 2  ;

l I l - _ - - _ - - - . - . . - _ . - ---. .. - -. - - - - __._. - . _ . . - - - --_.-.-

[ INSTRUCTIONS FOR COVER PAGE OF TESTIMONY: IST TYPING LINE 10; LAST TYPING LINE 58; LINE SPACING 2; TYPE STYPLE 11 (RHETORIC).

NOTE LINE NUMBERS IN MARGIN,]

[10] PREPARED TESTIMONY

[12] SUBMITTED BY

[141 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[18] TO

[221 SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

[241 COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS

[261 UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1

[301 CONCERNING

[321 EMERGENCY PLANNING AND

[341 PREPAREDNESS REQUIREMENTS

!381 PRESENTED BY

[40] VICTOR STELLO, JR.

[42] EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS

[561 SUBMITTED: JULY 8, 1984 Ol 05/01/86 V-18 EXHIBIT 3

i i

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

" NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING REFORM ACT 0F 1983." SEVERAL OF 4

MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND SENIOR MEMBERS OF THE NRC STAFF ACCOMPANY ME TODAY. BEFORE BEGINNING OUR TESTIMONY, l'WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR EXPEDITIOUSLY HOLDING HEARINGS ON THIS SUBJECT.

i j 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 4

j 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 j PROCESS WAS STRUCTURED TO ALLOW LICENSING DECISIONS TO BE MADE WHILE DESIGN WORK WAS STILL IN PROGRESS AND TO FOCUS ON CASE-l SPECIFIC REVIEWS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANT-SITE CONSIDERATIONS.

i k

l l

l O

05/01/86 V-19 EXHIBIT 3

_ _ , _ - - - _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . . _ _ , _ . . = _ . . _ . . . _ _ - , . . . _ _ _ , . . - _ . _ _

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

[DATEOFHEARING]

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 Staff's evaluation, contained in Supplement No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-0712, is enclosed for your information and inclusion in the hearing record.

Attachments:

As stated

?

O 05/02/86 V-20 EXHIBIT 4

l V

I. PROCEDURE

S FOR RESPONDING TO GA0 REQUESTS AND REPORTS AND OIA AUDIT REPORTS A. Introduction B. GA0 Audits

1. Initial Contact

2. Preliminary Survey - Quick Data Gathering

3. The Audit C. Draft GA0 Report D. Final GAO Report

1. Initial Contact

2. Suspense Dates

3. 60-Day Response Requirement

4. Format and Content E. Annual Compilation of NRC Actions Taken on Comptroller General Recommendations F. Follow-up l G. OIA Audit Reports Exhibits 1

I i

i l

i l

)

f 5/1/86 VI-1

l l

l l

V

I. PROCEDURE

S FOR RESPONDING TO GAO REQUESTS AND REPORTS AND OIA AUDIT REPORT!

!O 1 A. INTRODUCTION One of the General Accounting Office's (GAO) principal functions is to audit f program activities, financial transactions, and accounts of the Federal Government agencies, and to report to the Congress and the audited agencies its audit.results.

i l An audit may be initiated in response to Congressional inquiries, private

citizen requests, or due to GAO-identified needs. A GAO draft report on its l audit findings is sent to the audited agency for comment. The final report j usually contains recomendations that require actions.to be taken by the 4

agency.

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

j B. GAO AUDITS

1. Initial Contact l Effective April 1,1985, the responsibility for coordinating GAO'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 i for Operations, EDO. Prior to initiating any planned work, GA0 j will inform EDO of their intention, purpose, scope, etc. EDO, in

turn, notifies the Comission, Comission 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 i EDO). During this conference, GA0 will brief the NRC staff O

5/1/86 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 EDO 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 l it is clear as to which office can best provide the needed data.

ED0 may ask GA0 to contact directly designated persons in the l Office in question. l l

3. The Audit 1

After the initial contact, GA0 will contact offices directly for needed records or information throughout the office process. l However, GA0 will notify E00 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 to the audit, that generally constitutes a "need to know." Questions should be referred to EDO.

4. E00 issues a quarterly report on the status of all ongoing GA0 activities concerning NRC operations to the Chairman, Comissioners, and Office Directors. ,

l 9

5/1/86 yg.4

i

, C. GA0 DRAFT REPORT

1. Twenty-five (25) copies of the GA0 draft audit reports are sent to EDO for NRC's review and comment. EDO imediately distributes  ;

copies to the Comission and its staff offices (OPE, OCA, etc.).

]

I l 2. Depending on the subject of the draft report, appropriate offices t l are assigned by the EDO, through its EDO Control ticket system, >

to review and comment on the report. A suspense date is indicated on the Control ticket.

{ 3. OEDO 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 GAO 1

meetings without a coordinated view. Such mark-up will I

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

meeting.

b. If no meeting is required (or upon receipt of a revised draf+.), a lead office will be designated to prepare a i

consolidated staff response to the GA0 Director for EDO j signature. The content of the letter should address any

) major facts, findings, or conclusions with which the l staff finds difficulties, either factual or policy reasons,

and should be in accord with the anticipated Connission response to the recommendations (see D.3.). If the staff has l no differences in the draft, the letter need merely so l

5/1/86 VI-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 OED0 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 coments in less than 30 days. In these instances, on a case-by-case basis, EDO will determine the best method for handling the request. If a meeting is set up for the NRC staff to offer oral coments to GAO, GA0 will I forward a copy of the meeting minutes or a revised draft to ED0 as soon as possible to ensure that the oral coments have been accurately interpreted by GA0.

D. GA0 FINAL REPORT i

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

ED0 will make distribution to the Comissioners and the appropriate NRC offices (e.g., those that reviewed and comented  ;

on the draft report). l 9

5/1/86 VI-6 1

i

2. Suspense Dates i In its memorandum distributing the final GA0 report, EDO indicates the dates by which the draft response should be sent to the Comission and by which the response is due at the Congressional

! Committees. EDO assi5ns to appropriate offices, by EDO Control ticket, the task of preparing the draft statements. EDO usually allows the offices about 30 days. Overdue responses are also f monitored by EDO by means of the quraterly GAO status report'.  !

3. 60-Day Response Requirement If the final GA0 report contains recommendations to NRC or to l Heads of Federal Agencies, the Chairman is required to submit to

{ the Congress a written statement on the actions taken within 60 i days of the date of the report. EDO is responsible for j coordinating and finalizing the responses to GAO, OMB, and Congressional Committees.

4. Fomat and Content I

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

] separately from staff comments on the draft.

j j b. Substance should include such introductory comments as the NRC should make to correct findings or to contest conclusions. Each recommendation should be addressed, i indicating NRC concurrence, non-concurrence, or that action I is complete. A brief description of either why NRC does not 1

i I.

l 5/1/86 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 Senate Appropriations Comittees summarizing NRC actions taken during that calendar year on l all GA0 report recomendations 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. FOLLOW-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 respons ble 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 coments on the recommendations in the report prior to finalizing and sending it O

1 5/1/86 VI-8 E _ _ _

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

l

( EDO forwards the report to the appropriate Office by EDO control ticket f to prepare a response to OIA for ED0's signature. See Exhibit 4. Each ,

j recomendation in the report must be addressed. All open items will be entered in WITS and followed to completion.

i i

t i

f i

I

'I i

t i

I i

I 5/1/86 VI-9

Sample R:sponsa tn Draft GAO Rrport

/  %, UNITED STATES

] [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

3 a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665

(  %.....

1 Mr. J. Dexter Peach

Director, Resources, Comunity, and

, Economic Development Division U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Peach:

l We appreciate the opportunity to coment on the draft GA0 report " Emergency Preparedness Around Nuclear Facilities Needs Improvement." The report makes several points which are useful to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and to

! other Federal agencies involved in this area, and it highlights several areas in which we agree that further work by NRC may be desirable.

The general tone of the report suggests that emergency preparedness by State and local governments around NRC licensed facilities is in disarray.

Although we agree that improvements can certainly be made in this area, we believe that the impression left by the report on the capabilities and preparedness of State and local officials may be doing them a disservice.

j While short of the results we ultimately desire, we believe the level of planning and preparedness is definitely improving due in large part to the j support and voluntary cooperation of the State and local personnel.

l Specific coments on the recomendation in the report are enclosed.

Sincerely, l

[Name]

l Executive Director i for Operations

Enclosure:

l Coments on GA0 Recomendations t

i 5/1/86 VI- 11 EXHIBIT 1

ENCLOSURE Specific Coments on GA0 Report O

1. Recomendation 1 GA0 should distingu'th its own conclusions from those of the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) in the following statement: "The study concluded that nuclear accidents may happen and would present a potential adverse health consequence that provides a sobering contrast to the estimated risk." The words "in our opinion" should be inserted after the words "... health consequences that, in,our opinion, provides..."

because the " sobering contrast" statement is the GA0 conclusion and is not found in WASH-1400.

