ML20211K863
| ML20211K863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/12/1984 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hayes B NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211K772 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-183 NUDOCS 8612150189 | |
| Download: ML20211K863 (1) | |
Text
r X
0 /1.h( ) $ b h? h" b#
[pue "' d UNITED STATES 8E 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
! W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20565 M Bg u ,E L
/O b
%, ' a q' /
- January 12, 1984 g f,_
CHAIRMAN 5
- kl/ i na EIL C J MEMORANDUM FOR:
Ben Hayes, Director Office of Investigations FROM: Nunzio J. Palladi,no
SUBJECT:
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMANTS AND WITNESSES As indicated in our recent letter to Congressman Udall (copy attached), upon receiving comments from the Department of Justice on this issue we intend to complete the process of '
reviewing agency policy on confidentiality. . I would like you to take the lead in completing this process, and, in coordination with OIA, OGC and the EDO, develop an improved policy applicable to all NRC employees who conduct inspections or investigations.'- . ,.
The policy sho,u,ld address specific issues such as who should be granted confidentiality, the manner and form in which it should be granted, the circumstances under which it should be granted, the extent of the grant, and any other relevant considerations.
1 I
l After receipt of the DOJ comments, please let me know the
' date by which you can complete this task.
Attachment:
As stated.
cc: Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts l Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal SECY OGC
=^ ro1A-% <B3 EDO s L UEB g
i
s .
GObRNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT 1555 Connecticut Awmue, N.W., Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)232-8550 March 6, 1986 Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations FREM OF INFORMAN U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ACT REQUEST feze-/4-//3 APPEAL OF FOIA # 85-365 GAddd'YN4
Dear Mr. Stello:
This is an appeal, pursuant to subsection (a) (5) of the Freedom of Information Act as amended (5 U.S.C. 552), of the Commission's actual denial of access to recoris requested by the Government Accountability Project (GAP) regarding the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant.
On May 13, 1985 GAP requested records relating to NRC Interim Policy on Management of Allegations - Proposed NRC Manual Chapter 0517, " Management of Allegations" dated September 9, 1984. By letter dated June 26, 1985, J.M. Felton, Director of the Division of Rules and Records, advised of 6 documents which were being released to the PDR for our inspection. An October 11, 1985 letter from Mr. Felton informed us of 9 documents, consisting of entrance conference notes, summaries of interviews with NRC employees, and draft versions of an OIA Report, which were being withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 because they contained predecisional advice, opinions and recommendations and their release would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas and opinions essential to the development of the NRC Manual Chapter. This information was denied by Ms. Sharon Connelly.
Mr. Felton's October 11, 1985 letter also advised of approximately 100 additional documents subject to our request consisting of preliminsry draft versions of the proposed chapter and general correspondence concerning the drafts, which were being withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 because they contained predecisional advice, opinions and recommendations. This information was denied by Mr. Felton and Mr. Harold Denton.
hh -
lg>
i .
We believe we are entitled to access to the denied documents. At a minimum there should be reasonably segregable portions of the withheld documents which are releasable.
We expect your response within 20 days of your receipt of this appeal so that we can determine whether to pursue this matter in court.
Thank you for your attention to this appeal.
Sincerely Oh Billie Pirner Garde Director, Environmental Whistleblower Clinic
.- at urg i
- 4[
8 k o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (p/r/ 4 33 3 ,I WASHINGTON, o. C. 20655
\ ,* /3..
DEC 0 21982 MEMORANDUM FOR: All IE Employees FROM: James H. Sniezek, Deputy Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATION TRACKING SYSTEM (ATS) PROCEDURES FOR IE The E00 has directed that the Allegation Tracking System go into effect December 6, 1982. Enclosure 1 provides a discussion of reporting requirements and procedures to be used by all IE employees in recording any and all allegations they may receive. Anyone in IE who receives an allegation must record the data on NRC Form 307 (Enclosure 2) in accordance with the instructions on the back of the form. Submit the completed form to your supervisor who should in turn transmit it to the IE ATS Coordinator, Ed Fox (Mail Stop E/W-W 359). Additional forms will be maintained *by the Program Support Branch (Debbie McCain, Room 358A E/W-W).
Any questions or comments regarding the form, procedures, or system should be directed to Ed Fox on extension 24932.
f h mes
,p -
. Sniezek, Deputy Director F Offic f Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. ATS Procedures
- 2. NRC Form 307 cc: R. C. DeYoung, IE E. F. Fox, IE
. , , 't in&
[
- p. .
( )
H O >
4343bu11 =
by A-n
~ -'
c' .c ,
.. : m- - ,
y 83.... ; .
- (
~ c jg.;,q( i g q
- 0F C S PROGRAMS Procedure
,'. c' M...,
41
~.:
A t ' A.3 - Procedures for Comhlying; , '
t With NRC Allegation:' . + ,M@
4.. -
33 Tracking System s
, ; ; J@Pfy
. , pm V
I '. General ,' "J
' h2C)3 s -
A.
licensed activities and considering the NRC!s responsibility ?
mMg JN With the increase in the number of allegati system is needed to track our actions on these allegationst to ' NQUg ensure that all allegations- receive the' proper NRC management y attention. The Office of Inspection and Enforcement" developed - 1 N: .? c.1?@ ;;
' a NRC system for tracking-the: receipt ofuaction'onfand dis-J ' W,WW position of allegations involving NRC licensees,or NRCilicensed:. ;
activities. IE is responsible for managingithe, tracking.s'ystem@29.
and providing monthly status reports to each officeMIt is , ; g expected any allegations received to the Tracking System.','
that the principal . involvement. a '> . s
.- tese of
- ' n y.:.3 m,%
s.v s #f
.y^mw A y B. y Purpose ..y,.sx. am. . A e . . A.g. 4 ,M 3, .e
_ g .:y go ,, c
.pi 2 %f. .v To , track:the. receipt, disposition, and status'of;allegationsMp;&ipli
?
9( sb 4
- cinvolving-NRC licensees-oriNRC: licensed activitiesiand,toj~bEigsyyk
. x ,/ w , , J. - ,
,:providelperiodic statusireports on allegations;.toiNRCimanagementMtWM en .
9 7 4.,
' Alle'gati..onsiabout :a 'l. ic.ensed ' activity .of: arf Agreement" State?a'reh.Mt@m%yM not put.1n.this' system. - ig%g,p a
,4. l 0 ,< .
t >
.s wn, 37<.yc 2 y ,s gt s ,
a . m .w..,
- g. m ;A g~ .4.. 4 _g .-
,;3
+ . . , y3
. My i. j $jy (Cd0bje.ctives> ' : Aqf ig o ' j q d p f Q g @;; w% % g@ 3Mg
\
-c -
-n , , . _ , a.. - e .
- v.
. x, ;
,. u, ,c ..aa m. + ,n e, m w. uw r,1 yn.. . - - . ..
. . wp l
M:6 &; + % s%, N J W.,-1.- Z To provide a record whidhidemonstratest.tha.tiallegationshare9 g,J4 l M9,_%n(@wMVG w y E. wW64 ceimmana' mm ement.a.ttentio.s , MSWQWUreviewed, g nEp w mu 4.umvp4 qwomeWWD7WG4GMEWM6MR actedispontas5 a qMAd < . M, . - M M $ fg %~g W; , wpm WTo ! provide, perio NVdi ct rAports(WM:g% & V W FOMW2L.m M g E&Q[' 2$yal1 gations$n'd [to ? al ertimanagement' df % ~legatibniEt: Hat %iayM W M$dT M@iMMMhay :anieffsitic'niperidihimajorjattiegg
,y to managemention g' theis stu r cag M n M @Q 6
- F My @Q 4 ^ $ p% @ M. d $ v s:
p r, decisioW6desca' lated 3nforcemenQD .e < % ? ;"~/ f %.' 3M r %, . r .
.- W g2 a 7 -- o m n w p;., m.0 s g%. ngw#n;y n 2 NbdMDbN,NNh.N' y$Nb W ,
WM9M #NMhmM4 4 M wN -@Torv0fficeMThetNRC #pm W
& 3Act 3-
.h%p7dft#f8WTD91andftakJngla' '
p Je Mkh$mtiessynvo191ngsmatterb WW2MAction;Mled2MMM.MS/ MW5 @
l (j-[N i
% :0fficeContactMThe3 l
f N
pMt&: OQM Ki$nOffice whosisi.assignedfttief n ~ JfiE % nl M A
{y Mh;Ne
% w w@w gM,toDelta4dnfon} M mu w a' iallegatioriMM55MQMWN, m y+ y m M D v W W IdWM WtE
%g m :6
. pn Qf ', ' M.k mwr h {l, &q [
.- ey:
hjf :rf Q ) X ygb }: y y& <~ >!i'lny%m Q(} p..,%<g;'jQ&Ry p;w : gap;2 Q?5p:m]-&@& &ffQW{ eg G
%s%
, i
- c
- VX %%!
NQeWMW%@g e rgs W.w e? -
2s,- w
. s o y ~- ~ v'.;. w %; .
x ,.
= q,.g S ;;} .y n +p+;p .]g %. % w-g n. ifygg s: M W x a.. p;
' p; , Uh
'# 4 ,- ,
15L
'4 4 ,
- ~.6 s , , y . .f. F '
+
L{l q- @g.
,: .: ' e
.e , 3 ~
gg;pg a /,m c
.y
'. v o 4l??'* l 1' ' 'l!
~
- ,ta~ -. , ,
'l$ '*WV
,.*O' .* .v
- D'm , 'I ' *$? , w Of ja pf. =w,f g$h'
' T *
> . :w ,
l 2n ., ') , , % 3: >
+
.r, ,
y w. -s mA e
.$ l i
We
-,,a f y0 ' 'M' .a ~, '+ *
. allpl. ~
- ' , _m.,-
- , w'.g.v...,gg_'w.
g;s +q y; n9n;,. y,,-_p f.ay,a y_;
~e n, a ;
y
~
m 3,g
- s. c x, , .
t
. , ..,. pggg3y, m_ ,
.a.
_ ~
,y' % ;el g.c s,w: ^ 2.
.. . c, , .%. p, v
p.
r-
, , p .t.
...o
- a. 2 -
y%yer ., &
3.
aG,
- A11'egation. For pu poses of the tracking systenfan: !#
allegation is considered to be any assertion of wmng-1 # - NW
?!b doing, lack of compliance, or hazard to public health'and . c safety or national security.involvino an NRC regulated = , . Z N .M activity. This does not include the finomsw m marnal? M NRC activities such as inspection or licensing review. , ( L3
, . 4 4 4.
Office Coordinator. A designated staff' member in each offiNeMN who serves as the principal point of contact for that officeWM regarding the disposition of allegations.
~
' ' %.:.u ,
Y
' Xy \ Qj
- 5. ' Receiving Office. The office which -initially receives an '
allegation. The Action Office and Receiving Office will; '%
M be- the same if the allegation falls within:the functional; " 9it responsibility of the Receiving Office. '
Zx,j II. Responsibilities y u. .m A. The. Director, OSP, shall: .
. 1 . g.,n g, .
- 1. Designate a staff member to serve as Office Coordinatori.'
- and point'of contact for matters involving: the tracking b . ... . - M,A ,
M' c - s. ys tem.
- JM #
- S emm. a.
m me
. < ~
w e.
r .
m ,
i2...o
~ system.
Devel op internal pro cedures
- 3
_e.
> - : to t impl" ement c o :
y....the '- :%n.od Jtrackinf.N
- y. .
.a.
c M(n[ . , .UMI. .
r - #,
9, .
x LEniuri information proddedTas'inputIand/orcupidsthsEtop ya.. M pm$hM N.;3W;r.i,2 ,;V3[. n
.,-s i , M 1,..F 6 ~the'.t.r.a'ck,ing system is accurate;c.and.
va
.. a : # #,
. ,. .s ; > ,-
. . . .4, . e e m- jm , @ s %,n4;.
. .. , wM
$ $e , 17 .~ @., a wBM'30SP Coohiiriator/ W . h " a,f . '
- W E M j g i,,
Q ,,N W f j '
. o ...
' 2 n N'T ' MdyMhg CC[M M ,la~, $mw$.@w$Wyom m.sllMAssist the_0ffice ., Directo,rion y p ,s i.tems 2(and;$'.L 7J,6 A.g p.s % qd4
%,; +. eM .gw su a d'iL o t f~w ;r - .n .. ~
v %~ y-..
w a,3;aboye. g- e Qp >Q.
-'- '.x. . m
- v. ,.
32 ed -.r
- w: Serve:,
w? . .c a . :v ss.
- - v. . . 2 y n 9 1 ,. 1.> ,e
. +m;e.. x.f:,w. q % y y;s w .cc2Ama, m, s cw%r J *- ., -.
~ .:
m?.4'2M,.c >~
e,
's '.s' point of/ contact fo~r/mattersiin'YolVin'gjthcl' RCGfh a M7 MYMp3f sit jM.E..l.pm"E3[DAllegationl,Tr;ackingiSystemn%M .Ensureccompletion;of>thef appropriate parts 7ofathegpggq g rP LNp M 'M M gwby:W.nnnAllegation : Data 1 Fo rmiforlal l lallega.w Q m ntionMeceiiredibys0SPGMf.
sqM4:.
~4ym
.y: @Wyemy:
NW9~M~
4 S Det6 paine ther. %
www appv m , m% g 9 & s e : +n W .n M7bhaPpJ nhi Wp j Mfg M % Mt rifter
[MQ @m.n.ilesitt@xNW.w 0SPM WQQW - - W
' 7 050 mm %.m*
Ta 4.db. a ;: %eco$the?Actice!SNE g#
re~ m%w;ip a.
m %p417a.,n g%.s W4 priatei fp
r i
d MJ%y h/f s k,Qi4 m +JWQ,egati6 '.} wM Nf%w , miud,hMpM
- grWM If?forwardiAllegatfomtad J
?
z 3%g
-c;V4n %;g TQ:iMM.g> wy =py n wwv .:..;.;.1.<? wy .~neg -w sw v; Aw m MCdoFdiriatoriwheniO$P/fMdiot@g:'ftW-i >sp p &g . .9 n,.,; a J x_
a ;
a% # W .M:MhnGk7 %@ t@ k ri; orwardEthe'. completed:AMegat ; lwf F W@W$3 MMYl;W(10Norkindayssoffrecstptjefsnyal esE 7 i 2wM l n. a .
m.
m rv f - ,
h ,- -.
-, .h + h n[mef. .' yhe *.y+&,gn-y h +1r . n,. t .
,jp.: g , .g_ ,
.. _ - r "
-[}^
' ' Q' s ' r_ d y ', ,
u n. ~j,% Q .. Q, g[ 'm f Qf ? f S..
_i
- s'l W Y~ ,... . . ,
%m
, - , . . v .. .
i
- T',-
r}
o .
- \ v ;
- -;, p%
q_- m ~\% .,g c. - :
la ,
fy- + *e ^
4
'a 'fi f kpl* f ff,
-. . ,.n .. .
L ".l
, . ~
m ;--
6'.. , , _
.y 4 w
,limg ;%_ M : f_, ,n,.. . _ ,
- a g. a.,. y. ., a,
.. . 3e,y ;.
. v . ,t 1
- 9. Infonn the! Assistant Director. for State Agreements if the 'M allegation involves an Agreement State. Vd
.:g .
l
- 10. Inform.the. Assistant Director for State and Licensee Relations , M in arty other instance where OSP may become the Action Office.
.o .y - %v Md C .' . Assistant Director for State Agreements - - -
.; ~m 3A %
- 1. Coordinate with Regional.. State Agreement personnel' on , lje means for informing Agreement State if allegation _-is ? , WTQ received about a licensed activity of that State: Sucht , Og, M1 allegations are not put on ATS. ..
,e A,/S,i a
- .
- p y,
'~
D. OSP Staff j G' @s$a
. e . %+ . ,
.t- #
- 1. Obtain as much information as possible, if,an a_llegation;is I Wi,d received to complete the appropriate parts of the , . ,f '
Allegation Data. Form. Exhibit 1, and inform 0SP ~ Coordinator '
- p III. BASIC REQUIREMENTS 't.. .r? NN @ym W f;gy L&QMk s
A.
General s
3 ,
N,6 J -
, u . ~ ~ a;p g
d ' .
< .l'.s c 2p
- 'D J~ provided For. purposes of the' Allegation : Tracking Sysiem:the-definition
.for ani all egation ,is Nery general f and s broad ATheWigi
? ,-
% .1 g:; a
~
s
,,; W . c' ; ,
Esignificance judgediduring or:non-significance the ActionL0ffice; review ~ of;an;alleg' andtfollowuptofAthen tionficill?be,$g@$ h g y
/' . - alleg'ationhThere is !toib'e?no 7 screening'of/allegati6n'sW$We x
- , t O;W c'!priortto. entering 1them;iritolthhisystem (exceiit{ofssoursey M ', ,3#@$.gM WMS. ab, _ J,M. v M providela 0ff. ic^er vehicleffor collectingi,allfallegatio
' 2 si Actions 4 . - m x - e
- y,% g7MMgjgwpHq ; bas ed. tspecifics uponj; ~thedeter..mi ne.may: .s.ithe L N s; &m..tomd s
MW%
n' G %MqgqM@ Ggt.yQTheatrackingjsystem;provides(b bekrecsived 'and:close'd tithes'ame
.' ; p4 ou;off;th'e d8 g c an i
MyN4p eNyniNM i ,
EMMthe:officeFand?staffMconta ; mores
&;$pm%pg&6%pgQ%informationjand b Q'.MMM .6pf Qw4 W m.c;;14 11wepa t16n" W W W N B " ' ' servesiasfajrefe www- m Am M;M .
W nh &de ml S ANw M W;& M & L ; $-
We2 * .
fanlall;egationiistreceive$w wddd i ~M W . g,3d i Epu@Mwcepenenttor$subsettof dehtifysysseparatgenitryeisto I
thets11 '
I
- 4:ddMNE$fsllegation'
~
e f '
g %7d%C9anbralfdes;may?b'elentr;ddsak criptioniofethe; I Jg Qih2fcansttherelmayJ betaldistinctj Q sWM@M@% 56; exampie Min Ttwo::areast such "as k ~ i N@E 0 ThM!E:s@ mp WWInJsuch"slcas5)f tbylbe?appropsiates Q Almain'obSttive11sttotensureSthatsthel 7 n@m.p%% M 7;;WMtilentislentersdlanditracke'd An"( .1Ethd;systis <A my 4 is#not compl~etediand."cl6sedluritillanJction Wup
' W%gupf f ah :,gg,gM; MM
, w ~. <% f%r;>w' MMW- w J,
~
$@W[determineswth'at 3;- . %. n . ~. ,
4 w
. w ~ a *g :
,ac appropriate;ha .w 7,
.12/.. . 7. . u~/82 M w @s gC"w
. ~m; s
o . ~- s ~
gg yq.g'g
( ,
t .q , j / t . '
.' A -_ 'sp .
,s. %
i 7? * ' ** * ..!- - ~
,s .
.y N.2
Wm 7 .q q
.i i:~w3:4 '*-
' M '*-
g ^gg.,
~
rm, w ., ,
3 .
_., 4- . ..
y -
.ryw .I u ,L m.a:w, em.n.
g 4' 31
,S5 4
[g 7 +x,,e iy(m
- 4. Sensitive infomation such as the names of persons.
making allegations.or about whom allegations.are madeOMN' M
shall not be entered in the system. - All-'infomation %
entered on the. form:shall be unclassified and shall C ' }$
not contain any safeg'uards 'infprmation or any propri-- C -@f etary or comercial (2.790) infomation. ~ ~ .' ~
.L. . 4, v,
- 5. ~ Some allegations may req'uire action by two.or'more3 4 2 d offices. For purposes of entering the allegation intoW@6 the tracking system, either separate entries.should;be%$
made for each Action'0ffice for their assigned actiony Udh or.one entry may be made with the involved Action'OfficDM}.
~
Coordinators agreeing ~ on the lead Action 0ffice'.forMTdd followup of the allegation. If another offi e is1 Uj@M involved in responding to an allegation, it should be9 4.M so indicated in the " remarks" section'.
4
' . P., A.
%y.<w.
B. If Receiving Office is OSP .
g/ ~ Nd nsc
' a yw Upon receipt of an allegation involving an NRC regul'ated activIth,7 . M,4;.,,
OSP should, w 2mm-
.m. v-3ey ,
1 . . .a. y- n
- 1. Complete the appropriate parts 1of theJ Allagation D'ataI%:Q$
Form; see Exhibit 1 on.following page.3 Specific,in- W lf W structions'for completion ofcthe fom;are contained w MR1
, on the reverse' side of.,the .f.orm. < C" .A m ,. . W u
. /,s Qg,.-Q
.. w. 3 .
%m$
- p p W
- .. .o,
'[ 3 . Y !/ , y s
- -;n ,
s s -
@j. ., 7/ c 2G,Deteminesthe'. appropriats, Actioni 0fff'ce; coordinite M884
'e; A.* J' f,with:the: Action office; and! receive 4concudencetfroinWWW
~'
N f ,
~
c the, Acti.on ~0ffice befo;re;transferZof#esporisibility/G.r.g:O$ .o.%,. e,s e n~%
.s _m w &a a . - . . .
. . c , .. m~ .
. :. n m y ma qf e ,y. },. gg%g3. . ; . - ,s . y, n j Fomard thev .Alle,gati.oniDatai'Fonn'w.gm.~'A,cti6n
- s. , ,#
- ..~w.% ' , . -to.d. he, .* -
k - fh
. w$be.& $.&m
% ." # 'D fl. ' m g i R
- h ^
%im
- q s .
- f-?f M.Mp(($$%%gpWH 2
.2Dib+2 M ?:W :3n%Wym wkLl(W N wm % ,g'YA{'$, ,'%'eWM
- j ' ,
- L N 'l 4 W,, nY y%W Fw. % & W A w.n h hf,hk N kh.MhhhhhhhD mm r M. el [~ k.
N [ u$n,L[ e& w$ h Q $ h l & & n w w . / M . N M ,h w& $& ?
M # lN @ @N h g wnwwymngway#w@yn,,.
lh h M N[lkhig 2 P- & ,[
1 y n yn.en g.9%
y% 4 ng=-
W WWWM98ym w
. %p4ms 'up&egews.gng,g;nyx w 4,p .m ngM e an . e Yyh& n &&Nfm ^
f kfhf.wm umdepig%ms,q. %gJ kIhNhk %
m;y N y n.s .
gA-h s~h . b tI h nw_h_d e .
k k N _k'd;G.hi_m.N% hhff m% QQI&;Q. %m g.%.W p$
s 1
y e
Mh w anen M:We .mp;q&&+.;ww.m.wMdsww%ng.wamum@: 6MWHYNW m;c Q . .s , s n.
ylR QQ1g.h yyh fg f&Wlh&CQQ[tyrg;w/s%g m:v W p % f c.n: w v.,3v
.s
,. .wwm Q ptq:q,wayWQig&My
_ vK w.m. %y m'Q, n ,a v,pm .g ,m a aam%,q Q gg&up ans,.. p.mpd n
wm, ww: + s . .
....s -
nm a q ea 9- .
WQu,$. .*fa Ik. ,&. W;M ~ Q3 . ' h f,7.; ?. A%~,
- e. .wm wk'm mN,ye,n.Y..c$.$,[p.hk; m.g # plG;ilh.N,,;@d h..c;
, :b "' A, Ns n V W ~~ s y ~ ~ n, s
-9 ,
';.t *f N at,NN:.U[N ONb,,3Mr. %. .19 w~;m . w..m ml.y.
,. *%.1,:3 V. .s<TNM
- ;gs- wIM. , D.. .s . , ; i., jy..d. ms.m 1 s m
@t-T ss o i .7g 'j) *
-. g ( [ [ ,' ,y[ g'd . , .,
T M; j'[ AN.7i * .gf
. my w ']N ' . b b [A*b+ {fMk. . [h- I s. !j [E (Aheh
,A I [,i
- m. , '
d
'W*g l n
- ' % w v e n w'T,P .;
s u.
.17 /: n >
A o x, %Ag[46%w}.,.
'.? *; x a, '
we
,ds
. l. Q'lQ , Q,.0 * &p'Q Q,'t ry' } W
.sw Q QQ
'} j, .:%:) q .
lwp u$x p a, - r^ % .h: ~ %y;'s?12{fl82 <
x Qk,M w ,,
- 6.a1 : .
,m . ' "
, , m* L;g , sK .. " {.,y' p h f Og N
.p 2- gQy 9y i-j ' .3;
, - i '. l9a 4 s
l- 1^ ^ r .,
w s
4 ji', 3
,i ,
.,- ~< ; r. , a,g .g_. .
-- i os . 4 x ..
..- .. * - * - - - - . - +. , ' . . y 5
+.g)
r-. , ,3 #
.. .u ;w
, , ev . ^*
4
-N.% N
'f %,. .s, y.- g-#w.n
,. w .- . s .,. e > gegeggyisse opyges . - --
, s. .
+
/ -" pocket Number (if applicable) +g ;4; .
W Jg 1. FeelNty(les) lavolvee or ,nare men 3. or N
( *==8 i
1 i
I l
I l
I l
I' l
I l
I 1
I V, M%
Q- gen rte. wrtes GENEMC) 4, . ,
, in y
,?.y
, a;
. '- ; ';5 r
- 2. Func'tfonal Area (s) Involved: a . . m. , i <
scheck appropnete bon (es) ) operations _ onsite health and safety 4
. p. .
t Q'[ <
_._ construction _ offsite health and safety ' q ; W @&.,'11 A, s '
, ' h, q ,- '
safeguards emergency prope' redness -
-,. j$> c
', , g'
,t.~ y ,
other (speelfyl _. y M
, ~. >
- i
- ;;.
Q 3.q
- 3. oe.cription: .. II II II II Il I l 1.1 11 I l I l -l-l l I l - I '. %Q I I l l l l l l l l l l ll1ll I l I-l - l I 1,1 <l' W- .
m.
II I 'l l IIl I-1 IIIlIIlI l- I -l lol"I ' l 'l:.n4 Fl
. I I l I I I l-1 1-l-l I l I'l I-I l l I llalel+1-l; W[.~
,- .5
%.4
- 4. Source of Allegation: , .-
'2' EM (Check appropriote bomb -
contractor employee ' _ . security guard; y y :.&h;. M ,.7.&i].
..,3- . s.y M
- _ licensee employee -
news media (; (
7
,g
/ __ NRC employee . T private citizen ,
b,,d
. M mo ,
".I(W M,M:Q, 5;$ 0
.ht -
? yQ Or dr
%;y ii s - . ,
. x :
' ' < i i na .__, organization (Specify) -
s
,, K '
qc '
' _, c' '
&Ws W,fh; ?
w' ' # O E Wy.
- "" W' -
% ! , [' ',[ ', [i ~ ,_,,
Otheh (SgMNIfy) , '
4 , ,
%,p
.3.- s ,
"L
, f .a
';G? ? M -
w:q A!8Qg;ufgn we
. . < w . YY ' ^ + -,,l [,,'f.' , ;4 ? yq ' M%NG%.9 (;'cC
!. .?' .. , . .
- - , e ; t ', ; s 3 , . !. t b .A
Qg^Xj
- 5. Da. te Wie,gation Received:(. G ? MM .-. .' 00 -
W ',w.i. 6:- WW974t ?
i 7 +%. ~d,p} n CyRip 3I
. t. . cc. . ;t ,I a1.W w 3 .a -
,-s, , r-
,s." p'.,A. ..v,. .2
.v, .- -
t \
'. c. 4. . R
- g 'n:.
,'- *..y ^'I ., ,. '
[.T % ;, _-
g .
p g g ,
....,J-;f- . . . y .,, 4.> s ...4,- -f -
, / i U 4 Si Blaine'of Individual N o 6 ; C(Mrst two inittels and lest nemet ' '~ "* '
g
~^
y h+'.g ". 3' "6' <;,*.. .g 9" " T ' :
s; w v'NJ'y;d*,..-m a .4 -
'T' ./.iReceiving A.sllegation:: d?..aa m. - ,' ,
mw
! , ; - '1 f ra ~m;., - '
'E ,
ti L.
- p. ,
=,
o.
.,I-
,, 7,a{,:.ap:
/ q . !/ . -; .g e.4,;p p W"W m 3.74/10 j
mJ+l ,,
<u f.c79;io.ffi
. ) ;;c; sk'm p} p-D' '3:7 .1. ,A. C Q
'um, m<,
a< gy>c fg v#M t N w'p t S @ w Q } [y 4 + wM+;-ew ,+ '
p' as -7 -
.;JGG ls w-
[y e Nf.$DND. 4.p,16MMMM' ,- ,
+ i b, p 4, N' #.[ Y J N N.N N d+>N D qd 3 D M,,9yg MNg m
lw &hN m,p $v.igmNNNNN w w" W:nh) oem.
I T D hSNhhhN w t
M b h4- M agg;nm.y.p29+% . f(( k
&:yQ N , e s.-w[sg[ "cm .g" p'gg; @m .
y,ew p[yhates y usem f+W W dyf g f ,; W ~ 0 , wl W .; h {;&k*; f f C;h* M kT M.>lN' ,
e ~c.w , u,xx-
,4 $
r b 'b h n..k -. ume %a;y ..,
p% .y gWam e g
) - -Qh,u..hn.%_y.;a W w& 7 ,
Q&w > ,
vg m,w,w.qu.,ww.H.;. .g
".",$ O ' '
23 MM . ,.
g
.t wy kIM., wmmwh kI way.
tw~ %, +awBme;ngfuw M&+e Mmm m.mQu,-
men u
- w. .
ma w
u
- k' s q qu.,w_MaiMy _Q &Wh&c
-- -- : -QjU,.w > m m Apg ms;;w
- l 4 'sw w+sM , si mm a.,<
Stad:te19 i _ L.Q,43'.~ ym M h jw p@.
L ~ , ..M:MA. w.,
n w &w;. ~ ~ s - r ar ,
, we~ .e ++
' -W'*plG ll* k m? - ?k . . - ',$
,A g Cpye
- - l;'J
,
- ggg,$p' ,., 4 Q' nygg%y en h, c *M .
.u y* : gQ) s.y jA':h N' *W ' wS U[4 -
7 : . s yJM *2,
?g 3 :u yrsw .-%f,#"***f#j;(p(jg'Y:h.,:h&.'Grlf Y"
,w- ~ , . . , . .
- ' = - > b
$ h. ll $ f lQu .Yf
.,k m , - ^
d,
, a
~
)
'r's f
,f .,.w.,a W f ' * *K ;[;,.;_
T
.- , j'{ .,L. ;. . . . .L' T 4 . ,k . - - _ . . .
a, .e ,_ ~.;.;., ;~ . .(/, *.,,. %,,,yi,,,ck .
r w; , . ;
- \,
s.chfr&t byl. N e 0 s y
1 UNITED STATES-OF'sAMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 --- l t
4 MEETING WITH REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS 5 ---
6 PUBLIC MEETING -
7 ---
8 -
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C.
10 Tuesday, February 7, 1984 11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 12 2:02 p.m.
13 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
(
14 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 15 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 16 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner 17 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
18 TOM MURLEY JOHN COLLINS 19 JAMES KEPPLER WILLIAM DIRCKS 20 JAMES O'REILLY JOHN MARTIN 21 HERZEL PLAINE g '
/
22 AUDIENCE SPEAKERS:
~J .
d 23 JIM TAYLOR RICHARD DeYOUNG 24 ED CASE 25 ,
t
_ )
P: gag d.0 )
i' o
DISCLAIMER This is an unoffical transcript of a meeting of the Unitsdj States Nuclsar Regulatory Comr.ission hald on February 7, 1994 in ths Commission's offics at 1717 E Strset, N. W. Washington, ,
D. C. Ths meeting was opsn to public attsndancs and observation.
This transcript has not basn reviewsd, corrected, or editsd,andl it may contain inaccuraciss.
The transcript is intsnded solsly for general informational i purposss. As provided by.10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of ths j
formal or informal record of decisien of ths mattsrs decusssd. i Exprsssions of opinion in this transcript do not nsesssarily !
- reflect final dstsrminations or beliefs. No pleading or other papsr may bs filsd with ths commission in any proceeding as the rssult of or addressed to any statament or argument contained ,
harsin, Except as' the Commission may authorizs. 1 I
e e
4 9
l i
l N.
I
.p,~ ~ - r.m ; : m m y>y y.m,;m;g g.gagg,y m yy p 4 ~g:>.,.; ,, ,,y; pr4, s p a. M d' ,
l 2 l e
1
' PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good af ternoon, ladies-and 3 gentlemen.
4 This afternoon's meeting is the result of the 5
Commission's recognition that it would be useful from time 6 to time to meet with the Regional Administrators . We do not 7
get to see the Regional. Administrators at this table as 8
frequently as we do their headquarters counterparts.
9 We have capitalized on the fact that they are in i
i 10 twon for one of their regular management meetings this week 1 11 to meet with the Commission. '
l 12 To facilitate our discussions, we have identified t' 13 four subjects for consideration this afternoon -- resident 14
' inspection, allegation management, the Transportation Policy '
15 Statement, and the relationship between the Regional i
16 Administrators and the Office Directors at headquarters.
17 In developing the agenda for this meeting, we 18 recognize that the discussion of these topics could raise 19 internal management and personnel issues that would be more 20 properly pursued in a closed meeting. If we begin to get 21 into such a discussion, I propose that we , hold those issues 22 until the end of the meeting, at which time we can decide 23 whether we wish to go into closed session.
24 Unless there are comments from my fellow Commissicner
( 25 at this time, I would propose to turn the meeting over to'the
, 3 l 1 EDO to begin our discussion.
2 (Commissioner Gilinsky enters hearing room.)
3 MR. DIRCKS: We've got the four subjects. We 4 thought what we could do to start the discussion going by 5 assigning one of the Regional Administrators to take the 6 lead, and that would lead to a discussion from that point on.
7 The first item, the resident inspection program, 8 tour length and rotation policy, objectivity and cross-9 training, and we have asked Jim O'Reilly to pick up the lead j 10 on that first issue, 11 The second issue is allegation management, and we ,
i 1
12 have asked Jack Martin to take the lead on that one.
( 13 The third issue is Transportation Policy Statement.
14 We asked John' Collins to start us off on that discussion. ;
15 The fourth one, we thought, which is the relation-16 ship between Regional Administrators and the Office Directors 17 at headquarters is to just go on down the line to see what 18 would develop from that conversation.
19 So, that's about how we have it arranged. If it's 20 satisfactory , we can have Jim O ' Reilly start on that 21 resident inspection subject.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I just have a word here.
23 I didn't catch the beginning of your presentation. I would 24 like to say, I think the public would be served if we were 25 able to sit down with our senior staff not in public session 1
)
s . l 4 l 4
1 and have a frank conversatica about the goings on in the 2 agency.
3 Now, it seems to ne we ought to try and find some 4 way to do that.
I don't think it would contradict the 5
requirement for the law and I think it would be very helpful.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, we did address this at 7 agenda planning. The Commission voted at that time to have 8 it open. But we did le, ave the possibility available of 9 closing it if we get into items that the Commission would '
i 10 like to discuss that fall under a closable exemption.
11 So, why don 't we proceed that way and --
12
_ COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, I understand that we 13 are proceeding that way.
( I am just talking about future 14
. occasions. I really think we ought to make an effort to 15 make it possible to have frank discussions which I think --
16 many of which can only take place in private, and to do that 17 with our senior staff persons.
And I think rather than to 18 defeat the intent of our various laws on openness and so on,
!!L I think it would in fact serve the public to have Commissioner s M to be able to get informed on a frank basis from our senior 21 staff, by our senior staff.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I still hope the dis-P 23 cussions can be frank. But if they get into matters that are 24 closable, then we should close it.
\
M COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, that's another way of
~~'
~s e
a raEMe. whi du
- it puto a degras I think clocable portion to doing it, but of views.
little .
It elevates each ith free and easy exchangeeed ! on the ba let's proc o-think is inconsistent Well, hav ing said w that, !
i i;
4 i agreed to. Jim?
S that we PALLADINO:
CHAIRMAN Thank you , sir .
6 asked to discuss MR. O' REILLY : I have been in that our 7 j very pleased that cussion, ,
I am stories that 8
and lead the dis success resident program is on6 of the the think, 9 am, I certainly
- resident progr NRC. today is 10 inspection we ha ve had within the inspection program m
anagement 11 resident a operation The overall region l and in 12- of our der construction as a solid 13 an integral partreactors, both un ,
function daily by program for inspectors do managed The resident and are 14 regional offices, inspectors provide 15 of the The resident relating to extension v 16 based super isors. licensee actions alignment region,al of as system 17 i ation h things which 18 independent verif cspecifically suc routine program safety , including just part of their and holidays.
19 weekends say on a periodic basis , and over the ld like to 20 on back shifts based inspectors, I wou easily get out goes on 21 Our regional think it can 22 . that, too because I i a word about assigned respons -
- 23 are of perspective. inspectors 24 based Regional k
i 6 o
1 t bilities for verifying the adequacy of proceedures in j 2 addition to the residents, applying that broader control 3
beyond one site; quality assurance: major testing evolution, 4
j such as non-destructive testing; welding; adequacy of j i !
5 l management controls; evaluation of organization and personnel i
6 qualification and training -- that includes both licensing 7 and non-licensed personnel.
8 The resident staffing is an issue of importance, 9 that we have had considerable success in attracting and 10 getting volunteers for the resident inspection program.
11 They are sought-after programs and we find it very wasy to 12 recruit new hires also to come in at the bottom and start 13 the direct training directly at sites of reactor activities.
14 Tour length. The Commission policy was just
~
15 approved on tour length is of course a policy that is well 16 received by our resident staff, and not this threat or actions 17 of moving periodically has been, we believe, one of the 18 more serious detriments to retaining qualified people on the 19 staff. In effect, every three to five years, the subject 20 of moving creates the moment in their careers to re-analyze 21 their positions and in some cases that has not been to the 22 benefit of the agency in that we have los,t many of our better 23 residents to some of our licensees.
j 24 There are certain things in regard to the resident i M training and relocation that are also important to bring l
4
i' 7 1
'up- and which' I was also asked to address . It has to do with '
4 2
things like objectivity and cross-training. The training 3
of our resident inspectors is the one area within the NRC 4
training program that has received the-highest. attention.. '
5 !