2. Recomendation 2 The statement "that there will be evacuation of an area 25 miles downwind from the accident site" is misleading since the study assumed that 30% of the population remained in place.

3. Recommendation 3 The report creates an impression that the offsite supportive services from State and local agencies are taken for granted. The NRC, however, does not take these services for granted. Specific requirements are set forth in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. As an example, licensees' emergency plans are required to provide " agreements reached with local, State, and Federal officials and agencies for the early warning of the l

public and for public evacuation or other protective measures should such warning, evacuation, or other protection measures become necessary or desirable."

l O

5/1/86 VI 12 EXHIBIT 1

Sample Paper Fowarding R:sponst to Final GA0 R: port O

o For: The Commissioners From: fName]

Executive Director for Operations

Subject:

FINAL GA0 REPORT ENTITLED "THE PROBLEM OF DISPOSING OF NUCLEAR LOW-LEVEL WASTE: WHERE DO WE G0 FROM HERE?"

Purpose:

Approval of a response to Congress on actions taken on GA0 recommendations (pursuant to Section 236 of the LegislativeReorganizationActof1970).

Discussion: The GA0 report includes two listings of recomenda-tions. One listing, with seven specific recommendations to the NRC Chairman, deals with " Addressing Several Basic Questions Will Alleviate the Present Disposal Problem" (Chapter 2, pp. 17-18 of the report). The O second listing, with one recomendation to the NRC Chairman, deals with "Certain Issues Should be Resolved Before Developing New Shallow-Land Burial Sites" (Chapter 3, p. 29 of the report).

Of the seven specific recommendations of Chapter 2, the staff agrees with the substance of six of the recommendations. Ongoing staff activities already underway at the time of the GA0 audit should be responsive to those recomendations.

Recomendation: That the Comission approve the proposed response to Congress.

[Name]

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. Response to GA0 Recomendations

2. Proposed letter to Congress l CONTACT:

! [Name] ,NMSS O [ Tele. No.]

5/1/86 VI-13 EXHIBIT 2

l l

ENCLOSURE 1 ,

Response to Recommendations Chapter 2 The GA0 stated that addressing several basic questions will alleviate the present disposal problem.

1. What is low-level radioactive waste? GA0 Recomendation: "Give top priority to defining low-level waste by establishing categories based upon requirements for safe disposal."

NRC Response: The NRC has been aware of this need and will utilize a waste classification methodology in the development of its planned rulemaking (10 CFR Part 61) on licensing and regulation of the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW). The NRC earlier comissioned a study by Ford, Bacon, Davis Udah, Inc., to characterize and classify waste streams from a variety of sources and incorporate this work into the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared to accompany the proposed low-level waste regulation. This will allow different types of wastes to be examined against different types of disposal techniques, and permit interested members of the public to evaluate and recomend alternatives. The Comission anticipates that the proposed low-level waste regulation (10 CFR 61) and its accompanying draft EIS will be published for public coment early in 1981.

2. Who are the generators of low-level waste and how much waste do they generate? GA0 Recomendation: " Determine who the generators of low-level waste are in both the Agreement and non-Agreement States and how much waste each licensee is generating."

NRC Response: The Comission does not believe that the benefit resulting from a license-by-license determination of waste generation by thousands of licensees would offset the cost to the Comission and to the licensees to accumulate this infomation. This GAO recommendation will not result in meaningful additional data on LLW volumes and characteri- G s. As part of the staff's ongoing efforts to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the LLW disposal regulation (10 CFR Part 61), the staff is analyzing the volumes and characteristics of different waste streams from different types of licensees. There are approximately 8,000 NRC licensees and 12,000

! Agreement State licensees ranging from individual physicians to fuel i

plants and reactors. However, majority of the radioactivity (preliminary data indicates that theinexcessof90%)co generated by a relatively small number of NRC and Agreement State licensees (approximately 100 licensees).

O i 5/1/86 VI 14 EXHIBIT 2 l

f _.

~

Sample Letter to Congrass Forwarding NRC Response' l- to Final GAO Raport i

1 a

l i The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.

j Chairman, Comittee on Governmental . l Affairs j United States Senate t Washington, D.C. 20510 4

j

Dear Mr. Chairman:

l i In accordance with the statutory obligation to respond to recommendations by i the General Accounting Office (GAO) within 60 days of publication, we hereby '

j submit our responses to the recommendations made by the GA0 in their report. l 1

entitled, "The Problem of Disposing of Nuclear Low-Level Waste: Where Do'We' '

Go From Here?"  ;

The Comission 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  !

j of low-level waste disposal sites. This legislation should assure that ,

i

' uniform minimum national standards are followed in these areas for both '

Agreement and non-Agreement States. Over the past year the Comission has f testified before several Congressional Comittees in favor of such  !

l 1egislation.  !

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

l .

Sincerely, e i

i l

(Name) 3 f .

Chairman i

Enclosure:

Responses to GA0 Recomendations '

i.

j cc: Sen. Thomas F. Eagleton i

i j IDENTICAL LETTERS TO THOSE ON ENCLOSED LIST 1 l I

l 'il 5/1/86 VI 15 EXHIBIT"3 l '{

O The Honorable Jack Brooks, Chairman Committee on Government Operations 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 Contervation 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 Horarable James C. Miller III Director Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. 20503 0

l yI.16 EXHIBIT 3 5/1/86

4 Sample Response to OIA Audit Report UNITED STATES j [c,J 4}t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON

,g wAswiscrow, o. c. :osss t

MEMORANDUM FOR: [Name, Director] . ,

Office of Inspector aiid Auditor  ;

FR0!!: [Name] -

! Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF NRC'S YEAR-END SPENDING CONTROLS This responds to your August 9,1983 memorandum transmitting the subject audit report. I note your conclusion that NRC has, adequate controls over year end spending. With respect to your specific recomendations, I submit the following: ,

Recomendation

1. Deobligate unneeded funds by:

a. Continuing to close out expired contracts, emphasizing contracts with the greatest uncosted balances; and

b. Requiring justification of uncosted balances with limited activity  !

prior to the end of the fiscal year.

Response

]

4 i

a. We agree. We estimate that during FY 83 we will de-obligate l l $600,000 in unneeded funds. We will revise our May ll,1982 '

) policy statement on this subject to emphasize uncosted balances

as a factor in determining which contracts to close out first.

i This will be accomplished by September 30, 1983. '

b. We disagree. As contracts continue to expire each month, a '

backlog naturally develops. These are then addressed in the priority established in our May 11, 1982 policy statement. We would prefer to use our staff resources to actually close out the contracts rather than " justify" why uncosted balances remain at the end of each fis. cal year.

t Recomendation >

2. Coordinate with institutions and other Government agencies to assure financial reports are submitted promptly and assets and uncosted balances are more accurately reflected in agency financial reports.

5/1/86 VI 17 EXHIBIT 4 m..- .

l

Response

We agree. Although no specific contracts were mentioned in the report as requiring correction, we agree with the principle stated and will ccntinue to comply. I Recomendation

3. Improve grant management by:

a. Developing a system to assure grantees submit required financial reports within the time limits specified by the unifom administration requirements for grants. OMB Circular A-110;

b. Basing the method of payment for grants on the financial requirements of the grantee; and

c. Requiring reimbursement requests to be based on actual expenses.

Response

1

a. We agree. A reminder letter will be forwarded to affected I

grantees by October 31, 1983. Additional emphasis will be l placed on obtaining timely submissions in the future.

b. We agree. This has been accomplished as advanced funding has been approved for grantees.

c. We agree. This has been accomplished.

Diame]

Executive Director for Operations s

5/1/86 VI 18 EXHIBIT 4

tIII. INVESTIGATIONS / ALLEGATIONS A. Procedures for Requesting OI Investigations B. Policy for Review of O! Reports C. Policy on the Distribution of Draft Inspection Reports D. Policy on Control of NRC Reports and Other Documents E. Distribution of 01 Investigation Reports F. Policy in Regard to Dealing with those who Provide Information to the NRC G. Release of Information to Licensees H. Interim Delegation of Authority to Regional Administrators to O Implement the Comission's Policy Statement on Confidentiality I. Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations J. Procedures in Dealina with FBI / Department of Justice Exhibits  !

O 05/01/86 VIII-1

t O

O O

VIII. Investigations / Allegations C

This chapter provides various policies and procedures which have been issued concerning the handling of investigations, allegations, and release of such information.

A. Procedures for Requesting OI Investigations Procedures for requesting OI investigations were issued by the EDO on July 5, 1985. See Exhibit I for a copy of thic procedure.

B. Policy for Review of OI Reports Policy for the review of OI reports, which was agreed upon by the Commission, was issued by the EDO on March 24, 1986.

Staff must review OI reports to assure that there is sufficient support in the reports for staff actions. The staff is not obligated to adopt s the conclusions of OI. However, the Commission must be notified if the staff's conclusions differ from those of 01.

ELD is assigned the responsibility to promptly review each OI report in which 01 concludes there was wrongdoing or where the report is particularly complex. The ELD analysis should address whether there is sufficient evidence in the report to support enforcement action and l should include any other issue which they believe should be brought to l the attention of the responsible program offices. ELD should also l indicate if consideration should be given to requesting further investigation. Program office directors should notify ELD if they have significant differences with ELD's analysis.

C. Policy on the Distribution of Draft Inspection Reports On October 7, 1983, the EDO issued a policy statement on distribution of draft inspection and investigative reports. The primary motivation v of this policy statement is to ensure that official NRC documents, and 05/01/86 VIII-3

l 1

their inspection and investigative conclusions, are published without any taint, either real or perceived, of improper influence by those we regulate. See Exhibit 2 for a complete copy of this policy.

D. Policy on Control of NRC Reports and Other Documents To augment the October 7, 1983 policy statement in B. above, ED0 issued on December 3, 1984 a general policy statement that addresses the release of all NRC reports and other documents either in draft or final form. The major premise of this 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 the Public Document Room) to all. See Exhibit 3 for s complete copy of this policy.

E. Distribution of 01 Investigation Reports In order to avoid the unintended release of correspondence or material pertaining to an 0I investigation report, such material should not be entered by staff into the Dncument Control System (DCS) or sent to NRC Central Files or PDR without coordination with OI. Offices are responsible for ensuring that procedures are in effect in comply with this requirement.

F. Policy in Regard to Dealing with those who Provide Information to the NRC This policy was issued on January 6,1984 in order to clarify and emphasize that those who bring irregularities and deficiencies in safety performance to our attention are dealt with properly and that the issues they raise are correctly treated. See Exhibit 4 for this policy.

O 05/01/86 VIII-4

G. Release of Information to Licensees This policy, issued on April 24, 1984, augments the January 6,1984 policy in E. above in that it deals with the issue of release of information provided to the NRC to licensees / vendors. See Exhibit 5 for this policy. These procedures as well as those in E. are also addressed in proposed NRC Manual Chapter 0517 " Management of Allegations" issued to Office Directors and Regional Administrators on September 19, 1984.

H. Interim Delegation of Authority to Regional Administrators to Implement the Commission's Policy Statement on Confidentiality The Commission approved its Policy Statement on Confidentiality which became effective on November 25, 1985. Regional Administrators and Office Directors were directed by ED0 on November 27, 1985 to conform their practices to its terms. A training program and Manual Chapter to provide guidance for detailed implementation of the policy statement is being developed.

The policy statement places a number of decisions at the level of the 1

Directors of OI and OIA and the EDO. To avoid the necessity of numerous ad hoc delegations of the authority assigned to the ED0 under the policy statement the following authority was delegated to all Regional Administrators and Office Directors until final guidance is in place. The authority may be redelegated as the Regional Administrator or Office Director deems appropriate.

Regional Administrators and Office Directors may, consistent with the Consnission's Policy Statement on Confidentiality:

1. grant confidentiality; and

2. provide the identity of a confidential source to a State or Federal O Agency if the source does not object.

05/01/86 VIII-5

In granting confidentiality, the standard Confidentiality Agreement should continue to be used (Exhibit 4).

The authority to revoke confidentiality, including an oral grant of confidentiality, is vested exclusively in the Directors of 01 and 0IA and the ED0 and this autnority may not be delegated.

I. Statement of Policy: Handling of Late Allegations The Comission published a policy statement on the handling of late allegations in the Federal Register en March 19, 1985. This policy statement presents the criteria the Commission will follow ir-addressing late allegations received from sources outside the Commission in the context of licensing review. See Exhibit 6.

J. Procedures in Dealing with FBI / Department of Justice See procedures 1ssued on October 24, 1983 at Exhibit 7.

l l

O 05/01/86 VIII-6

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

W itu UNITED STATES

[ $j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, g a W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

,,,,,* July 5,1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold Denton, Director, NRR John Davis, Director, NMSS James Taylor, Director, IE Thomas Murley, Regional Administrator, Region I Nelson Grace, Regional Administrator, Region II James Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III Robert Martin, Regional Administrator, Region IV John Martin, Regional Administrator, Region V j

FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING OI INVESTIGATIONS The purpose of this memorandum is to establish EDO policy for requesting i investigations from OI.

The primary purpose of an 01 investigation is to provide information to O assist the staff in making licensing and enforcement decisions. The staff has a significant interest in assuring that it obtains information from investigations necessary for decisions on a schedule that is compatible with the staff's regulatory needs. TheOfficeofInvestigations(OI)atthesame

! time is responsible for the quality of investigations and, therefore, must staff and schedule investigations in a manner such that significant matter::

are thoroughly investigated on a timely basis.

In order for 0I to understand the staff's investigatory requirements and to permit OI to exercise its judgments in an informed manner, OI must have i sufficient information to enable it to reach informed decisions as to whether to initiate an investigation and, if so, to determine its schedule. The attached form has been developed to assist OI in securing the necessary information to make its priority and scheduling decisions and to keep the various offices fully infonned of requests for investigations. All applicable information must be provided on the fonn which should be reproduced and used when making requests. Copies should be sent to.those indicated on the last page of the form. The requests should continue to be made by Regional Administrators to the OI field office and by Office Directors through the EDO to the Director of OI.

Upon receipt of the completed form, OI will evaluate the request and conduct i consultations as necessary with the requesting office. OI intends to notify the requester within 30 days as to whether the matter has been accepted for investigation and, if so, the priority of the investigation and estimated l O schedule. OI will notify the requester if there is a substan;41 change in the estimated schedule. If a request is not accepted OI will provide the 5/1/86 VIII-7 EXHIBIT 1

requester with the basis for its decision. Copies of 01 correspondence on O

scheduling and priorities will be sent to those indicated on the request form.

Requests for ir.vestigations should continue to be made for allegations or staff concern of potential wrongdoing. Potential wrongdoing includes matters where regulatory violations appear to have occurred with some intent or purpose to violate requirements in contrast to violations involving error or oversight. The term should be construed broadly to capture cases where there may be an intent to affirmatively violate requirements as well as an intent not to comply with requirements where demonstrated by careless disregard or reckless indifference for regulatory requirements.

Program offices in carrying out their oversight responsibilities must be aware within their program areas of matters being referred for investigations, the reasons for the referral, and the requested priorities. When offices initiate referrals, the appropriate regional or program office should be aware of the referral. Coordination and oversight are necessary since, due to resource constraints, all requested investigations may not be able to be conducted or at least not completed by schedules initially sought by the requester. The program offices are responsible to the ED0 for assuring within their area of responsibilities that necessary investigations are conducted. Recognizing there may be differences between the staff and OI on priorities and scheduling, regional administrators should notify the Director of the responsible program office of concerns in that area. The Director of the responsible program office, if not satisfied that an investigation priority or schedule established by the OI Director meets regulatory needs, must promptly notify the EDO.

Questions concerning the above guidance should be referred to the Chief Counsel, Regional Operations and Enforcement. In addition informal comunications are encouraged between the staff and OI to further assist in achieving the goals of an effective investigation program providing information to serve the staff's needs. In six months, OI and the staff will reevaluate the effectiveness of the attached form. i W-w g William . Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Attachment:

As stated cc: G. Cunningham, ELD l B. Hayes, 0I l

l l

O 5/1/86 VIII-8 EXHIBIT 1 0

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ,

O- Request No.

(Region-year-No.)

TO:

FROM:

REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION Licensee / Vendor / Applicant Docket No. ,

l Facility or Site Location Regional Administrator / Office Date Director l

I l

4 A. Request

!! hat is the matter that is being requested for investigation  !