Their technical training and agency training is {
6 relative to those within the agency. and I believe our !
- 7 training is pretty good -- it's superior. i i
i S
We have also used the residents in all regions --
l ' s and I'll speak for two which is typical -- that we do use 10 them as several of dae, Commissioners have suggested, at other 11 plants in special evolutions such as pre-startup operations, 12 post-startup training assessments , things in which their
! 13 general knowledge of how another utility would function would j 14 be of particular use, that is helping in the inspection and,
' ~
15 of course, the reverse benefit of course we value also by 16 goipg to these other utilities in these areas that have direct 17 applicability to their own.
4 We find this increases their
/
18 capabilities.
19 To do this on a more organized basis, I think, is 20 very desirable and that is the way the program, I&E, is
- 21 moving, to sort of formalize this and optindze it because 22
) obviously we can 't do this too much, the resident has such
. 23 a major role at his own facility. But there will be a 24 decision in which the Regional Administrators, I know, will 25 participate in, in regard to reaching the proper balance.
l l .
- - _ - - - - -=_=-. - - - . . . . . _ - _ _
o 8 0
- 3 The objectivity issue is a problem that occurs with ,
2 all of us, and it's one that will have to be addressed in 3 many areas. I believe that our policy, our programs that 4 is being worked on, which, incidentally, is with the full 5 participation and comments by the Regional Administrators in 6 the regions, is being worked on. It will require a lot of 7 attention because it is an area that all the Regional j i
8 Administrators are concerned about but in the end policy, '
9 I am sure, we will agree with, in Other things that are happening right now to 11 improve the position of the residents is in the area of 12 communications -- communications in the broadest sense. We 13 are, the agency is, moving to upgrade our ADP capabilities.
14 we are moving into providing the residents as one of the primary benefits of this upgraded program, with more sophisti-15 16 cated data processing equipment which would enable them not 17 only to receive and transmit data but to upgrade corporate 18 data sources within the agency, to use various codes and 19 programs that would be of value to them in their inspection 20 activities. And'also, having that capability at the site will 21 enhance other regional-based inspectors who visit the site 22 and could make use of that type of equipment. ,
23 So, they are receiving in every advance that we 24 are making -- we are obviously factoring the residents into 25 such activities.
~.xr. .
,m
- l r s w e m p w m y y y p + 3 =__. y _r- y g y g .
9 I.
t 1
Licensee attitude towards .a e residents. The 2
4 licensees are with'It exception pleased to have the residents 3
the re . They are pleased for, I think, good reasons.
4 They are pleased with the continuity of assigned 5 inspectors.
They feel-that having somebody there who fully 6
understands their operation and relays that information 7
accurately to the Region and to the other NRC offices, 8
enables them to be properly evaluated, their motives to be i 9
more clearly understood, and they feel that some of the mis- !,
10 understandings generally come from a lack of good communi-t 11 cations. So, they look to that, they like the residents.
12 And even when the program started, a number of them were eager 13 to get them assigned there rapidly.
14 From our contacts with other offices and particular1+I 15 l the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, their contacts !
16 with the residents through the product managers, I think, 17 has been outstanding. I think it has enhanced their knowledge 18 of the plants and through the regions and through the 19 residents, I think that they are. certainly more knowledgeable, 20 you know, - the major benefits of the resident program and 21 regionalization.
22 We have had few complaints directed towards the 23 resident inspector's performance. I don't really recall a 24 case in which there was a comment that would appear to question
(
25 his competence or hic motivation. There have been, obviously,
o-10 I many cases-where a licensee would disagree with items upon 2
compliance and those types of issues , but that's not abnormal 3
for the way the region normally operates.
4 The resident inspector performance has been much j 5 better than I think we all expected. By putting some of our i
I 1
6 most qualified people out there in resident sites, having '
7 them operate independently has brought benefits that were (
i 8 surprising to some of us'. They have performed uniquely. l 9
most of them range in the area from " outstanding" to 10 " excellence." Of course, we have some marginal performers 11 and I think that each of the Regional Administrators have
~
12 them identified and over a period of time, I certainly would 13 expect some of them to be. relocated and moved. But that's 14 a very small percentage.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is this where we get to 16 close the meeting?
17 (Laughter) 18 MR. O'REILLY: Well, you would expect --
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We 'd save it to the end.
20 MR. O'REILLY: -- having two to three residents 21 at almost all our sites, those are large percentages. I 22 think our systems have to recognize that -- I'm not talking 23 about a case where there is some conflict of interest or 24 something o f that nature, they are just not performing at a
\
25 level that we expect from residents, outstanding or 4
)
e
,- - . , _ - - , - . . _ - _ . , , _._--w--..-_. - . - - - . - - . , , , , .,o__ ., .._ ,-
. 11
- i 1
excellent or they shouldn't be out there.
2 So, that sometimes takes a while to assess that, if 3
you say, only assign outstanding or excellence in your-4 people.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Should we have more of a 6
presence with these plants, or do you think that's about I
right? .
8 !
MR. O'REILLY:. It 's about right in some of our i
9 plants, and I think that's an issue that, you know, some 10
, other people might want to address.
11 In my view the number of around -- I think-the 12 number not less than one -- not less than -- one is too few.
13 i That I would think that the way we are moving -- we are 14 learing all the time to make our program last over the long 15 run. I think we are moving towards having at least one 16 resident -- at least two residents -- at every site for a 17 lot of reasons. And this helps the objectivity issue also, 18 and performance, and coverage.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It's kind of a lonely i 20-spot for one person.
21 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir. At several of the larger 22 sites, facilities like -- and I pick these just because they ,
23 are in my regions and they are large sites -- like Brown's 24 Ferry in which they have three operating reactors with major 25 construction activity, I think that we will be moving towards l
= _
12 i.
I having three and sometimes even temporary help full time at 2
the site, and some temporary duty on occasion to apply the, 3
you know, the necessary type of coverage. I 4
CH7IRMAN PALLADINO: How do you b'ack up regional j
{
5 inspectors? You said you have the resident inspectors and t j
6 you have the regional inspectors -- !
7 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir.
l 8
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- to provide support. How 9
many regional people do you have, for example, in your !
l 10 region? .
11 MR. O'REILLY: In Region II we would have some-12 where in the neightborhood of 40 residents, 50 residents, 13 and we would have about a.hundred non-regional people -- non-14 resident people, who actually conduct inspection programs .
15 I would like to just mention that because a lot of 16 times when we talk just about the resident program, I think 17 a lot of people start putting a lot of attention on the 18 resident program. Residents are,in effect generalists and 19 a lot of the issues that we address are very technical and 20 very specialized.
21 And if you rely too much on a program of just 22 residents to ensure these plants are being, operated correctly 23 and properly, I think that's incorrect. I think that in the 24 area of, for example, when you are in a major area of
- s' 25 welding for both constru ction and operations, and modifications ,
I
- = .-.
i
.. 13 i 1
you have to have people go out.who are actually welding 2
~
i experts and DE experts, and you cannot expect a resident to 3
be an expert in that. We must have -- in different 4
disciplines there are eight or nine disciplines and they are
-5
{ broken down a little bit further within sections within 6
the regions.
~
They go out to assure that in addition to general 8
areas, that the complicated areas like just in core t-8 performance, is looked at by people who not only look at that 10
, site and who are competent in that area, but look at all i
11 sites and have a cross-view towards all plants. And that 12 applies, that allows us to get a better measure on the 13 plant's overall performance, relative one to another.
14 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: One of the points I under-
. 15 stand that led to trying to set a limit from three to five 16 ye,ars for resident inspectors was to make sure that they 17 didn ' t become " captive ," so to speak, of that particular 18 plant.
1 19 To what extent do you think it's feasible or e
4 20 worthwhile thinking about to have a resident inspector spend 21 4
- a tour of say, three to five years, the regional inspector 22 l as opposed to. resident inspector, or in places where. you have 22 I
multiple plants within commuting distance, moving him from ,
24 l one plant to another if that is possible?
25 MR. O'REILLY: The issue of --
f -
I 14 J
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Or other moves such as that, 2 that I haven ' t thought of ?
3 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir. The issue of " captive ,"
4 I'm not picking up on :ne word, Mr. Chairman, but the '
5 word " captive" has, I think, an improper orientation. ,
6 I have not seen, nor am I aware of any other 7 . Regional Adminis trator --
i 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: _ Well, I didn 't say that happened.
9 I said that was one of the thoughts behind, as I understand i i
10 it, in setting the three to five years.
11 MR. O ' REILLY : Yes, sir. The issue of rota:icn, 12 you will not find, I don't think, anyone who has exactly J / 13 the same view, but I don't know of anyone who does not
'(
4 14 appreciate the various factors in balancing this.
15 I think that there are many residents who can stay l
16 at a particular site and perform admirably, and there are l 17 others that will not meet that criteria.
18 There are others, for the good of the agency, to
, 19 put different people -- even though I talked generalist
, m before, there are very few who are equivalent. There are 21 generalists who are expert in electrical engineering or 22 there are generalists who have an orientation towards 23 training. And to assure that type of attention is 1
24 addressed, you would like to move these people around.
\. Mi CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, is it feasible to think 1
e n- * * -
r--*-- '"r*-' -r*----- "-- -----~---wm------ -+--'--r r- r wwn-ore ~-
e e+-e^~-r---'-'T--**-w*"* - - - " - - '
. 15
- l 1 within one region where you have maybe several reactors 2 within commuting distance of a resident inspector, moving e
3 him --
4 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir, there are several sites -- I 5 not in- my own region -- where that is possible. But I under-6 stand in Region III there are a couple that are in commuting 7 distance and they could do that. I think that would be very 8 desirable. _
9 MR. KEPPLER: Jim, let me comment on this.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And also the question of 11 interchanging them periodically with regional inspectors .
. 12 MR. O'REILLY: Well, if you are interchanging
, 13 them, it generally requires -- at least in my case -- a move.
14 That makes up another problem.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
16 MR. KEPPLER: I've got some sites that are like 17 the type you talk about. Particular ones would be Point 18 Beach and Kewaunee that are only five miles apart; sites 19 like Pallisades and D.C. Cook, which are about 25 ndles 20 apart. And we h' ave actually done some of this , switched 21 the inspectors from one plant to the other, and that way 22 they don't have to move.
M' COMMISSIONER ROBERTS : If I am the resident at 24 Point "X", and I take three weeks leave which I am entitled t
\
25 to, do you replace me?
l
16 1 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sur. Now, I don't replace you 2 necessarily with a man for three weeks, but there are 3 programmatic requirements -hat if we move somebody out, say, 4 to go dcwn to Grand Gulf to do some special training, we will 5 back-fill and send one of our resident program oriented l 6 people to replace him. ' ;
7 If there are, say, some sites where we do have 8 three inspectors , like ,in some of these larger sites, that 9 we may not in those cases.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS : But you try to maintain an 11 NRC presence all the time.
. 12 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
13 MR. DIRCKS: On.the point of interchanging between 14 .the regional office and the plant site, you must keep in 15 mind there is a pay differential given to the resident to 16 be at the plant site. If you move him back to the region, 17 he loses his pay differential. That does enter -- that is a 18 concern, a factor, that must be factored in.
19 MR. O'REILLY: We have -- all the regions -- have 20 picked up various residents, usually on a promotion type 21 of thing, to come back with that type of experience as a 22 supervisor in some of the sections. And it has lent itself 23 that way because we have front loaded the resident program.
24 We establish it' so some of the people out there today are 2 outstandingly qualified.
t
. 17 i 1
! COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, we have the problem 2 about relocating residents and we have not made much progress 3
in dealing with that -- I guess a little bit.
l 4 j But I, for one, I have been very impressed with most 5
all of the people that I have met, the residents at the 6 various sites. It strikes me that both for the regions and 7
for here at headquarters there would be a tremendous benefit 8
if we can figure out incentives or uays to do that, to bring 9
some of those people both back to tee regihns and back into 10 headquarters because they get a perspective and an exposure l 1
11 at the plants that you just don't get, usually, even in the l
. 12 regional inspection people.
13 I think it would be a real benefit. The more 14 i that we can take advantage of those people and use them, the i
~
15 better off we are going to be.
E 16 '
MR. O'REILLY: There has been not a large lumber, 17 but there has been a number that is not insignificant that 18 when it comes up time for them to put in a number of years ,
19 like four or five, that actually they have, due to their 20 qualifications and the experiences, they are in great 21 demand by industry, and rightly so. They are a value to 22 us; they are a value to industry, and we have to be very 23 careful that we are sure we balance these various factors 24 carefully so that we don't lose too many of these people that 3
are invaluable.
18 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would like to add my 2
expression to Jim's expression. I have been impressed with 3
the resident inspectors that I had the opportunity to have 4
contact with. They certainly seem to know their job, they 5
are interested. They are aggressive in carrying out their 6
duties, generally very impressive.
7 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS :' I would go with what the 8 Chairman says. -
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are there any problem areas 10 that we should be addressing with regard to the resident 11 inspector program?
12 MR. O'REILLY:
Well, it 's always the staffing j 13 !
and resources, and I think the resident program, based on a l
14 number of things that are going on now, is receiving full !
15 l Commission support and your statements are not different to 16 how the regions feel about the Commission -- they feel, l 17 !
the Commission feels like the staff feels, it is a very '
18 valuable program. You have put the resources to them and 19 you have treated them like very important people in our 20 agency, and that 's appreciated.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Jom, you talked about 22 the lone resident problem and you also talked about a more 23 organized way of giving some exposure to those people, to 24 other sites -- '
25 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir.
%6:n. : 6%iyG2
%Qn.
4}7 %ail %+$ $.i a n di}; ~Xym,:up%
- h. k Q- gnM??Y]$ p &, y ,i"l%5R[_Q:. Q Q Q & ?b*
$.g
-( w r,; me-w y. . -
xs,;,ae.,m.e a y-n n m
~ w ._ -
19 1 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: -- which I really ,
2 appreciate. I think that 's a real benefit and would be a big 3 benefit.to those people, j 4 Let me ask you about the restrictions on the-f 5 residents, though. There are an awful lot of restrictions.
6 In a lot of instances, they are in very small communities l
7 where just about everybody else there is involved with the 8 licensee in some way.
9 I guess what I am wondering is , have we gone too 10 far, maybe, in sone of those restrictions in really creating 11 hardship assignments for these people, that it's going to be 12 a disincentive to keeping good people in those jobs in the 13 future?
14 fir. O'REILLY: It's my view that the restrictions 15 were put in there for good reasons, to enhance the independent 16 du,ty of the resident. Of course, I talk to them all and I 17 feel that one or two may have a unique problem with one 18 or another, and we address this. There have been some 19 minor changes since the beginning.
20 But right now we are still very tight in regard 21 to conflicts and I am fully in support with maintaining that 22 type of control.' Now, maybe we may find another case and 23 we may reconsider it. But the residents understand that 24 quite well and I think they look at themselves as being the 2 lone man out there or close to the lone man if there are
. 20 f 1
two, and they can understand why we have restrictions in 2
regard to dealing directly with the licensee.
3 I think we are right, although I think we may 4
change over the years if some new information comes forward.
5 Today , I think, we are in fine shape in regard to conflict '
1 6
of interests.
7 MR. MARTIN: I would agree with that. I guess ,
8 !
my view is, the problem isn't incentives to get people in 9
the field. At least it has been my experience, you know, 10 the very best people in the region have been quite willing 11 to go to the field because of the fact that you are selecting 12 the very best people there comes a time in three years or 13 four years when it is time for them to do something else.
14 Then that gets to be the problem, is to -- as it is with 15 all of us, you know, what is the'next step in your career.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
17 MR. MARTIN: It's the feeding these people back 18 into the supervisory positions both at headquarters and 19 the region that is probably much more of a challenge than 20 getting good people to go in the first place.
21 MR. COLLINS: I think also the problem is --
22 particularly in the middle-aged group where you have a man 23 in his 30s who has children --
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Right.
A 25 MR. COLLINS: -- in school and then every three to
~
21 I
five years you have to pull them out of school, relocate, 2
establish a new home. For them who are older people, their 3
children are grown, they can be a little more flexible.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I have a question that 5~
relates back to the comment, and I think the worthwhile.
6 objective that you have more than one person at a given 7
site on average. There are obvious advantages to that.
8 But on the other hand, I am curious to.know whether i 1
9 with the limited resources that we always seem to have you 10-would not better spend those resources by developing a j 11 kind of specialist squad approach that you go from one 12 plant to another and Jack, with your experimental' efforts 13 out there in your regiona, I guess you might --
14 MR.' MARTIN: I do both.
15- i COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I know you do.
16 MR. O'REILLY: Now, the program is both. But as 17 far as groups going to different sites, there must be eight 18 or ten of the types of things that you just described going on .
19 The regional inspectors go individually, they go in groups, 20 they go in special audits, training audits, quality 21 assurance audits, welding program reviews which require 22 several specialists to conduct.
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But the question is, where 24 are the resources better spent, in your j udgment.
t 25 MR. O'REILLY: Well, when we went through the budget
_ - . ~- - _ - -
i 22 l I
cycle the last two years , the types of things that we just 2
talked about were discussed internally with I&E, where would-3 we put another body if we came up that there was no more.
4 And we arrived at :he decision that we are in 5 today. We felt in the last budget cycle that the balance I 6 was appropriate. Some Regional Administrators might have 7
been inclined to put a little bit more on the site; some ,
8 would like to put more effort into our specialists. But 9
everybody agreed that this was right. j 10 So, we think with the rsources that we received 11 last year, we are in the ballpark. But like I say, every
. 12 year we look at it a little differently. I think we
-13 appreciate more today -- I think we do -- the growing problem i 14 as you go on with time of having one resident at a site.
15 ~
And I think that we would now -- because I would like to 16 think we are learning from all this -- that we might want to 17 put one more if that question was asked me on the next i
18 budget cycle. And I expect that would be something. that 19 2
Dick DeYoung would think about.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Fred raised an interesting 21 point, though. I guess you may have talked to Jack as well, 22 I know I did too when I was out in Califor,nia a few months M
ago, about the approach that he is trying out in Region V, 24 the new operating plan approach which tends to heavily load q 25 residents and then have clearly intensive team inspections
,v, g4 v,-e-ww-s-- y-m- -,,,an.w , e,,---w e- w -, - -,, -- , , - - - - - - , , , , . - , - , - - , - , , - - ,--,-r,, - - - - - , , - , - , , - - - - , , - -
23 I
concentrated on a particular site.
2 I guess I would be interested in hearing particular;-
3 from the larger regions what your reaction is to that kind of 4
an approach that at least I think we are going to be trying 5
in Region V, and how applicable it is to the problems that 6
you might have in the bigger regions with more sites.
7 MR. O'REILLY: Well, the problems with the smaller 8
regions is that they don't have the technical support number i
. 9 wise that the large region has. So, I think you see an 10 inability to conduct many team inspections if you front-load I 11 the residents. !
. 12 Like I said earlier, that in the larger regions 13
, there is a lot of continuing type of visits by individuals 14 or by teams who go around to all the sites. In other words , !
15 it's a problem.
If you front loid one, that's a way of 16 using your resources. But then you can't keep the type of 17 attention that would be going on continuously in programs 18 that grow, particularly in areas like construction.
19 You have to go in and watch the welding. You have 20 to see that the program is being implemented, and you are 21 going to have to have welding specialists, those types of 22 issues. So, it's a balance, it's a managerial balance that 23 we will have to face.
24 MR. KEPPLER: I acted more like O 'Reilly. I 25 took the extra people and put them in the regional office
4y cs + 2l%,:w%pc eqX4;Qg%3pny.y3=sR.+;;tyg793 Wjy.~p .( 7%9.yyM$fdCQlg1
=: :'
- P u m blE ,
24 i
as specialists.
1 If a site, a particular site is having no 2
particular problems, my reaction was to just leave one ;
l 3 inspector out there. !l And that has nct proven to be any 4 problem to me.
We get the supervisors out more frequently, 5 get other inspectors get out more.
6 But I would rather have the extra capability in 7
the office to go to other plants.
8 MR. MURLEY: That's pretty well how it's going in 9 Region I as well. We have done a lot of team inspections --
10 probably not as many as we could use. That is to say, I 11 think there is room for more, and I think there is also room 12 for more help from headquarters in team inspections.
13 To give an example, we are going to do a team 14 readiness inspection, it's when Oyster Creek starts up from 15 their long year and-a-half outage. We are going to send a 16 team there for several weeks just to see what the plant is 17 like and whether they are ready.
18 So, that is a kind of thing that I am sure the 19 other large regions do also.
20 MR. O ' REILLY : If I could say something. I think 21 that it is really a little more common, like just recently 22 you had -- like when we go down and conduct special training 23 audits and so forth, people from the operator licensing 24 group and NRR have participated directly in these from the 25 regional viewpoint.
1 25 )
l 1 Also, for example -- I'll just pick a current l
2 issue. Like this weekend we had a large number of people 3 down at Hatch II. There were five peple from NRR and three l 4 or four people from the region; it's that type of support.
5 That 's sort of a tie-in. I thought that was not untypical.
6 MR. COLLINS: That 's right , and the technical 7 expertise really is not limited to just what the regions have, 8 but we can draw on the other offices to supplement that 9 expertise, and we have done that too, in Region IV.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That was a question I was 11 about to raise in fact. I guess you answered it. I would-12 assume that we don 't limit our --
, 13 MR. COLLINS: No, no waY.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: --
drawing on resources for 15 team inspections or specialist in'spections, if you will, to 16 the resources in one region. You all cooperate at some 17 level with headquarters .
18 MR. DIRCKS: I think the ultimate too is the CAT 19 and PAT team were put on, which draws not only from head-20 quarters and the region, but other regions and supplemented 21 by contractor support which brings in a very large-scale Z2 effort. It is very manpower intensive, as you know, which' ,
u trains resources.
! 24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. The only problem
!(
2 is, we only do so few of those each year.
!---- .-, . , - . . . - - - , - . - - . - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ----'~---- '-~ ^ ~ ~ -
26 1 MR. DIRCKS: We do a few a year. Now, the basis '
. 2 for those few a year was to see how that IMPO effort was 3
doing because every time we .T.ove in with a CAT or PAT team 4
in pection that lasts three or four weeks at one facility, 5 the inspectors -- whether it's IMPO or NRC -- soon become 6 a burden onto themselves and begin to detract from the 7 operation of that facility.
8 If you overload it too much, the result may be 9
that the utility will get rid of the discretionary inspection, 10 namely the IMPO effort and say they will meet whatever we 11 have to do because they have to meet our requirements. We.
12 come crash into the door -- if you lose the IMPO work, we 13 may be losing an important ingredient to safe operation 14 at the plant. It's a balance that you have to have.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are the CAT and PAT 16 teams a good investment?
17 MR. DIRCKS: I think they are very good.
18 MR. COLLINS: I agree.
19 MR. KEPPLER: And the fire protection.
- COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In fact, the sense I have 21 is that you all are really taking advantage of those in 22 trying to identify the sites where you think it would be a 23 real benefit to you to have those kinds of inspections.
24 MR. O REILLY: Although Dick DeYoung would decide.
25 He always has asked us which ones, and he would go through.
27- 4 1
I. think the people have been asking for -the problem sites.
2 -So, I have been very pleasec with the selection.
3 COMMISSIONER GILI:; SKY: But they are not going to 4
the problem sites so far as I can tell; are they?
5 MR. O'REILLY: As far as I am concerned.
6 (Simultaneous conversation.)
7 MR. DIRCKS: Yes, they are.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: We've got a few.
i 9' MR. COLLINS: Sut recognize also, Commissioner, 10 we not only call on the other offices but we will not 11 hesitate to call on the other regions who have a particular 12 expert.
We have lent people to Jim's region and Jim, vice 13 versa, has lent people to us.
14 MR. DIRCKS: Jack is going to get into his 15 allegations system, and he will recite the efforts going 16 into Diablo.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe we ought to go to that, 18 not that I want to cut off this; we can come back to it.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where are the CAT and PAT 2 teams going?
21 MR. DIRCKS: I know they have been to Cemanche.
22 MR. COLLINS: They have been to Comanche Peak.
23 MR. DIRCKS: They have been to several o*.hers.
24 MR. COLLINS: They have been to Henry, WNP-2.
25 Nine Mile Peak.
^ ' '
. ~ . _ -
_ L- . = ~
~
mm .
- . 28 1
(Simultaneous conversations) 2 MR. TAYLOR: The CAT team which was just formed a 3
year or so ago has been. to--- has started at Bellefonte and 4
TVA, then moved on to Comanche Pe'ak at the request of t
5 John Collins, then move on up to WNP-2 at the request of 6
. Jack Martin; at Perry at the, request of Jim Keppler, and 7
most recently was up at Nine Mile-2.
8
. That report is, just finished at the request of s ,
8
- Tom Murley and is now preparing to go on to Waterford in q s That inspection has bee'n announced.
10 about a week or two.
11 '
That's the history of the CAT.
12 The PAT effort has beeh going on a number ot
- 13 years. We are only doing about thr'e e of those per year -
14 and most recently they have been (at dancho Seco. .
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY[ But some of those sound 16 like plants that had their share of problems, but others --
1 i
17
, well, I can say I hadn't heard about their problems 18 enough. . \ ..
't -
. r 2
19 MR. KEPPLER: Well, when I, recommended Perry, one l-20 of the reasons I recommended it w'as.because I didn't have i 21 a high degree of confidence one way or the other. - I know 22 what my problem sites are out there, I didn't need to be i .
23 '
told what they were.
- 24 l I wanted to look at some that I didn't have a x
+
l ,
25 high degree of confidence in. '
I
. , l ,
n- , ,----,--,-re n- . - , - ,n., _ . , - , , , , _ . , , - ---n-,.m,.,., ,,n m .--,- --,_, ,w ..--,,p,-.-.,-,-m.n.n,-..w, ..w ..--,, - . , ~ - ,
29
- 6. ;
1 MR. MARTIN: That was my motivation.
2 MR. TAYLOR: And I think that was Jack's motivation 3 at WNP-2 because --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is that a fair way of 5
dealing with resources, putting more people out there, puttingi 6 more inspectors in the region? '
7 MR. O'REILLY: You mean more residents? ;
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: More residents or more 9 regional inspectors, or --
j 1
10 MR. DIRCKS: As you know, every time we go up 11 we like to have many more resources than we ger.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: There.is kind of.a " hit-or-13 giss" quality about this.
14 MR.'DIRCKS: Well, I think the CAT and PAT teams 15 are generally scheduled on the b' asis of the reconnerdations 16 from the Regional Administrators, plus the advice they are 17 getting from headquarters.
18 I think so far they have been spurred on by the 19 targets identified at the regional level and these sorts of 20 resources are applied. Now, if we had more CAT and PAT 21 teams inspectors, we would do more inspection.
22 But on the other hand, you've got to watch ,that 23 trade-of f that we have been trying to work out with the IMPO.
24 MR. O'REILLY: The CAT and PAT teams, I think they 25 were founded and motivated by particular problems in the
30 1 design teams and fire inspection teams. It would seer. that 2 every time you come up for re-orientation of resources , .you 3 will have to look at what they did and whether or not those ,
4 findings have incorporated programmatic improvements. l i
5 But there are a lot of resources put in the special 6 reactive ef forts which I would not think would be forever, 7 just as they are right now.
8 COMMISSIONER -GILINSKY : Well, I think originally 9 the idea was that this would be the way of keeping track of 10 how the regions were doing in their inspection. Is that in 11 f act -- we seem to have gone beyond that into actual 12 direct inspection of f acilities .
( 13 I wonder whether this is the best way for the 14 headquarters people to keep tabs on the regions.
15 MR. MURLEY: Can I take a cut at that?
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Take two cuts.
17 MR. MURLEY: As Jim said, the CAT inspection at 18 Nine Mile Point, we knew we had problems there. But I guess 19 I didn't realize until they came in and spent six weeks.
20 They put twice as much manpower in those six weeks as we i-21 could affort to put in the whole year, and they go into
! 22 quite a lot of more depth than we can because they bring 23 experts in.
24 They found problems -- in the general. area we
(
25 knew we had problems , piping. But it's f ar more pervasi.ve
31 f
1 than we thought.
2 So, in that sense I think this is exactly how CAT 3 ought to be used. They found the problems early enough that 4 lwecancorrect them.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY; Let me ask you this, 6 suppose we turn the CAT on any plant, would you find that ,
7 a problem? !
8 MR. MURLEY: No.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: They haven't, and I 10 gather there have really been mixed results. Some have 11 shown that there aren't any problens and others howed that 12 there are.
13 MR. KEPPLER: There are problems.
14 MR. MARTIN: I think where you have pervasive 15 problems, an inspection like that can unravel them pretty well .
16 ,
MR. O'REILLY: I guess that the resources put 17 on MNT were probably in excess of an inspection effort that 18 was programmed for the entire site during its entire 19 construction period.
El COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
t 21 MR. O'REILLY: So, I think it is a lot more than 22 one year. , ,
M CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me again try to suggest 24 We go on to the next topic because we do want to leave time i
l 25 for discussion of relationships, and I think some of these 1
l l
32 I
1 same areas, I think, can be revisited.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Let me raise one more 3 quick question before we go to the next cne.
I 4 That has to do with the -- you mentioned some 5 of the construction sites. Without talking about specific I i
6 cases, do you all feel comfortable with the present inspection {
7 program, that you are getting enough information --
8 MR. KEPPLER: -In construction?
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In construction as time 10 develops over a plant s,o that at any particular point in time 11 you all have enough information for you to reach a judgment 12 on whether things are going pretty well; whether the licensee 13 is carrying out its QA responsibilities, and how each of the 14 major contractors at the site is performing, so that you 15 could really reach a judgment at any point about whether there 16 is a real breakdown either on the part of the licensee or on 17 the 'part of one of the major subcontractors?
18 And if not, what ought we to do to make sure that 19 you have that information because I really think we ought to 20 be able to look to each of you all to give us that judgment 21 and to be accountable for that judgment at any point in the 22 process. ,
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let me add to that. Why 24 are problens turning up so late?
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That 's obviously a
- = , , , - . -- . _ - . . . - - _ _ - . _ .-.
+ !
l' 33 I related question.
2 MR. KEPPLER: I think -- I'll give you my view 0
because I had some of them. I don 't have a high degree of 4
comfort with our inspection program in construction and I am J
5 not sure I have a high degree of comfort with our regulations j
6 in construction and the two may go hand in hand here because 4
- 7 we have a lot of quality assurance-related problems I'm not -i 4
8 sure means the hardware or the plant is bad, but we don't e
9 have a way of telling right now.
r 10
- And I'm not.sure the other way because my inspectors 11 go in and take a look at a given area every so often that
~
12 they den't find problems, that that.-tell,s me the construction 13 is good.
i 14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, i -
15 MR. KEPPLER: So, I really don't know.
- 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What 's wrong with the ,
17 regulations, are they too vague, or what?
18 MR. KEPPLER: I think they are so prescriptive in I
19 some ways in terms of the QA criteria that we have focused our attention more on the records, the record-keeping aspect 21 of the business, the procedural aspects of the business, I
l 4
22 rather than en the ultimate end of, is the hardware right 1
- 23 or not.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, we 've got no way 25 of checking very much of the hardware. So, we are checking
.r- . , _ . _ _ __ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _
l
.. l 34 i
. l 1 the system that we hope ensures -- ,
2 MR. KEPPLER: That's right. -
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: --
the plant was built .
4 the way it was supposed to have been built, f
?
. 5 MR. KEPPLER: Th at 's right .
6 MR. DIRCKS: We were talking about this earlier 7 and our regulations, we are captive of our own regulations, !
l 8 they have grown up in bits and pieces over the years.
9 And we nave adopted into our body of regulations to ANSE standards, ASME standards , American Welding Society 11 standards and the test, then, becomes whether they have kept 12 the proper records to show that the right number of welders 13 were qualified under a 1975 ASME standard.
14 Does that mean that plants that were welded 15 together before 1975 under this qualification statement 16 put together by ASME are unsafe? I don't think so.
, 17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, let's see, are we 18 applying new standards to old plants, or what?
19 MR. DIRCKS: We are not, but the fact is that we've 20 got these new pla'nts put together by these new standards.
21 Does that make them any more safe?
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You have some plants that have 23 had such an extended period of construction that you crossed ---
24 MR. COLLINS: Yes, that 's correct.
(
25 MR. DIRCKS : But the problem is , a lot' of this
o 35 1
we have vacuumed up into our body of standards, Reg Guides, 2
QA regulations, inspection standards, that the test becomes i
3 whether or not a particular certification was filled out 4
properly, and the allegations may be that certain forms 5
were not filled out or certain people didn't meet these 6 standards.
7 Does that mean the thing they worked on --
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But what 's the alternative 9
way of checking up on a project?
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Making sure it's done 11 right.
12 MR. DIRCKS: In any good discussion session we g
13 are trying to outline the scope of the problem and I don't 14 know what we can do about it.
15 We can say we are stuck with what we had today 16 but maybe we should be doing something more about it in the 17 future. Is there a way to get on top of this thing?
18 Jim Asselstine asked us recently --
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:, I'll tell you one way which 20 I think points in the right direction. Some of the utilities, 21 or at least one I know of, ran their own QA program. And 22 so you had one single QA program rather than a whole , bunch 23 of little programs , each of which has been audited by the 24 utility.
25 First of all, it means that if problems develop you
. I, 36 '
1 get on them faster. Bu: also, it means you 'have a uniform 2
system and I think if you reduce interfaces there you are 3 more likely to do it right.
f i 4 MR. DIRCKS : I think that's -- the common threat 5
that runs through it all is, if we could have a system that 6
would tell us that we have good management on the site on
. 7 the part of the utility. If they are managing things 8 correctly -- -
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
10 MR. DIRCKS: -- we won ' t have the problems that 11 we face in these sort of -- I 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But that still doesn't 13 alleviate the problem Jim was bringing up.
14 MR. DIRCKS: It doesn't, no.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: That was part of the 16 problem. I don't know what your experience with that has 17 been, but did that make a difference?
18 MR. O'REILLY: That certainly facilitated the 19 construction resolution -- identification and resolution 20 of problems, absolutely; yes, sir.
i 21 I had a couple of comments to make on that issue.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. ,
23 MR. O'REILLY: I think that the Commission should 24 be aware of where we were, say, 20 years ago with regard 25 to construction where there may have been just one or two.
~
-.-l__ _ _ _- - - - - -.
37 k
1 construction inspections during the entire construction 2 cycle. So, the process of growing up has been lessons learned 3
and it has been very difficult to change everybody around.
4 I think that should be recognized. !
i i
5 This is supplementary to what Jim Keppler stated. !
6 Also, you asked the question about whether or not the 1
7 resources -- whether we were confident.
s I think the !
8 resources, if our program is proplerly implemented, should 9
detect substantive breakdowns when you look at it in 10 totality, just like the design of these plants.
11 You have to look at construction; you have to look at pre-operational testing; you have to look at in-service 12 13 inspection; you have to look at the large number of things 14 that go on. If we rely on just one it's very difficult to 15 think that every reactor could meet' every standard since 16 they are being built for ten years with five-thousand people 17 per plant. You know, those types of things.
18
' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, there is an aspect of 19 this question that we must not overlook. This is a complex 20 operation. The construction of a new plant is a complex 21 operation, it involves a lot of different disciplines, and 22 it involves good accounting or good housekeeping is maybe 23 the best way to say it, including the knowledge that a 24 particular piece of steel has undergone the right test, that 25 it is from an approved heat or whatever; it is from the
. 38 I
company you think it is, and I i
think we must not lose sight 2
of the fact that a certain amount of recordkeeping is 3
necessary because of that.
4 We also need to know whether or not the people 5
-that are doing the job at least have passed the test that we 6
think or they think makes them qualified to do their job.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, the records --
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We don't want to get to such 9
a point that we think the records cause a whole lot --
10 however, I am sure that from their experience there are 11 problems .
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I'm sure there are better I
/ 13 ways to handle the records. Some places are using --
14 this is vomething Fred Bernthal will pick up on -- some !
15 places are using modern techniqubs, heavily computerized; 16 others are just really arranged like a laundry.
~
17 MR. COLLINS: You raised the question of --
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You know, there things 19 like the bar codes --
20 MR. COLLINS: The record still starts out from 21 the craft people themselves. You can end up computerizing 22 all this, but the records, the field records --
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I think there is a 24 lot you can do.
(,
3 MR. COLLINS: -- are still filled out by the guy
~
, 39 i
'O 1 out in the field. He is not going to be there with an 2 electronic device.
3 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No, I'm not so sure.
I 4
l MR. COLLINS: Maybe we are working in that 5 direction.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: If you can do it at the 7 Giant supermarket, I think you can do it --
8 COMMISSIONER -ASSELSTINE : Certainly in design ;
9 control and drawings , and those things, there is a lot you 10 can do at the plant site, i 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And also, you know, on i
~
12 the business of records -- just to back up what the
'( 13 Chairman is saying -- it's kind of like a bank. If the 14 record is in disarray, it doesn't mean the money isn't there.'
15 But it doesn 't make you feel good.
16 (Laugh ter) 17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Although on some of 18 these sites we are finding the money isn ' t there either.
19 (Laughter) 20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
21 MR. COLLINS: I think also one of the things that 22 we could look at i,s more restrictive requirements on M experience for level of management and construction plants.
( -
24 We looked at the experience level in the operating 25 plants but I don't think we placed the same degree of
40 I experience level requirements ~ on senior management in these 2 utilities.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But you know, one of the 4 things that bothers me about this whole problem on quality l t
5 assurance -- I guess I have two questions. One is the 6 question of what you really consider to be the NRC's 7 responsibility. !
8 Now, saying that if there were a way -- and we 9 have been through a great deal of this kind of logic lately --
10 if there were a way that we could be sure that management 11 was doing its job, then we would be satisfied that things 12 were being done right.
13 But that finally means that somehow we still are 14 . responsible for the quality assurance at some level, and 15 I hate to even suggest that. But I think finally it 's 16 true. At least that's what the public thinks .
17 My question is how you react to that kind of 18 point of view. Do you feel like you are responsible for it, 19 finally? I mean, I don't think anybody, certainly in my 20 experience not the Congress and not the Conadssion, no one 21 really thinks in the institutions that we are responsible 22 for quality insurance. But you sure get the impression that
%I that's what the public thinks.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, why aren't we '
25 responsible for it?