(be as specific as possible regarding the underlying incident). l l

l I

I B. Purpose of Investigation

! 1. What wrongdoing is suspected; explain the basis for this view i

(be as specific as possible). 1 l

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W/0 01 APPROVAL 5/1/86 VIII-9 EXHIBIT 1 l

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE

2. What are the potential regulatory requirements that may have been violated?

3. If no violation is suspected, what is the specific regulatory concern?

4. If allegations are involved, is there a view that the allegation occurred? likely occurred , not sure . If likely, l explain the basis for that view.

l C. Requester's Priority l

1. Is the priority of the investigation high, normal, or low? l

2. What is the estimated date when the results of the investigation are needed?

3. What is the basis for the date and the impact of not meeting l this date? (For example, is there an immediate safety issue

! that must be addressed or are the results necessary to resolve l any ongoing regulatory issue and if so, what actions are dependent on the outcome of the investigation?)

l l

l l

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W/0 OI APPROVAL 5/1/86 VIII-10 EXHIBIT 1

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE l

\

D. Contact l

1. Staff members:

2. Allegers identification with address and telephone number if not confidential. (Indicate if any confidential sources ate' involved and who may be contacted for the identifying details.)

F. Other Relevant Information O

l Signature cc: OI */

ED0 NRR/NMSS as appropriate */, **/

IE */, ***/

OELF Regional Administrator **/, ***/

I

• / If generated by region.

T*/ If generated by IE.

H */ If generated by NRR/NMSS O

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION -- NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE W/0 01 APPROVAL 5/1/86 VIII 11 EXHIBIT 1

[

I%

unrrassmus NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N ig m am worow.o.c.nossa v**" OUT O 'l W e

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 INVESTIGATION REPORTS I have reviewed your coements 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 with the Directors of 01 and 01A.

The primary motivation of this policy statement is to ensure that official NRC documents, and their inspection and investigative conclusions, are published

! without any taint, either real er perceived, of improper influence >y those we l regulate. Moreover, we will reinforce policies which strengthen the authority of the NRC field staff to coment 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 HRC documents to their advantage outside the public arena.

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

A. Ob.iectives i

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 S/1/86 VIII-12 EXHIBIT 2

2 i ,

O on the content and/or conclusions of NRC reports of inspections or investigations. ,

B. Safety and Security Issue Communications NRC policy recognizes that nuclear safety and security concerns must be addressed by prompt, positive actions. Accordingly, safety or security ,

information must be promptly and clearly identified to responsible '

licensee management to obtain prompt licensee evaluation and, if appro-priate, safety-related corrective actions. Such clear coamunications are <

necessary to maintaining required levels of safety and security at i licensed facilities. When such communications are made as a result of concerns that arise during the course of an inspection / investigation, the fact of the cosaunication should be noted in the inspection / investigation report, and a copy of any written coamunication should be included in the

report.

Where approved by regional management, inspectors may, in preparation for exit interviews or enforcement meetings, provide to the licensee a I

listing of significant issues developed in the course of an inspection, in order to facilitate communication of inspection findings which require 4 corrective action. However, notes, draft reports, draft evaluations,

{ 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 i required by safety or security concerns, as noted above.

Briefing materials prepared by the staff for use in meetings with licensees occasionedprior regional management by inspection to distribution activities should at a meeting, and beappende reviewed by,d to the inspection report.

C. Release of Draft Inspection Reports 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 EDO.

For the purposes of this policy, a draft inspection report is the preliminary draft of the document which will provide the account and conclusions of an official NRC inspection. It is to be considered a draft inspection report from its initial development, and throughout the period of supervisory and management review, until final publication and distribution in accordance with IE Manual Chapter 1025.

In the event any draft inspection report is inadvertently or otherwise O writing. released The EDO contrary will taketoorthis reconmendpolicy, the EDO action as should appropriate. be promptly advised 5/1/86 VIII-13 EXHIBIT 2

3 D. Release of Draft Investigation Reports 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 01 is required by Comission directives to infom Regional Administrators of safety and security issues as they are developed in the course of an investigation. Regional Administrators shall act on this information in accordance with the policies set forth above for the prompt communication of safety and security issues, and in addition shall observe the following procedure.

The Regional Administrator shall infom 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 I initiation of corrective actions befo m publication of the investigation l report. The Director. 01, should review the information to be released l and advise the Regional Administrator of the anticipated effect of its release on the course of the investigation. The Regional Administrator will release the information only after determining that the safety or security concerns are significant enough to justify the risk of compromising the effectiveness of the investigation and, possibly, subsequent enforcement or prosecution options. Any such release of l information should be recorded in the investigation report. l l

pursuant to Comission approved 0I policy, draft 0I reports of l investigation will not be circulated outside the NRC without the specific approval of the Chairman. (OIAdraftreportsofinvestigation 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, DIA.) Requests for such permission should be made through the EDO.

In the case of an emergency appearing to require immediate action NRC personnel shall provide the licensee with any information they judge the circumstances warrant. If time permits, regional management should be consulted first.

O 5/1/86 VIII-14 EXHIBIT 2

4 O The foregoing policies are effective immediately. The EDO following an appropriate evaluation period for this policy, will incorporate this policy into the NRC Manual, Also, the EDO is reviewing existing procedures and practices related to other types of comunications under the cognizance of other NRC Offices and will issue policy guidance where deemed appropriate.

1( l Willi J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations ,

cc: H. Denton J. Davis R. Minogue G. Messenger B. Hayes O

} i

~

t.

I l

O 5/1/86 VIII-15 EXHIBIT 2

DEC 3 M 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, I issued a policy statement ragarding the distribution of draft inspection 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 1 or member of the public unless they can be made available (generally through the Public Document Room) to all.

Nothing in the enclosed policy statement should be construed as a relaxation of sty October 1983 policy statement. Rather, it is sty intent that the procedures developed in response to the enclosed policy statement be consistent with the specific directions in sty October 1983 policy statement. As an amplification of sty October 1983 policy, you should also establish procedures to ensure that  !

OI is promptly informed whenever a material false statement is suspected.

Additionally, matters being referred to OI should be coordinated with OI 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.

(SipeSWilliamiDirsis 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 1

l VIII-16 5/1/86 EXHIBIT 3

L i )

O p0LICY ON CONTROL 0F NRC REPORTS AND QTHER DOCUMENTS l

INTRODUCTION NRC must act promptly and positively on nuclear safety and safeguards concerns.

Such concerns must be identified promptly, documented and made known to respon-sible licensee management to obtain prompt evaluation and appropriate cor-rective action. At the same time. NRC documents must be developed and issued without improper licensee or public influence, or the appearance thereof, and must be made available to the public in a timely manner, consistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures.

OBJECTIVES 1

The objectives of this policy statement with regard to both plant-specific and generic NRC reports and other documents (referred to hereinafter as " documents")

l are:

1. To provide NRC staff with general policy guidance on the release and j distribution of draft and final documents.

l 0 2. To assure that staff documents are developed and issued witteut improper influences, real or perceived, by the public or by applicants licensees, pmittees or their subcontractors or agents (referred to hereinafter as licensees") and are made available promptly to the public.

i I

3. To assure that sufficient flexibility is provided to Office Directors and Regional Administrators so that they and their staffs will not hesitate to disseminate appropriate safety or safeguards information to licensees, before distribution of final documents. 1 l

p0LICY For the purpose of this policy, the term " documents

• encompasses all written material considered to be NRC records under 10 CFR Part 9. A draft document is 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 has been signed or othemise approved for publication and distribution. Final documents will be distributed in a manner that will ensure that the public, the licensees. MRC contractors and Government agencies have access to information they need to fulfill their responsibilities. Final documents provided to licenseeswillbeplacedinthePublicDocumentRoom(PDR).

Any decision under this policy to place documents in the PDR aust also be con-sistent with NRC regulations, policies and procedures regarding confidentiality, security, safeguards, proprietary, and Privacy Act Information and investigative matters.

VIII-17 5/1/86 EXHIBIT 3

Draft documents, or infonnation 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 memoranda 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 5,o11cy, 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. j EXCEPTIONS l In the event there is an emergency, or a significant safety or safeguards issue appears to require ismediate action. NRC personnel, at their discretion, may l 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, comunications with licensees, vendors industry representatives and other Government agencies are at times necessary regarding initial NRC staff positions. license conditions, confinnation 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 comunications pn.ided by the staff to licensees or the public shall, however, be placed in tm PDR.

Draft research reports, studies, data or other documentation based on infonnation obtained from a licensee or vendor, which may be discussed or exchanged with those parties and other participants 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 comment 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.

VIII-18 5/1/86 EXHIBIT 3 L _ __. - . . . . _ - --

O IMPLEMENTATION Program and Regional Offices are expected to develop and implement procedures that reflect this policy. IE, MMSS and NRR in coordination with Regional Offices, should develop generic procedures for use by the Regional Offices regarding inspection, fuels and materials licensing and reactor licensing, respectively.

O O

5/1/86 y111_19 EXHIBIT 3

I

[ \o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j w ass m ot o w. o. c.nases January 6, 1984 k..... g MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

POLICY IN REGARD TO DEALING WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE NRC Our policies in dealing with persons bringing irregularities and deficiencies in safety performance 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 inaximize 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 l credibility with the public is a function of our relationships with these 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.

f I am asking IE to take the enclosure of this memo and translate it into l 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 Commission and will do so when IE provides me the MCM for approval.