1 41 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I think at some level 2
people believe that we are responsible for the assurance 3
that the money is in the bank, so to speak.
4 MR. KEPPLER: Well, that's come up in congressional 5 hearings.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: We are responsible to 7 maintain a standard.
8 L COMMISSIONER -ROBERTS : The applicant shall be j 9 responsible.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I know that's what it says .
11 I'm talking about public perception.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : We can't be responsible 13 for everything. What are we responsible for? We are 14 responsible for maintaining a certain level of safety, 15 ensuring that it is mewt.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think your responsibility 17 is to make sure that the applicant performs as it's 18 supposed to perfonn.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That 's right. You know, 20 my sense is on that --
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And this is an --
22 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: (Inaudible) ,
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: My sense is that in 24 the construction area we are not in a situation where we
- 25 have radically changed t' he requirements or the rules over
42 o '
I the past couple of years. If anything, I think what we have 2 done is, we have been much tcugher the past few years in 3 saying to applicants and licensees, "You are going to have 4 to meet the commitments you made when you got your license."
5 I think that's where we have been more aggressive, i
6 in inspecting and ensuring ourselves that they are in fact -
7 meeting the commitments that they made when they first -- ;
I 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Could I come back to the point l 9 that Jim was trying to make, and I think it's an important 10 one.
11 You said our regulations have shortcomings and do 12 impose an undue burden in certain areas with regard to paper-13 work. I think it would be worthwhile developing that point 14 'further and I think iii the process observing what you think 15 might be " fixes" that we could bring about because I have 16 heard that from a lot of people.
17 You are the people, I think, that are in the best 18 position to advise us what ought to be done.
13 MR. KEPPLER: Let me give you a -- digress a
- 2) second if I could. I told you that I had a team of quality 21 assurance inspectors out to one of my better operating plants.
22 I won 't name the plant today.
23 But a plant that has clearly over the years had 24 one of the better regulatory records in the business.
, The-(
25 inspectors came back with a laundry list as long as your arm
44 1 subjective as well.
i 2
I wonder whether that has not gotten us into 3 difficulty. You are talking about the QA on training and,_ '
4 you know -- or for example, one thing that I have gotten j 5
interested in recently is QA and design which is rather 6
different than QA in dealing with hardware, manufacturing.
7 Does that ring a bell or strike a cord? I 8
MR. O'REILLY:_ Yes.
9 MR. KEPPLER: Just going back to the point that 10 you raised on what do you do, I think today it's -- I guess 11 I would be inclined to look at it differently if we had a 12 whole bunch of new plants coming in for CP than where we 13 are today where you have a lot of plants at various stages 14 of construction.
15 ~
I guess you made the comment about the value 16 of their -- team inspections. I have since Zimmer, since 17 the problems at Zimmer were first surfaced, I have been 18 focusing a lot of asttention -- as have some of the other 19 regions -- on team inspections a.t construction sites,
- ' N trying to focus a little bit more on hardware aspects of the 21 plant and seeing what we can glean from that.
22 I asked for the Perry inspection on CAT. I would 23 have had liked to have the CAT team go to Fermi and Byron, 24 and Bradewood and others as well.
25 ~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I don't have any
1 '
e 45 1 question that is something we need to do everywhere.
2 MR. KEPPLER: If we have more resources.
3 CH AI RMAN . PALLADINO : I seem o have a problem, Jim, 4 with one aspect of what you said. I am a great believer in 5 making sure the hardware is right. But nevertheless, if ,
6 when you check you find that you can't tell whether that 's 7 the right steel or not; or you can ' t tell that --
8 MR. KEPPLER: -And you got to do more.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- a welder is terribly i lo qualified. You implied , "Well, that 'doesn ' t necessarily --
i 11 may not necessarily relate to the plant.
~
12 MR. KEPPLER: It may not, but you would hav3 to 13 do something.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. -
15 MR. KEPPLER: I'm not implying you don't do anything.
16 because that 's what has happened here. Particularly at. a 17 number of plants in my region we now have to go back and 18 come up with other methods to show --
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But the problem is not our
,2 inspection but rather, again, their carrying out what they 21 said they were going to do in building the plant.
22 COMMISSIONER'ASSELSTINE: Yes. , ,
23 MR. KEPPLER: But our inspection isn't going to 24 assure that.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree.
l
1 46 e
- 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : But the system has changed
. 2 over the years, as Jim was pointing out, and the notion of 3 what will pass muster prchably changed.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I hate to put any more 6
work on these gentlemen, but if you have gotten some specific 7
thoughts or, how we might address the issue or make some 8 changes -- .
9 MR. DIRCKS: You are going to get some, I think, 10 development of that idea as we present to the Commission the '
11 QA Studies that were requested by the Congress.
I think that '
. 12 would be a good forum to get back into this.
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The Regional Administrators, 14 you all plugged in to that process?
15 MR. O'REILLY: We all have copies for comments we 16 just received, yes.
17 CHATPMAN PALLADINO: Lct 16e point out, we have 18 spent half of our allotted time on the first topic.
19 (Laugh ter) 20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I have been trying for a half 21 hour2.430556e-4 days <br />0.00583 hours <br />3.472222e-5 weeks <br />7.9905e-6 months <br /> to get us to another one -- not that I want to stop the 22 discussion, I think the discussion is exactly why we wanted 23 to meet with the Commission, but I think a different point of 24 view on another' topic gets discussion in a different direction .
A M MR. DIRCKS: I think it touches on many of the
~
~ ~ 7 Q:f
.: g:%qJf .y g +.jQ:lg 5 ,~ ' A a; e '
JL y
,' :?
je J 1 of the ideas you had talked about. Ny[ish[ _ ,
V 6, W 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I think we < g 1%#4: w.~.
g:
3 a number of items under No. 4.
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: I would just like to ask 5 a question before we go to the next category which is, 6 why have in so many cases questions come up at the end? Why 7 have we not been able to identify them earlier?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
Eell, I think that's just a product -- l i
9 we 'll get into that and I don't want to prejudge the outcome. i 10 There are so many motives, there have been so many driving l i l
11 forces why we are getting all these things at the last minute '
12 that it is difficult to make a general statement.
13 But Jack does have a topic in there about last-14 minute allegat' ions that I would include in that title, last-15 minute problems.
l 16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
, Why don't we go to that? ,
17 MR. DIRCKS: I think we should get into that.
18
, CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then you can bring up the 19 question again.
20 MR. MARTIN: I'm not sure I'm going to shed a 21 tremendous amount of light on that question.
22 I did not have a formal presentation. I ha.d a M few topics that I thought would be suitable for discussion.
24 I have spent a considerable amount of time on this question i
\
1 25 of allegations ever since I have been in the region and I've m, ,e, ,- a - - - . .--- -, - , - - - - - -- - - -
a 5M h m m@! m mu?N.@h d Me .Mfkmdd$5df2 UNkN "N@ ; M" J YY' T JT.._i. $N.- - @-
2 m -
r 48 1
got some thoughts on it th at I think we could discuss.
2 First of all, I think all of the regions now have 3
procedures in place that are complete in the sense that we 4
i receive and handle allegations in an organized fashion where 5
they don'.t get lost and they get recorded. They go through 6
a discipline review system. !
7 There is in many cases a Board reviews them for 8
content and recommends actions to the. responsible inspectors.
9 And there is' a review at the end frequently by another Board 10 or the same Board to make sure that the actions we took were 11
- responsive to the allegations.
12 So, I guess it's my feeling that we were sort of 13 over that hurdle of having a system to deal with the 14 allegations.
I 16 And I guess the problem as it boils down in my 16 mind is, it really falls into two categories. First of all,
= 17 why are we handl,ing so many of. these things versus -the 18
- licensee.
18 Secondly, how do we deal with allegations relative 20 to decisions that have to be made. .
- 21 I think one of the things , of course, that has 22 come up on -- one I can think of that is very much in my 23 mind -- is a lot of allegations that come up at a critical 24 decision point.
1 25 I guess my own view is, there are a lot of reasons
49 e
1 for that. Part of it is tactical on the part of the people 2 that are opposing the plant; part of it is because we have 3 all, I think, tried harder tc show people we are receptive -
t 4 to their concerns. So, we have complicated it some by i i
5 perhaps ourselves introducing more people to step forward. '
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. l l
7 MR. MARTIN : And I think partly because when some-8 thing like this happens,~ the people realize that we are 9 interested in allegations. There are probably a lot of 10 - people that have been wondering about something for a long 11 time that they just never got around to saying it, or think
~
12 about it.
13 So, we have gotten a large number of these at the 14 end. But I think the thing that we in the region are trying 15 to do is to screen through these allegations and to try to 16 put them in some reasonable categories like, which ones 17 look like they really should be resolved before the next 18 decision point and which ones don't need to be resolved right 19 now but can be dealt with, you know, over the next few weeks.
20 I think that's one topic I would urge we give a 21 considerable amount of attention to is, putting things in the 22 right categories as to just when they have to be resolved.
23 Many of the things we are dealing with are items 24 that could have been resolved five years ago and they are 25 not, or you know, months from now disputes over code l
i
~~
50
- s 1
interpretations or things people overheard in restaurants 2
they - have been wondering about for a couple of years. Very 3
few of them reem to revolve or be very closely germane to the 4 next decision point.
So, that 's something we could discuss , about how 5
l l
6 to deal with allegations that are right and proper for us !
I 7 to handle.
8 One of the things I am concerned about, or I found 9
in my region -- I don 't have a lot of experience ~ with this.
10 But I was sonewhat interest =d in, what actions had the 11 licensees taken.over the years to create an atmosphere
~
12 where employees felt not only comfortabl,e but actively 13 encouraged to step forward with their concerns, so they can 14
'be dealt with promptly.
15 I guess my impression was that most utilities .were 16 receptive to the idea, but it had never occurred to them to 17 do much, very much of an outreach program.
18 So far several in Region V now have at least 19 gotten started on a program so that in a year or so from now 20 maybe we won't be getting so many of these and we will be 21 more of the " Court of last Resort" rather than first 22 resort on routine itens. r .
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Now, if an applicant does 24 delve into allegations, are there conclusions given the 25 respected NRC conclusions are given?
1 51 l 1
For example , an allegation may be made, the 2 utility looks into it and says, "No, you misunderstood, this 3 ' is the issue. " The person brings it up again and we come 4 and investigate it. We may come to the same conclusica.
5 Is there any way we can improve the credibility --
6 or the industry, the utility can improve its own credibility 7 l in the way allegations are handled? i 8
I think both need attention. i
+
9 MR. MARTIN: Yes, by performance. Yes.
10 MR. O'REILLY: i Yes. -
i 11 j MR. MARTIN: I think that it becomes a self- l l I 12 disciplinary process. I mean, if the utility deals with an 13 employee concern irresponsibly and we get into.it and come 14 up with a completely different answer, that shouldn't happen \
I 15 l
too many times before it gets to be quite embarrassing. ;
16
, .MR . DIRCKS: A lot of it is, we are talking about 17 management and communication. This is not just endemic
-18 to the nuclear field. QA does imply some communication.
19 As Vic Gilinsky pointed out, these sites are not 20 exactly kindergarten classes, it's a construction site 21 where there is a lot of give and take on the site, as well 22 as in a factory situation. ,
23 I have read case studies of the need to communicate.
24 A production worker finds a CA problem. He has been drilled
52
, I i finds it. He askes his foreman to look into it. The foreman 2 may take it, legitimately, take it up to engineering and 3 they do an analysis and it shows that the thing will fit --
4 a legitimate analysis.
5 The missing ingredient many times is, the foreman f
6 never goes back and tells the employee, "It's okay, here is 7 why it's okay." He 'll just tell the employee, "Go ahead, ,
8 I tell you to go ahead." .
I 9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. ;
10 MR. DIRCKS: And. this stuf f festers . I think if 11 we could instill some sort of -- or the companies could 12 instill some sort of a feedback , a communication. If.an 13 employee is brushed aside by his foreman -- and the matter 14 .may be resolved -- it is going to stay in his craw for 15 until an NRC inspector walks through or some other group 16 walks through and says, "Do you have a problem?"
i 17 "Yes, I do. I raised this and no one resolved it."
18 MR. O'REILLY: In regard to the utilities , the 19 utilities historically have not had problems in this area.
20 Yoa know, we go back 20, 30 yea rs .
21 I know for a fact that utilities -- we are talking 22 about them starting programs. They have them but it's too 23 late to solve some of these problems. They moved very 24 aggressively in'to trying to identify clearly the openness l
25 and the channels within which to provide information. They
'~' ~
__m .m - -
-m. m. .
_ _, _. ;_., w g ,9Agw s g 53 i 1 have put resources, a lot of money and consultants, even, -
2 to give it that air of independence to not only investigate 3 them but to guarantee that each cne is interviewed on exit 4 or on entry.
5 So, I think they are moving aggressively and I am 6 very pleased with the progress.
7 COMMISSIONER _SSELSTINE: Yes.
8 MR. O'REILLY: But that 's not today 's . You are 9 seeing the problems that have been existing.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: There are a number of plants 11 that are still not far enough along that they couldn't l 12 take advantage of those procedures. Are we getting the story 13 to them?
14 MR. COLLINS: Most of the plants that have put a 15 program in recently, at least in our region, we pushed them I
16 in,the direction.
17 MR. O'REILLY: The staf f has given a number of b
18 talks on the subject to industry.
19 MR. DIRCKS: I think it is a matter stressed by 20 Dick DeYoung as he goes out and talks to the CEOs in the i
21 regional -- the IMPO workshop, I think, was asked to stress 22 this business .of opening up channels between management 23 and employees, and resolving issues before they become 24 issues in the construction process.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: There doesn't seem to be i
i f
54 a
1 any disagreement that this is what they all ought to be 2 doing . I guess the question is -- i 3 MR. KEPPLER: Some are more ef fective.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Is it just enough to try 5 and encourage them in that direction, or should we be doing 6 more than that and saying, " Hey , look something you all have 7 to do," and do it wholeheartedly.
8 MR. DIRCKS: How do you get it down to the forenan 9 level, which is critical, I think.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: This point of feedback that 11 you mention is essential.
~
12 MR. MARTIN : I might admit that is something we 13 have also built into the . allegations we look into, where there 14 have been cases in the past where the government deals with the thing and never got back to the guys as to how it was
~
15 I
16 resol ved .
17 MR. O'REILLY: That's not common practice.
18 MR. MARTIN: There have been cases.
19 It's been my experience, though, that this is the 20 sort of thing th'at involves management volition at the highest 21 of the company. I me an , if the top guy is interested in this --
M COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes. ,
23 MR. MARTIN: -- that's the prerequisite and then it 24 becomes a probl'em of how do you reinforce that at the ,
25 supervisor and foreman level.
- i 5
. 55 4
1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree with what you say, but 2
you have to train the levels of management, and it seems that 3
, this issue is as old as the industrial revolution almost.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, that 's true .
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But it's got to be learned and 6
relearned by different groups every day, essentially.
7 i COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think there is a clear j 8
self-interest, too from- the standpoint of the utillties .
9 If they get these concerns identified early on, have a chance 10 to look at them and fully evaluate them, then if they crop 11 up again later on -- particularly at the tail end of a 12 proceeding -- at that point it shouldn't be all that difficult 13 for us to step in and very quickly verify whether or not they 14 have been adequately addressed.
~
15 MR. O'REILLY: The point between construction and 16 the masses of people coming in and leaving tha contracta it'e 17 an enormous problem. An operating unit is completely 18 different, you know. So, we should not be surprised even 19 if programs were superb, to find a number of these things 20 which we must address, the licensee must address.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me ask the question 23 that I wanted to ask earlier, and maybe now is a good time.
24 Where are we today? I think everyone agrees that a lot of 25 what we are seeing happened that is distressing today is
1
. . 56
- i 1
residue from practices that are sone years old. ,
2' If a new plant were ordered today and construction '
3 began, what level of confidence do you have that the procedures 4
that we have in place today would avoid many of the problems i-5 that we seem to be faced with some of these plants?
6 Are you fairly comfortable with it, or are you --
7 MR. O'REILLY: Are you talking of standardized 8 plan ts ? --
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, I'm not.
10 MR. O ' REILLY : Those are the types of things that 11 would make it a lot easier because if you -don' t introduce 12 all these variables in the construction, you know, if the 13 plant was designed, say,.a hundred percent; if their QA 14
. program from the very beginning had been established, then we 15 would be in a much better position.
16 I feel confident today that the plants that are 17 coming on, we should be satisfied with their programmatic --
18 the programmatic system licensees have today of assuring 18 the adequacy of welding, for example. I am very satisfied i
20 with that.
21 MR. DIRCKS: I think also, if it were -- I don't 22 want to preempt the study that is going to arrive here 23 very shortly, but I think one of the recommendations out of 24 l this total review is , there will be much more interchange, i
25 I think, with the management that is applying to get a 1
t ,
I 57 i.
.1 license.
There are greater discussions of how management 2
would intend to get into the process to assure that there is 3
review, attention, concern, commu.ifation and so on. I l
4 l think that is one of the. things that you will be able to 8
- 1 5 l discuss in a couple of weeks. -
6 But I don 't think we will be repeating what we 7 have had in the past. There will be other problems.
8 MR. MURLEY: That 's about what I was going to add.
9 In my judgment, the biggest variable is the competence of !
i 10 the utility building the plant.
11 That is what I would look at, quite frankly, much 12 harder than we have ever done for a new plant starting out.
13 MR. COLLINS: We certainly would.
14 MR. KEPPLER: And the vendors . '
15 MR. COLLINS: Yes, architect-engineers, yes. And 16 component vendors.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
18 MR. KEPPLER: Our procedure is going to be one 19 of a type at some of these sites.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The prnblam. is that the 21 construction of a new power plant is a learine experience 22 for every one, and they've got to learn it on the job.
23 MR. O'REILLY: When they are building one and 24 they are ready to start.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And then they build that one
58 t
1 or maybe two, and then -- I s till thing -- well, never mind. '
2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I think that's an on-the-3- job learning. s
.T 4
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: That's right. I still thir.k 5
there ought to be some way of having the construction turn-6 key operation and say, "Here is a plant that's met all the l
7 req uiremen ts , " and let the utility concentrate on' operating 8
the plant and be prepared to operate it.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
10 MR. O'REILLY: Well, that 's part of the regulation 11 p rob lens , in effect, that Jim talked about.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You want, to try a different 13 subject, or do you have more questions on this?
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess just one last 15 question on the allegation handling system within the 16 utilities.
17 You know, I talked to the Palo Verde people when 18 I was out there about what they have done. I just saw an 19 article in "Inside NRC" about how we think the safe-team 20 approach at Detroit Edison is a very good one. Is there 21 more guidance that we ought to be giving or is there some-22 thing we ought to be requiring in terms of the elements that 23 we really think ought to be in a program? Or is it enough 24 just to have the kind of encouraging statement that we have 25 been doing in this area?
7: ~ .
59 1 MR. O ' REILLY : I woulc think putting out good 2 lessons would be of value.
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It does seem like thers 4
are as few models out there, and maybe there is a way ec 5
draw out the elements and say, "Look, these are the kinds of !
i i
6 things that everybody really ought to be doing," particularly i f
7 those plants in the construction site that are early or j 8 midway through. -
9 MR. O'REILLY: Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And I think this point of 11 feedback that Bill Dircks mentioned is crucial to the 12 success of the whole process. To wait until somebody leaves 13 and say, "Well, give me what your problems are" --
14 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right, yes.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- is not a bad way of 16 finding out what your problems are, but it doesn't necessarily 17 satisfy those who may still come forward thinking that the 18 allegation is pertinent.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would like to encourage --
20 MR. COLLINS: A number of them have put in 21 "hotlines" where they can --
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, that 's right.
23 MR. COLLINS: -- where people can call directly 24 without even giving their name, and leave their concerns.
25 If they want to leave their name, the utilities are committed
- - .-, . - - - . , ~ - . . . . ,
. . _ _ . . _ _.= -.
, 60 1 to get back to them and resolve it. At least let them know '
2 how they disposed of the concern.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADING: Well, I am thinking there 4 has to be the middle managerent --
5 MR. COLLINS: Absolutely.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: -- and the lowest tier of 7 management that has to provide that feedback.
8 I had this lesson drilledinto me early in my 9
career and I have a particular example where a Navy test 10 failed but on looking at the test it was apparent they had 11 not held a super heat; they hand't held the pressure, it 12 varied all over the place. It was desirable to run another 13 test because there was a big penalty on these units if they 14 'didn ' t pass the tes t.
15 There was also a delivery date test and that was 16 the next day.
17 So, when working with my supervisors we decided 18 we needed another test that night, I had been drilled. I 19 go down and see the foreman. When I went down to see the 20 foreman, boy, he was all upset. He says, "We have been 21 working hard to get this thing out. We got that car here 22 all ready and we were going to get it out' tomorrow, and now 23 we are going to lose the money because we didn't get the job 24 out."
\
25 Well, when I explained to him how much money we. were l
61 I
going to lose if we didn't pass the test- and then agreed that 2
I was going to stay there all night and we were going to 3
calculate the performance as we went along and everything 4
was all set, well, then he began to be part of the team, t
5 Then he told the fellows, "Now, you make sure that l
6 you hold that s uper heat, you hold that pressure, and I
7 anything he says, the engineer says you do, you do." j l
8 He said, " Hey,' you guys , let's go over and let's 9 get the flatcar. We can still make this delivery date 10 tomorrow." And they did.
11 But without that feedback the whole thing would 12 have failed in both directions. So, it'.s training your
, 13 middle management, your first line of nanagement, that it's 14 4
crucial to having people understand why or what you have done 15 about .their suggestions.
16 .
MR. DIRCKS: This saves to much agony later on.
17 If on the exit interview the employee said, "Well, I raised 18 a concern and no one did anything about it," then the issue 19 doesn't become, the proper installation of the hardware, was 20 it all right. Then we launch off on the investigation about 21
. whether or not somebody disregarded some concern, and we 22 start unraveling that. '
23 MR. MARTIN: That's turning out to be the most 24 difficult aspect of these, is trying to unravel, t
5 MR. COLLINS: I think also that -- I think there p , - - _ - , , , . -_ ~ _
. m. _
..m.. . _ _ _ . . - _ _
62 I has to be a recognition that when you are dealing with that 2
first level of manager in construction, it's not the same as 3 dealing with the first level manager in operations .
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, that's true.
5 MR. COLLINS: That man came up through the ranks 6 the hard way and he is going to push, and he's going to 7 push because that's the way he was taught. They didn't 8 send him to Harvard to teach him how to be a manager and 9 understand all of the human behavior problens.
10 He was taught, I've got to get the job done and 11 I'm going to get it done the best way I know how because 12 th at 's what my boss, who came up the hard way too, told me 13 to do. I think there is not that recognition now.
g' 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree there are differences.
15 But nevertheless, these feelows who come up the hard way 16 are not unaware of the importance of keeping people 17 knowledgeable about things they want to know.
18 MR. COLLINS: You know, they don't have that 19 psychiatric -- that psychology training; they don't have the 20 human behavior factor training and it's different from 21 your management.
22 And I'm not, you know, I'm not making -- I'm saying 23 we are dealing with different people.
24 CHAIdMA.N PALLADINO: Oh, I agree. I didn't argue 25 one bit with that. There are the street wise people that
63 e
1 know how to handle others and maybe we have to get them to 2
think in terms of handling them the way they ought to be 3
h andled.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, you want to try another 6 topic? I must --
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I just would hope that 8
the staff will think about whether -- one, whether we'can I 9
pull together some elements and, two, whether there is :
10 !
something more that we need to do to make sure that we are 11 getting eve rybody doing it.
l 12 MR. DIRCKS: Okay. I don't want to promise too 13 much. I think we are due to come to the Commission again ,
14 with the QA --
15 '
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE : Maybe that's a good 16 place to look at it.
17 MR. DIRCKS: -- and that is a place to factor in is a lot of these thoughts. If they are not in there already, 18 we can start working on it.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You want to try another topic?
22 MR..DIRCKS: It's John Collins on the transportation 23 emergency problem.
24 MR. COLLINS: In December, the staff sent out to 25 i
the Commission SECY-83-514 with the statement of policy on 1
~ _ _ _ _ - m ._. m _1 e: . u n- m e. w;cs - n . w . w , - 4 . y . ., .. . ,
.w ,
ej 64 l
1 handling of transportation accidents involving radioactive I
?. mate rials .
3 A little on the background and need for the policy 1
4 is, there has been a number of letters written from various '
5 states and local officials asking us to try to define what !
6 our role is in the event of a transportation accident, and !
7 also by the treatment that we received in the media so l 8 often times.
9 Most people have a perception that'the NRC because 10 of its technical expertise , its resources, that we have that 11 lead responsibility in the event cf a transportation accident 12 when in fact we really don 't have that. But it is not a --
13 we don't have a clear policy statement to that effect.
. 14 A number of other Federal agencies play a part 15 also in this. I think the paper tries to elucidate the 16 responsibility of all the agencies involved, not only the l 17 NRC. And it also tries to capture the fact that the state 18 does have the initial lead role.
19 We are there as an agency to provide technical 20 assistance to a state if a state requests that assistance 21 from us.
22 We also have, of course, the Memorandum of 23 Understanding with the Department of Transportation which 24 also has a responsibility. But that MOU does not really t
25 discuss the responsib'ility of the agencies in the event of a
65 e
1 transportation accident involving radioactive materials.
2 I think this paper new attempts to cover all those ,
3 issues and at least tries to define the responsibilities I
4 of the other agencies. !
5 FEMA also has a responsibility which they published 6- a policy statement involving emergency accidents, but did l
1 7 !
not really discuss the role of all the agencies. So, it
~
8 fell short.
9 I think now this paper attempts to at least 10 capture the role the NRC has. We are there as investigating 11 the facts of the accidents, but that is an investigation 12 after the fact, it's not one that occurs immediately.
13 We, of course, would respond to the request of a 14 state, if the state so requested us.
15 It also identifies in here that DOE has a full 16 program under their Federal Monitoring and Radiological 17 Assessment program, operating in some 30 locations, with 18 the expertise and the monitoring to handle radioactive 19 accidents, transportation accidents. But of course it
.:2 does now define for at least the NRC and the states that 21 our role is not the lead role and that we are going to assist M if we are requested. We will follow, we,will gather. ,
23 information and we will make an evaluation of the event.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Will that policy statement
(
2 do the trick alone? What I am thinking of, it needs to be
66 e
1 advertised, it needs to be brought up in State- Liaison 2 meetings.
3 MR. COLLINS: It will be advertised, it will be f
i 4 in the Federal Register. There is a proposal to go to the 5 Federal' Register with it. It would go to the states and 6
it would go to a " Note to the Editors" indicating --
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I.was thinking we have meetingsi 8
of state people periodically in our state program.
9 MR. DIRCKS: In putting the paper together, it 10 was discussed with the states.
11 MR. COLLINS: With the states.
12 MR. DIRCKS: And once we move , forward with it, 13 there will be more meetings with the states. I think the 14 states are generally supportive of this arrangement.
l 15 MR. COLLINS: Yes, they are.
16 MR. DIRCKS: We have coordinated with the 17 Department of Transportation and the Federal Emergency 18 Management Agency and other interested groups.
19 We would intend, if the Commission wanted to get 20 into, you know, a discussion of the paper with John Davis 21 and --
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: It's up to'the Commission.
i 23 This meeting stimulated me to look at 514 and I wrote on 24 here, " Hey, I'm ready to ' tote after I hear the discussion 25 tomorrow." But if Commissioners would like to hear nore,-
i I
..s __
67 1 it. might be worthwhile.
2 I do point out, I do have to leave a 4 o' clock to 3 _go across to another reeting.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Let's go on to the last 5 topic, then?
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But you can continue without
?
7 me. I would like to hear somef on the last topic.
I
- 8 I would suggest to Commissioners that if you 9 haven't acted on the paper, you pull it out and act on it.
10 It's a very worthwhile approach.
11 MR. DIRCKS: You want to move to the last topic?
~
12 Ne thought that 's a round robin and we can, 'if you like, 13 start with Jim Keppler. He has not had the lead on any i
n 14 one of these things and he night want to start off the
- 15 discussion and proceed down the line.
! 16 . MR. KEPPLER: I 'm not sure what the interest of 17 the Commission was on this.
j 18 (Laughter) 19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Anything, really.
20 MR. KEPPLER: I would --
] 21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Just get on the couch.
I i
j . . 22 (Laughter) ,
- 23 MR. KEPPLER
- I think from your point of view
! 24 that the program of regionalizing certain activities and 25 putting the regional offices under the EDO has really resulted
68 !
1 in an improved communication and coordination with the 2 office directors. Everything used to be funneled through
. 3 I&E before and we really weren 't dealing that much with
~
4 NRR directly and NMSS directly.
5 When I look at the experiences that I had this
- 6 past year in various areas', I would say that I felt the 7 assistance given to the region by the office directors was 8 very good. I felt that I had an opportunity for feedback ?
9 into their prograns that I didn't have before, and I would 10 have to say I think that perhaps the biggest plus in the i
11 regionalization program was this improved coordination. <
12 We have had some very difficul.t cases out in !
13 Region III this last ye a r', the Shell well case, the recent 14 problem with Diablo fire could have both been very nasty 15 incidents. i 16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What was that? I am i
17 demonstrating my ignorance.
18 MR. KEPPLER: That was'the contamination -- they 19 drilled into a source out there and spread contamination .
20 all over the area out there. In fact, we are just now 21 wrapping that case up.
1 22 But if mishandled, that could hsve been very messy, l 1
23 very nasty -- politically as well as from a health and 24 safety point of view. ,
t 25 I thought there was very excellent coordination' l
__.. _ -. . . - - . _ _ _ _ . .. . _ .__ _ _ . - . ~ . . _ _ . . - . _. -- - - . . - - -
69 e
1 in the case between NMSS and Region III, and promptly 2
dealing with the circumstances out there.
3 MR. DIRCKS : Let me, on that case we always 4
appear.with sad stories.
5 ,
COMMISSIONER ROBERTS : Did you get some 6 complinents on that?
7 MR.-DIRCKS: We did. It became a success story. ,
8 If you have time to go back and take a look at it, it 9
resulted, I think, in very favorable reactions towards the 10 agency.
11 I think the inspector who was in Jim's shop who 12 suspected som ng and did some extra detective work, 13 followed various trails and discovered a major problem. I 14 think he saved a lot of potential harm te public health and 15 safety.
16 .
It's a very good story of how'the agency should 17 work and could work.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can I go back to something 19 you said earlier?
20 MR. KEPPLER: Yes.
21
. COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: This is tangentially 22 related to this. You said you really didn 't have a g~ood .
23 fix on the state of affairs at a number of the plants. You
- 24 are not sure --
25 MR. KEPPLER: In construction?
?
. 70 o
5 1- COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: The bad reports mean that 2 things are really bad, or the good reports mean that ' things 3 are really good.
4 What do we do about this?
i 5 MR. KEPPLER: Well, I think one of the things we j 6 have been trying to do is to do more inspections out there, ,
7 more hardware oriented inspections, and we require the
'8 ' licensees to play back to us, if you will, the assurances 9 that they have that the plants are built properly.
I 10 I'm hopeful that maybe we 'll get another CAT 11 inspection at one of the sites out there. But it's like l -
12 Jim said. You have to really rely not only on the s
13 construction program but you have to rely on the testing i
14 programs that go with it to build your total confidence.
15 But we can't tell you, averaging two inspectors 16 out at the site per year, that those plants don't have any i
17 problens to them from meeting a code or --
l 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : Well, any problem is 19 different from the problens one really worries about. It 20 seems to me if we are not doing the right thing, then we 21 ought to do -- is there something more, something different?
1' CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: The messag,e I get is that 23 they get a great deal of benefit from the CAT teams.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes, but you got three CAT k'" 25 teams.
i _
t !
e 71 j 1
CHAIR 11AN PALLADINO: Oh, I know.
2 COMMISST.ONER GILINSKY: They can be at three places ,
3 so you know something about three reacrors. '
And that's 4-really the question where you use your resources on a reactor 5
or a construction program.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Maybe we need to reorganize 7
to do CAT inspections at appropriate times on each one ,
6 8 of them. ~
9 MR. KEPPLER: All I can tell you is --
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can you do that' I don't 11 think you can do that.
12 MR. O'REILLY: Well, that 's what we are doing now.
13 That is in effect what our inspection program is. But you 14 are refocusing it, it all occurred one time. So, I don't 15 think one can replace the other.
16
. The other thing is that you could over-check.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: But to give a reference point.
18 for confidence, how many people are on these CAT teans?
19 MR. O'REILLY: With consultants and everything 20 else, it is as high as twelve.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: About twelve people? -
M COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But they do heavily use, 23 I gather, consultants.
24
. MR. O'REILLY: Oh, yes, they do. Yes, they do.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: To a certain extent.it l
~
l k '72 I i they are available.
-2 MR. MURLEY: They put in 2,000 inspection hours, 3 for example, typically.
I 4
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what do you put in on 5 a typical plant a year?
6 MR. COLLINS: About 1,900 -- about 2,000 inspector 7 hours. ,
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY; So, it's about equal to a 9 year. i 10 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, but you have to look at -- those 11 hours are rated up to generalist. If you are talking about
~
12 how much do you look at welding, okay, you will find if 13 you put these consultants'on there three or four weeks on 14 this, you will find that it doesn't add up. }
15 MR. COLLINS: It 's a concentrated effort versus I 16 what the effort you have on a region base. You are just.
17 looking at a small sampling. If you throw somebody out there 18 for four weeks to concentrate in that effort, that's a lot 19 more detail you are working on.
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It's very heavily work 21 oricnted, too.
22 MR. O'REILLY: You have to look at the numbers and 23 understand how they work.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
i 25 MR. KEPPLER: I had another problem that way, too
e
- 73 1 ,
because with the problems that surfaced at Zimmer and l 2
Midland, I had to dump resources from other plants onto those 3 problers. And so then playing " catch-up" football right i 4 now with Byron and Bradewood.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I wasn't thinking that 6
this would be something imposed on each Regional 7
Administrator and say -- with the people you have.
8 I think if the CAT team approach is something 9
we ought to give serious consideration to, it would have to 10 be a broader-based move than just --
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: In addition to the 12 regional effort.
13 MR. DIRCKS: When you in effect had teams --
14 the CAT team was never meant to cever every reactor each 15 '
team with a CAT team. As you went into this CAT inspection 16 you had two objectives:
17 One, to see how to get a fix on uniformity among 18 regions and whether the regional inspection teams are 19 performing correctly. It was a quality control effort.
20 Two, as I keep saying, it was also to indicate 21 whether IMPO was missing any broad areas and whether we 22 should be following up more aggressively behind IMPO.-
! 23 It was those two objectives.
! 24 i
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I appreciate that those j 25 were the objectives. But what I am hearing is that they give I
-s. ,- ,_ -. . - , , , . . , , - - - , y-,- ,--.r-.,- -- --
l 74 ,
e 1 a great deal of benefit to the regions to establish a 2 reference point for confidence, if nothing more .
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY : And what is the result? _
4 I mean, in terms of inspections and how well IMPO is doing --
5 MR. DIRCKS: Right.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What are we concluding?
7 MR. DIRCKS: I think what you are going to have 8 to do is go down the list, and you have to hear from Jim 9 Taylor who runs the CAT program.
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Let's hear from him.
11 MR. TAYLOR: You have had quite a number of these 12 inspections. .
13 MR. TAYLOR: I think the CAT team is going far 14 deeper in hardware, which I think the Regional Administrators 15 pointed out, than our routine inspection program does.
16 With the consultants and with the staff that we 17 ' have, we have particularly oriented the inspections to hard-18 ware, and we particularly oriented them to hardware that 19 has been th rough the process by the licensee and his a
20 contractors. That is, we try to look at areas that have 21 had the QC application by the contractor, by the --
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what is your conclusion M about -- without pointing any fingers , keep out the names --
24 of the degree of uniformity in inspection in the various 25 regions and_ the cegree of effectiveness of IMPO inpsections?
U . =:,;L;: r_y- - ' ~*
_ ' :. / ~
- ' ~
< [ eg.Q l
75 l
1 MR. TAYLOR: Well, let me address the uniformity.
2 We have not ceen major holes in the regional inspection. I 3
think if the licensee programs are running reasonbly well, 4
the routine program confirms that -- which I think Jim t
5 O'Reilly emphasized. '
6 If there are troubles that the licensee has not 7
gotten on top of, I think the team-type inspection -- which l 1
8 some of the regions have been running themselves -- helps l 9
to identify that.
i 10 We did find out -- we have found out -- l
. i 11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I am talking about --
12 MR. TAYLOR: -- holes in the program.
13 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, I'm not talking 14 about major holes. But I'm talking about this general --
15 MR. TAYLOR: We have not seen --
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: --
level of inspection.
17 11R . TAYLOR: -- situations where we can point and 18 say that the regional program has failed because it didn't 19 carry out what it was assigned to do.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Did they look about the 21 -
s ame to you?
22 MR. TAYLOR: Across five regions? Yes. I thick U
generally the conbination of resident -- each resident has 24 his own capability.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So, they are roughly
E -
J i !
!, 76 1 comparable.
2 MR. TAYLOR: I think they are comparable . :-:aybe 3 one of the Regional Administrarors would want to conr.ent on 4
th at , but I think we see differences of capability in 5 individual residents , depending on their backgrounds. Some 6 of them are a lot more experienced and we would expect that.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And what do you have to '
~
8 say daout IMPO?
9 MR. TAYLOR: So far, we are still evaluating the 10 IMPO construction program. But our original impression is l 11 that a great deal of what they are looking at is in-process.
12 Now, we do our routine program and even the CAT, 13 for as much as it's out the re , and the other team i
14 inspections, we do a combination of in-process. But we .
I i
15 very definitely take a look backwards. We take a look at 16 completed work, completed radiographs. We go far deeper 17 than the IMPO program in that sense of concentrating on 18 areas that presumably have been through the entire process 19 by the licensee and his contractor.