7 William . Dircks Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

As stated 1

VIII-20 EXHIBIT 4 5/1/86

POLICY FN REGARD TO DEALING WITH THOSE WHO PROVIDE i 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.

i

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

l NRC Procedural Practices

! 1. When allegations are received in writing, a prompt attempt to make l 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 normally be required to O obtain them.

5/1/86 VIII-21 EXHIBIT 4

2

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 promptly as resources will allow.

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, i licensee accompaniment prohibited, etc.

l l 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.

VIII-22 EXHIBIT 4 5/1/86

d

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.

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

All allegations should be entered in the allegation tracking system.

O

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. l l

l l

Licensee Actions

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

1 VIII-23 5/1/86 EXHIBIT 4 ,

l

2. It should be advantageous under some circumstances to have the lic.ensee address the validity of allegations to the NRC. If so, confidentiality must not be breached. Licensees 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 infomed 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 terms 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.

5/1/86 VIII-24 EXHIBIT 4

5-

O

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.

Attachment:

Confidentiality Agreement 3

I O ,

O ,

5/1/86 VIII-25 EXHIBIT 4

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT I have information that I wish to provide in confidence to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). I request an express pledae 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 cxtended 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 information 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 information in furtherance of their responsibilities under law or public trust.

(2) The NRC will disclose n1y 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 Comission to avoid actions which would clearly be expected to result in the disclosure of my 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 my identity, my 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 relevart facts will be comunicated 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 my identity.

I also understand that the NRC will consider me to have waived my right to con-fidentinlity 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 my rights to confidentiality if I provide (or have previously provided) information to any other party that contradicts the information that I provided to the NRC or if circumstances indicate that I am intentionally providing false information i to the NRC.

1 (if any)

Other Conditions:

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

Date Name:

Address:

Agreed to on behalf of the US Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

I Date Signature Name:

Title:

l 5/1/86 VIII-26 EXHIBIT 4

1. pmq%' UNITED STATES l' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i ,, m s.aw m on.c.c.nossi

....* APN 2 4 584~ >

HEMORANDUM FOR: EDO Office Directors /

Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks _

Executive Director for Operations

~

SUBJECT:

RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO LICENSEES

REFERENCE:

Memo, Dircks to.0ffice Directors and Regional Administrators, " Policy in Regard to Dealing with Those who Provide Information to the NRC " dated i; January 6, 1984 -

w The reference above deals with the general issue of dealing in a prompt and efficient manner with information provided to liRC with due regard for confidentiality of those who provide such information. This memorandum deals with the narrower issue of release of such information to O licensees / vendors. In addition to the need for expeditiously resolving any issue related to safety, recent experience has showri that considerable resources are being used to deal with allegations for NTOL plants. The 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 to protect the health and safety.. I expect that once information from 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 investipHons/ inspections should not be compromised, i.e.,  !

premature release shedJ ne t allow licensees the opportunity to cover up problems or appear t< c.o e .

There are two exceptions ta 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 nonna11y not be made unless the ,'

release is necessary to prevent an imminent threat to the public henith and safety. I should be consulted in any case where it appears e need to release i

l 5/1/86 VIII-27 EXHIBIT 5

i the identity of a confidential source. The second exception is where a 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.

(S!;r.tS G !I: !.Ci:23 William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations O

5/1/86 VIII-28 EXHIBIT 5

s 11030 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. S3 / Tuesday, March 19. 1965 / Notices ne most fundamental tenet flowing from the NRC's statutory mandate under InitialScreamin8of All'8ations Statement of Policy Handling of Late the Atomic Energy Act is that a license Any eqpcerne bearing on the safety of Alleget6ons 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 aossocy: Nuclear Regulatory licensee.'If. however, this approach is the activity to he authorized presente no Commission. undue risk to tha health and safety of unsatisfactory, any person is free to actiosc Statement of Policy: llandling of the public.nere can be rio abdication bring such concerne directly to the NRC.

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

question as to the abilit o make such any person who has an allegation t h it ri e slon concerning the design, construction.

will follow in addressing late allegations finding. no license may issued and the time necessary to resolve such operation,or management of a nuclear received from sources outside the question must and will be taken. power plant has a duty to bring such I

• ffg," yN#y 3the sfa heref re. In the context oflate information to the Commission s allegations. it is necessary that attention as promptly as possible. All Procedures for nolifym' g Atomic Safety, appropriate criteria be applied to enable allegations should be specific and and bcensing Boards. Atomic Safety the decisionmaker, be 11 the NRC's staff documented to the fullest extent and Licensing Appeal Boards, and the possible. Hose submitting allegations in Commission of the receipt of allegations or the Commission liself. to expeditiously determine the good faith should be aware that be revised to provide for an initial. appropriate protection against coarse screening prior toissuance of a significance.in terms of safe operation retaliatory action by an applicant or Board Notification. ofInthe facility,ofwit connection ank itsallegations review of a made. licensee (including its contractors and EPPECTIVE DATs: March 19.1985. number of recent cases.the NRC has subcontractors)is afforded by Section POR PunTHEa 800POfWsATiON CO8ffACT: been confronted with the task of 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of lawrence J. Chandler. Office of the addressinglarge numbers of allegations 1974. 42 U.S.C. 5851. All parties and Executive Legal Director. U.S. Nuclear which were brought to its attention eery persons are reminded that Federallaw 5 T p n 2 fv f{th t n y a any fNs s a e n surnassenTAnt unionesANc eo whYa cis o$on of Mprepotation to any agency of the WheIber to authorise the issuanu of an U" Statement of Policy operating license was to be made. Some **

x gf these allegations related to matters in In reviewing allegations, the

, The purpose of this policy statement controversy and others related to appropriate Comniission staff office will as to explain the policy which the first determine whether,if true, the Comrrussion ex cts to follow regarding previously unconkskd hsues nd undu consideration by a particular allegations are material to the licensing the treatment o late allegations,

"' h adjudicatory tribunal. Significant

[*' In a e ,

reviews and in th'e board notification commitments of staff resources often

"' d rted a as inute to *

'm caer wom encow sessh. i.tu Q'g'g(h'gg*

i process.The focus of)his statement la a,ddr in.unwipmenner 4 , ..d e ina .t, on NRC staff and Commission pre, jegations many of which have proven awJeer racinq p c de licensing safety reviews of uncontested to be unsubstantiated or oflittle. If any safety s ca issues, and Commission pre-ficensing }e,])

j immediate effectiveness reviews of particular facility will be resolved

contestedissues.ne areatment of before anylicense is authorized. If

allegations in formal adjudicatory however, because of the number of licensing proceed s will continue to be l

governed by the Ru es of Practice in to allegations and/or their tardy submission. all allege tions cannot be CFR Part 2. Apart from this policy statement the Commission has inillated resolved in a timeframe consis' tent with a rulemaking to codify NRC caselaw reasonable and responsible licensing critena for reopening a closed utbn.H m@ me p evidentiary record in a formal licensing priority totheir those allegations because of potentiallrnpact o which'n proceeding and to specify further the documentary bases for motions to safety, must be resolved before licensing action can be taken.

reopen, including those which may be hwd on a!!eastions. 49 FR 50189 (Deccmber 27.1984).