20 That is a major distinction between the two types 21 of programs.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Well, where is this leading 23 you, then, in evaluating IMPO, the IMPO effort? l 24 MR. TAYLOR: We are still working. As part of the M QA study we give you a perspective on what we think of the l
l
O
- 77 1
l IMPO program. I think the IMPO program is doing some good.
I 2
f COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Can't you give us a hint?
l 3 J MR. TAYLOR: Well, I can -- as I said it --
4
i 5
PAT program, we saw, you know, the program that was in ef fect 6
l that IMPO was doing, and we thought very highly of it. And ,
7 l you permitted us to back of f on our PAT team to three or 8 four a year. '
9 The CAT teams, we thought that we would have the 10 same result. But IMPO did not have its program in place 11 yet. We were going on the "come" but we said, "Four CAT
~
12 team inspections a year" provided that IMPO 's program came 13 up to snuff.
14 I don 't think it's there yet and we are concerned.
15 We are going to look at it in the next half year or so to .
16 see if we have to increase the CAT program because IMPO 17 has not come up to what we would like to see it.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It sounds like they are 19 doing better on operation than they are in --
20 MR. DeYOUNG: On operation.
21 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Have you communicated that 22 to IMPO? '
23 MR. DeYOUNG: Yes.
24 MR. TAYLOR: Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have they made no significant
O s 78 1 progress?
2 MR. DIRCKS: I think they are trying to change 3
and we are trying to, you know, talk some more and so on.
4 Jim is down there --
5 MR. TAYLOR: They are spending a much shorter time 6
on the site than we are, typically, a much shorter time.
7 CHAIRMAN PAELADINO: Do you want to hear some more?
8 MR. DIRCKS: Well, why don ' t we try Jim?
9 MR. O'REILLY: On the relationships?
10 I have really been very pleased -- not dissimilar ;
11 !
to Jim Keppler.
But the thing that I like best about it ;
12 l is the fact that the increase increase in responsibilities 13 of the Regional Administrators has introduced a very strong .
I 14 operational impact on tne o Jfice dirt -tors. They now 15 are really -- they wouldn ' t have -- are really in e f fect 16 almost required to be involved with the regional offices on 17 problems and I find this orientation, this operational 18 orientation, to be very beneficial.
19 And it also, certainly, has increased the 20 cooperation between the offices.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: If you could maybe pick M
an example and talk about how the responsibilities get 23 allocated between you all and the offices. Maybe dealing 24 with generators is a good example. I think you all have that --
just about all of you have that problem in one plant or
)
D 79 1
another.
2 How do you sort scmething like that out in terms 3
of what you all 'have respcnsibility for; what NRR has 4
responsibility for. How does it work?
5 MR. COLLINS: Well, as a result of the Board 6
notification or a Commission notification about a potential 7
problem, of course, in the interim the vendor inspection 8
t program had already identified through a pre-inspection --
8 there was that problem.
10 The lead, of course, shifted to NRR because it r
11 1
was generic to a number of . plants. But the vendor input still 12 was a very vital part to this. -
- 13 Through communications between Region IV and 14 Darrell Eisenhut a meeting was established to have the 15 owners come in and both NRR, Harold made a presentation or 16 Eisenhut made a presentation, and so did myself and Eam II Barnes on the inspecticn effort.
18 So, it was a clear-cut dialog. NRR has the lead 18 on it, that 's correct . NRR has the lead. But it was a good 20 dialog between the regional offices and the other regional 21 .
offices because all the other regions were involved in it, too.
22 ~
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: How do you make the 23 decision on how has the lead on something like that, when a 24
, problem comes up?
k" 26 MR. COLLINS: I think that one was very clear. It
^
o d 80 I went across a number of plants and it was very generic in [
2 nature, it involved the owners groups and it was_ clear that 3
NRR should indeed have the lead on that.
4 We would request or they would request -- in the I-i.
5 case of Vi Lavalle it was requested NRR would have the lead ;
6 I on it, and we just set a little line. We all worked for the ;
7 NRC and that's it.
8 MR. DIRCKS: they had discussions between the 9
regional offices and, say, Harold or Ed, on a particular 10 problem and it usually sorts out that Harold will come in and 11 say, "I'll take it and you do the following."
12 If there is any sort of discussion further, they r' 13 will come in to my office ' and we 'll get on the phone, we 'll 14 talk among all three parties.
15 So, it has worked out. I don't think there have 16 been nany gripes that have come up. I think it is looked 17 upon as a corporate decision-making process and I think, 18 Jim, the most recent thing --
19 MR. O'REILLY: Yes, sir. I thought that recent 20 case was very good, really, and I was very pleased with it 21 when the issue was identified, quite extensive generic M implications occurring on boiling water reactors with -
23 problems we had in pipes and everything else, and the 24 adequacy of containment.
25 ~
Although, as you would expect, we are not interested
81 1
in giving up our. responsibilities, but in that case -- like 2
in all the cases I can think of, I don't think there has ever been a problem of whar of fice.
3 I
'I'm sure you could make 4
up one but practically speaking, I don't think this occurred.
5 That problem is identified. It was transferred 6
to NRR and the reactiveness of the agency and NRR, I think,
.7 was very responsible . I&E was heavily involved. All the 8
other regions were involved who have boiling water reactors 9 i operating or under construction, and the resources -- the i f
10 !
actual people -- were assembled, met, coordinated and, you {
11 know, a senior individual in charge at the si~tes -- I 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: At included which?
/ 13 MR. O'REILLY: On the Hatch, I'm sorry. The 14 Hatch-II event that was detected,last Friday.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Pipe cracking.
16
- MR. DIRCKS: Ed, do you want to add anything 17 generically to this thing?
18 MR. CASE: No.
19 (Laughter) 20 MR. O'REILLY: I can use another issue.
21 (Laughter) 22 MR. COLLINS: I think another go'od example 'of 23 this coordination between offices is on the contaminated 24 steel problem. That involved international programs , state 25 programs, all of the regions, I&E, NMSS , and the whole
~
g 82 i thing was coordinated so that we were projecting a front.
2 Even the Of fice of Public Affairs was involved. And initially, 3 NMSS has had the lead, but the lead shifted to I&E because 4 at first it was felt that this was, could have been an NRC 5 licensed piece of equipment. ,
6 Once it was established that it was not, we shifted a
7 the lead over then to I&E. But the focus is still there. l 8 There is a focal point Ne all can go to.
9 And then, in cooperation with the Mexican 10 authorities and also with our own State Department, and 11 also the U.S. Customs Office. So, there were an awful lot 12 of agencies involved in that thing. -
/ 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you have any problems 14 with communications with the offices here? Everything can' t 15 be --
16 (Laughter) 17 MR. DIRCKS: I wouldn 't say there are no problems ,
18 and there have been problens.
19 CHAIRMAN PLALLADINO: My main reason for trying 20 to identify them, so that we can be constructive in helping 21 you.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Do you want to close the M meeting, Joe? ,
24 (Laughter) 25 MR. DIRCKS: Frequently things don't go right and
R_n ,.s.
_.n. 9$lM.- w$.%&..
Ts aj@a.Elt$2pppfWif,k?M.$di%y
.m .. a .
- .i.i
- ...-rx. -&.. .' Y ~ v;- ,r ,.;?M L.}R '
y . ;,,
. . _ . . - _, ~ . _ _ . _
0 83 ,
I never has any Regional Administrator had to call me up and 2
say, "I've got a problem and I want to tell you about it."
3 Jim, you and I have talked several times on issues and I -
4 think we --
5 MR. O'REILLY: They are not very bashful, the 6 Regional Administrators , I don't think.
-7 CHAIRMAN PALLhDINO: What 's that?
8 MR. O'REILLY: We are not very bashful.
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I didn't think you were 10 bashful.
i 11 MR. DIRCKS: I don't think there are any festering i 12 problems that anyone is holding back and say, "I don't like
/
13 it, I'm afraid that the agency has not addressed it."
14 If there are those instances where there is a 15 disagreement, we hack them out quite literally. They are 16 not* very quiet meetings. I don 't think our meetings have 17 been known for their low intensity of noise level. They 18 come out pretty --
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The office directors, 20 if they had any comment they want to make , they would do that.
21 MR. KEPPLER:
They love us.
22 (Laughte r) '
23 MR. DeYOUNG: I have one thing to say before you 24 do leave, that you ought to talk to them about the level of 25 stress that they feel.
' noticed a tremendous increase in the
G a
84 1 stress level that Regional Administrators have to face, anc 2 I know they feel it. You ought to check with them on it.
3 COMMISSIONER GILI:: SKY : What about our stress 4 level? (Laugh ter) 1 5
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: What could be stressful .
I 6
in the life of a Regional Administrator? I 7
(Laughter) 8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I can say I have experienced the 9
stress level in particular instances.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE : Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And they can see a limit when 12 the stress level changes. But there may be something that 13 you would like to bring up en this point that maybe can lead 14 to some help there.
15 MR. KEPPLER: A. stress reduction.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Stress reduction.
17 MR. DI RCKS : Well, I think we have tried to act 18 as if we were one agency and it's important, I think, at 19 all levels that we transmit loyalty up the line and loyalty 20 down the line and support for the actions.
21 If we've got problems, I think, at the staff 22 level we never hesitate to talk about them. But generally, 23 I think, if a problem occurs at any level, I think the 24 responsible official will take the burden of the problem --
25 even though he might not have been aware of it or she might
5RLW J6N%Q7MWR fWQW?L't R {WN$E$WNR$S$K. .-.
~ yM a m d { E dsd & g e b g "}40-1.- w M'-d%+ &.'-#m 3 Qyr5
- 2 9% y aQ } h Q }-}/ W ra% rA L B M d 1
~
a.,u--..--....-
- . - - . . - . . . ... .-. . .-. - .. ~ . . . . . -
6 85 1 not have been aware of it -- and will stand up and defend 2 the rest of the group if he feels that it's j us tifiable .
3 I think it's important that we do rank this as a single 4 entity, a single agency a'nd present that appearance to all. t 5 I don't think we would like to turn back and attack our own l 6 forces. I
, i I
'7 If it's justified we will, but if not, we all 8 stand together. I think if others, people here at the 9 table would like to pick up on that s ubj ect . Jim, do you 10 want to do it in open or closed?
11 (Laugh ter) 12 MR. KEPPLER: I would like to discuss the issue l' 13 further, but I would like it to be in a closed session.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At this point, we are 15 going to have to do this on another occasion.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: What's that? Yes, I do have 17 to leave at four.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY; I wouldn't want you to 19 miss it.
20 (Laughte r) 21 -
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I wouldn't want to miss 22 it. I would be interested. I was willing, if there are 23 other comments that Regional Administrators have on inter-24
, action.
25 MR. MURLEY: I'm of course still learning the
e 1 I
e 86 1
regional job but one aspect of it, I think, that has 2
impressed me the most being out there is that the regional 3
staff bring a unique perspective to issues, to safety 4
issues , - that you don ' t see back here in all the paper at 5 headquarters.
6 I say that coming out of 15 years in the paper 7
back here in headquarters. ,, And I wonder whether it's really 8
taken advantage of as much as it should be. .'
8 I think Jim O'Reilly alluded to it, that there '
10 are people out there who really have spent their whole !
11 careers kicking around the operating plants. l l
12 i
Maybe to fix ideas a little better,-I'll give an 13 example.
14 COfiMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
15 MR. MURLEY: You had an issue in front of you 16 a few months ago, it was Maine Yankee, and the issue was 17 whether we ought to shut the plant down because of the t
18 l financial qualifications of the utility, the licensee. And
' 18 I think Harold Denton had denied a 2206 petition to shut.
20 down. It was in front of you for review, I guess, for 21 abuse of discretion.
j 22 And it was decided on a ' fairly narrow legal ground 23 but nonetheless ; the Commission did' ask the staff to go back 24 and take a look, what do you think of the merits of this case.
I Wi And you asked NRR to -- I mean -- yes', NRR to look at it, but a
i
- - ,-- - . , - ,,--.,-.,,c- -- . ,.----- -nn- .nr-- = .---,-...--,en, a.-,, . , , , , - .
O
. 87 1
you also asked the region to take a look.
2 The two staf fs approached it quite differe..tly.
3 I
j NRR looked at it from the point of view of, how are they i
4 1 I doing with -- are they up to speed on implementing 0737 ;
5 items and the post-TMI fixes.
It was more of a paper review, 6
quite frankly, and th.at's us e f u l .
7 .
Whe re as in the region we went out and took at
, l I
8 look at the plant, and we talked with the people and we 9
found out that they are building a simulator that they 10 didn ' t have to. We found out -- and we asked the plant 11 manager and our own resident, "Do you see signs where they 12 are skimping on spending money."
13 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
14 MR. MURLEY: And we j ust didn ' t see it. We spent 15 a couple of says there.
16 So, on some problems like that, you come at it --
17 the headquarters staff and the regional staf f, and I think 18 that 's ve ry use f ul . And we don 't get asked enough to do 19 that, I'm afraid.
20 Now, having said that, I don't think we need to 21 -
review three-inch thick final products when they come out.
/
- 22 This QA product, I don't think in spite of the fact that we 23 are going to review it -- we just got it last week and it's 24 not really, in my j udgment , probably doesn't reflect the 25 regional viewpoint. Whether it should or not, I don't know
o, 88
- 1. but reviewing something -in the final stages is not the same 2 as having input.
3-CFAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I would hope- that the regions 4-are involved in QA because I think their input is very 5 valuable.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, I think Tom makes 7
a very good point. I think the regions and the Regional 8
Administrators do have 'a very valuable perspective on a 9
wide range of issues.
10 I guess I would hope as well that whether we have
- 11 !
done it enough in the past or not, that in the future at I j
12 least we can make sure that you all are-built in earlier on 13 and maybe on a more inform' al basis in the process, rather 14 than just being given documents at 15 the last minute to review and comment on bec ause I really do think on a wide range of 16 issues that you do bring a perspective that we don 't 17 otherwise get, or sometimes don't get in as clear a fashion 18 as we otherwise would.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think we ought to get Tom 20 there'when we have to answer some of the questions on 21 regionalization before the congressional committee.
22 (Laughter) '
M CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think that was one very 24 good example.
25 i COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
i i
i
_ _ _ - . _ _ _ . - - - - - - ' = - * ~ ' " ~ ' ' ' ' "
. .. _ . u .-
e 89 4
- 1 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Other comments by other 1
2 Regional Administrators, or questions by Commissioners?
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would just make two i
- 4 comments. One, I think it would be a very good idea for us l- 5 to discuss -- maybe in a little more private manner -- some 6
of the issues that Jim was beginning to raise or identify. ;
i j '7 Whether that can be done in a closed meeting or not, it ,
' i 1-8 seems to me we can either do it in a closed meeting if that I i {
li 9 is permissible or if it is not, do it with one or two of us. i, 10 But I think that 's something that would be a good I l 11 thing for us to discuss a little bit more in a little more 12 informal setting.
13 But,at least from the standpoint of this neeting, i
- 14 I think this was a real good suggestion, to have a meeting 1 15 with all the Regional Administrators. I know that we all
~
- 16 see them from time to time, but it's mostly individually when
- 17 we are traveling around. I think this is a good thing to do.
r
- 18 I think it's a real benefit to get all of us together at V -
s 19 once and talk through some of these things. I hope we will 20 do it on a regular basis, q, 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I agree. I also will say s' , .
i i
22 that the next time we do this, Victor has my vote for
! u closing at least half of the meeting, j 24 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS : Let our hair down.
I J 25 (Laugh ter)
o
90 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I think this has been 2
very effective dialog. If we need a close meeting to let 3
our hair down more and we have a basis for closing it --
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's the important 5
part.
6 (Laughter)
I CHAIRMAIl PALLADINO: -
I would certainly support it.
8 :
Well, let me end by thanking you all for taking 9
the time to come here and discuss your thoughts. I hope 10 that future dialog will bring about improvements in the 11 whole operation.
12 MR. O'REILLY: Thank you.
/ 13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Any other comments?
I4 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS : -Thank you.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We stand adjourned.
17 (Whereupon, at 4 o' clock p.m. the meeting of the 18 Commission was adjourned.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 CERT!?!CATE OF P?.CCEEDI::Gs i ;
t
- ! i i !
, This is to certify that the attached proces:'.i. qs be f:re :he q ::RC CO:01:55 ION 4 l C- 1 1
5 In the matter of: Meeting with Regional Administrators !
, Date of Proceeding: Tuesday, February 7, 1984
, Place of Proceedi.g: Washington, D. r.
s were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
, transcript for the file of the Commission.
10 is Elizabeth Hansen Official Reporter - Typed it
'3 h/ ' MdMU i.
Official Reporter - Signature 15 e
16 .
17 is 2
19 2o l
t 21 ,
22 I
2s 2n l I i
! 25
- ,TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 7
RtcisrEnco emortssioNAL REPoMTERS NonfoLK, VIRGINIA
c o.
O
\
TOPICS FOR MEETING WITH REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS FEBRUARY 7, 1984 (1) RESIDENT INSPECTION TOUR LENGTH AND ROTATION POLICY OBJECTIVITY CROSS TRAINING -
(2) ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT INTERACTION BETWEEN REGIONAL OFFICES AND 01 AND IE SCREENING
~
LAST-MINUTE ALLEGATIONS ,
s (3) TRANSPORTATION POLICY STATEMENT (SECY-83-514) >
HOW THE POLICY COULD HELP THE REGIONS (4) RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE OFFICE DIRECTORS AT HEADQUARTERS.
t S
/
r m
=
la.o
$IO3d[- t car ,4s1 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
5 6 In the Matter of:
7 8
9 '
to DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY 11 FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS 12 13 O ,,
15 16 17
- Fo1 -8F 83 f 21
(
_.b.Qk()Q.[A bh -
23 (gQ 3,/
24 Location: Washington, D.C. Pages: 1 - 65
(,) 25 Date: Wednesday, September 5,1984 FREE STATI REPORTING INC. :'::
Court a , rtine e Depeestions :.3 D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Anne,. 169 6136 . _,te t
. 4 1
s 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k/ -
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
5 .
DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY 6
FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS 7 '
8 9
OPEN MEETING 10 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
12 Room 1130 Washington, D.C.
13 September 5,1984
{ s}
. 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 15 2:00 p.m.
16 17 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
18 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 19 THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 20 FREDERICK BERNTHAL, Commissioner LANDO ZECH, JR., Commissioner 21 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
22 H. Plaine, General Counsel '
23 Martin Malsch D. Eisenhur.
W. Dircks A. Rosenthal 24 S. Chilk s,
G. Cunniham
) 25 L. Chandler FREE STATI REPORTING INC.
Court Repetting e Depeeltions !
D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 . .I
3 c.
1 1
. -l 2 DISCLAIMER 3
4 This is an un' official transcript of a meeting of 5 the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 6 meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
7 This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited and it may contain inaccuracies. .
8 9
The transcript is intended solely'for general 10 information purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103,.it is 11 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 12 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this
, 13 transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations 14 or beliefs. No plead [ng or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, 16 except as the Commission may authorize.
17 18 19 20 21 \
o 22 23
, 24
__x _ -.
~"
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reporting
- Depositlens ~
. D.C. Aree 241-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134
v f,*rf};_D3:?& ? K~ ;Q{n ~<*." ~~
~
~'
' ~['-
"D ?
2 1
PROCEEDINGS 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Good afternoon. The purpose of
/
3 this afternoon's meeting is to consider the matter of how 4
NRC should treat allegations of safety problems thatjyrise 5 late in the licensing process for a plant and near 'o t the 6 time of the NRC licensing decision.
7 On the one hand, no allegation of a safety problem at a 8 nuclear plant that is about to be licensed can be ignored.
g On the other hand, late allegations having small safety to significance can divert resources from other items of safety
, y significance as the licensing process approaches completion 12 and can lead to unwarranted delays.
13 The NRC staff adopted criteria for managing the
,J g
- resolution of late allegations in the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 15 case. One question for the Commission today is whether or to n t the Diablo Canyon criteria or similar criteria should be 37 broadly used by the NRC staff in treating late allegations 18 in future cases. This is the subject of SECY-84-249(a) .
3, We also have a memorandum dated August 1, 1984, from the Appeal Board Panel Chailrman, Alan Rosenthal, which memo expresses the view that there is a need for rulemaking which would specify requirements regarding the reopening of closed NRC adjudicatory records. Other comments are contained in an earlier memo dated July 6, 1984 from Alan 3
) 25 Rosenthal, also.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
3 1
Today we received from the Chief Administrative Judge m, 2 of the Licensing Boards, Tony Cotter, a memo commenting on 3 Al Rosenthal's memo of August 1. Finally, we have OGC's 4 extensive paper, SECY-84-249, which provides a comprehensive ,,
5 treatment of the question of criteria for handling late 6 allegations. This discussion appears to overlap to some 7 extent the other papers referred to earlier.
8 I would like to start today's meeting by asking OGC to g summarize its points and highlight its recommendations for 10 Commission consideration. Thereafter, I suggest the EDO set 13 forth its views, and then Al Rosenthal and Tony Cotter, if 12 he is here, be given the opportunity to express their views.
13 Following that, we can go on to other comments g and further discussion. _
15 I propose that after discussion the Commission 16 consider what disposition should be given to these papers.
17 Should we ask the staff or OGC to draft a policy statement 18 1r. which the Commission would express its intention to use jg the Diablo Canyon criteria or similar but possibly future, 20 further refined criteria in future esses? Should we ask OGC 7,
to prepara a rulemaking package to follow up on the comments f the Appeal Board, or should we take no action at all at 22 this time?
23 Do other Commissioners have opening remarks?
h
. .j 2s UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No.
PREI STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reporting e Depositlens .
D.C. Aree 141-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 249 4236 - - -
4 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: All right. Then I propose that we
,e s 2 turn the meeting over f-irst to OGC.
Y. ..Y 3 MR. PLAINE: . Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 Just let me make one very brief comment, opening 5
comment, that tackles the back end of what you were just s talking about, and that is that I suppose it is our hope 7 that the discussion today would eventuate in general, 8 possibly specific directions to the staff and dto OGC and to 9 the Panel of Licensing Boards and the Appeal Board panel to 10 get together on whatmight be a policy statement plus any 11 rulemaking changes that seem desirable, and in that way
. 12 bring... bring some further clarity to this rather difficult 13 issue.
rN'-) . . -
.~
14 With that in mind, let me ask Marty Malsch, who draf'ted 15 most of this paper, SECY-84-249, to give a brief rundown on 16 the paper.
j7 MR. MALSCH: Okay. I think that the Chairman stated ja the issue rather well. Our paper was intended to be 39 comprehensive and, therefore, it's not surprising that it 20 overlaps some of the other papers.
21 The issue that we intended to address in the paper is, 22 "Can and should some new and specific criteria be developed 23 to distinguish those allegations that must be resolved before 24 a license is issued from those that need not be resolved
) 25 before a licensing is issued. The objective here is to assuro FREE STATI REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depeelt6 ens D.C. Aree 1611901
- Belt. 46 Annep.149 4236 .
. .a 1
or provide some greater assurance that licensing is delayed 2
only when necessary for the discharge of NRC's statutory a .
3 responsibilities.
4 In addressing this objective we made a number of 5 assumptions, as outlined in the paper. We took as a given 6 that safety is paramount, that licensing decisions must be t 7 based upon all available information, including allegations, a that allegations cannot simply be disregarded without 9 regard to their safety significance, but that the views of 10 outsiders such as allegers, while they may...must be it considered, in the las; analysis it is the NRC's decisions
. 12 and opinions which count because it la NRC which has 13 licensing responsibility.
s / 14 Now the paper does dot address what one might refer to 15 as allegation review management issues. For example, 16 particularly in connection with the Diablo Canyon review, the 37 staff developed some management methods, for example, 18 dedicated project managers, computer tracking of allegations,
,, and the like. We didn't address those kinds of allegation 20 management issues. Rather, we focused on the substantive 21 issue of allegation review criteria.
22 Now in approaching this issue we divided the paper 23 into...or the paper can be divided into two areas: formal 24 reviews and informal reviews. Or, to put it another way, the 25 treatment of allegations or processing of allegations in FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reportine e Depeeltiens
-- D.C. Aree 1411901 e Belt. & Anne,. 149 4234 .
6
. 1 fermnl proceedings, such as formal hearings before licensing 2
boards or formal proceedings before the Commission, and on
%')
3 the other...that's the first area...and the second area is in 4
informal reviews, such as staff reviews of the application in 5
uncontested cases and Commission so-called effectiveness -
6 reviews.
7 By way of illustration, the Commission discussion and 8 treatment of allegations in the Diablo Canyon case has been g
in what this paper would refer to as the " informal" category.
10 It has been in the context of lifting a license suspension, j, which was an informal Commission action, and a Commission
. 12 effectiveness review in a full-power proceeding which we have 13 also classified as an ", informal" action.
(( ),
34 Let me first get to the informal category, first, and 15 here we are talking about, as I indicated, the treatment of to allegations in informal staff reviews and in informal 37 Commission reviews. The basic recommendation in the paper 18 is that the Commission consider issuance of a policy statement 3, with a number of elements, and these elements I think include the criteria which the staff developed for its own informal reviews in the Diablo Canyon case, except that our paper I think generalizes them somewhat so that they are more clearly applicable to other kinds of cases.
Basically what we had in mind was a policy statement
,]
v with the following elements: First, all persons should FREE STATI REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depeeltlens D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 : ; . .
7 1
bring CSfcty infera tion to the attention of the NRC as t 2 promptlyasposspble. Now the Commission would need to
(. ) 3 recognize that this obligation derives from good citizenship 4
and individual self-interest, and probably cannot be enforced s directly against general members of the public, at least not 6 as a practical matter, but we thought it would be useful for 7 the Commission to make this kind of statement.
8 Second, all information, all late allegations, must pass g ,a screening test before any further NRC review is warranted.
10 This test would ask two questions: First, if for purposes of 33 argument the allegation or information is assumed to be true,
. 12 w uld it lead to denial or conditioning of a license or any 13 further investigation or analysis by the NRC; and, second,
()
7 . .,
34 does the information if assumed true provide any new 15 informtion not already considered or under consideration by 16 RC.
37 Thirdly, information bearing on a safety issue which 18 passes this initial screening test and which comes to NRC's 39 attention after the issue has been closed in the staff safety evaluation or, if it is an issue not addressed in the staff safety evaluation, after close of the staff safety evaluation review, ,would be subject to late information- or -latoff allegation criteria unless
- the informatilon 'could 'not" have.M
~
,, provided earlier even with the exercise of reasonable 25 diligence, or whatever delay there may be in providing the PREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Cowt Repeeting e Depeeltions D.C. Area 141 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 . . . , .
g 1
information is excusable.
2 Now the late allegation criteria we have in mind would r, . )
3 be the following: First...this would be in addition, of 4 course, to the screening criteria that I mentioned...a 5 judgment should be made as to the likelihood that full 6 consideration of the information, including if necessary a
, 7 regional inspection or Office of Investigations investigationi a would that unduly de, lay the decision on license issuance?
g If there would be a delay in the proceeding caused by a 10 full and complete treatment of the allegation, a full ji investigation or a full inspection, then the late allegation
. 12 criteria would fully apply and the following would be 13 necessary, would have to be met: The information would have r.. ,
_ _t 4 to be reasonably specific and supporting reasons or facts 15 would have to be included or at least be readily available, 16 and then a judgment would have to be made as to the 37 likelihood that the allegation is true or the information is
,g correct, and this judgment as to the likelihood that theT gg allegation woula be true would be based upon all available g information, including does the source have firsthandQ 21 knowledge or expertise in the area, does-the' source:have ea+
22 a past'.recodd~of reliability or unreliatiility, andgis5 e -- %". 7 t.
lother more credible information to the contrary or whish!
.i supports the allegation.
~ }, Now at this point these criteria are... pretty much PREE STATE REPORTING INC. :-
cowt me,ertine e Depeeltiens .
D.C. Aree 241 1902
- Belt. 46 Annep.249 4234 :; *, , .. .,
9 1
includo tha. criteria which the staff applied in Diablo 2 Canyon. At this point there is a policy judgment called for b. ).
3 on the part of the Commission, and that goes to the 4
remaining criteria which the staff applied in Diablo Canyon, 5 which goes to the safety significance of the allegations. In 6 the criteria in the safety evaluation supplements in 7 Diablo Canyon, the staff asked itself the question: Does a the allegation go to a significant safety issue? Significance g of a safety issue is something that's difficult to judge, 10 We suggest here that what the Commission might consider 3, is a judgment as t'o the degree of significance of the safety
. 12 issue, particularly as related to the licensing action at 13 issue...for example, full power, precritical testing, O
v 34 whatever...and a weighing of the degree of significance of 15 this issue against the public interest in avoiding delay, and to that since safety is a p'aramount, in cases of reasonable 37 doubt the licensing decision will be delayed. But that
,g significance, the basic issue before the Commission is or 3, deals with how one should weight safety significance'and g whether one should weigh significance in the abstract...which we had a difficult tine visualizing, but which the staff may have a better handle on than we do...or should we weigh safety significance in relation to the c;o text of the proceeding and the amount of safety...the amount of delay
] 25 which might be occasioned by a more complete investigation.
PREE STATE REPORTING INC. e court aepeting e Deposittens D.C. Aree 241-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4234 : .-
10 1
Thio pretty much would comprise the policy statement 2
that the Commission might consider for the handling of late
\~/
3 allegations in informal reviews. Now of course it should be 4
stressed that even if an allegation doesn't pass the screenin g S criteria and pass the other tests, it would still be 6 considered by the staff as the staff is still considering 7 allegations in Diablo Canyon as a postlicensing follow-up 8 matter, so even if an allegation didn't pass through these g tests and screening criteria, it wouldn't...that wouldn't be 10 the end of the matter. It wouldn't be ignored. There would 33 still be some follow-up investigation.
, 12 Now thus far we have been talking about informal
,- 13 Commission reviews of the type which the Commission conducted s .. .
34 of allegations in Diablo Canyon. The paper also addresses 15 the treatment of allegations in formal adjudicatory to proceedings, that is to say, hearings before hearing boards, 37 appeals before appeal boards, and what has been referred to 18 as merits Commission reviews of formal decisions by licensing 3, and appeal boards.
Itere our paper addressed two issues, first, the board notification policy and, second, motions to reopen the ,
record, and let me take board notification policy first. The issue here is, do boards get informed of allegations, and if they do, when do they get informed of them? Do they get
~'T J 2s informed of them as soon as the staff receives them or do they FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reportine Depeeltlens D.C. Aree 141 1902 e Belt. & Annep. 149 4134 -
gj 1
g;t inform;d of th:m only after staff has both received them
..)/ 2 and conducted some at least preliminary review or screen to
~
determine their significance to the case?
3 4
The paper, I think, fairly discusses the. pros and cons s
5 of the different approaches to board notification on page 12.
6 A delay in board notification of al allegation pending some
, , 7 staff evaluation would clearly produce more useful informatior t 8 to the decision-maker. . .in this case the licensing board. . .anc, 9 it clearly would also avoid the possible prejudicial effect to of the board receiving allegations which appear to be serious 31 on their face but which, upon some further review, appear to 12 have no substance whatsoever.
13 On the other hand, it has to be stated that an evaluatior q
u___ _ 14 of allegations and perhaps even a preliminary review of 15 allegations is time-consuming. It may require not only staff to technical review but some regional inspection efforts or 37 efforts by the Office of Investigation, and there is some 18 likelihood that a delay could result in uninformed decisions 39 being made after the allegation is filed but before the 20 allegation is evaluated, so you've got competing 21 considerations here.
22 I don't think we intended to take a firm position one way 23 or the other on the board notification issue in our paper. I 24 think we would really defer to the judgment of the licensing 25 boards and appeal boar,ds on this question. They are the ones PREE STATE REPORTING INC. ~~
Court Repecting
- Depeeltions .
D.C. Aree 241-1901
- Belt. & Annep. 169 4236 :...r .
12 1
that d:nl with thaca cocca and they are the ones that are the p 2 beneficiaries or victims, as the case may be, of the board
()
~
3 notification policy.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I don't think they took any 5 position, either, if I read the papers correctly, on board 6 notification.
7 tiR . MALSCH: Well, I think the Appeal Board is 8 suggesting...
g COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: The Appeal Board in Alan's to memo certainly did.
33 MR. MALSCH: The Appeal Board is, I th' ink, suggesting
, 12 that the Commission...
- 31 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, Alan did. Alan did. It m
_) g was his personal thing, yes. '
15 MR. MALSCH: Yes. Well, Alan Rosenthal is suggesting to that the Commission ought to reconsider the board 37 notification policy, at least to the extent of not providing 18 appeal boards and maybe licensing boards with unprocessed, 19 unscreened, unevaluated, raw allegations.
Now the only point we raised in our paper was...for the Commission to consider...is that one might consider whether one ought to change the board notification policy just for allegations or whether this is a part of some broader problem dealing with late information generally, and if one 25 is to change the board notification policy in favor of
~~
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. ~-
Court Reportine e Depositlens D.C. Aree 2611901 e Belt.& Annep. 249-4234
13 1
cynluntion beforo notification one might consider making the c 2 same change for all that information across the board, 3 and not just allegations.
4 But I think it was the intent of our office to really 5 raise this as an issue, and I think we would defer to the 6 licensing and appeal boards as to what kind of policy they 7 think would be most beneficial.
8 on the second point, motions to reopen, we have pointed 9 out in our paper some recent developments in case law on 30 standards for reopening closed records. Since our paper was ji issued there have been some further decisions on this in the
. 12 Diablo Canyon case and I think at this point, given the state 13 of development of the case law, there would be some
(< '
34 substantial benefit in having the Commission address motions 15 to reopen in a rulemaking proceeding. I think the case law 16 has developed to a point where it would be advantageous to 37 spell out where everyone can see it, exactly what the
, ,g Commission standards are for reopening records, and this 39 ought to be done by rulemaking rather than force people to hunt through 15 or so volumes of NRC decisions to find out g the latest case on the subject. I think rulemaking would be appropiate. In fact, I think that's endorsed by both panels.
g Now, finally, let me just raise one issue that the paper raises, and that is the one I touched on before, and that is whether one should treat late allegations as FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depeeltlens 3 D.C. Aree 161 1902 e Belt. & Annep. 249 4136 : -
14 1
a ap:cico cll itccif in formulating guidance and criteria, and 2 in rulemaking and in board notifications, or whether one LL' 3 ought to address a larger issue of the treatment of late 4 information generally. I think our paper suggests some 5 reasons why they might be considered the same, but that's a 6 decision for you to make. Late information is a larger 7 issue than just the treatment of late allegations.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: How Nould you see what we do g different if we include late, broaden that to late to information?
,, MR. MALSCH: I think the discussion fully applies to
, 12 whether you call it late information or late allegations, but
,~ n 13 the focus of the request to us to develop the paper was on N.. 34 late allegations, and certainly the focus of the recent 15 controversy in some of the cases has been on late allegation.
16 nk we see late allegations as just one species of 37 late-developing information. Offhand, we thought that all 18 could be treated under the same set of criteria but it's 39 a question of how large of a problem you want to fight off and try to resolve.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think your paper does make the point accurately, that it's somewhat less meaningful to 23 differentiate between sources of the information rather than focusing on the information itself.
25 MR. MALSCH: Yes. That's true. We had also, we had alsc PREE STATE REPORTING INC. e--
Cemet Reporting e Depositions e D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4236 : :. , u e.
15 +
1 medo ths point that in the base analysis, what's important 3 2 is what the agency itself thinks about the substantiality of
.. 3 the allegations, and from that standpoint it doesn't really 4 make any difference what the allegation source is. The S importance is, is the agency prompted by the allegation or 6 the other source of information or whatever it is, to be 7 concerned about a safety issue. If it's not concerned then 8 whatever you call it...a late allegation, late information...
9 probably sho'uldn't hold up the license. If the staff is to concerned about the Commission's criteria not being met, then 33 you probably ought to hold up the license. In the last
. 12 analysis it comes down to the substance of the thing, and 13 probably more than it does the soure of the information.
s 34 But we raised that for the Commission's consideration, since it in a sense exceeded our charter. We were asked to look into ite allegations and not the broader problem of 37 late-developing information. I think the criteria that we 18 developed for Commission consideration would apply, whether 19 narrow problem of late allegations.
Let me mention two final things.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO. There is a difference, although I
. 22 want to belabor the point. Some of it is known to be information and some of it is sometimes not exactly
', information but hearsy evidence that there may be information,
.j 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting . Depositlens
- l ' ' -f I ' D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6236 -
16 1
I don't know if you equate the two but I do agree, one is a e 2 subset of the broader problem.
()"'
o 3 MR. MALSCH: Well, it seems to me you clearly do not 4 equate the two. I mean, it seems to me that when someone 5 files an allegation that says, you know, the containment is 6 made of Swiss cheese, the fact that someone says the 7 containment is made of Swiss cheese is not as important as 8 what a reviewer, a' knowledgeable reviewer, would think 9 upon seeing the allegation. If his immediate reaction is, 10 "That's nonsense. We've had people crawling over the ij containment for 10 years and it's clearly not made of
. 12 Swiss cheese," then that's the end of the matter.
13 If a knowledgeable reviewer looks at it and would think ry '
g to himself, " Gee, that could be right,".well, then, maybe 15 y u should do a review but it's not so much because of the 16 allegati n that you do a review; it's because the allegation 37 promppted an agency concerned about a safety issue that you 18 should do... ,
, jg COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, but isn't the subject of this meeting late allegations?
MR. MALSCH: Yes.
21 22 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, why are we talking about o
other things, then? It seems to me that late allegations is what we're focusing on, and we've got enough to do to focus on that.
25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Deposialens D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149 6236 . . -
17 1 MR. MALSCH: Well, that's why I say the paper is i\
,_..s 2 entitled " late allegations," the criteria we developed and 3 are recommending deal with late allegations. I just wanted 4
to make the observation that there is a larger problem and, 5 depending on how the Commission wanted to go, what we had 6 developed would I think apply as well to late information as 7 it would to late allegations, but it's your. decision as to a whether you want to bite off the smaller problem or the g larger one. We only made the observation in the paper 10 because it occurred to us in doing our evaluation, j, COMMISSIONER ZECH: It seems to me that late allegationo 12 is enough of a problem itself. It has been my observation so .
13 far that we ought to address that alone and worry about the' f- ,
s_ 14 other one later. ._ _ __ _. __.