J l 5/1/86 VIII-29 EXHIBIT 6

2.Re need for prompt considaration Dated at Washington. D.C., on this 13th deoision la that they would require of the allegation recognizing the pubhc day of March seas.

denial of the license sought. the interest in avoiding undue delay.lf the For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Imposition of additional conditions on staff determines that an allegation raises khaC. % ,

such license, or further anal sis or a significant safety concern regarding, g,j,### #'###Y' investigation. Allegation which, even if for example the design, construction, or true, cre not material to any licensing [Mt Doc. 85-6544 Filed 3-16-45; 8 45 em]

operation of a facility or about quality """'s caos ne.m decision or which on their face or after assurance or control or management Initirlinquiry are determined to be conduct, which brings into question the friv:lous or too vague or generalin safe operation of the facility at a given n:ture to provide sufficient information stage of operation, the allegstion must f:r the staff to imiestigate will receive be addressed prior to authorizing that na further consideration. stage.For purposes of this policy As ti allegations which are material statement. an allegation will be is thelicensing deciolon, the considered safety significant if the Commission staff will next deternine allegation would,if true,[1) raise a whithtr the information presented is significant question about the ability of new in the sense of raising a matter not a particular structure, system, or previrusly considered or tending to component to perform its intended corrabrate previcusly received but not safety function or (2) raise a significant yet resolved allegations. In making this question of management competence, ditermination. all information available integrity, or conduct or about 13 th2 Commission will be considered, implementation of the quality assurance including that previously provided by an program, sufficient to raise a legitimate doubt as to the ability to operate the opplicant or licensee and that obtained by the Commission in the course ofits plant safely. Allegations which are not review and inspection efforts or from its safety significant will be resolved in the normal course of business independent inv:stigation of prior allegations. In some cases,information already oflicense issuance.

cvaihble to the NRC may be sufficient Board Notification Procedures ta res:lve certain allegations. However, if an cliegation is found to be both Parties to ongoing adjudicatory material and new, the staff will proceedings have an obligation to bring allegations to the attention of the investigate the allegation further.

presiding board. All arties have an Further Review obligation to info cards promptly of If the staff determines that, as a result relevant and materialinformation that may affect the decisionmaking process.

cf the number of a!!egations or the h Commission's staff,in accordance timeframe in which they are received it with its obli ations for board cppears likely that full consideration of n tification as in the past submitted c!! cliegations cannot be accomplished allegations to boards promptly and consistent with responsible and timely without awaiting their resolution or Commission action. the Commission determinaton of significance relative to staff will conduct a further screening of the decisionmaking process.This thi allegations to determine their praedce is conWent wW b significance to safety and therefore Commission. approved board what priority should be assigned n tification policy. However,it has relstive to the activity to be authorized., resulted, on occasion, in presenting The f:llowing screening criteria will be boards with new information, the considered: significance of which is not readily 1.The likelihood that the a!!egation is apparent. Consequently,in the future, correct. taking into consideration all staff board notifications of allegations avcilable information including the will not be made until the staff has cppIrent level of knowledge, expertise, made at least an initial screening of the cnd reliability of the individual allegations. Only those allegations submitting the allegation in terms of the which are found not to be frivolous, clieg: tion submitted and the possible which are relevant and material to the cxistince of more credible contrary decisionmaking process (as determined inf;rmation. under existing board notification procedures) and which are determined to warrant further scrutiny will be A. a senn.: m.un. the commi. won h..

etthorized issuance of operatins beenses first fw submitted to the presiding tribunal low power testins (up to s4 of rated powerl and Board notifications should still be made (8 promptly, consistent with the need and gd',I"8" ted $in ses5e reps have hun further renned. for em.mpte. inio fuet time required for screening.The etaffs toed. hoe eycem e suns. criticaher and re pown board notification procedures should be inues other refinesweis too are pon.tae and may revised accordingly, be twharts,d.

6 5/1/86 VIII-30

as:

UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION tuASHItoGTON, D. C. 30885 3

k,,, October 24, 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors and Regional Administrators l

FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

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 should be reported to the Division of Security.

O v 2. Contacts with FBI in regard to threat assessment, contingency response planning and other matters covered in the NRC/ FBI "Memorandem of Understanding for Cooperation Regarding Threat.

Theft or Sabotage in the Nuclear Industry" will be handled by l NMSS according to their standard procedures.

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

If substantive matters are discussed, the provisions of I paragraph B will apply. l 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:

1. Regions: All contacts will be referred to the OI Regional Field Office which will in turn advise 0!

Nitadquarters of the nature of the contact as appropriate.

l t

O l l 5/1/86 VIII-31 EXHIBIT 7

l

2. Headquarters Offices: Contacts will be referred to 01 ,

(Contact: Division of Field Operations, Telephone: 27246).

OI willofconsult caller with EDONRC the appropriate as necessary(and contact s). Contactsadvise will the i then be advised to respond to queries.

3. 01 will be responsible to detennine the nature of the FBI /DOJ contact and, where appropriate, advise staff of investigations l which relate to matters of health and safety and 01A of matters touching upon the conduct of NRC employees or contractors.

Due regard will be paid to the sensitivity of the  ;

infonnation.

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

1. OIA will be the single point of contact for referral to DOJ/ FBI of l 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 assure that this policy rea:hes and is understood by all employees of the agency.

($1pe6 William L Dircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations l

l 1

(

• f O

5/1/86 VIII-32 EXHIBIT 7

i IX.

O MISCELLANE0US A. Resolution of Inter- and Intra-Office Differences B. Keeping the Comission Informed C. Comission Review of Representations of Comission Policy Positions by NRC Offices D. Comunications Between Staff and Comissioners' Offices E. Comission Coordination with Staff F. Comunication of Staff Concerns to Management i

i G. MOU Between ACRS and ED0 H. Coordination of ACRS Full Comittee Meetings

, I. Public Speaking Engagements J. Policy and Procedures for Direct Distribution of Proposed and Effective Regulations to Licensees and Other

, Interested Persons I

i K. Procedures for Foreign Travel

! L. International Technical Assistance Activities M. Use of Blue Bag Service Exhibits i

i

'O 05/01/86 IX-1

i 1 i

IX. MISCELLANEOUS-i.

A. Resolution of Inter--and Intra-Office' Differences j Office Directors and Regional Administrators are expected to have the necessary mechanisms in place to assure that they are-made aware 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 l Office or Division Directors must become involved with their counterpart. If this is not effective, the Office must make a prompt i decision either to bring the issue to the attention of the EDO or, if a l Comission paper is involved, to outline the difference with a -

non-concurrence by one or more parties. -

8. Keeping the Comission Informed i

4 i In " keeping the Commission advised," it is desirable to comunicate in j writing in order to eliminate possible misperceptions.

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

i i The " crisis" method is to use datafax facilities. The " Preliminary l Notification" developed by IE is'a good example and can be used in i preference to or as supplementary to phone calls. (SeeExhibit1.)

4 C. Comission Review of Representations of Commission Policy Positions

! by NRC Offices j In advance of representing a Comission policy position the Comission j should have an opportunity to review the proposed representation. This policy should be generally applied but in particular it should apply to requests from Congress for a Comission policy determination'when there is an unresolved issue which warrants a Consiission policy determination; when a majority of the current Comission has not approved a Comission

,/ position; and wher. a contemporaneous requirement _ for such a determination '

l arises. l 05/01/86 IX-3

D. Communications Between Staff and Commissioners' 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 concerning items known or believed to be of interest to that Comissioner. Contacts initiated by Commissioners' offices requesting factual information should be answered directly without hesitation. It is nonnally expected that, in either case, the staff member's immediate supervisor will be informed promptly about contacts of substance; the supervisor should, in turn, 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.

E. Comission Coordination with Staff On March 25, 1986, the Chairman notified the EDO of procedures for Commission coordination with staff.

Commissioners will coordinate their travel to Regional Offices and facilities with the ED0 (or with the Regional Administrator who would then notify the ED0).

Significant requests for information (e.g., collections of documents, original work, meetings) would be directed by Commissioners to the EDO, with copies to the Chairman. After receipt of the request, if questions of priority arise because staff has identified the request as requiring significant resources to fulfill, the ED0 is to discuss the request with the Commissioner who originated it. The purpose of that discussion would be to ensure that the scope of the request is fully understood. Following that discussion, if the Commissioner still wants the request to be fulfilled and the ED0 still believes there is an issue regarding its priority, the Chairman is to be notified. The Chairman will then be the initial arbiter of the matter. If the Chairman's decision is not satisfactory to the Commissioner making the request, that Comissioner can bring the matter to the full Commission l for a vote.

l 05/01/86 IX-4

j'~'} E00 will review Commissioner requests prior to assignment for those

\ _/

s requiring significant resources and will follow the steps outlined above. Offices and Regions are to bring to ED0's attention any requests which might create a burden and the ED0 will reassess his position.

4 F.- 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

'~'}

w,/ staff.

G. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and ilC Staff - Executive Director for Operations (ED0)

A revised Memorandum of Understanding between the ACRS and EDO was issued effective December 1, 1985 to establish procedures for ACRS partici-pation in the development of NRC rules, policy matters, and safety-related guidance at a sufficient early stage to permit constructive interaction during formulation of these matters. See Exhibit 2 for a copy of the MOU.

H. Coordination of ACRS Full Committee Meetings The following procedures have been established to provide for centralization of the process of forwarding issues to ACRS for 7' consideration at Full Committee Meetings.

i O

05/01/86 IX-5

On the first business day after the 4th of each month, Offices should 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. Provide 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.

I. Public Speaking Engagements

1. Speaking engagements are necessary to commun_icate 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.

3. It is management's responsibility to approve speaking engagements on the part of staff personnel.

l

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

O 05/01/86 IX-6

h b. ED0 will approve the speeches of Office Directors and x Regional Administrators which deal with significant issues, new policy or new policy implementation. They will be submitted to EDO, ATTN: A0/EDO, 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 EDO Weekly Information Report.