5 MR. MALSCH: Well, it clearly is enough of a problem by 16 itself, you know. It depends on how ambitious you want to g be. Right.
18 OMISSIONER ASSELSUNE: I guess I am, for mys h , I am
,, somewhat concerned though about setting into place a process to deal with late allegations when there may be other sources of information that ought to be subject to the very same kind of process. I think it's worthwhile taking a look at the broader issue as well.
COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, just opening up the thing 24 considerably wider, it seemed to me that...my review of it FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :--
court Reporting e Deposittens ..
D.C. Aree 2611901 e Belt. 46 Annep.269 6136
- o.
18 1
and my observation so far...tht late allegations is itself
-s 2 a rather serious issue and merits a separate review.
3 Whether we open it.beyond that I think is a different subject 4
and perhaps it's something to think about, but in my view late 5 allegations is what we're talking about today and it seems to 6 me that we ought to try to stick to the subject.
7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I am confused as to 8 definitions here. I mean, a late allegation may indeed ,
9 contain late information. Late information might not to be given by an alleger, so to speak, but could be the same 11 informat' ion that would be carrid in an allegation. I'm not
. 12 sure that. I...it's more-a question of the source of 13 information.
94 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me suggest for the 15 moment we not get hung up on this question, whether we should 16 go f r late ifnormation or late allegation. At least let it 37 simmer a little bit while we try to cope with the general 18 nature...
3g COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I know, but I'm calling into question, Joe, whether we're going for different things or whether we're not just talking about the same thing, essentially. And if that's the case, then I would just like a definition of terms, I think. That's what I'm asking for.
Maybe it doesn't matter if we try and distinguish; maybe 25 it does. It's not so clear...
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. --
Court Reporting e Depositions -
D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6236 . :-
o.
19 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, that's why I asked him what gs 2 would be the difference if we expanded it to include further
\
3 information.
4
, COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes. What is the definition, 5
the working definition, of late information as opposed to 6 late allegations?
7 COMMISSIONER ZECH: My only point is, it seems to me we 8- have a hard enough deciding anything...
9 (Laughter.)
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I agree, I agree.
11 COMMISSIONER ZECH: ...and if we can focus on something,
. 12 why, I think that will be worthwhile.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I agree, but I need a definition.
7 14 That's all that I'm asking for. -
15 MR. MALSCH: Well, I guess a working definition would be 16 that an allegation is information that comes from an outside 37 sou'rce other than the NRC itself or the licensee.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You say it's information. It's 39 potential inform.ation. It's...
g UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, that's getting even murkier.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I know, but I don't want to quibble 22 n definition. I think we know what an allegation is. I'm 23 not'sure where to go with...
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, okay. Marty has defined 25 an issue and then I guess, Lando, what you have been saying FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1902
- Bolt. & Annop. 249-4236 -
20 1
then is that you believo wa, in this meeting at least, should 2
focus on these outside sources entirely.
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes. That's what I thought we were 4
going to do today, and I just feel that that's enough, 5
frankly, of an effort to undertake today, and if we want to 6 broaden it to something else I think we should do that with 7
a conscious decision, but today it seems to me we ought to 8 talk about late allegations.
(
9 MR. MALSCH: Yes. One reason why we approached the 10 subject in our paper was, we were concerned that discussion 11 would get bogged down in a complicated discussion of 12 allegations versus something else, and we didn't want to 13 develop a paper that would stand or fall depending upon how v' 14 you define the problem. We wanted to develop _a. paper _that 15 would be...make some broad recommendations which would 16 probably fit the problem even if you defined it broadly.
j7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Have we run into problems with late 18 information other than allegations?
39 MR. MALSCH: I know for a fact, from personal experiencc, 20 the Commission has in the past.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, how do you define Mr. Yin's 22 neerns, for example?
23 MR. MALSCH: That's right.
g COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: He's an insider, and is that an 25 allegation or is it important late information. It's not FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reporting e Depositions .
D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. 46 Annop. 269-6236 .._ .
21 I
clear to me at all that you can make a distinction, but 2
7- I'm willing to accept the ground rule because I agree. I 3
think that our principal concern here, as Lando has 4
pointed out, is indeed how to deal with outside submittals 5
because those number in the hundreds whereas the others 6 normally do not number in the hundreds, so I'm satisfied with 7 that working definition for the moment.
8 MR. MALSCH: One last thing: The staff, in its memo, 9 had raised two issues, and that was what criteria should the 10 staff apply in its informal safety reviews in uncontested 11 cases and what criteria should the staff apply in answering 12 motions to reopen the record. I think our paper addresses
,~
13 these, although indirectly, when the paper discusses screening 14 c'riteria and criteria for late allegations in informal reviewn 15 that would include staff informal reviews in uncontested 16 cases. So if the Commission should issue some policy 17 statement on treatment of allegations in informal reviews, 18 that would in turn guide the staff in adopting its safety ig evaluations.
20 Similarly, if the Commission were to come up with some 21 guidance, let's say by rulemaking, on motions to reopen the 3 record, then the staff would apply that guidance in answering 23 motions to reopen the record, so I think both issues which 24 the staff raises are addressed in the paper and would be s
25 addressed by Commission decisions which result from this FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :
Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6136 : ..- -
22 I mseting.
r- 2 I think what we need from the Commission is guidance on, N-3 well, three things, I; guess: guidance on a policy statement 4
on handling late allegations in informal reviews; guidance on 5 whether the Commission is prepared to consider a change in 6 board notification policy; and then guidance on whether the 7 Commission wishes to engage in rulemaking to actually define 8 in the Commission's rules of practice precise standards to g govern granting of motions to reopen records in formal to adj udications . I think those are the three things, the three ij basic issues which the paper raises and the three basic issues.
12 upon which Commission guidance would be helpful.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: One of the areas that it's certainly
/
( g not clear what to do is this board notification question, 15 and let me ask whether you think that there is a likelihood 16 that we could come up with something that would serve both 37 the need for a timely notific~ation of the board and provide 18 for some reasonable amount of screening.
39 MR. MALSCH: I think the question is yes, in general, but.
the difficulty is there is always going to be the hard cases where something comes in just before the board is prepared to write a decision, and you've got the issue and the staff cannot possibly do an evaluation without delaying decision issuance, and that's where the issue really is a difficult one. I mean, obviously, if given the choice and you had all FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 269-6136
23 I
the time in the world, you would obviously want not raw 2 allegations, you would want allegations plus evaluation.
3 The hard case comes about when you can't have both, when you 4
are prepared to issue a decision and the question is, do you 5
want raw allegation and maybe, maybe no decision delay, 6 although you can't tell, depending on what you do with the 7 allegations; ordo you want to hold up the decision pending
~
8 some, at least some initial evaluation by staff? And so it's 9 at that point that the issue becomes a difficult one and I to don't think there is any clear answer. I think you ought to 33 hear from the licensing appeal board as to what they think,
. 12 as a practical matter, they need for the proper conduct of 13 their proceedings.
g dHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. Well, one might have some 15 procedure that applies up to a certain point where you allow 16 for some screening and then a procedure that would apply for 37 more prompt submittal after a certain point, and I'm not 18 attempting to define what that point is.
39 Other Commissioner comment or questions at this time, or should we go ahead and hear from EDO and then from Al Rosenthal and Tony Cotter?
Could you join us at the table, Guy?
MR. CUNNIHAM: I would like to just ake one or two g preliminary comments and then ask Larry Chandler, who drafted 25 the staff paper, to summarize it.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6236 : -
I 24 1
First on the matter of board notification, we didn't 2
really regard that as a principal subject for today's meeting 3
and haven't prepared a position in detail but I can tell you 4 that we would welcome Commission guidance and I would 5 endorse what Marty has said, that you need input from both 6 licensing panels. For the past year or so'we have had a 7
number of informal conversations with Alan Rosenthal and with 8 members of the licensing panel as to what should be the 9 standards for board notification. Alan has previously raised 10 with me the concerns that are in this memo that is before you 11 today.
12 At the annual licensing board panel meeting in Albuquergt e s
13 this year, Ed Cristenberry (ph), our chief hearing counsel, g went out and met with the e'ntire licensing panel and discussec 15 the issue, and it was apparent that there was a wide spectrum 16 of views. There are some panel members who want to know 17 every allegation the same day we receive it, and there are 18 others that say, " Don't tell us a thing until you have 39 resolved it."
20 And following*the meeting where there was this broad 21 r undtable discussion, the panel designated one of the judges, 22 Ivan Smith, to sort of see if he could sit down and -
23 negotiate and discuss with us what would be a solution 24 acceptable to all. Unfortunately, we finally just abandoned 25 that effort because there was such a wide range of views.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. r-
' Court Reporting e Depositions .:
D.C. Area 161-1902 e telt. & Annep. 169-6136 c.; s.,,. : i
25 1
W3 can liva with any system but we have to know what it is.
,- 2 The present system is, we tend to be conservative and protect 3 ourselves by disclosing probably more information than is 4 necessary, but we have to protect against the charge that 5 we failed to inform a board of something that it should have 6 known before it took an action. As Marty said, you get to 7 the point where-the decision is, imminent. We can't very 8 well let the board go ahead and issue a decision if we.know g there is something that might cause them to decide otherwise 10 or to delay.
33 Secondly, I would like to just briefly address the
. 12 question that was raised of definition before, the late 13 allegations versus late information. We had understood the 34 General Counsel's paper to be suggesting that in addition to 15 late allegations, you expand the category to. late information, 16 ey ncMng , for example, information that comes up late 37 in the licensing process but through inside channels..'.~the la resident inspector, an NRC staff reviewer.
19 Qualitatively, I think we would say that they have to be treated the same. You do some analysis of what the significance is and how quickly it must be resolved, whether that's before licensing or not. The reason I think that today's meeting was focusing on late allegations, though, is because that is a quantitatively different problem. The late 25 allegations, we have seen in some cases, are literally handed FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annop. 169-6136 ; -
T 26 1
to us in batches of 200 at a time, usually with a letter
, s.
2-saying, "More to follow," and that is the problem that 3
I think we are trying to address today, and it's a difficult 4
one because there is no do71bt that where they raise safety 5 issues, everything that Marty has said is correct: They have 6 to be addressed. .
7 And, finally, turning to our paper, the purpose of our 8 pcper was not to express _any disagreement with what was 9 presented by the General Counsel. We are in full agreement to with that and, in addition, except for the board notification 11 matter that I discussed, we are in agreement with what Alan 12 Rosenthal has said in his memorandum.
13 The purpose of our memorandum was to put a little bit of 14 f.lesh on the bone _s_, and by example of a real case show you how 15 the staff would interpret guidance along the lines suggested 16 in the General Counsel's paper. In the real world the 17 reviewer has to have some guidance to sit down and, "All 18 right, now, what do I do with this allegation."
ig The process in Diablo Canyon worked. We propose, if the 20 Commission agrees, to adhere to that type of practice but to 21 refine it. That was obviously prepared sort of on the spot 22 to deal with an ongoing situation.
9 23 With that, I'll ask Larry to summarize the paper which 24 itself is a summary of the Diablo Canyon allegation handling 25 process.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -'
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Bolt. da Annep. 169-6136 _
27 1
MR. CHANDLER: Thank you.
,p 2 I think, as Guy said, we are in fundamental agreement N..I 3
with the General Counsel's paper on this subject. Our 4
effort was really designed to more precisely articulate the 5 criteria that the General Counsel generally alludes to in his e paper, using as an example the criteria that were used for 7 screening purposes in Diablo Canyon.
8 I think the staff's general position is that ideally all 9 allegations should be resolved before licensing action is 10 undertaken but, at the same time, when faced with rather ti large numbers of allegations as was the case in Diablo Canyon,
. 12 some screening process had to be developed to better come to 13 grips with the individual allegations to assure responsible
(~- .
i4 and timely resolution of each and every one of them.'
. 15 Also very significant in the development of the screeninc 16 criteria that are presented in the safety evaluation report, 37 Supplement 22 for Diablo Canyon, and recognized in our paper, 18 is the fact that there had been a rather large body of 19 knowledge gained through some rather intensive initial reviews undertaken of the first several hundred, 200 or so allegations received, and with that comfort and knowledge which had been obtained the staff felt more comfortable in developing these screening criteria for handling the more g significant numbers of allegations that came immediately 25 thereafter.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. ~
Court Reporting e Depositions L ~- D.C. Aree 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 2694236 .
_. . . gem e w~we~;--r-;,-m - . ~; ~ r.Rwf* 91 +We ' ' y 'I
@M '.Q " W N N-
.a aux.u. -:
L 28 1
At the same time we recognize that refinement to these
,-s 2 criteria will be necessary. While the criteria do tend to
+
3 focus on safety significance, which unquestionably is the 4
paramount concern, it must be recognized that that has to be 5
put in various contexts, appropriate contexts, given the 6 licensing action to be taken: that is, are we talking about 7
a license authorization for a fuel load, for low-power 8 testing, for full-power operation? And it's with that in mind s
that a second set of criteria were developed to put into 10 those respective bins, if you will, the various 11 allegations that were received...that is, which-must be 12 resolved at given stages of licensing.
y 13 Now, true, in Diablo Canyon those criteria were laid i4 out after fuel loading had been undertaken, and thus the 15 criteria tended to focus on those requiring resolution 16 before criticality and thos requiring resolution before l'7 exceeding 5 percent or full power. At the same time we note 18 that similar types of criteria should be applied by the staff 39 prior to even the most initial licensing for fuel load, and 20 we would propose that those be developed as well.
21 The need for refinement of these criteria became 22 apparent in developing this paper and discussing the 23 contents and the criteria with the various affected staff 24 ffices. It became rather apparent that the language used in
. 25 the Diablo Canyon criteria, although very workable, were FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
c .. m . n . _ .... . (
29 I
perhaps too generalized and may in other cases not be amenable 2
to consistent application by the various staff components, 3 so it is with that that the staff proposes that, with 4
the agreement of the Commission and consent of the Commission, '
5 we would go further and. refine those to assure that they could 6 be consistently applied in other proceedings. At the same 7 time the staff is developing, I think, a manual chapter now 8 which will impose a more formalized internal process for 9 dealing with allegations.
10 I think in essence that would highlight the contents of it odr paper.
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Are you saying you are writing a 13 manual chapter on informal treatment of allegations or staff
. _ 14 treatment of allegations? __. ._ __.
15 MR. CHANDLER: In terms of the process for doing so, not 16 the criteria for doing so.
37 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I see.
18 MR. CUNNIHAM: Marty mentioned at the beginning of 39 the meeting that they did not try to deal with the allegation 20 management issle... .
g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I heard that.
MR. CUNNIHAM: ...and that is, you know, a separate 23 logistical problem for us. That's really what the manual 24 chapter is focused on. We are obviously awaiting Commission w 25 guidance on the substantive handling of allegations.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions .
D.C. Area 141-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6236 - -
_. . r ., _ v .. +-m. _m e. , , . . . .
.ymtg y9 ~.y.; .;;pyy 30 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me ask a question with regard 2
to board notifications. If you get a piece of new 3
information...I mean new information...from a licensee,
- 4 do you, would you screen that?
5 MR. CHANDLER: If I may j ust. . .
6 MR. CUNNIHAM: No, but I think...
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: If we were going to go through a 8 screening process.
9 MR. CHANDLER: I think one of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, 10 would be that under longstanding Commission case law...the 11 McGuire decision, 143...the licensee itself would have an 12 obligation independent of the staff's to bring that kind of 13 information to the board's and parties' attention promptly,
\_,) _ 14 so the screening if any'would be done at that level.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I gather there are some 16 instances in which from time to time the staff has found it 17 necessary to say, "Look, you've got this information which we 18 know about, too. If you don't make it a board ig notification, we will."
20 MR. CHANDLER: We will, right.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I was getting back to this 22 definition of external versus internal, and I think...how do 23 y u...I'm n t sure how it was proposed that we use the 24 word " external." External to the staff and the licensee?
l 25 MR. CUNNIHAM: Well, a lot of the subject of staff FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens
l__ : , . .- ; .~ -
..e. .
~.-r . g . p . .
31
- 1 notifications is external in the sense that it comes from, r^s 2 say, the national laboratories. Testing will be done and it
\.
3 comes to us not from within but it's different 4
than an allegation, which may be anonymous, it may be in the 5
form of "somebody told me." There's usually more technibal 6
meat to information that the staff comes by in that fashion.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Well, let's assume the staff got 8 some test data. What does it do with it so far 9
as board notification is concerned? Does...
10 MR. CUNNIHAM:
Darrell can answer that in more detail.
11 He's here.
12 (Laughter.)
13 MR. CUNNIHAM: But there first of all has to be a 14 consideration of which, if any, boards have to be notified.
15 If it's a construction permit case then all boards are a
16 notified, but if you're looking at operating licenses or l'7 amendments then you only look at the specific issues in 18 controversy.'
19 MR. EISENHUT: Yes. There is a published office 20 policy that was published in NRR...one of the office letters, 21 No. 19...that handles such information...that states how you 22 would handle such information. It would be provided to the 23 board.
24 I think the standard yardstick we use is to provide the-25 information to the board within five working days. If in fact FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court, Reporting e Depositions
32 1
W3 have any evaluation of it or what we can say about it , we r' 2
\
~.
send within five days, but I think it was the No'rth Anna case 3
that led the staff or led the Commission to the guidance.that 4
you send it to the boards even though there may not be a staf f 5
evaluation of it at the time or even though the staff may not 6
have assessed the significance of that information.'
7 Followin that guidance, it's in the appropriate 8
procedures that such information would be provided to the 9
appropriate hearing boards where that is an issue before the 10 board on OL's, and I believe if there were a CP it would go 11 to the CP board regardless, but I think it's got to be 12 material and relevant to the issues before the board.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
(. .
Well, now, when you send board
. _ _ __ _____14 _no.tification within the five days, that doesn't stop your -- --
15 evaluation of it?
16 MR. EISENHUT: Oh, no, sir.
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And if the evaluation either 18 causes you to change your mind on whether or not it's 19 relevant to the case...
20 MR. EISENHUT: No. Regardless of whatever...
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No, but I meant you follow up with 22 another board notification after evaluation, if it's 23 appropriate.
24 MR. EISENHUT: Absolutely, or in most cases a safety 25 evaluation explaining the significance of it. The issue of FREE STATI REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions .
D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6236 : -
33 1
providing it promptly was related to the fact you wanted to 2
get that question or that information before the hearing 7
3 board promptly, even while you were doing the evaluation, 4 and then you would follow up with the evaluation. There may 5 be multiple board notifications. There may be SER's and 6 supplements to SER's relating to that issue, but it is a 7 timely process, was the key issue.
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Haven't we wandered over the g guideline that we thought we were setting forth here? I mean, to this problem does simplify itself. Granted, at some point 33 we have to worry about consistency of information sources, but
. 12 it seems to me that it does simplify itself somewhat if we s .
13 confine these new data to allegations in the sense that we...
__ g MR. EISENHUT: Oh, I think so. Yes, sir. I'was just 15 answering the question.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I understand that.
37 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: And my questions were from...
18 MR. EISENHUT: Yes, there is a real distinction...
jg CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: ...a low state of knowledge on some of these procedures.
21 MR. EISENHUT: I think there is a real distinction 22 between what I will consider the normal board notifications and allegations. Typically, allegations are quite often very numerous in many casas. They come from an unknown j source. They are often very vague. I remember one FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Ceart Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 2696234 . ,
34 1
of the cerly ones on Diablo Canyon was, there was an s 2 allegation that the containment may topple over. I mean, 3
that's different than a reviewer internally coming to his 4 management and saying, "I've got new technical evaluation."
5 That information would be evaluated promptly internally, but 6 I really think they are separable in my mind.
7 Also, the ones that arise from other sources, be they 8 from national labs or be they from internal, from any of the 9 staff sources, late in the process are few. They come from a to well-defined source an'd they are a well-defined safety issue.
it And I think it's the staff's position that if one of those
. 12 comes up, the staff would not hestitate to stop the process 13 as necessary to evaluate the issue, depending upon the
<^ 3' .
_ 14_ significance as it sees the issue. It's really the issue 15 of how do you deal with, on Diablo Canyon we received a 16 stack of paper probably# three to four inches deep within a 17 couple of days of the last Commission meeting. It's a 18 question of how do you deal with those kinds of allegations 19 as opposed to other hard technical information, at least 3 that's the way we see it.
g MR. CHANDLER: It should be made clear that the criteria 22 cover, by the way, not only technical information in terms of 23 plant systems, structures or components, but also go to the 24 management and quality assurance related issues, too, so
'. that you're covering both spectrums in terms of potential 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reporting e Depositlens .
D.C. Aree 261-1902 e B elt. GL Annep.149-423 6
- _
- =-
35 1
effect on plant safety. '
m 2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, that raises a related issuc 3
that I have a note to myself here on. Let me just ask it 4 now. I'm not sure whether it's possible to do this or even 5
appropriate to do it, but it is often true that hardware 6
technical issues are of a rather different nature and I 7
suspect of a different nature in terms of the time that they 8 might require for an early evaluation, if not an 9
early resolution, as opposed to personnel issues that many 10 times require OI to go through a 3- or 4-month or longer 11 investigative procedure. And I'll just raise the question, 12 without having an answer, whether it is possible or appropriat e p,
13 for us to draw a distinction also between hardware,
\- , _ _ _14 _ . t.e.chnical issues._and . i.ss.ues_that invo.lve personnel? I don't 15 have the answer to that easily and it may not be reasonable 16 or appropriate or possible to draw that distinction but I 17 think we ought to consider that.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, it gets even more 19 complicated than just dividing it into two parts, because 20 sometimes the accumulation of technical deficiencies reflects 21 n management or personnel, and so I agree with you. It's 22 complicated. .
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: True, but once again I think...and 24 maybe I'm wrong, and someone that's used to going through 25 this stack of hundreds can tell us quickly, I suspect ...but FREE STATE REPORTING INC. ~
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-4236 -
36 3 my etnce is thnt 90 parcent or 95 percent of those are rather readily tossed into one bin or the other, and maybe we should
( ..
draw no distinction and there should be no difference in the
, way we treat them, but then again we might want to think 5
about that.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I suspect, Fred, that you're 7 right; that it probably in the long run may take longer to 8 resolve the wrongdoing or the management questions or allegations in many instances, but I'm not sure you can draw a real distinction if you look at safety significance. I can 11 think of some allegations about management behavior or
. 12 performance that I would think would be considerably more 13 safety-significant, for example, than some hardware a (n^'_. 14 allegations that we have seen, so in terms of the importance 15 of the issue and the need to make sure that it's resolved 16 prior to making a licensing decision, I'm not sure you can 17 draw a distinction and say, "Well, we can put the hardware 18 ones in one bin and treat them a certain way and the management 19 ones in another bin and treat them differently because they're going to take longer to resolve.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, no. In fact, the crux 21 22 of the argument is not the length of time it would take for'
. 23 resolution; it's...in fact, that's a misimpression I guess that I created. The key to the argument is that these are 24 often very difficult judgments. They are balancing judgments s,' 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :J court me,orting e Depositions .-
D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt, 66 Annep. 269-6136 :,_n ;.
37 1
that involve people and the amount of training or perhaps ever.
-m 2 the amount of integrity that the individuals might have, and 3
those are often very difficult balancing decisions, whereas 4
if somebody tells you that a pipe has a half-inch crack in 5
it, that is just in a different class, it seems to me, and 6 therefore there might be a basis for treating those 7 differently. I don't know.
8 MR. CHANDLER: As you recall, the staff did treat both 9 Categories, that is, the hardware-related issues and the to management-related issues basically under the same way in 11 Diablo Canyon, but as the staff laid out in its safety
. 12 evaluation report, it is as you say a very tortuous path that 13 one has to follow to get some resolution of those latter type 14 of issues, and'it does generally involve or often involve -.
, 15 OI, which itself... irrespective of OI's involvement, those 16 kinds of efforts are very labor-intensive, if you will, from 17 the staff's standpoint.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, and you almost, you almost 19 literally have to have a smoking gun to make a quick judgment 20 and evaluation on a management or staff issue. We~can all 21 imagine cases where the management says he has his license and 22 he doesn't. That's easy, but most of them aren't that easy.
23 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Even on some of the hardware 24 ones, too, though, if they are not real specific it takes a s
! 25 fair amount of effort to determine whether those are valid or FREE STATE REPORTING INC. E' ~
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169-4236 .? ,
38 1
not. If somebody comes in and says there were unqualified
-s 2 welders working on this site, that's not something you can 3 real easily go out and check. On the other hand, if he 4
comes in and says you will find bad welds in pipe XYZ, you 5 can check those pretty quick and pretty easily, so it depends 6 upon the specifics.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Do you want to go on to hear 8 from Al? Why don't you stay put.
Al, could you join us at 9 the table? Is Tony Cotter nere, or a representative from his to office?
11 MR. ROSENTHAL: No. I will proceed.
. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay.
13 MR. ROSENTHAL: Mr. Chairman, as you know I put two
/*
14 memoranda before the Commission, one dated July 6, the
. 15 other dated August 1.
16 The July 6 memorandum made basically three points.
17 These points were made on my behalf alone. I did not make an
. 18 endeavor to obtain an appeal panel consensus. Two of these 19 three points, while they were tied to things which the 20 General Counsel had to say, I think are beyond the scope of 21 this meeting and I will not pursue then beyond saying that I 22 am still hopeful that one of these days the Commission will 23 come to grips with whether it wishes to conform its immediate 24 effectiveness practice to its rules or whether it wants to 25 conform its rules to its practice. And I think what the FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6236 -
l 39 1
Commission has been doing, if I may say so, is of dubious
. - ~ .x 2 legality. I made that point in September of 1983, and it fell 3
on apparently deaf ears although, as I noted, I didn't 4 think it had been specifically rejected, and at the risk of 5 appearing to bore the Commission I will suggest to it once 6 again that it might wish'at an appropriate time to address 7 that point. .
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Those words, " dubious" and 9 "qusetionable legality" strike fear in the hearts of to Commissioners these days.
11 MR. ROSENTHAL: I doubt it.
12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This group?
13 (Laughter.)
,. s .
. _ __ '__ 14 .___ _MR._ROSENTHAL: All right. The one point that_.I.made in 15 the memorandum which seems to be within the scope of this 16 meeting as the Commissioners have interpreted it relates to 37 board notifications, and I will be very brief on that subject.
18 I think it a total absurdity to put before a 39 licensing or an appeal board an unvarnished, unscreened g allegation. There is absolutely nothing that a board can or g should attempt to do with such an allegation. I think beyond. s that, as I suggested in my memorandum, that you have due 23 process problems. I think it grossly unfair to a utility 24 to put before an adjudicatory board which has that utility's s
) 25 fate in its hands, an allegation which has not even gone FREE STATE REPORTING INC. e'-
Court Reporting e Depositions .
D.C. Area 161-1902
- Belt. & Annep. 2696236 : & . - -
40
- l
' l 1 through a coarso scretning. Now I would grant you that we
,-s 2 adjudicators are supposed to be highly disciplined; we are
- s. _ /
. 3 supposed to be able to brush out of our minds, to put to one 4
side allegations which turn out to be insubstantial, but 5 regrettably we are humans like Commissioners and I cannot 6 exclude the possibility of a subliminal effect of an 7 allegation. And I just think, considering the fact there is a
8 nothing we can do with them, we ought not to be getting them.
9 Now I hear this thing, "Well, my goodness, 10 supposing that on the eve of a board decision the staff gets ij this allegation and it doesn't come to the board
. 12 immediately with it, and the board issues its decision and 13 subsequently the allegation .
is found to have some substance e
and, beyond that, to have some bearing o'n the board's w g _
15 decision."
16 I would respectfully submit that there are procedures 37 whereby that can then be remedied, and I don't find that a 18 particularly troublesome prospect. If records can be reopened 39 and the action that has been taken can be recalled, I don't 20 think it puts the board in an embarrassing position because, after all, what the board is deciding the case on or supposedly is deciding the case on is the record before g it, and we do know that this is a very dynamic kind of g process. Indeed, that's what the late allegations problems 25 are all about.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC, ~
r#,,, Court Reporting e Depositions .
D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep. 269-6136 -
41 1
So my view has consistently been and my view remains
,. 2 today that allegations should not be put before licensing or
( ,
3 appeal boards without first going through at 4 least a coarse screening on the part of the staff to ascertain 5
that there is at least some possibility that the allegation 6 has some substance.
7 Now there was some reference made to the licensing 8 board's consideration of this matter at Albuquerque.
9 I was there. I was a part of this discussion. Indeed, I 10 think I was probably the instigator of it because' this is one 11 of my crusades in this 1984 year, and while it's true that 12 there wasn't unanimity of opinion, I think it is fair to say 13 that the overwhelming majority of the licensing boards are in (s _ t4 agreement... licensing board members, excuse me_...are_in 15 agreement that there should be a coarse screening. I think 16 it is a very, very distinct and in my view ill-advised 17 minority that want, the second that the allegation hits 18 the staff, to be informed of it.
19 Now on that point I would just make one last 3 observation. I distinguish in the memorandum and I 21 distinguish today between the allegation on the one hand and 22 an event. Now we had several years ago, an appeal board 23 had before it an issue of steam generator tube integrity in 24 Prairie Island. There was, while the appeal board had that
~s i s_-
25 issue before it, a steam generator tube rupture at the i FREE STATI REPORTING INC. -
l Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 261-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269 6236 -l
c 42 1
Point Beach facility. The appeal board expected to be
-- 2 notified and was notified immediately of that event, before t .
3 the staff had had the opportunity to evaluate it, and then 4
of course the staff evaluated it and came forward with further 5 information.
6 Now in my view at least, and maybe I am missing a point, 7
there is a considerable distinction between.a conrete 8 event which may have some bearing upon an issue before 9 a board and some allegations, frequently anonymous, which may 10 turn out to have been either the figment of the alleger's ji imagination or prompted by some ill motive such as a desire 12 to obtain retribution.
13 That's my view on the matter of board notifications.
.s -
../ 34 Turning now to the August 1 memorandum where I speak for 15 the panel, I think I take issue with Marty Malsch on whether 16 it is necessary to have a Commission rule setting forth 37 what the criteria are for reopening. I think those criteria 18 are firmly established. I don't think that a litigant has to 19 root around too much in the adjudicatory jurisprudence to 20 find what those standards are. They are set forth one, two, g three on page 1 of the August 1 memorandum. I don't see a necessity to print them. The only difference has been, some 23 appeal board decisions on Standard No. 3 have said that a g different result would have been reached...might have been
.) 25 reached initially. "Might," it seems to me, is clearly the FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :"
Court Reporting e Depositieves .:
D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6236 ; ; . :-
43 I
better standard because one never can tell until they have 2 explored the particular matter whether it would have 3 produced a different result, but I think now the term 4 "might" is fairly well rooted in the jurisprudence and we 5 think that that's...we don't see any necessity ourselves for 6 a rule on that score.
7 Where we do advocate a rule is with respect to the 8 content of motions to reopen, and I don't think that there is e any necessity this afternoon to repeat the three criteria to which we believe should be imposed on motions to reopen.
11 They are set forth one, two, three on page 2 of our August 12 1 memorandum. .These are essentially prompted by the rather 13 unhappy experience we have had in Diablo Canyon. I had the
_. g good sense not to assign myself to our Diablo Canyon board.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. ROSENTHAL: I try to avoid cases that will produce 17 six tons of unorganized material. My colleagues, however, whc 18 had the misfortune to be assigned to that case have been 19 complaining regularly since the inception of it, and the rest 20 f us were sufficiently sympathetic to come up with these 21 recommendations for some relief.
Now I stress, as we tried to in the memorandum, what we 23 are talking about here is what is necessary in order to get 24 an adjudicatory board to reopen a record. We are not m
talking here about what is necessary to get the staff to m . .- 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :--
Court Reporting . Depositions _
D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 269-6236 _: . v
44 I
conduct an investigation of an allegation. Those are two 2
entirely different things, and I think that what is 3
sometimes not recognized or at least not given 4
sufficient recognition...and this is also in the board 5
notification area...is that the staff's role and a board's 6
role in terms of dealing, at least ab initio, with allegations 7 is an entirely different one.
8 I mean, the staff sits there with seven or eight 9
regiments of investigF. tors and inspectors and all of this, and to they can go out and they can check into allegations and 11 all of that. The adjudicatory boards have no resources for
. 12 either investigation or inspection, and it's rather important,
.~%
13 it seems to us...and this is what underlies the specific
_ _ . 14_ recommendations...that anything t_ hat is put on the platter _of.
15 an adjudicatory board be in a form that the adjudicatory board 16 could deal with. And the kind of stuff that the appeal board 17 in 'Diablo was handed was stuff that just couldn't be dealt 18 with. I mean, it was entirely unorganize@. Much of it were ig ultimate conclus.ory allegations without any indication of what 20 their basis was at all, and that's just not what an adjudicato: y 21 board can effectively deal with. Staff can, I mean, 22 through the regions or if it's a matter within the baliwick 23 f OI, the investigators, I mean, they can go out, they can 24 interview, they can do all of those wonderful things which are
) 25 beyond the pale of boards.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositicas D.C. Aree 261-1902
- Belt. Et Annep.169-623 6 : . _ .
45 1
And that's what we intend, we intended to really carry 2 through on in our three specific proposals, and we tried on 3 page 3 of that memorandum to indicate this differentiation as 4
we see it between what a board needs and the role of the -
5 board on the one hand, and the staff's role and what it would 6 need on the other, 7 So that, I think, Mr. Chairman, summarizes the Appeal 8 Board's position as set forth in the August 1 memorandum and 9 my position on the board notification matter as set forth jo in the July 6 memorandum.
33 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I hope I didn't cause you any 12 pr blem in mischaracterizing your comments on board 13 notification. I was thinking of the latter memo but not the
\. g former.
5 Are there comments or questions?
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: I would just like to comment. I'd g say on Mr. Rosenthal's '1984 project, what you call your 8 pr je t. . .I would kind of term your raw g allegations...I think that you have a good point and I think that you're asking for an answer, some support, and I think you ought to get it.
Regarding your 1 August memo, I have reviewed it too and I think I agree essentially with what you are coming forth with there. I would only like to make one point that concerns me about some of the...and I know you're talking, I a
FREE STATI REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 241-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-4236 -
46 1
think, about formal proceedings in most cases...
fy i
2 MR. ROSENTHAL: That's all that we're talking about.
3 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right. -
4 MR. ROSENTHAL: That's all that we are involved in, ,
5 and we have enough with our own problems without...
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Right. Well, I would111ke to make 7
a point along with you, though, right now to say thit on other 8
proceedings I personally think that we have enough formal, judiciary type proceedings, and I would personally oppose 9
to any further judicializing of our informal proceedings. I ti think we seem to have a hard enough time, in my judgment,
- 12 moving ahead, and I would just like to make that comment.
13 Other than that, I think that you have put some things
' -- l 14 ,'ogether t that deserve consideration, and I certainly as one 15 Commissioner will give them that.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Lando, I didn't understand your 17 last comment.
18 COMMISSIONER ZECH: On the informal proccodings and 39 things I think there is a tendency sometimes...at least I have 20 heard this...that we may tend towards more formal, turning the 21 informal proceedings into formal proceedings and.thoreby 22 tying us up in more difficulties in coming to a de' cision.
23 It seems to me that this is something we should guard agains6.
24 That's my only point.
_? 25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, now, the staff was asking for FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :- -
Court Reporting e Depositions o D.C. Aree 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269-4236 :;,. ;.
,- ~_ :~ na _e.; - g n .m:nn y . 3 ,. = . . ,,. 9 -;- - l
. i 47 1 further guidance on this. Suppose there 2 were a policy statement to be issued saying we 3
intend to follow these kind of practices in the future, and 4.
here is the criteria that we are going to apply. Would that 5 give you a problem?
6 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Well, I'm not sure I follow you there .
7 All I'm saying is...
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:' Well, rather than a rule, a policy 9 statement might serve to provide the guidance without making to it so formal that every "i" has to be dotted, every 3, "t" crossed.
12 COMMISSIONER ZECH: That's my concern, and it seems to
,~
13 me we do have a difficult time with all the things 34 _
we have to go through, and the informality of some of 15 ur pr eedings I think is helpful. The exchange of 16 inf rmation that we have with each other and with the staff, 37 I think, and with others on En informal basis, I think is very 18 helpful.
19 Certainly the formal proceedings are.important and we should hold to those. I'm just saying that I believe that it's important that we not carry that any further than we've
, already got it carried, because if we do it's just going to grind this machine to a halt, in my j udgment.
MR. ROSENTHAL: My August 1 memorandum, of course, ic
,/ 25 written entirely in the context of the formal FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
. C
..._ ,o,urt.R.e,,portin.g e D, epositions. .
. _ . n ,. .. ,. ... . _ _ . . -- ,
, 48 1
proceedings.
-- s 2 COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I appreciate that, but I just t
~
3 wanted to get in my own thought on it. I know you are just 4 addressing the formal proceedings. I am just throwing out a 5 word of caution. In my judgment so far it seems like we shou: d 6 be careful that we don't give up our ability to use our .
7 process in the more informal manner that we're using it 8 right now, as a matter of fact.
9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It's worth noting, I think, 10 that I'm sure the lawyers and judges here can instruct us 33 on exceptions. There might...we probably have devised the
. 12 most formalized, judicial type proceeding process in this 13 agency of any comparable agency, to my knowledge, in the
- -1. _ __ .. 14.. w rld.' There may be one...
15 COMMISSIONER ZECH: This is my impression as the new one 16 . here.. It's just, I think, we have a very formal process and 37 I think some of it is very necessary and very important, but 18 I j ust. . .I hope we can avoid going much further because I 19 do think we can accomplish a great deal in the informal yet 20 deliberate and thoughtful manner that I think is appropriate g for our deliberations.
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: One might even inquire as to g whether we haven't gone too far, since other countries seem to have survived very well...
g COMMISSIONER ZECH: That's my impression, too.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. :~
Court Reporting
- Depositieris ,
-- - . D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. GL Annep. 249-4236 : m _.. .
49 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me come back to your question.