J. Policy and Procedures for Direct Distribution of Proposed and Effective Regulations to Licensees and Other Interested Persons

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, d standards writing groups, trade associations, trade publications likely to be read by affected licensees, public interest groups, persons who commented on a proposed rule, and other persons who have expressed an interest in the regulation.

j b. Comission papers recommending proposed or effective I

regulations will contain a statement that affected licensees and other interested persons will receive a copy of the amendment by direct mail.

l 1/ 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 grammar, address, or title changes, the task leader should seek his/her Division Director's approval to forego the direct mailing in the interest of economy.

0 l 05/01/86 IX-7

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 consideritions, the contact person should contact the Chief, Document Management Branch, TIDC, on extension 49-28585.

The notation section of a Commission 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.

O 05/01/86 IX-8

K. Procedures for Foreign Travel G

Procedures for approval of foreign travel apply to all NRC employees 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 /ED0 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.

Foreign travel related to meetings, symposia or conferences external to OECD countries must be approved by ED0 (thru IP) before the traveler commits to the event. This approval should normally be requested by memo, to ED0 thru IP, as soon as the event is known. When IP receives a general invitation directly, they will evaluate the importance of the event and recommend to the ED0 before soliciting attendance.

/

O

(, All foreign trips of any nature will include a justification in the 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 employees and contractors) sponsored by their office that will be making the same trips. IP will inform ED0 as to the total number of travelers from all NRC offices and contractors that plan to make the 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.

L. International Technical Assistance Activities International Programs (IP) publishes on a monthly basis a status report on NRC International Technical Assistance Activities. NRC will support such activities as long as they contribute to safety, have a potential for feedback of information to NRC, and do not pose an Ov 05/01/86 IX-9 a - _ _ _ . _ _ _ -

c-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.

M. 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 4.)

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 4) instead of the Blue Bag 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 III. 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 Bag material. If secret material is transmitted, NRC Form 126,

" Classified Document Receipt" is required. (See Exhibit 5.)

05/01/86 IX-10

s Blue Bags should not be retained in individual offices; they should be O 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 conc'erning the Blue Bag services should be directed to the Chief, Mail and Messenger Branch (X-27485).

O l

i l

l 05/01/86 Ix-11

February 13, 1986

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-II-86-15

'( This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of POSSIBLE safety or public interest significance. The information is as initially received without verifi-cation or evaluation, and is basically all that is known by the Region II staff on this

date.

FACILITY: Mississippi Power & Light Company Licensee Emergency Classification:

Grand Gulf Unit 1 X Notification of Unusual Event 2

Docket No. 50-416 Alert j Port Gibson, Mississippi Site Area Emergency j

General Emergency j Not Applicable i

[

i

SUBJECT:

SHUTDOWN TO REPLACE RECIRCULATION PUMP. SEALS.

The licensee reports that the Unit has been taken out of service for approximately five days for replacement of the "B" recirculation pump seals. An Unusual Event was declared on February 12 from 3:30 p.m. (EST) unitl 8:11 p.m. (EST) in compliance with plant j

requirements after reactor coolant system leakage increased to 5.9 gallons per minute, l

Plant technical specifications allow leakage of up to 5 gallons per ' minute.

l 4

The licensee also reports that, while shutting down, the reactor tripped from 11 percent power on low reactor water level following the opening of a condensate booster pump recirculation valve and loss of the operating main feedwater pump on low suction pressure.

1 The reactor core isolation cooling system and the main feedwater pump restored the water level to normal.

t Evaluation of the condensate booster pump recirculation valve opening is in progress.

The licensee and Region II are prepared to respond to media inquiries, j The State of Mississippi has been informed.

The NRC received initial notification of this event via telephone from the licensee to the headquarters Incident Response Center at 4:05 p.m. (EST) on February 12.

j This information is current as of 2:00 p.m. (EST) on February 13.

1 l

Contact:

H. Dance, 242-5533 i

, DISTRIBUTION:

i H. Street MNBB Phillips E/W Willste MAIL:

Chairman Palladino IDT NRR TT- NMSS ARiDMB Comm. Roberts PA OIA 1 Comm. Asselstine RES DOT: Trans Only MPA AE00 Applicable State i Comm. Bernthal ELD l Comm. Zech Air Rights INP0 i SECY SP '

' NSAC ACRS ,

j CA PDR '

Regions:

Licensee:

i 5/1/86- Ix_13 EXHIBIT'l u__-__________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _

November 6, 1985 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PARTIES: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) - ACRS Chairman NRC Staff - Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

ACRS PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT MATTERS,ANDSAFETY-RELATEDGUIDANCEgFNRCRULES, POLICY The purpose of this memorandum is to establish procedures for ACRS partici-pation in the development of NRC rules, policy matters, and safety-related guidance at a sufficiently early stage to permit constructive interaction during formulation of these matters.

The following have been agreed upon to facilitate ACRS participation in matters of the type noted above when they are within the purview of the ACRS:

1. GENERAL

a. Areas of ACRS interest (see attachment) will be identified on behalf of the ACRS by the ACRS Executive Director.

b. The NRC Staff will be responsible for ensuring that ACRS comments regarding,puclear safety rules, major nuclear safety policy matters, 2/ and safety-related guidance under development by the NRC Staff are obtained and taken into account at appropriate stages in the developmer.t process of these items. This function will nonnally be the responsibility of the cognizant NRC Staff office. An NRC Contact to coordinate these activities will be assigned in every major Staff program office.

c. The ACRS Staff Engineer supporting the ACRS Regulatory Activities Subcomittee will serve as the ACRS Contact for the subject

_1f Safety-related guidance includes Regulatory Guides and the Standard Review Plans, including the Branch Technical Positions.

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

5/1/86 IX-14 EXHIBIT 2

L.

matters. The NRC Contact in the responsible Staff office will be i

the coordinator in the NRC Staff.

l

d. ACRS comments will be forwarded to the EDO or to the Commission,

=

as appropriate, ..'ith copies to the cognizant Staff office (NRC Contact). The NRC Contact' will ensure that copies are provided to appropriate NRC Staff offices and the EDO will assure con-sideration of ACRS comments by the NRC Staff. Commission papers, '

if any, will address ACRS coments, including those not endorsed l by the Staff. l 4

e. When deviations from procedures of this Memorandum of Understand-

ing are unavoidable, they may be altered consistent with the needs of the ACRS/EDO Staff or, as appropriate, in those cases i where the ACRS is participating directly in a related rulemaking hearing as outlined in 10 CFR 2.809. Such changes should be 4

mutually agreed on by the EDO and the ACRS Executive Director. (

l 2. PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH NRC RULES AND POLICY MATTERS

a. When a proposed rule, or a major policy matter, in an area of ACRS interest is under consideration by the NRC Staff for event-

} ual transmission to the Comission, the ACRS should be infonned '

of the anticipated NRC Staff action when the basic requirements 4

are being formulated, and an opportunity for ACRS discussion should be provided. This may be achieved by the NRC Contact /

Project Engineer providing ACRS with copies of the j task initiation form (after user office endorsement) pertinent or other j relevant office documents. Any written reaction by the ACRS on j the need for, scope, and direction of the proposed task will be

] considered and responded to by the EDO.

b. Nonnally, ACRS coments on a rule or major policy matter will be l provided at the following two stages:

i

! . Prior- to submittal to the Comission for action regarding publication of a proposed rule or major policy matter for

! public coment, a hearing, or other action, as appropriate.

This would nonnally occur before CRGR review.

. Prior to submittal to the Comission for action regarding implementation of the final rule or major ' policy matter l unless no substantive revisions are made by the Staff in preparing the matter for final Comission action. This

would normally occur after the public coment period and/or

! after completion of a related- hearing and before CRGR

review.

l The cognizant NRC Staff office (NRC Contact / Project Engi-i neer) will ensure that schedules for 'the development of a spe- g i

! cific rule about (normally or a major p)olicy two months for matterACRS review include sufficient prior time to submittal to

! CRGR/EDO, at both stages.

i

! 5/1/86 IX-15 EXHIBIT 2

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

c. In addition, ACRS will have the option of reviewing a specific document during the period allowed for public comment and at such other times as considered appropriate by the cognizant ACRS Subcommittee. Under such circumstances, the NRC Staff (NRC Contact / Project Engineer) will be infonned as early as possible of anticipated ACRS full Comittee and Subcomittee activities and will establish a schedule which allows the time, to the degree practicable, required for the ACRS input.

d. Twenty copies of a rule or major policy matter will be provided to the ACRS for review by the NRC Contact / Project Engineer at the stages identified fn-"2.b.,

n above with a memorandum addressed to the ACRS Executive Director requesting ACRS review and also including 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.