,. 2 I'm struggling with the following: We develop some criteria 3 that we use in a case. The staff would say now that they want 4 some Commission guidance. We could give them an SRM that says .,
5 "Here is your guidance." The problem with that is, the rest 6 of the world doesn't necessarily know-it. Now of course you 7 can always write them later and tell them. The advantage of 8 a policy statement which sets forth just what the policy is 9 and doesn't set a whole bunch of rules, I think would inform to both the staff and the rest of the parties that are 11 involved.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I don't think that unnecessarily 13 f rmalizes the informal review process. What I think it tends
(- _ g to do is assure that we'll'have some consistency in the way 15 that the staff goes about looking at allegations and 16 deciding on what to do about the information at key points in 17 the licensing process. I think it would be useful.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess I would like to hear some jg further comment on the issue that you raised in point 3 on page 4 of your July 6...let me make sure I've got my dates right here...yes, the July 6 memo.
MR. ROSENTHAL: You're talking about the burden of proof?
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, the burden of proof question, because the...and I don't know whether you two have
) 25 res lved that question between you...but one of the objectives FREE STATI REPORTING INC. Pi Court Reporting e Depositions 0. -
'.. D.C. Area 161-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 169-6236 : , , , . .
50
. 1 in my view of this wholo procerding hero of trying to arrive 2
at an efficient way of handling late allegations, obviously 3 is to protect public health and safety, and that means that 4
in the interest of public health and safety we should be 5
striv,ing to encourage everybody, including intervenors, to 6 bring forth any allegation in as timely a manner as is humanly 7 possible so that it can be acted on before some date which I 8 think has too often been set up artifically as some moment of 9 truth when...whether it's loading fuel or whether it's 5 30 percent power or ascension to full power...as the day, and 33 after then it's all too late, and before then is your last 12 chance. Well, that just isn't the way it is in my judgment 13 in this agency, and it isn't the way we should operate.
)
34 So on reading your or General Counsel's words, Marty, on 15 the subject I was somewhat taken aback, I have to say, 16 because it appeared there was no way out based on the 37 difference in the burden of proof before and af ter iss'tiing 18 a license. Therefore, I guess I would be interested in hearin g Y U 19 9 U the subject.
MR ROSENTHAL: I don't think, actually, in the context of the matter that concerns you, that the burden of proof is a terribly important issue anyway. I mean', I put that in because the General Counsel did have this unequivocal N
25 statement in Footnote 4 of its paper which I happen to think FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
' Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 141-1902 e Bolt. & Annep. 169-4236 .: . -
YNNDQ ygq
@J[1%.47$d$2
. 6 ->c~ 6@+@,yn>5MMID6? M965MN9@m;q1+Qjhgg,,@[NidO[W[;
a.n,.@r,r.. n o .y ~u .,,,.n,.
51 1
was wrong.
2-Actually I think there is...what the burden of proof
%.J 3 comes down to is this: First there is always the question of 4
who has the initial burden of going forward and starting by 5
presenting evidence at the outset, and I don't think there is 6 any disagreement among us that the staff clearly has that 7 burden. I think that if the staff is proposing some kind 8 of enforcement action against a utility, whether it's a 9
civil penalty matter or whether it's looking to possibly 10 shutting the reactor down, revoking or suspending a ti license, the staff as the initiator of that action has to come 12 forward with what would be loosely described, perhaps, 13 as prima facie case. These are mysterious words in law.
14 At that point I suspect that there is also no 15 disagreement that the burden, then, of going forward shifts 16 to the utility. It has got to come in and rebut the case that j7 has been presented by the staff.
33 Now the question then comes up, though, all right, the 39 staff has come forward with its prima facie case; here comes g the utility with its rebuttal; who has the ultimate burden of proof?
21 22 Now, numberone,thatquestionisoni.ygoingtobecome 1
23 imp rtant in the very unlikely event that the evidence is in 24 what sometimes is referred to as equipoise. In other words,
. 25 the adjudicator looks at the thing and says, "Well, gee, FREE STATE REPORTING INC. '
_ . - _ -_ __ _--- - r~ " *---"'-- "---*" - -- -'
52
. 1 ie juat og much evidence on one sids as thsro is on tho other
,-~ , 2 side. In that case, and only in that circumstance would the L/
3 matter of who had the burden of proof be significant. My 4
guess is that that will rarely happen, if ever, so I am 5 suggesting that this is perhaps more of a theoretical 6 question than a real one.
7 If it does arise, where I would come out myself would be 8 this, and I do this on the basis of the Atomic g
Energy Act, and I do it on the. basis of the Atomic Energy Act 10 because the Administrative Procedure Act provides that the ij burden of proof is on the proponent of an order unless the 12 statute governing the particular action provides otherwise.
13 Now I would suggest that the Atomic Energy Act suggests
_ g' otherwise where the issue at hand is whether a plant can 15 safely continue to operate, because if the evidence is at 16 equip ise...if the adjudicator says, "Well, gee, there is just.
37 as much evidence that its operation is unsafe as there is that.
18 its operation is safe," then I would say that the reasonable 39 assurance that the public health and safety is being 20 pr tected is lacking. So in that instance I would say 21 ultimate burden would be on the proof on the applicant, so if the evidence were in equipoise, the plant would be shut 23 down. .
On the other hand, if we're dealing with past events, if
"}
25 it's a civil penalty action, the applicant a year or so ago FREE STATE REPORTING INC. ~-
l'. Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 249-4236 ..
53
- 1 cll:;grdly wee in violation of soms commission regulation, g - ,, 2 Vj there is no question that today there is no safety problem
~
3 with operation, I would say in that circumstance...as I would 4
read the Atomic Energy Act...the burden of proof would lie .
5 with the staff, the ultimate burden, but I'm suggesting that 6
really is going to be infrequently, if ever, that that is goir g 7
to really decide a case, where that burden of proof lies.
8 Perhaps I shouldn't have put this in at all but, as I 9
say, the General Counsel had that footnote in that paper and to I just didn't agree. I thought it was an overstatement and 11 for that reason I had that comment.
12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, but it does affect the 13 approach that one might consider is op.en to us, it seems to q
t/ me.
14 In the extreme case if there is no difference...and.I 15 would just suggest, although yo'tr argument is persuasive, that 16 the Commission itself has worked itself in, has worked into 17 a position, and all five Commissioners, I should emphasize, 18 where by our sometimes excessively legalistic arguments on ig whether a plant has an operating license or it doesn't have 20 an operating license, that has on occasion in my short tenure 21 here driven certain decisions, and I would hope that's not the 22 way some decisions or decisions in general here are drawn.
23 And so I'm not so sure that it's not relevant to...
24 MR. MALSCH: Well, let me suggest that, depending on how
) 25 Y u Phrase the question, it does...it can be very FREE STATI REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions
- D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 169 4236. ; - .
. I 54 Cignificant.
1 Let's take, for example, the issue facing the f
2 Commission in the environmental qualification area, where 3 I guess arguably the staff and the Commission was in the 1
4 position of not knowing whether equipment was or was not 5 environmentally qualified for operating reactors. Well, it 6 seems to me that there is a basis for a distinction in the 7 sense that you could say, "Well, if the plant has got an 8 operating li.:ense and we don't know the equipment is g environmentally qualified, we needn't rush forward and 10 shut the plant down. We have the leeway to do some evaluatior, j, and first decide whether there is in fact a safety problem."
12 Whereas perhaps if the plant didn't have a license you 13 would probably want to resolve the issue so you could make a
( -) - - 34 finding of compliance with the regulations before you issued 15 the license, so I agree with Alan. In specific cases, if it 16 mes up in a f rmal adjudicatory proceeding, the issue is kind of academic because rarely if ever do you approach a s
,g situation in which the evidence is in equipcise, but I think 19 Commission is confronted with a lack of information, it makes a difference whether you, you know, take action in the 22 face of uncertainty or rather do more studies and do evaluations in the face of uncertainty. So it has a practical 24 component but I agree in actual cases it almost never makes
> a difference in adjudicatory cases.
- 25 v
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Area 241-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 269-6136 -
55 1
COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So what's the bottom line m 2 here, as they say? Is the point that your Option 3 or a 3 modified version, whatever it might be, is or is not a real
. 4 option in light of your two statements?
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Which Option 37 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: How is it termed? The y enforcement action criteria. In other words...
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO- Whose Option 37 g COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, under either. Granted, to it's a somewhat gray area but one of the more firm 33 stands that at least was laid out as an option, a possibility
. 12 for the Commission, is that there should be no severely...no 33 severe distinction drawn between an operating plant and a plant
{i s .. g about to receive a licertse, and Marty cited some legal 15 arguments as to why...
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think that's an important 37 distinction.
18 MR. MALSCH: I think there are legal arguments as to why.
39 I think under either legal theory you have a problem, because under Alan's theory the applicant would almost always have the burden; under my theory he would sometimes have the burden; but we would be in agreement that in this situation the
~
applicant has the burden, so you end up with the same difficulty.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO.
. '. 25 Any further discussion?
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. --
Court Reporting e Depositlens L- D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. 46 Annep.169-413 6 -
56 r 1 Wall, let ms try coms propocals, and thsy are put'out to 7
2 see if we can focus on where we want to go. OGC, among its
\
3 recommendations, indicated a recommendation that we ough? to 4 develop a policy statement in which the Commission would 5 make a statement about the criteria to be used. We may.want 6 to expand those criteria or not. One possible approach would 7 be to ask the staff to take the lead in development of a 8 policy statement, and I say "take the lead" because of their 9 experience in the Diablo Canyon case.
10 COMMISSIONER ZEHN: Well, I'd suggest that that be done, ig that the staff take the lead.
12 COMMISSIONER PALLADINO: But when they take the lead I 13 would hope they would...and I'm sure they would, and I (m
s 34 would instruct them in this is the Commission's will...that 15 they get the input from OGC and the licensing boards and appeal board.
16 37 With regard to the formal part of the recommendations, 1 18 w uld propose that now we give OGC the lead to prepare a 19 rulemaking package to follow up on the comments of the appeal board with regard to further detail and factual reasons for dealing with motions to reopen.
With regard to board notification proedures, I'm not nuro where to put the onus but I gather there is a desire to have 24 some further consideration of a threshold at which board notifications would go to...would be made by the staff, and FREE STATE REPORTING INC. -
Court Reporting e Depositions .,
( D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6236 : , ,. -
-a
. 57 I
all your comments were pretty persuasive but I think here I j.s 2
(-'~' '
would be open to guidance on where to put that requirement.
3 Maybe as a subset of the thing that we ask the EDO staff or i
4 the staff to do. Any guidance on...
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I guess I was also persuaded 6 by Alan's arguments, that some sort of coarse screening 7
initially before the boards are notified is a useful thing.
8 I think, though, that if you do that you also need a fairly g
prompt coarse screening so that it doesn't drag on literally 10 for weeks or months and thereby delay getting the ji information to the boards, because I think there is a benefit 12 in getting that information to the boards early on so...
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think they are going to have to
,j+-. - .. -. - 34- . - - - - -give thought to that because if out of their evaluation they.
15 need an investigation, then you might want to do something 16 different.
37 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Well, what I had in mind, 18 though, was something like what OI does, which is do enough 39 of a review to decide whether this is something that warrants detailed investigation.
MR. CUNNIHAM: In many of these cases it would have to be an OI screening for us... ,
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I see. Sure, sure.
MR. CUNNIHAM: ... and if the allegation is alteration
- ) ,, oc or records, you've got to have OI do it.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositlens D.C. Aree 1611902 e Belt. 46 Anneo.169-613 6 .
58 1
COMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: That's right.
2 MR. CUNNIHAM: So the coarse screening has to be the typ e 3 or it has to be compatible with what OI can do.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: But it does seem to me that 5 there is a comparable mechanism in place that both would 6 work for those kinds of allegations and that could serve as 7 a model for the technical ones.
8 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I thi$k I should have stressed that 9 by " coarse screening" all I really had in mind was a look at to it to the point that a decision could be made it was worthy 11 of inquiring into it further.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Not that the OI or a region r.
. g investigation had been completed and they determihed that it 15 was meritorious, but that they had taken enough of a look to 16 say, "Yes, there may be something to this and it's worth the 37 expenditure of our resources" in investigating it if it's an 18 OI matter or inspecting, a full inspection if it's an I&E or 39 whatever.
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would agree with you, Joe, on your suggestion on that: Ask the staff to address both parts, both a coarse screening mechanism and a way to assure g that that gets done in a reasonably timely fashion.
COMMISSIONER ZECH: Yes, I agree with that, too. I think that's the appropriate way to go.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- Ceesrt Reporting e Dep sittens
.;. D.C. Aree 141-1902 e Belt. & Ana sp. 249 4234 : .
- o
- 59 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Would the output be both in the 2
policy statement, or both outputs in the policy statement?
3 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: It probably would be useful, 4
at least in terms of emphasizing the need for a fairly 5
expeditious approach to doing the' initial screening.
6 MR. CHANDLER: I think the staff, in any event, would 7 have to embody that in a revised Office Letter 19, which 8 Darrell alluded to earlier as containing the staff's e procedures for handling these. I would point out, though, 10 that coarse screening criteria such as you have just suggestec gj I don't think wil1 universally cure Mr. Rosenthal's concerns, 12 because I think in large part...for example, if you
-13 look at the Diablo Canyon allegations, certainly at the
,f* .
( g very outset it was believed that each and every of the 15 allegations were worthy of further inquiry, and so they would 16 have immediately passed'that screening test and would have 37 been passed on to the appeal board without any more help 18 than in fact was provided.
39 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Yes, I agree with you, it's not 20 g ing to solve the problem but it's better than just having the allegations flow...
MR. ROSENTHAL: We have got on other cases...and I won't g mention the specific case because it's still in adjudication.. .
but we got an instance where the staff said, " Gee, we've got
- g these allegations and along with the allegations we've got FREE STATE REPORTING INC, Court Reporting e Depeeltlens D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 249 6234 '
, a. . .
. 3 60 1
a lot of documentation which allegedly supports the 2 allegations. We're telling you all about these (n) 3 allegations now. We haven't even looked at the 9
4 documentation," and I thought these were extraordinarily 5 serious allegatio.a. If in fact they were true, they 6 reflected very poorly indeed upon the utility, and this is 7 what actually got me started on this. My feeling was, it 8 seemed to me that before the staff put those allegations e before us, they should have at least looked at the to documentation and come to some conclusion as to whether 33 that documentation provided enough support for those
, 12 allegations to warrant exploring them more fully. And I 13 would agree, of course, with Larry that there still might g . -
4, _ i4 be instances where the coarse screening would put up to us 15 allegations there wasn't much that we could do with, but the 16 world isn't perfect and I don't think there is any way of 97 dealing with this problem that would be entirely 18 satisfactory to all interests concerned.
3g CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Larry, did you have another comment?
MR. CHANDLER: No. Of course, as I said earlier, we 21 w uld be pleased to accommodate...
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, let me see...they are 23 summarized...and get Commission concurrence. There's only three of us left, but first we would ask the staff, with input
) 25 fr m ther appropriate segments of the organization, to draft FREE STATE REPORTING INC. '
Court Reporting e Depeeltlens D.C. Aree 141-1901 e Belt. & Anney. 149 4134 :.. :
61 1
a policy statement along the lines identified in the OGC 3 2 paper, with consideration of the extent to which the Diablo 3 Canyon criteria or other similar criteria that the group may 4 want to develop be used. As a part of that, the staff should 5
also look to see what revision in the EDO board notification 6 procedures should be made and make their recommendation part
. 7 of the policy statement.
8 I would ask, propose that we ask OGC with input from g other appropriate segments of the agency to prepare a 10 rulemaking package to follow up on the comments made by A1 33 Rosenthal.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: So that would be a rule on the 13 content- of motions to reopen. . .
34 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: ...but no rule on the 16 s andards for reopening.
37 MR. MARSCH: Well, let me address that.
18 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, I didn't...go ahead.
jg MR. MARSCH: When I was recommending rulemaking, I really had in mind the content rulemaking that Alan was recommending.
However, I want to point out that the first element of content, addressed on page 2 is that the motion...
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Page 2 of what? Your...
MR. MARSCH: No, sir. Mr. Rosenthal's memo. His first rule on content would say, "A motion to reopen must separatel)
FREE STATE REPORTING INC. e-Court a.,erting . D.,. les.no a.
D.C. Ar.e 141-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-4134 :. c. < -
- Niy i .p,:r fgityhtfyff %Q~;y#,,f% ll. 9. Q %. %.
7 L%%m..;
R iG'ti s '- e .6% My .
. .. .dQpy
_ .g?, Spy;ly,kY
. g p,,,yp' 62 1
address each of the three established reopening criteria."
n 2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: You might have to refer that as k
3 the...you would have to refer to what the...
4 MR. MARSCH: You would have to inclue the substantive 5 criteria in the rule; otherwise the rule will be 6 incomplete, although what I really had in mind was the 7 three content criteria, but I think you'll end up having the
, 8 substantive criteria included as well.
s CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes. I would find it would be very to helpful to include those.
it COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I would agree with both 12 your comments on the board notification policy, on the 13 standards for the rulemaking on motions to reopen the record.
/ 14 On the policy ' statement, I agree that it would be useful to 15 have the staff put together a policy statement. The one to area that I have a concern about is on what the fate 37 information criteria are going to be...that is, the standard 18 for balancing the significance of safety against the potentia 3 gg for delay. It strickes me that the diablo criteria were put 20 together rather hurriedly in the midst of a very difficult and 21 complex proceeding. I had some questions about what some of 22 the words in those criteria mean. You use " specific 23 information" in some instances; you use " definitive 24 information" in others. Some things are included in terms of
- 25 safety systems; other things aren't. You talk about FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
- *
j ,. .. . ... ,_ . . ........ .
> o 63 1
significant, sizeable failures of systems rather than levels O, 2 of safety. I think the staff can put together the criteria 3
that it thinks is useful but for myself, that's the part.
4 I am going to really zero in on because I think what we want 5
to do is strike the balance that if it's a significant 6
item and it's new information and pecific information that 7
we didn't have available to us and it's a safety-significant 8
item, then it's something that has to be looked at. On the 9
other hand, if those things aren't there before licensing, 10 and on the other hand if tho'se elements aren't there, then 11 maybe it's something that can be left for postlicensing
. 12 review, but I think that's where the staff ought to maybe 13 start off with some clean thinking about well, what really
' 14 makes. sense there that_ strikes a fair. balance.- _ _ _ _- .._ --
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was not thinking that we would 16 exclude refinement of the criteria.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Good. I think there's room
. 18 for refinement here.
13 MR. CUNNIHAM: As we have suggested in our paper, I think 20 it's essential.
21 MR. MARSCH: Yes. We said we tried to do the best we 22 could and refine their criteria in our paper. As we saw it, 23 there is absolutely no difficulty with the Diablo Canyon 24 criteria but some of them appear to be geared specifically 25 ,to the Diablo Canyon types of issues.
FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Densitlens D.C. Aree 261-1902 e Belt. & Annep. 269 4236 : -
/
- o 64 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Exactly.
2 MR. MARSCH:
For example, management and quality assurance 3
whereas we were trying to address the more general problem, 4
and so that's why we tried to take the more general...
S CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Well, that's why I phrased it along 6
the lines outlined in your paper, but considering the 7
extent to which th,e Diablo Canyon criteria or some similar 8
refined criteria should,be used.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: And I think if you take as your 10 guideline the OGC recommendation that when you develop those 11 criteria, safety is the paramount consideration, we shouldn't
. 12 have any trouble.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Is there general agreement, o, -
14 at_1 east _among the three of us here?
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I certainly concur in that 16 recommendation. I...
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I think Lando also indicated a 18 concurrence before he left.
19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I hope that this is going to be 20 useful. I must say I have some reservations. I'll be i
21 interested in seeing what you're able to-come up with.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Like all other things, if we don't 23 start we won't get...
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think the final point I would rm.
~_
25 mention, I think Alan is absolutely right on the point about FREE STATE REPORTING INC. 2" Court m.,erting . D.,.sitions a D.C. Ar n 161 1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6136 ; . . u . ;;
r ,
- o 65 -
1 the immidiato offectiveness reviews. We ought to conform the-g 2 regulations to our practice.
. )
. 3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Yes, I need t':...
4 MR. ROSENTHAL: One way or the other. I mean, you can 5 decide which way to go but either, again, that regulation 6 has to be conformed to the practice or the 7 practice has to be conformed to the regulation. Take 8 your pick. .
g COMMISS'IONER BERNTHAL: I think the issues that the board to has raised are easy. This other issue of our own policy y statement is more difficult.
. 12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I would like to have a tutorial on 13 this subject and I'll arrange it with you.
3 .
.... 34 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: At your convenience.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: No, not here.
16 MR. MARSCH: I don't think things are qtiite so bad on the b g Commission's effectiveness reviews, but I do agree that we 18 mg . . . e ough to redsk on Me to just. . .
g COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: I think the rule can be clarified.
20 MR. MARSCH: At least make it more straightforward and...
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That's right. That's what I said.
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Okay. Anything more on this subject ?
Well, thank you all. We 'll stand adjourned.
'] (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m.)
FREE STATI REPORTING INC. -'
' ' - ;-C:' Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Aree 161-1901 e Belt. & Annep. 149-6236 -
L 1
I 4 o
. . ,'o '
o 1 l
_ CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS p 2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3
before the NRC COMMISSION 4
In the matter of:
5 DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION POLICY 6 FOR HANDLING LAST MINUTE ALLEGATIONS 7 Date of proceeding: September 5, 1984 8 Place of proceeding: Washington, D.C.
9 were held as herein appears, and that this is the 10 original transcript for the file of the Commission.
11 JOE NEWMAN
. 12 13 Official Reporter C-- . 14 -
15 Y # '
16 Official Reporter - Signature 17 18 .
b* W 19 Transcriber 20 21 22 23 24
,~.
3
( 25 FREE STATE REPORTING INC.
Court Reporting e Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 e Bolt. & Annop. 169-6234 -
A
5 i 4
f 1r septernber 19, 1984 '
~ .
\
MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors i'
Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks t Executive Director for Operations ' #'
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED NRC MANUAL CHAPTER 0517. " MANAGEMENT Of ALLE The attached ptoposed Manual Chapter is provided to you as policy in regard to management of allegations.
Since the Commission may shortly address the issues of confidentiality and last minute allegations separately, and:their decisions may require some
- changes as a matter of administrative convenience, the manual chapter will not be published until these points have been addressed. In the meantime
,g the attachment will serve as policy on this matter.
pgnr2YGriam J.Dirch William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Attachment:
As stated O
s C
)b(] .. -
cf M LM 3, g
.L* . * '
I mn u g
,_, ,-_ , , . _ . _ , , , , - -- - ---_ _ _ , . _ ,-.-._.--,--,,.-----w-,. _ -, . _ _ . - . . - - -.
l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C019(ISSION NRC MANUAL Volume: 0000 General Administration .
Part : 0500 Health and Safety IE CHAPTER 0517 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS '
0517-01 COVERAGE c,
3
- o
- D0(g4 #
ra This chapter and its appendices define the policy and procedures for the proper receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations received
- 4) by HRC offices that concern NRC-regulated activities conducted by NRC licensees and their contractors and the policy and procedures for dealing
., with individuals who provide information to the NRC.
cd b 0517-02 OBJECTIVES 1
021 To establish the policy for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and to define procedures by which the receipt, status, and disposition of allegations are tracked through the Allegation Management System (AMS), thereby assuring that:
- a. allegations are properly assigned for processing and assessed for safety significance to permit ranking and resolution in a timely manner;
- b. timely and accurate information on all allegations is maintained and made available to NRC Offices and Regions on a need-to-know basis;
- c. all allegations not resolved by other formal means are processed in accordan.ce with these procedures and the resolution of all allegations is properly documented; 022 .To assure that individuals making allegations to the NRC. are properly treated, provided confidentiality when necessary, appropriate and possible, and notified of the resolution.
023 To assure that issues raised are promptly and adequately investi-gated.
Approved:
.~u,vu.1iay30IN3W3DYN5i ,.
. NRC-0517-03 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIORS l
0517-03 RESPONSIBILITIESANDAUTHORITIES l 031 ExecutiveDirectorforOperations(EDO)
Set policy and procedures for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and establish policy for the treatment and confidentiality of those who provide information to the NRC. For those matters within the purview of 0I and CIA,
- only set policy and procedures governing their interfaces with other Offices and Regions.
032 All Office Directors / Regional Administrators t
- a. Establish internal procedures so that all employees are aware of requirements for receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and for the accurate and timely updating of the status of those allegations for which their office is the Action Office.
- b. Appoint an Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) who serves as administrative point of contact for employees and other Offices and the Regions. The OAC will:
.A
- 1. Ensure that the appropriate parts of the Allegation Data Form (NRC Forn 307 Exhibit 1) are completed for all allega-tions received within the Office or Region and that the requested data are accurate and timely.
- 2. Determine the appropriate Action Office and, if applicable, coordinate with the OAC of the affected Office or Region on each allegation received.
- 3. Ensure the appropriate parts of the Allegation Data Form are completed for all allegations for which the Office or Region is the Action Office.
- 4. Forward the Allegation Data Form to the respective Action Office OAC when the Office or Region is not the Action Office.
- 5. Forward the completed Allegation Data Form to the NRR OAC [and a copy to the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safe-guards (NMSS) OAC, if appropriate] within 10 working days of receipt of an allegation when the Office is the Action Office.
(For power reactors, during the period from 30 days prio~r to the construction completion date until the Commission meeting on full power authorization, the Receiving Office or Action Office for any allegation will, within 2 working days, tele-phonically notify the NRR Project Manager of its receipt and the identification of the Action Office in addition to coor-plating the Allegation Data Fors.)
Approved: 2
I MANAGEMENT rF ALLEGATIONS NRC 0517-032b6 6.
Acquire input data on new allegations (including those referred and ensure to this
- 01) from the staff within the Office or Region a timely manner for placement into the AMS.information is 7.
Provide updates (using an AMS printout) on previous allega-tions (including those referred to OI) from the staff within the Office or Region and ensure this infomation is forwarced to the NRR OAC on a monthly basis for placement into the MS.
8.
Provide
- 5. reports as described in Appendix 1, Part. IX, 4 and c.
Determine the safety significance and generic implications cf those allegations that fall within the programmatic responsibi-lity of that Office processing or Region of allegations withand theestablish schedules for the prior to a licensing decision date, if applicable.cbjective of resolving the d.
. Review those potential boardallegations notification forandwhich it is the Action Office for g NRR or NMSS. recommend such notification to e.
NRC employees or NRC contractors, to the Offi and tions provide as requested. technical assistance to 01 for investigating allega-f.
Prior to taking escalated a major action such as a licensing decision enforcement, review the status or allegations for that project in the AMS especially those related and resolution of to the action.
g.
For technical concerns with generic implications, consider the need to inform other affected Offices for further action (e.g.,
AEOD for operational data, RES for concerns affecting research activities,etc.)
' b. For discrimination complaints received concerning possible violation of Section 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act, their the refer co@lainant to DOL and promptly notify DOL to ensure awareness of the complaint and investigative intent. to determine DOL's investigation would rest with Determination
- 01. of the need for' an NRC~
033 Director, Office of Investications Investigate allegations of wrongdoing by other than NRC en-l ployees and HRC contractors. Conduct t
with the Offices and Regions as described herein. interface responsibilities l
l 3 Approved:
I
--.--... . .. .~.... .
[ '
NRC-0517-034 MANAGEMEb0FALLEGATIONS 034 Director, Office of Inspector and Auditor Investigate allegations of wrongdoing by NRC employees and NRC contractors. Such allegations do not fall under the purview of this manual chapter and are not entered in the AMS.
~
035 Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
- a. Resolve allegations affecting matters for whicVit is the respon .
sible office including those that involve vendors or that are generic in nature in coordination with NRR or HMSS.
- b. Monitor the allocation of resources for this activity by .
the regions.
036. Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- a. Propose to the ED0 for approval agency-wide policy and proce-dures regarding the processing of allegations. For those allegations that fall under the purview of 01, propose policy and procedures governing their interface with other Offices 4 and Regions.
- b. Review allegations concerning NRR licensees in coordination _ with the Action Office for potential board notification and make such notification, if required.
- c. Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci-sions and plant safety concerning NRR licensees in coordination with IE and the Region (s).
. d. Resolve those allegations pertaining to reactor licensing issues assigned to NRR.
- e. Maintain the AMS and any necessary improvements to modify its capabilities, in coordination with RM.
037 Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeouards
- a. Review allegations concerning NMSS licensees in coordination with the Action Office for potential board notification and make such notification if required. .
. b. Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci-sions concerning MSS licensees in coordination with IE and the Region (s).
038 Office of Resource Management (RM) '
a.
Establish the ADP program and maintain the data base of information in the AMS.
1
- b. Provide monthly (Exhibits 2 and 3) and special reports to Offices l dnd A6giol:6 ab requested. l Approved: 4 l
snuuf:Js i tv du insnsuma
,l MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NRC 0517-04 i i
0517-04 DEFINITIONS I
. l 041 Action Office. The NRC Office or Region that is responsible fer reviewing and taking action, as appropriate, to resolve an allega-tion.
042 Action Office Contact. The staff member in the Action Office who is assigned the responsibility for resolving an allegation.
043 Allegation. A declaration, statement, or assertion of impro-priety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established. This includes all-safety concerns identified by sources such as the . media, indi-viduals or organizations outside the NRC, and technical audit efforts from Federal, State or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition are matters being handled by more femal processes such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, hearing boards, appeal boards, etc. Allegations that may result from these formal processes and
- are not resolved within these processes shall be subject to treatment under this manual chapter.
't 044 Allegation Management System (AMS). A computerized infomation system that contains a summary of significant data pertinent to each allegation.
045 A11eoer. An individual or organization who makes allegations, i The individual or organization may be a concerned private citi-zen; a public interest group; a licensee, vendor or contractor employee; a representative of a local, State, or Federal agency .
(NRC employees should be aware of procedures for presenting differing professional opinions, NRC Manual Chapter 4125).
- 1 1
046 Confidentiality. The term that refers to the protection of data that directly, or otherwise, could identify an alleger by name.
It is not intended to deny staff members access to the identity of the alleger when such identification is required by staff members to evaluate and resolve allegations.
047 Inquiry. An activity involving minimal effort to detemine the t
appropriate response to information reported to the NRC. Typi-cally, an inquiry entails the
- use of the telephone or written
. correspondence rather than fomal interviews or other, investi-
- gative measures; however, femal interviews will be conducted if i required.
t 048 Inspection. A routine or special activity that may be used to examine and subsequently resolve an allegation.
I 5 Approved:
.. ,.,,- s nu s
- SNOI1YDmy 30 ly3g3Dyyyy .'
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 049 Investination. Formal activities normally conducted by the l Office of Investigations on its own volition, or at. the request of the Commission, EDJ, or Regional Ackninistrators, with or without technical assistance. The Office of Investigations is the lead Action Office for all
, which doing,is excluding handled by CIA.
wror.gdoing by NRC employees and NRC c :
050 Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC). 'A desidriated staff member in each Office or Region who serves as the administrative point
, allegations.of contact for that Office or Region regarding the processin 051 Receivina Office. The Office an allegation. In some cases,or Region that initially receives Office will be the same if the the Action Office and Receiving allegation falls within the functional responsibility of the Receiving Office.
052 Safety Stanificance.
tion relative to A measure of the importance of an allega-its potential safety. impact on the public health and 4
053 Wronadoino the alleged For the purposes of this manual chapter, it includes deliberate, purposeful, or willful violation of NRC regulations, license technical specifications, licensee commitments
. to the NRC, or other laws or statutes of interest to NRC.
0517-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS 051 Applicability.
- The provisions of this chapter and appendices are applicable to, and shall be followed by, all NRC employees.
052 Wronadoina.
Allegations of wrongdoing at NRC regulated facili-ties, as opposed to those involving technical issues, fall within the purview of the Office of Investigations wrongdoing by NRC employees or NRC contractors (allegations of purview of OIA and are not entered into the AMS). fall within the The Office or Region will enter allegations of wrongdoing into the AMS using information provided by 01 (see Appendix 1 Part IX.2 of this manual chapter).
OI will investigate allegations involving wrongdoing findings to and the provide ,either a report or a summary of its requesting Office o'r Region. Allegations f.he' Region OAC with the 01 Field Office Direct and those received by Offices at NRC Headquarters will be coor-dinated with the O! OAC.
053 Action Office Assianments Allegations submitted by any source concerning NRC regulated activities should be transmitted by the Receiving Office OAC to the OAC in the appropriate Office or 8*gion for processing.
2 Approved:
6
'S NRc 0517-o54 pg4pgAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 054 Confidentiality. The identity of individuals making allegations should not be revealed by the NRC unless it is clear that the individual concerned has no objection. A confidentiality agreement (Exhibit 4) should be executed for those allegers who specifically request it, .and should be offered for execution to those allegers who by their actions convey the inference that their identity will ,
be protected by the NRC but who are apparently unaware that such an agreement is available. The offer of a confidentiality agreement should be contingent upon an assessment of the, usefulness of the information provided, if such a deteminati6n can be made in a timely manner. For other individuals, confidentiality need not be provided.
As a general rule, however, the "need to know" principle should be 1
implemented for all allegers. For those allegers with a confidentiality agreement, this means that the identity of the source must be protected by not referring to the name or other identifying information in discussions unless absolutely necessary and by expurgating the name and other identifying infomation from documents before disseminating these to the staff.
For those allegers without a confidentiality agreement, this meSns
< avoidance of unnecessary use of the identity of the source and
-g other identifying information in discussions and in documents. It must be made clear to all concerned if and on what terms the anonymity of a person making an allegation is to be prdtected. A clear record should be maintained for the files to preclude later misunderstandings.
Peporb + he confidentiality agreement may be signed by Office. Directors and yR Regional Administrators only and may be transmittad to the alleger L for signature by mail or in person as convenience dictates. If at 7n'y time for any reason confidentiality is breached or jeopardized,
. Office or Regional management should be informed and the person should be advised, the reason explained and remedial measures taken, if possible, to reduce the impact of disclosure.
Since OI has established policies and practices for the protectinn of confidentiality for its activities, the above are not necessarily applicable to 01.-
055 Respondina to A11eoers. Those who provide allegations to NRC staff must ne treated with respect, consideration, and tact.
l
- Under no circumstances should they be dealt with brusquely or abusively. . When allegations are received in ' writing, a prompt
. attempt to make personal contact must ordinarily be made in.-each case either by a letter, teler. hone call or even a personal meeting.
Contact should be carnest and professional. The alleger should be promptly advised of the results of followup action and, in instances of unusual delay in providing the results, should be advised of the status periodically so that there is an awareness that the allegation is not being ignored.
7 Approvet
~ mss : 87 JU IN3W3DYNyW 9SO-LTSQ-3HN
' l MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
{
NRC-0517-049 i 1
056 Screen'ing of Allegations. Allegations should be screened for significance to safety and the more serious ones should be addres-sed first. All allegations should be addressed as. promptly as resources will allow and at the need is identified. Screening of allegations should be considered diligently to the point where
- ' i some may be dismissed early in the process for logical reasons (i.e., lack of specificity after reasonable followup, lack. of 4 safety significance, etc.) to conserve staff resources. Followup on allegations, whether they are general or specific, should focus I not only on the specific allegation but on Me overall area of concern, including the potential for generic implications as well as criminal activities. In this regard, note that an allegation
. directed toward a non-safety item or activity may, through generic.
considerations, affect a safety ites or activity.
When a number of allegations point to or reinforce indications of a broader problem, prompt action to broaden the scope of the
' inquiry should then be taken to determine whether or not such is the case. While the safety significance of an allegation is an important factor in determining the extent and promptness of staff
- resources commitment, it should not affect the staff treatment of 4 the alleger as discussed in section 055, above.
057 Timeliness of Resolving Allegations. The Action Office should resolve all allegations in a manner which is timely under the circumstances and professional in scope and depth. Allegations having relatively high safety significance should be addressed expeditiously. Less significant allegations should be addressed as priorities and resources permit, but usually within 6 months of receipt. If it is appropriate, an inspection should be made. A plant visit with the person making the allegation should be made
. if necessary and if the individual is willing to make such a visit to find the exact location of a problem. Access issues should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Travel costs for the individual only can be offered, if necessary, and are borne by the Office or Region extending the offer. Care should be taken to avoid embarrassment or abuse of the individual, e.g. , schedule visit on off-shift / weekend, etc.
058 Involvement of Licensees or Other Affected Organization. For allegations involving a potentially significant and immediate impact on the public health and safety, the affected organization should be ~promptly informed to assure proper and timely action.'
_For other allegations, once information from allegers is received and understood by the Office / Region and if it is deemed appropriate by the Office Director / Regional Administrator, the licensee / vendor should be advised specifically by letter of the area of concern
- and should be requested to address it, subject to further audit by NRC, in order to minimize the expenditure of NRC resources. In all instances, however, confidentiality must not be breached and the effectiveness of investigations / inspections should not be com-promised, such as by prematurely releasing or appearing to release Approved: 8
gg ,;y . = - ^ ^~ -
~ '"
^[~~ [
NRC-0517-056 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS an MRC inspection report (note exceptions discussed below). The alleger must be informed that this is not handing a matter over to the affected organization, but that NRC will review and evaluate the actions of the affected organization and perform independent r activities as necessary. The affected organization should be
. informed regarding the resolution of the allegation if appropriate (See Appendix I Part VIII).
There are two exceptions to the above. The~first exception is where the information cannot be released in sufficient detail to be of use to the licensee or vendor without compromising the
, identity of the confidential source. In such cases release -
should normally not be made unless the release is necessary to prevent an imminent threat to the public health and safety. The EDO shall be consulted in all cases where it appears there, is a need to release the identity of a confidential source. The second exception is where a licensee / vendor could compromise an investigation / 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 shall decide
-g whether or not to release the infomation to avoid compromising NRC action. Release of inforsation to a licensee / vendor is expected to be the exception for 01 investigations.
Note that 10 CFR 19.16(a), involving radiological working condi-tions, requires that a worker's allegation in writing be made available to the licensee no later than at the time of inspec-tion, and that confidentiality be provided at the worker's request. In addition to expurgating names and other identifying information, protection of confidentiality could also involve
. retyping an alleger's handwritten notice. In the event the J
potential for wrongdcing is involved, 01 should be requested to perform an investigation in which case the licensee would not be informed.
l 059 "Last Minute" Allegations. When a large number of issues are raised at the same time, as has occurred with several plants as l they approach issuance of an OL, the difficulties in executing the above policy guidelines are compounded. Consideration should -
be given to organizing a task force, cumprised of both headquarters and regional personnel with a senior NRC manager as the task force leader, to resolve these issues within the usual short time frame between the date the issues were identified and the proposed date for issuance of an OL. A high degree of organizatiori in' the initial stages will be required in order to deal with these particular situations. To conserve NRC resources in resolving these large numbers of issues, the involvement by the licensee except as noted above will be appropriate. It may also be quite
~
appropriate to categorize the large number of issues into two 9 Approved:
ft,SO 3HN 'I XION3ddV gy0I1YU311Y 30 IN3W3DYNVW ,
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NRC 0517-058 general groups, one group in which the issues are judged to be significant and therefore require resolution prior to 0L issuance, and a second group in which the issues are of lesser importance permitting resolution over a longer time frame, even subsequent to OL issuance. Within the former group, subdivisions may be
. appropriate consistent with the planned stages of licensing for i
.." the facility (i.e., criticality, 5% power, full power).
060 Appendix 1. This appendix provides- procedores for receipt, control, processing, and disposition of allegations assigned to ,
NRC Offices or Regions and the procedures and guidelines used to record the' receipt, status, and disposition of allegations in the .
- AMS.
END 1
Approved: 10
_ _. . ~_ _ _ . _ . - _ . _ . . _ . . _. __ _
- - J MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 PROCEDURES FOR SCREENING ASSESSING, AND CONTROLLING ALLEGATIONS AND FOR ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (AMS)
Part 1: General This part establishes procedural guidance for screening, assessing, and ,
controlling allegatiens that come to the attention of the NRC staff. These functions are to be established within each Region and Office under the control of an individual Office Allegation Coordinator (DAC), or a panel of staff personnel or other appropriate staff technical perstns. The Regions and Offices will establish procedures consistent with this guidance and
, where appropriate provide the required training to ensure that their staffs are fully informed regarding the proper management of allegations.
Allegations pertaining to NRC-licensed facilities and activities may come to the attention of the NRC staff by telephone, letter, news media reports, or by direct verbal contact at sites, in offices, at meetings, and even at social functions. All allegations, no matter how originated, are subject to processing in accordance with this manual chapter. It is imperative that allegations be recognized as such by staff members and processed pro-fessionally, promptly, and with consistent treatment.
5 It is very important to note that where safety is involved, the NRC does not recognize the term "off-the-record." A11egers who wish to provide off-the-record information must be clearly advised that information impor-tant to safety cannot be treated off the record, but that the information will be accepted officially and acted upon as necessary. The name of the a11eger and other identifying information will be protected, however, under the confidentiality guidelines presented herein.
Any employee who receives an allegation must be aware that it is essential
, to protect the identity of the alleger if such anonymity is requested or implied by his/her actions (i.e., an alleger who employs circuitous means to contact the NRC or makes several phone calls anonymously and then subse-quently identifies himself as the one who has been making the anonymous calls). To this end, coordination with the appropriate Office or Region Allegation Coordinator must comply with the confidentiality guidelines discussed separately (Basic Requirement 054). If necessary, the identity l of an alleger may be revealed, but only if a confidentiality agreement has I not been executed. As a general rule, the "need to know" principle should '
be used when dealing with the protection of a person's identity.
NRC employees, particularly resident and regional inspectors, regional supervisors, and DACs .who are expected to receive the majority of allega-tions, shoiild become fully familiar with the prescribed policies and proce-dures to ensure that the required actions are performed.
It is the responsibility of all employees who receive allegations to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that an appropriate OAC is promptly informed. Whenever possible, the person making the allegation should be referred to either the OAC, other individuals as designated by the Region or <
Office, or arrangements should be made for the OAC or designated staff member i to recontact the individual. -
4 Al-1 Approved:
, SNOI1VS311V 30 IN3W3DYNvW -
NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS i
Part II: The Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) 0 1. The initial responsibility of the OAC is to identify the hroper Action Office to which the allegation should be assigned for evaluation and u resolution in coordination with other 0AC's (either in the Offices
~
- )y or Regions).
- 2. The OAC serves as a focal point for administrative. processing and con-trol of all allegations assigned to the Regions and Offices. The OAC-is responsible for tracking allegations from initial receipt to final i resolution. The OAC assures establishment and maintrxance of files
' = that clearly identify allegations assigned to the Region or Office and documents actions initiated to resolve such matters. The ' OAC ensures that management and cognizant staff are informed of allega-tions under their purview, kept current on the status of such alle-gations by providing accurate and timely information to the AMS, and briefed on the proposed final resolution of allegations. The OAC also ensures that the final resolution is properly documented.
- 3. The OAC assists technical staff members who are reviewing allegation information, primarily in the fona of coordinating activities neces ~
4 sary to resolve issues. In addition, the OAC may assist in the formulation of a course of action to resolve issues.
- 4. A panel, which includes the OAC as a member, may be designated with the primary responsibility to ensure that all allegations are promptly assigned and properly evaluated, and that the actions taken to resolve the allegation, as well as the resolution, are properly documented and transmitted to the alleger and the affected organization as appro-priate.
- 5. The OAC will serve as the point of contact with DOL on matters involving discrimination under Section 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act and will coordinate as necessary with DI and the Enforcement Staffs.
Part III: Receipt of an Allegation
- 1. Allegations Received by Telephone or Personal Visit Any NRC employee who receives a telephone call from someone who wishes '
i to make an allegation should have the caller transferred to the OAC
- or appropriate technical staff member in the Office or Region.
Likewise, if an _ individual appears in person at an NRC Office, the individual should be referred to the OAC or other technical staff member. Technical employees, when unable to refer the telephone call or the visitor as described, shall obtain as much information as possible from the individual (see item 3, below). When unable to locate the OAC or other technical staff member, administrative en-ployees should refer an individual to a technical staff supervisor.
Approved: Al-2
- 2. A11ecations Received by Mail Personnel responsible for distribution of mail will forward cor-respondence that appears to contain an allegation to the OAC. Both letters and envelopes will be forwarded and no copies will be made.
An employee memoranda, who receives direct correspondence, including internal NRC to the OAC. that contains allegations shall forward the correspondence All personnel who may come into possession of this type of correspondence also should be made aware that " correspondence con ,
taining confidential source infomation should be transmitted in a sealed envelope transmittals marked "To Be Opened by Addressee Only;" for expedited (e.g.,
electronically), confidential source information should be deleted from correspondence.
- 3. Discussions with A11eoer Any employee receiving a telephone call or visit, as discussed in itemindividual.
the 1, shall attempt to obtain as much information as possible from It is crucial to identify:
. a. full name
. b. complete mailing address A
c.
- d. telephone number where the individual may be contacted
- e. position or relationship to facility or activity involved nature of allegation If the alleger declines to provide the above information, attempt to establish the reason (s) using the following guidance:
Inform kept the individual confidential. that if so requested, his/her identity will be !
Explain further, if necessary, that Public Law 95-601 affords protection to the alleger by prohibiting an employer from discriminating against an employee for contacting the NRC.
Requirement 054 provides further Basic confidentiality. information' regarding protection of The a11eger may be informed that the NRC employee with whom he/she is in contact to determine does not have follow the capability to evaluate the information, up action or to establish NRC jurisdiction; therefore, it may be necessary ,that someone else contact the alleger for additional infomation.
The alleger should be informed also, that- unless an objection is' registered--he/she the allegation. will be recontacted as soon as possible regarding a letter to the k11eger,This may be done by telephone, personal visit, 'or b at an address designated, which will also acknowledge the receipt of the allegation. This process will permit the alleger to review the information with the NRC to provide maximum assurance understood. that the inforsation has been correctly interpreted and
~
l , !
i i
Al-3 Approved:
l 1
SNOI1VD3'ny 30 IN3W33VNVW .
- ._ ___.L_________ . .
NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIOMS
}
If the alleger persists in not offering identification after the above explanations, document the allegation in as much detail as.possible and advise the alleger that he/she may contact the OAC or designated staff member in 30 days or any other agreed upon period, for infomation on the status of any actions being taken on the information supplied.
For allegations cf discrimination that fall under Section 210(a) of the Energy ' Reorganization Act, inform the allegers that NRC will look into the complaint and any safety concerns identified by the alleger, and that appropriate enforcement actions will be taken against the employer if the allegation is substantiated. To assure personal
. employee rights are protected, advise the alleger that the complaint must be filed with DOL within 30 des of the occurrence of the discrimination event.
Part IV: Action by the Receiving Employee and the Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC)
- 1. When an allegation concerning a NRC-regulated activity is received, the employee receiving the allegation will provide the information obtained
- to the Receiving Office OAC who will complete an NRC Fors 307, Alle-
-g gation Data Form. The Action Office is then identified and the completed form is forwarded to the Action Office OAC. Until direct input / update capability is provided to the Regions and Offices, a copy of the completed form will be forwarded to the NRR OAC, and one copy to the MSS OAC, if appropriate for the issue. NRC Fom 307 serves as 4 notification to MSS and NRR that an allegation has been received that may affect their licensing activity; NRR will enter the pertinent information in the AMS in accordance with these procedures. All allegations must be entered into the AMS. In this way an " audit trail" will be established so that NRC actions can be properly monitored and
- . completed.
- 2. The Action Office OAC or other designated staff member will ensure that the alleger is properly contacted to acknowledge receipt of the allegation and to confirm the specifics of the allegation. Depending on the nature of an allegation, the OAC will provide copies of the allegation documentation and the letter sent to the a11eger (with the alleger's identity and identifying information concealed) to the cognizant technical staff supervisor for evaluation and initiation of action. Such copies also will be forwarded to OI Headquarters or to the cognizant 01 Field Office for information. When responsibility
. for the handling of an allegation is transferred from one organizational unit to, another, the alleger should be notified of the new point _of contact (name and telephone number) by the individual who is relieved as contact in order to assure continuity. A single point of contact should be the rule.
The OAC will follow up on the allegation with the cognizant technical staff supervisor at . periodic intervals until the matter has been satisfactorily resolved. When the case is closed, ari update should be made to that affect in the AMS.
i Approved: Al-4
NDXX 1 NRC 0517 ;
- 3. The OAC will coordinate allegation information with the technical staff and may assist in determining whether the informati.on is suffi- ,
cient to identify the issues. If the information is determined to be '
insufficient, the OAC or designated staff member will assist in further contact with the alleger. A single point of contact with an a11eger provides a means of better ~ controlling communications, aids in developing rapport, establishes continuity in the flow of information between the Regions and other. NRC Offices, and aids in protection of the alleger's identity. -
- 4. The OAC assists the cognizant technical staff in identifying and
' separating the issues involved in an allegation into one of the follow- '
ing categories:
- a. Allegations that involve purely technical matters, such as:
inadequacies in procedures, qualifications, or training; inade-quate implementation of procedures; or_ inadequate corrective actions; or overexposure (s) to radiation.
- b. Allegations that involve wrongdoing such as: record falsifi-
. cation; willful or deliberate violations; material false state-
, ments; discrimination under Section 210(a) of the Energy A Reorganization Act; or other improper conduct.
- c. Allegations that involve matters outside the jurisdiction of NRC.
- 5. Technical issues in category 4a involving failure to meet requirements have the potential for being willful or deliberate violations. However, in the absence of specific allegations of wi11 fulness or deliberateness, such issues will normally be tracked separately as technical issues and 1 resolved using program resources. If an allegation covers issues that i
~
affect other Regions or Offices, follow-up activities will be coordin- L ated with the affected Offices and a Lead Office will be designated. The t DAC will contact the affected Offices which should result in a mutual i agreement as to which Office or Region should have the lead. If agree-ment cannot be reached at the OAC level, then the Regional Adminis-trators or Office Directors will resolve which Office or Region should take the lead.
- 6. Allegations in category 4b, should be refer; red to 01 Field or Head-quarters personnel except for those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors. , ,
- 7. When applicable and after coordination, the Action Office should notify-'other agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Heilth Administration, DOE, etc. in dealing with allegations in category 4c. Notification to other Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local jurisdictions of possible criminality involved in allegations should be handled by the appropriate OI Office or the Office of Inspector and Auditor (for matters falling within its purview only.)
Al-5 Approved:
~ ~~~
aavuraily 30 IN3N3DYNW -
, k
- r NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
- 8. The OAC ensures that a discrimination complainant under section 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act is properly referred' to D0L (the complaint must be filed with DOL within 30 days of its occurrence),
and that DOL is promptly notified of the complaint. Complaints should be filed with the Office of the Administrator, . Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U. 5. Department of Labor, Roon 53502, 200 Constitution Avenue, N. W. , Washington, D. C. 20210. The
, Regional Administrator or Office Director .should be tromptly informed. '
The OAC also maintains awareness of DOL's investigative intent, and ensures NRC consideration of the need for its own investigation by timely referral to 0I. The OAC will take reasonable steps to facilitate
- D0L's investigation by assisting D0L in obtaining access to licensed' facilities and any necessary security clearances. This type of
, allegation should also be entered into the AMS.
- 9. If an allegation is determined to have generic implications, other Offices and/or Regions with responsibilities that say be affected will be appropriately notified by the Action Office (e.g., AEOD for opera-tional data, RES for concerns affecting research activities, etc.)
- 10. Information regarding suspected improper conduct by NRC employees and 4 . NRC contractors will be brought to the attention of appropriate management for possible referral to the Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA).
! Part V: Documenting Allegations l 1. When an allegation is received and the action office identified, a j working file should be established to contain all related documentation I
concerning the allegation, including all correspondence, memorandum to files, interviews, and summaries of telephone conversations, discus-sions, and meetings. This file shall be maintained in the official files of the Action Office in an officially designated location.
To ensure proper evaluation, full and complete information should be
- documented about each allegation. In addition to obtaining basic information, attempts should be made to expand and clarify the information so that the issue is well defined. All allegations, regardless of source or how received, must be documented. Records or files containing the name of a confidential source or other identifying information (i.e. a confidentiality agreement has been executed) should be stamped "This material contains confidential source information."
.2. There will be occasions when the allegations obviously have no sub-stance and appear to represent a distortion of facts. However, 7ven
'in these cases, ' documentation is necessary that identifies the con-tact, the general content of any communicaticns, and the basis for a conclusion that the matter need not be pursued. Instances such as these will be coordinated with the appropriate technical staff by the OAC to ensure proper disposition.
- 3. The importance of obtaining and documenting all pertinent information about an allegation cannot be overemphasized. Evaluation and screen-ing of the allegation, as well as the proposed course of action that will be ' adopted to resolve the issue, will be based primarily on this information. In some cases, a personal interview with the Approved: Al-6
ma c._._. .
MANAGEMERT OF ALLEGATIONS _APPEiOIX 1, NRC 0517 alleger may be warranted. In these cases, the GAC will consult with NRC management to determine the best' way to obtain the details re-quired. Depending on the nature of the allegation and the time sensi-tivity, assistance from the Office of Investigations (OI) o. other resources may be requested.
- 4. As soon as possible after receiving an allegation or becoming aware of information that indicates . inadequate or improper activities, the person receiving the allegation shall notify the~ OAC. Normally, no -
action will be taken to verify the validity of the allegations, nor shall such matters be discussed with licensees, if necessary, until after the OAC or designated staff member has briefed appropriate NRC management.
- 5. The OAC or other designated staff member is responsible for reviewing '
all information received in conjunction with an allegation and for ensuring that management and cognizant technical staff members are fully informed.
- 6. Allegations normally should not be addressed in Preliminary Notifica-tions (PNs) or Daily Reports (DRs); howaver, if it is determined that
- PN or DR entries are appropriate, the approval of an Office Director or a Regional Administrator should be obtained.
- 7. If allegation documents must be sent to other NRC personnel, they should be appropriately handled to protect the identity of the confidential alleger. The confidential alleger's identity or other identifying information should not be released unless there is a "need to know" (See Basic Requirement 054).
Part VI: Evaluation by Cognizant Technical Staff
- 1. When an allegation package is received, the technical staff within tha Office or Region will review the documentation to determine if there is a safety concern that requires insediate action. The technical staff is responsible for development, initiation, and follow-through on corrective actions. Allegations or documents containing a sub-stantial number of allegations once entered in the AMS can be screened using the following criteria:
- a. Is there an imediate safety concern which must be quickly addressed? -
- b. .Is the allegation a specific safety or quality issue or,'a gener-alized concern?
- c. Has the staff previously addressed this issue?
- d. Determine whether the allegation package contains sufficient information for a thorough evaluation. If it does not, identify the additional information that is needed.
)
Al-7 Approved:
k
. . . _ _ .. .. .. . =_ _ _ --
SNOI1VS317V 30 IN3W3DYNVN .
.- NRC 0517, APPENDIX 1
' MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
- e. Determine whether all aspects of the allegation are adequately defined and described to pemit or require a meaningful and exten-sive evaluation. This is a screening process that may result in a ,
decision not to consider the allegation further. If the latter is j
' the decided course of action, the alleger should be so informed in !
- a courteous and diplomatic manner along with the rationale for not
-[ considering it further. The. potential for adverse publicity must R be recognized when taking this action.
a
!U f. Determine whether the identity of the alleger is necessary for a' thorough evaluation.
- g. Determine what specific issues are involved in the allegation and' whether the issues can be adequately addressed by a technical inspection.
- h. Determine if the allegation can be examined and resolved during a routine, scheduled inspection. If this is not possible, deter-mine the best way to address the issues.
. 1. Determine whether licensee / vendor resources can reasonably be
-' used in resolving the allegation to conserve staff resources.
Consider potential problems associated with " turning the issue over to the licensee."
j.
Determine whether the allegation has the potential to require escalated enforcement action.
- k. Detemine the time sensitivity of the allegation, and what immed-inte actions are necessary.
j , 1. Determine whether investigative assistance will be needed.
- m. Identify peripheral issues that could develop.
- n. Consider if any licensing actions or board proceedings are pending which could be influenced or affected by the allegation. When an allegation involves a case pending before a licensing or appeal board or the Commission, information concerning it should be provided to NRR or DMSS as soon as possible to assist in the determination of whether or not a board notification should be made. This decision must be made promptly by NRR or HMSS in l .
accordance with office procedures. -
- c. 'De~termine if other NRC Offices that may have an interest dould be notified.
. p. As soon as possible after the tweeipt of an allegation and the relevant information has been reviewed and evaluated, the Action Office will make a preliminary determination of the safety signi-ficance of the item and the need for immediate regulatory action.
This determination will be reported in the next AMS update.
t Approved: Al-8 I
E
^
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 q.
Establish a schedule for the resolution of each allegation which is consistent with the licensing schedule, if applicable.
r.
Notify or the(s) action OAC or designated staff member when the status changes is cosplete.
2.
It is the responsibility of the technical staff within the Office or Region and subsequently, to resolve each allegation that falls under its jurisdiction, to notify the OAC or designated staff member of the action closecut. Final taken so that the status of each allegation can be tracked to resolution of an allegation shall be documented and placed in the working file along with all supporting doctamentation. The, final report belittle should state or disparage the facts clearly, in a style that does not the alleger.
3.
For those allegations resulting in the need for corrective actiori, the affected organization (s) shall be properly informed.
Part VII: Allegation Resolution Documentation
.- 1.
Allegation that resolution documentation officially closes the file for 4
a closer case shall case and file. be placed in the working file which new becomes storage Closed case files shall be retired to inactive accordingthrough to the the Document Management Branch, TIDC, and destroyed Comprehensive (NUREG-0910).
Records Disposition Schedule Appropriate documents, including those necessary for an individual to understand the incoming allegation and its resolution, shall be placed in the NRC records system (PDR, LPDR, Docket File, subject File, DCS) and must be treated to protect the identity of the alleger.
t 2.
A final report should be prepared that sets forth the facts about the allegation and its resolution clearly and conclusively. The final re-
) port tion /can be a memorandum inspection report, for a relatively minor matter, an investiga-generic matter. or a technical paper fer a complex or major proximate to OL issuance. SER . supplement for multiple allegations It can be an It should not contain the name of, or material Requirement that could be used to identify, the alleger (See Basic 054).
3.
The final report should include a summary of the concern, a descrip-tion of the evaluation performed and the conclusions drawn. It should i
[
be written in a style that doe's not belittle or disparage the alleger. t 4.
Approfriate tion. entries should be made in the AMS to close out the allega-5.
When the final report has been approved (i.e. , the case is closed), all allegation documentation is subject to release under the FOIA with appropriate precautions to protect confidentiality. Until that time, i
'all allegation documentation is exempt from release under the FOIA in accordance for, law enforcement with 10 CFR 9.5 Exemption (7) due to actual, or the potential action.
the FOIA request for release File documents, however, are frozen by subsequent FOIA request be received. when the case is closed should a i Al-9 Approved: <
1
__,n , _ .- - - - . - , - . , - - - - . - - - - - . , - , - . - . _ , - - - a - - _ _ - - . _ -- -----__ -_ - _ _ -
- usnes
-ao}ut (064*Z) topasamos ao largapdoad Kuu ao unnesaolut spaenS c;es Xue ugegu:s gou itsys pua ps);5ssatoun aq tisys maoA ayg un p;aatua uopesaogu) tty matsAs ayg ut paaatua aq tou itoys suon aa ngsuas p
-v50tte ounes suosaad to saweu ayg se yons uonesaogu) J
- n/
~' Dissemination of Final Report Part VIII:
1
- 1. A copy of the final report shall be sent to the alleger and, if appro-priate, to the affected outside organization (s). A transmittal letter b may be needed to sumnarize the matter.
- 2. As in Part VII.1 above, copies of the final report shall be placed in the NRC records system, and should be treated so as, not to reveal the identity of the alleger.
- 3. The foregoing does not apply to OI investigative reports.
~
PART IX: ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
- 1. General
- a. For purposes of the Allegation Management System (AMS) the defini-tion provided for an allegation is very general and broad. The significance or nonsignificance of an allegation will be judged during the Action Office review and follow-up activities. There f is to be no screening of allegations for possible deletion prior to entering them into the system (except of course for duplication of entries). The AMS should provide a vehicle for collecting, storing and retrieving all key information regarding all allega-tions. The Action Office determines the necessary action to be taken based upon the specifics of the case. Some allegations may be received and closed out the same day.
- b. The AMS provides basic descriptive and status information and serves as a referral system. It identifies the office and staff to contact for more specifics on an allegation. Additionally, it keeps the staff informed as to how the allegation was resolved and provides reference to the close out documentation.
- c. When an allegation is received, it is not necessary to identify by separate entry into the AMS every component or subset of the allegation. For example, if an allegation is received that con-sists of 15 separate concerns of wrongdoing and technical defi-ciencies, the allegation may be entered as one allegation. However, the description of the allegation should include the number of separate concerns and their subject area. In some cases there say be a distinct grouping of concerns, for example, in two areas such as - training and quality assurance. In such a case it may be appropriate to enter two allegations. A main objective i s - to ensure that the receipt of an allegation is entered and tracked in the system. An allegation is not completed and closed until an Action Office supervisor determines that appropriate action has been taken.
Approved: Al-10
\
[ MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517
- d. Sensitive information such as the names of persons making allega- I tions shall not be entered in the ~ system. All information entered on the fore shall be unclassified and shall not contain any safe-guards information or any proprietary or commercial (2.790) infor-nation.
~
- e. Some allegations may require action by two or more offices. For purposes of entering the allegation into the AMS either separate entries should be made for each Action Offic~e for their assigned _
~
action or one entry may be sade with the involved 0ACs agreeing on the lead Action Office for followup of the allegation. If
. another Office is involved in responding to an allegation, it should be so indicated in the " remarks" section.
- 2. Interfaces with the Office of Investigations
- a. The Office of Investigations has jurisdication over all allegations of wrongdoing except those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors and will forward all allegations of a technical nature to the appropriate Office or Region. The Office or Region will be e
responsible for entering all allegations--even those under the 4 purview of 01--into the AMS using a Region or Office AMS number.
- b. For those allegations of wrongdoing, except those involving NRC employees or NRC contrtctors, assigned to the Region or Office:
(1) The Region or Office OAC will coordinate with the 01 Field Director or OI Headquarters representative to determine if
- sensitive information is included which should not be placed l into the AMS. All sensitive information is to be deleted and the word " sensitive" put in its place. However an attempt il . - should be made to provide descriptive material to assist the AMS user to the maximum extent possible.
(2) The Region or ' Office OAC will assign a Region or Office AMS number. The OI assigned number should be entered in the AMS as a cross-reference. .
(3) The name and phone number of the OI Field Director or 01 Headquarters representative will be placed in the appropriate
. section of the form as the Action Office contact.
(4) The 01 Field Director will keep ttie Region or Office OAC
._ . apprised of the status of the allegation investigation. and provide timely information necessary to determine the safety significance of the allegation to appropriate Regional or Office management and for use in updating the AMS.
Al-11 Approved:
._ - .. -, _ _L_ _ _ - _ _ . . - - . . - - - -
,ssanp'a3oad uope311M *' $39 ap
- 6 JDP dP I u35 C" l' 53
. ut etqissed iaan%e0 "I us pt03tl, agg Su penteAS 10 #"s34;tu3 , acacus o ,3 3pou g 4
.o e Jo 'E n ot oo3
.ns clut %uega(sa tu quas Si uo psupsaagap , g a p,oq (splu us e 594*
- Sutple gamututt, d 55 uo p'351 0p,oq e aol pseu aqt ,g uopuS .q2 usp*3DI .tno*@*
, ,o.
e.**
c1esed when the investiga-report has been issued and as long as no technical issues
~
remain. If technical issues or an investigation remain, the allegation remains open, reference is made to the technical report or 01 investigation report if either is complete, and a schedule for resolution of the allegation is placed in the Allegation Data Form or in the AMS update.
- c. For allegations of wrongdoing received by 01,"th' e OI Headquarters or Field Director will coordinate with the respective Office or Region OAC to complete the items 2.b(1) through (5), above.
- d. For allegations of a technical nature received by 01, the OI Head-quarters or Field Director will contact the respective Office or Region and follow the procedures as indicated in item 3. below for the Receiving Office.
- 3. Receivino Office
' Upon receipt of an allegation involving an NRC-regulated activity, the person receiving the allegation will provide the information rela- .
~; tive to the allegation (see Exhibit 1) to the OAC who will initiate steps required to identify the Action Office and to enter the alle-gation into the AMS.
The Receiving Office OAC should, in addition to determining the appro-priate Action Office, coordinate with the Action Office, and receive concurrence from the Action Office before transfer of responsibility.
- 4. Action Office. The Action Office shall :
- a. Complete that portion of the Allegation Data Form marked " Action Office," assign an allegation number to it, and forward a copy of the form to the NRR OAC for entry into the AMS, and to the NMSS DAC, if appropriate, within 10 working davs of the date of receipt of the allegation for information.
- b. Provide AMS updates to the NRR DAC on a monthly basis by indicating updates on the previous month's status report. Updates are due to NRR by the 25th of each month. All input to NRR for the AMS should be sent in " addressee only" envelopes to, " Allegation Management System, Mail Stop 528. Completion of the follow-up action for an allegation will be recorded by updating the monthly status report. Name and telephone of Office or Regional' A11ega-tion Coordinators will be indicated at the top of the update sheets; any changes in the designation of OACs will be made here.
- c. As soon as possible after the receipt of an allegation and relevant information has been reviewed and evaluated, make a preliminary determination of safety significance and the need for any regu-latory action. This determination will be reported in the next AMS update.
Approved: Al-12
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1, NRC 0517
- d. Schedule the resolution of each allegation to be consistent with the licensing schedule and the safety significance of the alle-gation. .
. e. Make a determination regarding the need for a board notification to NRR or MSS. If the initial board notification is preliminary in nature, a follow-up notification is sent to boards when evaluation is completed, or whenever significant relevant informa-tion is identified during the course of evaluating the allegation.
This determination should be made as soon as possible in accordance with the Action Office board notification procedures.
. f. Develop and maintain a working file for each allegation, which will-contain all related documentation. For those allegations comprised of multiple concerns, separate working files may need to be estab-lished for each concern.
- h. Thirty days prior to the construction completion date (appli-cant's estimate) for each pending OL, each Action Office will J forward to the Division of Licensing /NRR, an evaluation of the.
safety significance of all allegations not scheduled to be resolved before the construction completion date, with a recom-mendation as to whether any or all of them constitute grounds for delaying issuance of (or otherwise restricting) an operating license.
1 Thirty days prior to a Commission decision on authorizing full-power operation, a report similar to ites h above, will be prepared.
- j. Ensure protection of the identity of all allegers when confiden-tiality is requasted or implied by their actions.
- 5. NRR OAC
- a. Upon receipt of an Allegation Data Form and updates, the NRR OAC l will perform a quality check and will transmit the information to l the Office of Resource Management (RM) for input into the AMS.
l This procedure will be modified when direct input or update capability ' to the AMS can be obtained for Offices and Regions.
- b. -NRR will coordinate with RM to provide Offices and Regions monthly status reports during the first week of each month. The monthly report will include a list of all open allegations and a list of those allegations c1csed during the last 30 days. The format for the status report is provided (Exhibit 3).
Al-13 Approved:
l
)
. 1 NRC Form 307 ALLEGATION DATA FORM
- 1.
- E 2. FACILITY:
ALLEGATION NUMBER: -
-A-Name Unit No. Docket No.
a.
b.
C..
- 3. TYPE OF REGULATED ACTIVITY:
D a. Reactor Ob. Vendor Oc. Materials Od. Safeguards O e. Other
. 4. MATERIALS LICENSE NUPEER:
- 5. FUNCTIONAL AREA (s): ,
$ O a. Operations .
O b. Construction Od. Transportation O e. Emergency preparedness O c. Safesverds 3 Qf.Onsitehealthandsafety O g, Offsite health and safety C)h. Other I-
- 6. DESCRIPTION:
3 7. NUPEER OF Cm!GERN5:
- 8. SOURCE:
~1 O a. Contractor employee O b. Licensee employee O c. NRC employee O d. Forwar employee O e. News media O f, Private citizen Bh.Otherg. Organization O 1. Anonymous -
- 9. CONFIDENTIALITT REQULSIw: O Yes O No
" 10. DATE ALLEGATION RECEIVED: / /
- 11. EPPLOYEE/0FFICE RECEIVING AEEEK1 TUN:
- o
- 12. ACTION OFFICE CONTACT / PHONE:
- 13. SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: O High O Medium O Low O None
- 14. BOARD NOTIFICATION REcopetENDED: O Yes O No
- 15. OI NOTIFIED: O Yes O No
- 16. STATUS:
D open O Closed Date Closed: / /
Scheduled Completion Date: J_/_
3 17. WAS ALLEGATIO N IATED: O Yes O No O Partially
' . 19. WAS DI INVESTIGATION PERFORMED: O Yes O No
- O In Process
" 20. DID DISPOSITION RESULT IN LETTER TO MODIFY OR REVOKE LICENSE:
E O Yes O no 0 50.54(f) 0 30.32(d) 0 70.22(d) 0 40.31(b)
Disposition:
- 21. ALLEGER NOTIFIED OF CLU5EDUT,: O Yes O Mo
- 22. REMARKS: '
P 23. CRMS
REFERENCE:
- 24. PROJECT MANAGER / PHONE:
I 25. APPLICANT'S CONSTRUCTION COMPLM ION DATE: /j-g 26. BOARD NOTIFICATION ISSUED: O Yes. O llii
~'. -
El-1 Approved:
-a.*s m a -
SN0HV93'lW 301N3W39VNVN ' *
- NRC 0517. EXHIBIT 1
.~ INSTRUCTIONS
- 1. Allegation Nueer Action Office fill in the boxes to uniquely iden ,
tify this allegation 0FFICE official NRC office abbreviation for the Office responsible for follomup activities.
YEAR last tuo digits of the calendar year in .
which the allegation was reported to NRC.
A identifies this number as an allegation number. .
NuleER sequential number assigned by the Office or Region responsible for the followup activities.
- EXAMPLE The 24th allegation received by IE in )
1982 would be shown as IE-42-A-0024 1
- 2. Facility (ies) Give the name of the facility (tes) or company (ies) I involved about whom the allegation is made. Write the
. docket number, if appropriate in the spaces to ,
the right. If the allegation is made about a :
specific individual or if the inforestion in this '
item is otherwise sensitive, write SEM51TIVE. If more than three facilities or companies are in-volved write GENERIC.
- 6. Description Briefly describe the allegation (I or 2 sentences).
De concise. If an allegation includes several in-stances of technical deficiencies or wrongdoing, list the assertions separately or group them by e type.
NOTE: If the description of the allegation is
.I' sensitive, write only SENSITIVE.
- 7. Number of Write the total number of concerns given in the Conceras allegation. Note that each Office or Region may ,
need to establish a working file for each concern.
- 8. Source Check the box that most clearly describes the 1
affiliation. DO NOT include the name of the indi-i vidual making the allegation..
- g. Confidentiality Indicate whether confidentiality has specifically Requested been requested, j 13. Safety Provide an estimate of the safety significance of Significance allegation Example (a) Check "high" for an alleged defi-ciency in an operating plant that could have an 1smediate and great effect on public health and safety (b) Check " Low" for an alleged deficiency in a plant under construction that would have a minor effect on public health and safety
- 20. Did Disposition Check appropriate box (es) and briefly describe Result in Letter method of disposition (e.g., letter, technical to Modify or report,inspectionreport,SER,etc.)andidentify Revoke License document.
- 22. Remarks Include additional information as appropriate.
EIAMPLES: list other allegations related to this allegation; list other NRC offices responsible for followup activities on this allegation, l
j 23. Cross Reference Identify other related allegations and.investiga-l . . tions by alpha-numeric designation.
- 25. Applicant's For plants under construction, enter the app 11-Construction cant's estimated construction completion date;
- Completion Date there is no need to provide this information until i 3 or 4 months prior to the estimated date.
l 26. Board Notification Indicate whether a board notification was issued.
Issued Approved: El-2 n
ptrememmusmC; gggg=gggggg l
( g b. e e
m,
=
-
- 2 - -
E t--
=
E l E
2E
.,,=lg.
REdd l
j g ~ ~
.E Ei .?,
^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ '-' ^
I-B~ " -
E 8
~
~
R R
c
~
$W s"E S
ret"-
E9_
>M e =81"E
. *d.
B.
j,
> n
= g.
.. -g E~~
- ': 8
.=B- W
. 3. .
Of W , BIB lE l
. 7, SSRI E
= s.,
8 W .s suB- .
c b
=
E v l "* . 8
. . . . ~
~
.sE.sl, -
. o dS"E
==E- '
g l e i
- 2 5
. . .e 5
- o
== w g g .e e.e > > H
= B 2 a E E E E = . R /
E2-1 Approved:
n- - ,,--,- ---,--- - --.
e' e
I 9
- R-1246121 '
RUN DATE: 04/01/84
, PAGE I r LIST OF ALL ALLEGATIONS 8 5
FACILITY MAME ALLEGATION NUMB S COMIACT FIS PHONE STA1US k i -
IBISCO FIRE SEALS) c-l WRIII-83-A-0929 W SULDEMOMB 388-5498 SPEN AMERICAN TESTING L ASS OIR4-83-A-Og43 RK NERR AMERICAM TESTING LABS 728-8380 gPEN RIV-85-A-9523 TF WESTERMAN 728-8100 CLOSED F1 AMERSMAM CORP RII-84-A-OS26 8 URYC ARRANSAS 142 242-4893 OPEN RIV-84-A-0099 TF WESTERMAN 728-8100 OPEN
$~
w l
ARRANSAS 182 RIV-84-A-0041 TF WESTERMAN 728-4199. OPEN "
ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RES INST RI-83-A-0089 JD RINNEMAN 488-1252 9 PEN '3l l ARM 0/DAP CORP, MICHISAM CITY, IN NRIII-84-A-0083 ATLANTIC CITY MEDICAL CENIER DJ SREMIANSKI 388-5611 CLOSEB ":
i RI-84-A-0924 JE GLEMM 488-1269 CLOSED ~
i ATLANTIC NUCLEAR SERVICES RII-83-A-9197 GA TODD 242-4t9S "
AUSURN STEEL MILL CLOSED RII-83-A-0915 GA TODD 242-4993 CLOSED f, 1 BANNSON, INC. RII-84-A-0049
! 8 URYC 242-4893 CLOSED i BARCLAY INTERNATIONAL RIV-83-A-0082 TF WESTERMAN 728-8809 BASIC ENGINEERS NATIONAL VALVE, PA OPEN WIE-84-A-9003 EM MERSCHOFF 492-4572 C BAYTOWN INDUST X-RAY CONST C0 RII-83-A-902) 04 100D 242-4193 OPEN CLOSEB s
"' DEAVER VALLEY f R I-8 3- A- 0 0 7 4t * * ) LE TRIPP 488-1227 ~:
+
BEAVER VALLEY l CLOSED RI-83-A-9080 LE TRIPP 488-1227 CLOSED l
BEAVER VALLEY I RI-83-A-9984 LE TRIPP 488-8227 l BEAVER VALLEY I CLOSED RI-84-A-9096 LE TRIPP 488-1227 CLOSED l BEAVER VALLEY 1 RI-84-A-SO97 LE TRIPP ; 488-8227 I
BEAVER VALLEY 2 OPEN .
i RI-83-A-St88 LE TRIPP 488-1227 OPEN BEAVER VALLEY 2 RI-84-A-0909 LE TRIPP 488-8227 '
BEAVER VALLEY Z OPEN RI-84-A-0043 LE TRIPP 488-1358 OPEN BECMIEL t BELLEFONTE 1 R I V-8 3- A- 9 0 3 5( ** ) TF WESTERMAN 728-8800 CLOSED i RII-83-A-SO39 OA 1000 242-4993 CLOSED l BELLEFONTE 1 RII-83-A-0040 i SELLEFONTE I CA TODD 242-4993 CLOSED -
RII-83-A-9099 OA 1000 242-4193 '
d is BELLEFONTE 1 SELLEFONTE I RII-83-A-9122 8 URYC 242-4193 CLOSED OPEN RII-83-A-St23 8 URYC 242-4393 OPEN s 3
BELLEFONTE 1 . RII-84-A-0991 8 URYC 242-4193 OPEN BELLEFONTE 1 RII-84-A-9009 OA TODD 242-4593 pi :
OPEN x 1 BELLEFONTE I SELLEFONTE 1 RII-84-A-0936 JB LANRFORD 242-4994 OPEN 3!