When sending a rule, or major policy matter to the ACRS for review, the Staff office involved (NRC Contact / 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 resolu-tion of public comments (if any), and related CRGR meeting minutes (ifany),etc.

e. Five copies of a rule or major policy matter will also be pro-vided to the ACRS for information by the NRC Contact / Project Engineer at the following stages, with a memorandum addressed to the Executive Director, ACRS, indicating that they are sent to ACRS for information:

. When a proposed rule or major policy matter is sent to other NRC offices by the originating office for final review and coment.

. After incorporation of CRGR coments on a proposed rule or a policy matter, when it is sent to the Comission for ap-proval to be published as a Federal Register Notice for public coment.

. After approval by the Comission, when a proposed rule or a policy matter is sent to be published as a Federal Regis-ter Notice for public coment.

. After CRGR review of a proposed final rule or a policy matter subsequent to the public coment period, when it is sent to the Comission for approval for implementation.

. Final document, when it is sent to be published as an

, effective document.

l l O 5/1/86 IX-16 EXHIBIT 2 l

l

i 3. PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH SAFETY-RELATED GUIDANCE (E.G., REGULATORY l UTDT5 A15 57ANDARD REVIEW PLANS. INCLUDING BRANCH TECHNICAL POSITIONS)

a. When the NRC Staff is considering the development of new guidance i or modifications (e.g., revision, cancellation, and/or substi-

, tution) of existing guidance -in areas of ACRS interest, the j ACRS should be informed promptly of the anticipated Staff action t and be afforded an opportunity to connent early in the process.

! This may be achieved by the NRC Contact / Project Engineer pro - i i viding ACRS with copies of such documents as the pertinent task

! initiation fonn (after user office endorsement) or other relevant l office documents. Any written' reaction by the ACRS on the need 1 i

for, scope, and direction of the proposed task should ' be con- '

j sidered and responded to by the EDO.

i i b. Nonna11y, ACRS comments on safety-related guidance will be l provided at the following stages:

4

. After CRGR review, if any, and prior to issuance for public comment.

l . Subsequent to the public connent period and after CRGR j review, if any, and prior to issuing the final version for  ;

l industry and/or NRC Staff use.

1

! When developing schedules for safety-related guidance, the cognizant NRC Staff office (NRC Contact / Project Engineer) will ensure that such schedules include sufficient time (normally

about two months) for the ACRS review.

i

! c. In addition, ACRS will have the option of reviewing a specific i document associated with safety-related guidance durfng the I public connent period, if any, and at such other times as may be I

I considered appropriate by the cognizant ACRS Subcommittee. Under such circumstances, the NRC Staff (NRC Contact / Project Engineer) ,

will be informed of anticipated' ACRS full Connittee and Sub-connittee activities as early as possible to enable them to i provide the necessary time, to the degree practicable, required  :

for the ACRS input.

d. Twenty copies of pertinent documents dealing with safety-related guidance will be provided by the NRC Contact / Project Engineer to the ACRS for review at the stages identified in 3.b., ,

above with a memorandum addressed to the ACRS Executive Director  :

! requesting ACRS revfew and also including a proposed schedule for- '

review and publication, as appropriate. The ACRS Executive Director will keep the EDO infonned of the schedule for ACRS connents/reconnendations.

When sending proposed safety-related guidance to the ACRS for review, the Staff office involved (NRC Contact / Project Engineer) '

will ensure that the ACRS is provided with a copy of other 5/1/86 IX-17 EXHIBIT 2

related documents, as appropriate, such as differing judgments on technical issues among the NRC Staff, public coments, NRC Staff's resolution of public coments , related CRGR meeting minutes, etc.

e. Five copies of pertinent safety-related guidance documents will also be provided to the ACRS for information by the NRC Contact /

Project Engineer at the following stages with a memorandum addressed to the Executive Director, ACRS, indicating that they are sent to ACRS for information:

. When a proposed safety-related guidance is sent to other NRC offices by the originating office for final review and coment.

. When it is sent to be published as a Federal Register Notice for public coment.

. When it is sent to be published as a final document for industry and/or NRC Staff use.

[6fbh ,

(Date) William Q trcks Executive DfTector for Operations l! k .

[Date) David A. Ward, Chairman l

Advisory Comittee on Reactor l Safeguards l

Attachment:

Areas of ACRS Interest

{

O IX-18 l 5/1/86 EXHIBIT 2 l

O. Attachment Areas of ACRS Interest Per Item 1.a. of Memorandum of Understanding Dated November 6,1985. ACRS Participation in the Development of NRC Rules, Policy Matters, and Safety-Related Guidance For purposes of implementing the MOU noted above, the ACRS has identified the following areas of interest which consist of safety-related rules, proposed rule changes, or Appendices in the areas noted below. Policy matters and safety guidance 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 - Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositories

. Part 61 - Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste

. Part 70 - Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material i

Part 72 - Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation

. Part 73 - Physical Protection of Plants and Materials

. Part 100- Reactor Site Criteria With respect to new rules, proposed changes, or Appendices to Part 2 or 51

, which 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 information.

I frW^

l ~ U RS Executive Director f

'% /er (Date)

O 5/1/86 IX-19 EXHIBIT 2

m APRIL D

'o2

• Purpose Related Documents Title / Issue Priority (This should include topics (Only 3 type (High: if it is (What document (s) not s' in which we know ACRS has entries: important to staff in possession of ACRS 3 an interest as well as those " Request ACRS to deal with it now will be available ;f we wish to put forward on coment," 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 if staff doesn't noted.)

need action but is 7 offering the 8.

suggestion of a 8 meeting.) C

• ACRS can handle g R 3-5 "High Priority" o A3 items a month. -*

X Samples g Heeting with a Regional Discuss matters of High (ED0) None p a general interest '

Director R.G. 8.8 Rev. 4, "Information Request ACRS High (RES) R.G. 8.10. " Operation Relevant to Ensuring that Coments Philosophy for Maintaining 3 Occupational Radiation Exposures Occupational Radiation g Exposures As Low As m at Nuclear Power Plants will be As Low As Reasonably Achievable" Reasonably Achievable" g Proposed Revisions to 10 CFR 30, Request ACRS High (RES) Proposed rule and Regulatory h 40, 70 and 72 on Emergency concurrence in Analysis will be provided on o Preparedness for Fuel Cycle and staff position 12/15/83 0 Other Radioactive Material y Licensees Trends and Patterns Program Plan Status Report Medium (AE00) Briefing Package (4/1/84)

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

O O O

\

Sample Blue Bag and Messenger / Courier Receipt e

NRC Ponu 234 so-Mi u.s. Muck.Aa asoutATony co uission BLUE BAG MAIL SERVICE Complet. this Portion and Giv. to Mail Person with Material Being Mail.d.

,j a

l et SLUE mao Matt E DEnRECEM TO: SENT e3 SE NT DATE lj DATE Tiest t

Tiest l .v; e

RECEIVED l To:

PROM: OATE .

Tius ,j s

!] """'*""

90 ROT KEEP BLUE bas - A.e.r. l. to the McN P.re

. .. .. . ., , ereseas eeee.aio.coe

..s _ --

- ~' ui ucu ...uixou usssewaen/Counisa nscuer 45896

-e- s- .

-- ~. - -_ _

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

~ "'

t lllll: 'M**"" ",:li::"" * "'~ ~

l

. g._

t 3.::.:.::.g.':lll:::."~

._- . r::"".'"'"*.

_-.--,v.

m.-

.= -

=

RECIPIENT RETURN THl3 COPY TOSENDER 5/1/86 IX-21 EXHIBIT 4

CRC FORM 12g u & seuCLf.AA MEGULATORY COMemS540's 2 tot CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT RECElPT TO POSTAL 8sueet1R DATE MAaLEO IpesTRUCTIOess

1. Verdy addrosase's essendes i aneshag odersee

2. Descree escwnere h simpace.

F 9 5 er sale and eronner has Secres and _ _- 7 Canissensees an.

eseawee Inshcese twee of escas.

FAOgg ERend o g Ur., Rpt , er Dag a snew es nessen and eses i

4 sen.oreer,amiens an sais es sesreeses.

L _J . =ee, cas, - re.w e ..n . r-esecernoe = =e' aatt or ec aAssai.

=m_ = -- a='lll=, ca.o.,

,, ,s ,, e, O

l l

TO AVOIO TRACER ACTION PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN THIS RECElFT TO SENDER IMMEDIATELY.

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

1 Squawe of sesenese er neue of addromes pid agmeswo of femeere h es es esen ordy by eed #esuree 5/1/86 IX-22 EXHIBIT S

. _ _ _ _ .