BEST INDUSTRIES INC, ARLINGTON VA RII-84-A-0052 JB LANKFORD 242-4994 CLOSED m :.
BEINESDA NOSP. CINCINNATI, ONIO RII-84-A-9527 A TILLRAM 242-5613 CLOSES Qs RIIF-83-A-Og79 DJ SRENIAWSKI 388-56fl CLOSEO SIS ROCK POINT .
RIII-83-A-0067 LR GREGFR 388-5644 CLOSE0 W BRE WASTE DUMP, M. COVINA, CA RV-84-4-0048 RD TMcMAS 463-3763 SORS WARNER '
CLOSED RIV-83-A-OS29 TP WESTERMAN 728-8909 OPEN j +
l 90MIDE PRODUCTS INC RIV-83-A-0060 RR MERR 728-8Ift OPEN l BOVARI ELECTRIC INC n OIR4-83-A-0977 RR NERR 724-8199 OPEN BPS INSTRUMEMrTS'INC, EVANSVILL, IN RIII-84-A-0039 DJ SRENIANSRI sRAIDWOOD 1
- WS LIITLE 388-56II 388-5578 CLOSED $ i NR III A-00 le(**) OPEN q~
E RIKTIFITTETUTTH ASSoCIATEe MITN THIS ALLEGATION NUMeER
- Nisaber of' concernt involved in nh m-- '
e-m WM? SW2 CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT I have infonmation that I wish to pmvide in confidence to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission (NRC). I tiality as a condition of providing this information to the NRC. request I will an e
. not provide tiality thf s infomattor.
being extended to me. voluntarily to the NRC without such confiden-t It is my understanding, consistent with its legal obligations, the NRC. by agreeing to this confidentiality, will adhere to the,following conditions: !
1 (1)
NRC The NRC will not identify me by name or personal identifier in any initiated document, conversation, or ccumunication released to the
' public which relates directly to the information provided by me. I under- t l
stand the term "public release" to encompass any distribution outside of the NRC with the exception of other public agencies which may require this information I trust. in furtherance of their responsibilities under law or public (2)
The NRC will disclose my idertity within the NRC only to the extent required 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 Connission
- sure of my identity to persons subsequently contacted At a by later stage I understand that even though the NRC will make every reason-able 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.
ftdentiality In such cases, the basis for granting this promise of con-authority orderingany and the other relevant facts will be communicated to the disclosure tiality. in an effort to maintain my confiden-If this effort proves unsuccessful, a representative of the NRC will attesipt 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 confidentiality disclose my identity. if I take any action that may be reasonably espected to to have waived my I further understand that the NRC will consider se viously provided) rights to confidentiality if I provide (or have pre-information to any other party that contradicts the infonnation that I provided to the NRC or if circumstances indicate that I am intentionally providing false information to the NRC.
Other Conditions: (if arty)
~ I have read and full with its provisions. y understand the contents of this agreement. I agree Dete * .
Name-Address: ~
~
.- Agreed to on behalf of the U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Coeurission.
Date 31gnature Name:
Title:
E4-1 Approved:
..p<,
,~e e- ~
,,,, a n , - ~ ~ = -
%93
? %
3 e I UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k ..... f ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 85 DATE: September 10, 1984 TO: ALL EMPLOYEES
SUBJECT:
CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION OR OTHER FORMS OF
, DISCRIMINATION BY LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS OR THEIR CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS A licensee or applicant, or a contractor or subcontractor of a NRC licensee or applicant, is prohibited by Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 from discriminating against any employee with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the employee assisted or participated, or is about to assist or participate, in any manner, to carry out the purposes of either the Energy Reorganization Act or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Discrimination has been interpreted broadly by the courts and may include acts of the employer resulting from an employee reporting non-confonnances, raising safety concerns to the employer or to the NRC, or testifying in NRC hearings or otherwise assisting the NRC in identifying violations of requirements.
Both the NRC and the Department of Labor (DOL) have complementary responsibilities under Section 210 in the area of employee protection. D0L has the responsibility to investigate employee complaints of discrimination and may, after an investigation and hearing, order an employer to take affirmative action to abate the violation, reinstate the employee to his or her former position with backpay, and award compensatory damages, including attorney fees.
The NRC is concerned about discrimination because of the potential chilling effect it may have on the willingness of employees to raise safety issues or l identify non-conforming conditions. The NRC has independent authority to l take appropriate enforcement action against Comission licensees that violate l Section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act, the Atomic Energy Act, or Comission requirements. The Commission's regulations contain provisions which prohibit discrimination. See 10 CFR Part 19, and 10 CFR 30.7, 40.7, 50.7 and 70.7. The Office of Investigations (01) is authorized to investigate
! allegations of discriminatory acts which may have resulted in violations of l NRC statutes or regulations. 01, in determining whether to conduct an i investigation, may wait until any D0L investigation is completed or may initiate an investigation immediately if warranted.
1 NaC Form e gg fis g
t '
t, s
/*~
/
/
September 19, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR: Office Directors Regional Administrators FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED NRC MANUAL CHAPTER 0517. " MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS" -
The attached proposed Manual Chapter is provided to you as policy in regard to management of allegations.
Since the Comission may shortly address the issues of confidentiality and last minute allegations separately, and their decisions may require some changes as a matter of administrative convenience, the manual chapter will not be published until these points have been addressed. In the meantime
,g the attachment will serve as policy on this matter.
1 Cligned)Elam J.Direks ,
William J. Dircks a Executive Director for Operations l
Attachment:
As stated DJttribution M D0 R/F WDircks JRoe .
TRehm PDR
- S';ello yn a >
,_-gqh)/yh{N2-b
~
\
9@P
, FC :A0/EDO :EDO : : : : :
___.:......__....:.... 7 _ .:____ __.....:...__....___:..______.___:__..........:..____..___
UtE :TARehm;py :WJDirfcs ': : : -
._.:___......___:_____3._____:___...______:...____....:____________:____..._____:.__________
i \TE 09/ /84 :09/ / 7 /84 : : : : :
I L/
e e
l
--, - - - , - , - - - < , - - - - - - , , , -- - ---- e . - , . , -,,~,-----------,--,-,-------,..~w, - , - - - , - -
(
- t *g s
t 1
' September 19, 1984 Office Directors P'IMORANDUM FOR: Regional Administrators
'~~
William J. Dircks FROM..
Executive Director for Operations
' S"
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED NRC MANUAL CHAPTER 0517 policy in regard to The attached proposed Manual Chapter is provided to you as management of allegations. fidentiality and Since the Commission may shortly address the iissues some last minute allegations separately, and:their l chapter willof decisions con may req changes as a matter of administrative convenience, the manua d In the meantime not be published until these points have been .addresse .
the attachment will serve as policy on this matter.
j .
pgn20VG3am LDircks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Attachment:
As stated O
e
r- ,
(
'[/.
' 't . ..
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY Col #1ISSION NRC MANUAL Volume: 0000 General Administration Part : 0500 Healt.h and Safety IE CHAPTER 0517 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 0517-01 COVERAGE This chapter and its appendices define the policy and procedures for the proper receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations received by .NRC offices that concern NRC-regulated activities conducted by NRC licensees and their -contractors and the policy and procedures for dealing
- with individuals who provide information to the NRC.
4 0S17-02 OSJECTIVES .
021 To establish the policy for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and to define procedures by which the receipt, status, and dispot/. tion of allegations are tracked through the Allegation Manage.aent System (AMS), thereby assuring that:
- a. allegations are properly assigned for processing and assessed for safety significance to permit ranking and resolution in a timely manner;
- b. timely and accurate information on all allegations is maintained and made available to NRC Offices and Regions on a need-to-know basis;
- c. all allegations not resolved by other formal means are the processed in accordance with these procedures and resolution of all allegations is properly ' documented; 022 To assure that individuals making allegations 'to the NRC are properly treated, provided confidentiality when necessary, appropriate and possible, and notified of the resolution.
023 To assure that issues raised are promptly and adequately investi-gated.
Approved:
- f.
- t i NitC-05 -03 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 0517-03 RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES 031 Executive Director for Operations (EDO) '
Set policy and procedures for the receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and establish policy for the treatment and confidentiality of those who provide information to the NRC. For those matters within the purview of OI and OIA, only set policy and procedures governing their interfaces with other Offices and Regions. ,
032 All Office Directors / Regional Administrators
- a. Establish internal procedures so that all employees are aware of requirements for receipt, processing, control, and disposition of allegations and for the accurate and timely updating of the status of those allegations for which their office is the Action Office.
- b. Appoint an Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC) who serves as
- administrative point of contact for employees and other Offices and the Regions. The OAC will:
4
- 1. Ensure that the appropriate parts of the Allegation Data Form (NRC Form 307. Exhibit 1) are completed for all allega- .
tions received within the Office or Region and that the requested data are accurate and timely.
- 2. Determine the appropriate Action Office and, if applicable, coordinate with the OAC of the affected Office or Region on each allegation received.
- 3. Ensure the appropriate parts of the Allegation Data Form are completed for all allegations for which the Office or Region ;!
is the Action Office. '
- 4. Forward the Allegation Data Form to the respective Action Office OAC when the Office or Region is not the Action Office.
- 5. Forward the completed Allegation Data Form to the NRR DAC (and a copy to the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safe- -
guards (NMSS) DAC, if appropriate] within 10 working days of l receipt of an allegation when the Office is the Action Office. !
(For power reactors, during the period from 30 days prior to the construction completion date until the Commission meeting i on full power authorization, the Receiving Office or Action l Office for any allegation will, within 2 working days, tele-phonically notify the NRR Project Manager of its receipt and the identification of the Action Office in addition to com-plating the Allegation Data Form.)
, l Approved: 2 l
l 1
%I l 1 . .
gr ALLEGATIONS NRC 0517-032b6 i ,
6- Acquire input data on new allegations (including those referred to OI) from the staff within the Office or Region and ensure this information is forwarded to the NRR OAC in a timely manner for placement into the AMS.
7* Provide updates (using an AMS printout) on previous allega-tions (including those referred to 01) from the staff within the Office or Region and ensure this infor1sation is forwarded to the NRR OAC on a monthly basis for placement into the AMS.
- 8. Provide reports as described in Appendix 1, Part IX, 4 and 5.
- c. Determine the safety significance and generic implications of
" those allegations that fall within the programmatic responsibi-lity of that Office or Region and establish schedules for the
- - processing of allegations with the objective of resolving thes s
prior to a licensing decision date, if applicable.
E d. Review those allegations .for which it is the Action Office for
$, potential board notification and recommend such notification to NRR or NHSS.
U. j
- e. Refer all allegations involving wrongdoing, except those involving NRC employees or NRC contractors, to the Office of Investigations '
and provide technical assistance to 01 for investigating allega-tions as requested.
- f. Prior to taking a major action such as a licensing decision or escalated enforcement, review the status and resolution of allegations for that project in the AMS especially those related
, to the action. .
- g. For technical concerns with generic implications, consider the need to inform other affected Offices for further action (e.g.,
AEOD for operational data, RES for concerns affecting research activities,etc.)
- h. For discrimination complaints received concerning possible violation of Secticn 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act, refer the complainant to DOL and promptly notify DOL to ensure their awareness of the complaint and to determine DOL's investigative intent. Determination of the need for an NRC investigation wculd rest with 01.
033 Director, Office of Investications Investigate allegat. ions of wrongdoing by other than NRC em-ployees and NRC contractors. Conduct interface responsibilities with the Offices and Regions as described herein.
3 Approved:
t M ..
( "'
NRC-0517-034 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 034 Director. Office of Inspector and Auditor Investigate allegations of wrongdoing ' by NRC employees and .NRC contractors. Such allegations do not fall under the purview of this manual chapter and are not entered in the'AMS.
035 Director. Office of Inspection and Enforcement
- a. Resolve allegations affeciing matters for which it is the respon-sible office including those that involve vendors or that are generic in nature in coordination with NRR or 191S5.
- b. Monitor the allocation of resources for this activity by.
the regions.
036 Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Reaulation
- a. Propose to the E00 for approval agency-wide policy and proce- ' -
dures regarding the processfag of allegations. For those
- allegations . that fall under the purview of 01, propose policy and procedures governing their interface with other Offices y and Regions. '
- b. Review allegations concerning NRR -licensees in coordination, with the Ac. tion Office for potential board notification and make sucht '
notification, if required.
- c. Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci-sions and plant safety concerning NRR licensees in co' ordination with IE and the Region (s).
- d. Resolve those allegations pertaining to reactor licensing issues assigned to NRR.
- e. Maintain the AMS and any necessary improvements to modify its capabilities, in coordination with RM.
037 Director. Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeauards
- a. Review allegations concerning 19155 licensees in coordination with the Action Office for potential board notification and make such
, notification if required.
. b. Evaluate implications of allegations relative to licensing deci-sions concerning IMSS licensees in coordination with IE and 'the' Region (s).
, 038 OfficeofResourceManagement(RMJ
- b. Provide monthly (Exhibits 2 and 3) and special reports to offices and Regions as requested.
! Approved: 4
] .WMn t;gpve9
, t.
e ,'
Oy
- MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS NRC 0517-04 0517-04 DEFINITIONS 041 Action Office. The NRC Office or Region that is responsible for reviewing and taking action, as appropriate, to resolve an allega-tion. '
042 Action Office Contact. The staff member in the Action Office who is assigned the responsibility for resolving an allegation.
, 043 Allegation.
A declaration. statement, or assertion of impro-priety or inadequacy associated with NRC-regulated activities, the validity of which has not been established. This includes all safety concerns identified by sources such as the media, indi-viduals or organizations outside the NRC, and technical audit efforts from Federal, State or local government offices regarding activities at a licensee's site. Excluded from this definition are matters being handled by more formal processes such as 10 CFR 2.206 petitions, hearing boards, appeal boards, etc.
are Allegations that may result from these femal processes and not resolved within these processes
- shall be subject to treatment under this manual chapter.
~L 044 Allegation Management System (AMS). A computerized information system that contains a summary of significant data pertinent to each allegation. ,
045 A11eger.
An individual or organization who makes allegations.
The individual or organization may be a concerned pri.vate citi-zen; a public interest group; a licensee, vendor or contractor employee; a representative of a local, State, or Federal agency .
- (NRC employees should be aware of procedures for presenting differing professional opinions, NRC Manual Chapter 4125).
046 Confidentiality. The tem that refers to the protection of data i that directly, or otherwise, could identify an alleger by name.
It is not intended to deny staff members access to the identity of the a11eger when such identification is required by staff l
members to evaluate and resolve allegations.
047 Inquiry.
i i An activity involving minimal effort to detemine the appropriate response to information reported to the NRC. Typi-cally, an inquiry entails the' use of the telephone or written correspondence rather than fomal interviews or other investi-gative measures; however, formal interviews will be conducted if required. ,
048 Inspection.
A routine or special activity that may be used to examine and subsequently resolve an allegation.
i 5 Approved:
. - g NRC-0517-049 -
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 049 Investiaation. Formal activities normally conducted by the Office of Investigations on its own volition, or at. the request of the Commission, EDO, or Regional Adeinistrators, with or
- without technical assistance. The Office of Investigations is
.the lead Action Office for all investigations involving wrong-doing, isexcluding which handled wrongdoing by OIA. by NRC employees and NRC contractors 050 Office A11eoetion Coordinator (0AC). A designated staff member in each Office or Region who serves as the administrative point of contact for that Office or Region regarding the processing of allegations.
051 Receivina Office. The Office or Region that initially receives an allegation.
In some cases, the Action Office and Receiving Office will be the same if the allegation falls within the functional responsibility of the Receiving Office.
' 052 Safety Stanificance.
A measure of the importance of an allega-tion relative to its potential safety. impact on the public health and 053 Wronadoina For the purposes of this manual chapter, it includes the alleged deliberate, purposeful, or willful violation of NRC regulations, license technical specifications, licensee commitments '
to the NRC, or other laws or statutes of interest to NRC.
4 0517-05 BASIC REQUIREMENTS '
051 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter and appendices are applicable to, and shall be followed by, all NRC employees.
052 Wronadoina. Allegations of wrongdoing at NRC-regulated facili-ties, as opposed to those involving technical issues, fall within the purview of the Office of Investigations (allegations of wrongdoing. by NRC employees or NRC contractors fall within the purview Region will of CIA and are not entered into the AMS). The Office or information provided by OI (see AppendixPart 1, enter allegations IX.2 of this of manual chapter). 0I will investigate allegations involving wrongdoing findings- to and the provide ,either a report or a summary of its requesting Office o'r Region. Allegations '
involving rongdoing received by a Region will be coordinated by the Region DAC with the OI Field Office Director in that Region and those received by Offices at MRC Headquarters will be coor- -
dinated with the 01 OAC.
053 Action Office Assionments Allegations submitted by any source Receiving Office OAC to theactivities concerning NRC regulated OAC inshould be transmitted by the the appropriate Office or Region for processing. ~
. l Approved: 6
< MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
. .i NRC 0517-054 054 Confidentiality.
should not be revealed The identity of individuals making allegations by the NRC unless it is clear that the individual concerned has no objection. A confidentiality agreement (Exhibit 4) should be executed for those allegers who specifically request it, and should be offered for execution to those allegers
- who by their actions convey the inference that their identity will be protected by the NRC but who are apparently unaware that such an agreement is available.
The offer of a confidentiality agreement I should be contingent upon an assessment of the usefulness of the i
information timely manner.provided, if such a determination can be made in a i provided. For other individuals, confidentiality need not be l 4
As a general rule, however, the "need to know" principle should be implemented for all allegers. For those allegers with a confidentiality agreement, this means that the identity of the source identifying must be protected by not referring to the name or other information in discussions unless absolutely necessary and by expurgating the name and other identifying ,
i information from documents before disseminating these to the staff.
- For those allegers without a confidentiality agreement, this means
-g avoidance of unnecessary use of the identity of the source and other identifying information in discussions and in documents. It must be made clear to all concerned if and on what tenas the anonymity of a person making an allegation is to be protected. A clear record should be maintained for the files to. preclude later ,
misunderstandings.
The confidentiality agreement may be signed by Office Directors and i1 Regional Administrators only and may be transmitted to the alleger for signature by mail or in person as convenience dictates. If at
. any time for any reason confidentiality is breached or jeopardized, Office or Regional management should be informed and the person should be advised, the reason explained and remedial measures i
taken, if possible, to reduce the impact of disclosure.
l Since OI has established policies and practices for the protection of confidentiality for its activities, the above are not
- necessarily applicable to 01.
,1
! 055 Responding to A11eaers. -
! 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 abusively. When allegations are received in writing, 'a prompt gl 0 it
%g5 s) case either by a letter, telephone call or even a persona Contact should be earnest and professional. The a11eger should -
be promptly advised of the results of followup action and, in instances of unusual delay in providing the results, should be advised of the status periodically so that there is an awareness that the allegation is not being ignored.
7 Approved:
l
.__ _~____ _ _- ._ _ __ _ .______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
's ,
^'
NRC-0517-049 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 056 Screening of Allegations. Allegations should be screened for significance to safety and the more serious ones should be addres-sed first. All allegations should be addressed as, promptly as resources will allow and as the need is identified. Screening of allegations should be considered diligently to the point where some may be dismined early in the process for logical reasons (i.e., lack of specificity after reasonable followup, lack of safety significance, etc.) to conserve staff resources. Followup 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 as well as criminal activities. In this regard, note that an allegation l directed toward a non-safety item or activity may, through generic considerations, affect a safety item or activity.
When a number of allegations point to or reinforce indications !
of a broader problem, prompt action to broaden the scope of the l inquiry should then be taken to determine whether or not such is the case. While the safety significance of an allegation is an 4
important factor in determining .the extent and promptness of staff resources commitment, it should not affect the staff treatment of p the alleger as discussed in section 055, above.
! \
057 Timeliness of Resolving Allegations. The Action Office should resolve all allegations in a manner which is timely under the -
circumstances and professional in scope and depth. Allegations having relatively high safety significance should be addressed expeditiously. Less significant allegations should be addressed as priorities and resources permit, but usually within 6 months of receipt. If it is appropriate, an inspection should be made. A
! plant visit with the person making the allegation should be made if necessary and if the individual is willing to make such a visit to find the exact location of a problem. Access issues
' should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Travel costs for the individual only can be offered, if necessary, and are borne by the Office or Region extending the offer. Care should be taken
- to avoid embarrassment or abuse of the individual, e.g., schedule visit on off-shift / weekend, etc.
058 Involvement of Licensees or Other Affected Croanization. For allegations involving a potentially significant and immediate
' impact on the public health and safety, the affected organization should be 'promptly informed to assure proper and timely action.' -
3 For other allegations, once information from allegers is received and understood by the Office / Region and if it is deemed appropriate by the Office Director / Regional Administrator, the licensee / vendor should be advised specifically by letter of the area of concern N4p( NRC, in should r and be requested to address it, subject to further audit by order to minimize the expenditure of NRC resources. In all P4 instances, however, confidentiality must not be breached and the effectiveness of investigations / inspections should not be com-i promised, such as by prematurely releasing or appearing to release i Approved: 8
. 1 .
NRC-0517-056 i MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 1
- an NRC inspection report (note exceptions discussed below). The ;
a11eger must be informed that this is not handing a matter over to the affected organization, but that NRC will review and evaluate the actions af the affected organization and perform independent activities as necessary.
The affected organization should be infomed regarding the resolution of the allegation if appropriate (See Appendix I Part VIII).
There are two exceptions to the above. The first exception is where the information cannot be released in sufficient detail to be of use to the licensee or vendor without compromising the identity of the confidential source.
In such cases release should normally not be made unless the release is necessary to prevent an imminent threat to the public health and safety. The EDO shall be consulted in all cases where it appears there is a need to release the identity of a confidential source. The second exception is where a licensee / vendor could compromise an investigation / 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 shall decide whether NRC action.
or not to release the information to avoid compromising Release of information to a licensee / vendor is expected to be the exception for 01 investigations.
Note that 10 CFR 19.16(a), involving radiological working condi-tions, requires that a worker's allegation in writing be made available to the licensee no later than at the time of inspec-tion, and that confidentiality be provided at the' worker's request. In addition to expurgating names and other identifying information, protection of confidentiality could also involve retyping an alleger's handwritten notice. In the event the potential for wrongdoing is involved. 01 should be requested to perform an investigation in which case the licensee would not be informed.
059 "Last Ninute" Allegations. When a large number of issues are raised at the same time as has occurred with several plants as they approach issuance o,f an OL, the difficulties in executing the above policy guidelines are compounded. Consideration should be given to organizing a task force, comprised of both headquarters
/ and regional personnel with a senior NRC manager as the task force 4
1eader, to resolve these issues within the usual short time frame between the date the issues were identified and the proposed date for issuance of an OL. A high degree of organization in the initial stages will be required in order to deal with these particular situations.
To conserve NRC resources in resolving these large numbers of issues, the involvement by the itcensee except as noted above will be appropriate. It may also be quite i
, appropriate to categorize the large number of issues into two i
t 9 Approved:
1
. t ,
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS
, general groups, one group in which the issues are judged to be significant and therefore require resolution prior to 0L issuance, and a second group in which the issues are of lesser importance permitting OL resolution over a longer time frame, even subsequent to.
issuance. Within the former group, subdivisions may be appropriate consistent with the planned stages of licensing for the facility (i.e., criticality, 5% power, full power).
060 Appendix 1. This appen' dix provides procedures for receipt, control, processing, and disposition of allegations assigned to NRC Offices or Regions and the procedures and guidelines used to record the receipt, status, and disposition of allegations in the AMS.
END 5
l l
i Approved:
10
! . t .
I '
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATI0'1
' APPENDIX 1. NRC OSU l
F.*t0CEDURES FOR SCREENING, ASSESSING, AND CONTROLLING ALLEGATIONS AND FOR ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Part I: General This part establishes procedu al guidance for screening, assessing, and controlling allegations that come to the attention of the NRC staff. These functions are to be established within each Region and Office under the control of an individual Office Allegation Coordinator (0AC), or a panel of staff personnel or other appropriate staff technical persons. The Regions and Offices will establish procedures consistent with this guidance and where appropriate provide the required training to ensure that their staffs are fully informed regarding the proper management of allegations.
- Allegations pertaining to NRC-licensed facilities and activities may come to the attention of the NRC staff by telephone, letter, news media reports, or by direct verbal contact at sites, in offices, at meetings, and even at social functions. All allegations, no matter how originated, are subject to processing in accordance with this manual chapter. It is imperative that ~ allegations be recognized as such by. staff members and processed pro-fossionally, promptly, and with consistent treatment.
!E It is very important to note that where safety is involved, the NRC does not recognize the term "off-the-record." A11egers who wish to provide off-the-record information must be clearly advised that information impor- -
tant to safety cannot be treated off the record but that the information will be accepted officially and acted upon as ne,cessary. The name of the i
alleger and other identifying information will be protected, however, under the confidentiality guidelines presented herein.
. Any employee who receives an allegation must be aware that it is essential
, to protect the identity of the alleger if such anonymity is requested or implied by his/her actions (i.e. an alleger who employs circuitous means to contact the NRC or makes sever,al phone calls anonymously and then subse-quently identifies himself as the one who has been making the anonymous calls).
AllegationTo this end, coordination with the appropriate Office or Region Coordinator must comply with the confidentialit guidelines discussed separately (Basic Requirement 054). If necessary, ythe identity of an alleger may be revealed, but only if a confidentiality agreement has not been executed. As a general rule, the "need to know" principle should be used when dealing with the protection of a person's identity.
NRC employees, particularly resident and regional inspectors, regional i
supervisors, and DACs .who are expected to receive the majority of allega-tions, should become fully familiar with the prescribed policies and proce-dures to ensure that the required actions are performed.
It is th responsibility of all employees who receive allegations to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that an appropriate OAC is promptly informed. Whenever possible, the person making the allegation should be l
i referred to either the OAC, other individuals as designated by the Region or Office, or arrangements should be made for the OAC or designated staff member l
l to recontact the individual.
1 Al-1 Approved:
1_. _ _ _ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____
1 NRC 0517, APPENDIX 1
, MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Part II: The Office Allegation Coordinator (OAC)
- 1. The initial responsibility of the OAC is to identify the proper Action Office to which the allegation should be assigned for evaluation and resolution in coordination with other 0AC's (eith~ e r in the Offices or Regions).
- 2. The OAC serves as a focal point for administrative processing and con-trol of all allegations assigned to the Regions and Offices. The OAC is responsible for tracking allegations from initial receipt to final resolution. The OAC assures establishment and maintenance of files that clearly identify allegations assigned to the Region or Office and documents actions initiated to resolve such matters. The OAC ensures that management and cognizant staff are informed of allega-tions under their purview, kept current on the status of such alle-gations by providing accurate and timely information to the AMS, and briefed on the proposed final resolution of allegations. The OAC also ensures that the final resolution is properly documented.
- 3. The OAC assists technical staff members who are reviewing allegation information, primarily in the form of coordinating activities neces-
- f. sary to resolve issues. In addition, the OAC may assist in the !
- formulation of a course of action to resolve issues. '
- 4. A panel, which includes the OAC as a member, may be designated with '
the primary responsibility to ensure that all allegations are promptly l assigned and properly evaluated, and that the actions taken to resolve i the allegation, as well as the resolution, are properly doc.umented and
- transmitted to the alleger and the affected organization as appro-priate.
- 5. The OAC will serve as the point of contact with DOL on matters l involving discrimination under Section 210(a) of the Energy j Reorganization Act and will coordinate as necessary with 01 and l the Enforcement Staffs. '
\
Part III: Receipt of an A11ecation
- 1. Allegations Received by Telephone or Personal Visit l Arty NRC employee who receives a telephone call from someone who wishes
)'
to make an allegation should have the caller transferred to the OAC -
- . or appropriate technical staff member in the Office or Region.
Likewise, if an individual appears in person at an NRC Office, the individual should be referred to the OAC or other technical staff member. Technical employees, when unable to refer the telephone call or the visitor as described, shall obtain as much information as i
possible from the individual (see item 3, below). When unable to locate the OAC or other technical staff member, administrative en-playees should refer an individual to a technical staff supervisor.
i Approved: Al-2
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517
- 2. Allegations Received by Mail Personnel responsible for distribution of mail will forward cor-respondence that appears to contain an allegation to the OAC. Both letters and envelopes will be forwarded and no copies will be made. i i
An employee memoranda, who receives direct correspondence, including internal NRC to the OAC. that contains allegations shall forward the correspondence -
of correspondence also should be made aware that corr taining confidential source information should be transmitted in a sealed envelope transmittals marked "To 8e Opened by Addressee Only;" for expedited (e.g.,
should be deleted from electronically),
correspondence. confidential source information
- 3. Discussions with Allecer Any employee receiving a telephone call or visit, as discussed in itemindividual.
the 1, shall attempt to obtain as much information as possible from It is crucial to identify:
. a. full name 5
. b. complete mailing address c.
i
- d. telephone number where the individual may be contacted
- e. position nature of or relationship to facility or activity involved allegation If the alleger declines to provide the above information, attempt to establish the reason (s) using the following guidance:
Inform the individual that if so requested, his/her identity will be kept confidential.
Explain further, if .necessary, that Public Law 95-601 affords protection to the a11eger by prohibiting an employer from discriminating against an employee for contacting the NRC. Basic Requirement 054 provides further information' regarding protection of.
confidentiality.
The a11eger may be informed that the NRC employee with whom he/she is in contact to determine does not have follow-up the capability to evaluate the information, action or to estabitsh NRC jurisdiction; therefore, for it may additional be necessary ,that someone else contact the alleger infors:ation.
.The alleger should be informed also, that- unless an objection is' the allegation. registered--he/she will be recontacted as soon as possible re a letter to the alleger,This may be done by telephone, personal visit, or by at an address designated, which will also acknowledge the receipt of the allegation. This process will pemit the alleger to review the information with the NRC to provide maximum assurance that the information has been correctly interpreted and understood.
<. .-3 Approved:
~
a NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS If the a11eger persists in not offering identification after the above explanations, document the allegation in as much detail as.possible and advise the alleger that he/she may contact the OAC or designated staff member in 30 days or any other agreed upon period, for information on i
the status of any actions being taken on the information supplied.
i For allegations of discrimination that fall under Section 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act, inform the allegers that NRC will look into the complaint and any safety concerns identified by the alleger, and that appropriate enforcement actions will be taken against the employer if the allegation is substantiated. To assure personal :
i employee rights are protected, advise the alleger that the complaint
' must be filed with DOL within 30 dkys of the occurrence of the discrimination event.
Part IV: Action by the Receivino Employee and the Office Alleaation Coordinator (OAC) 1.
When an allegation concerning a NRC-regulated activity is received, the
< employee receiving the allegation will provide the information obtained to the Receiving gation Data Form. Office OAC who will complete an NRC Form 307, Alle- i
-g completed form is forwarded The Action to theOffice ActionisOffice then OAC.
identified and the Until direct input / update capability is provided to the Regions and Offices, a copy of the completed form will be forwarded to the NRR OAC, and one copy to -
the M4SS DAC, if appropriate for the issue. NRC Form 307 serves as notification to NMSS and NRR that an allegation has been received that may affect their licensing activity; NRR will enter the pertinent information in the AMS in accordance with these procedures. All allegations must be entered into the AMS. In this way an " audit trail" will be established so that NRC actions can be properly monitored and l
. completed.
- 2. The Action Office OAC or other designated staff member will ensure i that the alleger is properly contacted to acknowledge receipt of the allegation and to confirm the specifics of the allegation. Depending on the nature of an allegation, the OAC will provide copies of the allegation documentation and the letter sent to the a11eger (with the alleger's identity and identifying information concealed) to the cognizant technical staff supervisor for evaluation and initiation of action. Such copies also will be forwarded to 0I Headquarters or to the cognizant OI Field Office for information.
. ./ When responsibility for the handling of an allegation is transferred from one organizational unit to another, the alleger should be notified of ,the new point of contact (name and telephone number) by the individual who is relieved as contact in order to assure continuity. A single point of contact should be the rule.
1 The OAC will follow up on the allegation with the cognizant technical staff supervisor at periodic intervals until the matter has been
- satisfactorily resolved. When the case is closed, ari update should
- be made to that effect in the AMS.
i l Approved: Al-4 1'
, .l , .
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 3.
The OAC will coordinate allegation information with the technical staff and cient may assist to identify the in determining whether the informati,on is suffi-issues.
If the information is detemined to be 1 insufficient, the OAC or designated staff member will assist in further contact with the alleger. A single point of contact with an a11eger provides a means of better controlling communications, aids in developing rapport, establishes continuity in the flow of information between the Regions the alleger's identity.and other NRC Offices, and aids in protection of 4.
The OAC assists the cognizant technical staff in identifying and
< separating ing categories:the issues involved in an allegation into one of the follow- !
- a. Allegations that involve purely technical matters, such as:
inadequacies quate in procedures, implementation of qualifications, or training; inade-actions; or overexposure (s) procedures; or inadequate corrective to radiation.
- b. Allegations that involve -wrongdoing such as: record falsifi-cation; willful or deliberate violations; material false state-ments; discrimination under Section 210(a) 4 of the Energy Reorganization Act; or other improper conduct.
- c. Allegations that involve matters outside the jurisdiction of NRC. -
5.
Technical issues in category 4a involving failure to meet requirements have the potential for being willful or deliberate violations. However, in the absence of specific allegations.of wi11 fulness or deliberateness, such issues will normally be tracked separately as technical issues and resolved using program resources. If an allegation covers issues that
~
affect other Regions or Offices, follow-up activities will be coordin-ated with the affected Offices and a Lead Office will be designated. The l
i OAC will contact the affected Offices which should result in a mutual agreement as to which Office or Region should have the lead. If agree-ment cannot be reached at the OAC level, then the Regional Adminis-j j trators or Office Directors will resolve which Office or Region should take the lead.
! 6.
Allegations in category 4b, should be referred to 01 Field or Head-quarters personnel except for those involving NRC employees or NRC i
contractors.
7.
When applicable and after coordination, the Action Office should notify other agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, DOE, etc. in dealing with allegations in category 4c. Notification to other Federal law enforcement agencies and State and local jurisdictions of poss161e criminality involved in allegations should be handled by the appropriate 01 Office or the Office of Inspector and Auditor (for matters falling within its purview only.)
i i
i Al-5 Approved:
i
4 NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS 8.
The OAC ensures that a discrimination complainant under Section 210(a) of the Energy Reorganization Act is properly referred' to DOL the complaint must be filed with DOL within 30 days of its occurrenc(e),
and that DOL is promptly notified of the complaint. . Complaints should be filed with the Office of the Aministrator, Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration, U.
4 S. Department of Labor, Room
- 53502, 200 Constitution Avenue, N. W. , Washington, O. C. 20210. The Regional Aministrator or Office Director should be promptly informed.
The OAC also maintains awareness ensures NRC consideration of the , of DOL's investigative intent, and timely referral to 01. need for its own investigation by DOL's The OAC will take reasonable steps to facilitate investigation by assisting DOL in obtaining access to licensed facilities and any necessary security clearances.
allegation should also be entered into the AMS. This type of i
9.
If an allegation is determined to have generic implications, other Offices and/or Regions with responsibilities that may be affected will be appropriately notified by the Action Office (e.g., AE00 for opera-a tional data, RES for concerns affecting research activities, etc.) ,
t 10.
j 4 Information regarding suspected improper conduct by NRC employees and
- NRC contractors will be brought to the attention of appropriate management Auditor (0IA).
for possible referral to the Office of Inspector and ,
l Part V: Documentino A11ecations
) 1. l l When an allegation is received and the action office identified, a i working file should be established to contain all related documentation concerning the allegation, including all correspondence, memorandum to
- files, interviews, sions, and meetings. and summaries of telephone conversations, discus- 3 i
This file shall be maintained in the official files of the Action Office in an officially designated location.
To ensure proper evaluation, full and complete information should be documented about each allegation. In addition to obtaining basic information, attempts should be made :
to expand and clarify the information so that the issue is well defined. All !
1 regardless of source or how received, must be documented. allegations, Records or files containing the name of a confidential source or other identifying information (i.e. a confidentiality agreement has been executed) should ,
I be stamped "This material contains confidential source information."
2.
There will be occasions when the allegations obviously have no sub-l stance and appear to represent a distortion of facts. However, even
'in these cases, documentation is necessary that ' identifies the con-tact, the general content of any communications, and the basis for a conclusion that the matter need not be pursued. Instances such as )
these will be coordinated with the appropriate technical staff by the OAC to ensure proper disposition.
]
- 3. !
The importance of obtaining and documenting all pertinent information !
about an allegation cannot be overemphasized. Evaluation and screen-ing of the allegation, as well as the proposed course of action that will be adopted to resolve the issue will be based primarily on this information. In some cases, a person,al interview with the Approved: Al-6
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 a11eger may be warranted.
In these cases, the OAC will consult with NRC quired. management to datermine the best way to obtain the details re-Depending tivity, assistance from en the nature of the allegation and the time sensi-i resources may be requested. the Office of Investigations (0I) or other
! 4.
i As soon as possible after receiving an allegation or becoming aware of information that indicates inadequate or improper activities, the person receiving the allegation shall notify the OAC. Normally, no i action will be taken to verify the validity of the allegations, nor shall such matters be discussed with licensees, if necessary, until after the OAC or designated staff member has briefed appropriate NRC management.
1 5.
The OAC or other designated staff member is responsible for reviewing all information received in conjunction with an allegation and for
! ensuring that management and cognizant technical staff members are fully informed.
6.
- Allegations normally should not be addressed in Preliminary Notifica-tions (PNs) or Daily Reports (DRs); however i
4 if it is determined that PN or DR entries are appropriate, the appro, val of an Office Director or a Regional Administrator should be obtained.
- 7.
. If allegation documents must be sent to other NRC personnel, they should '
be appropriately handled to protect the identity of the confidential a11eger.
i The confidential alleger's identity or other identifying j information (See should not Basic Requirement be released unless there is a "need to know" 054).
t 4
Part VI: Evaluation by Coonizant Technical Staff 1.
When an allegation package is received, the technical staff within the Office is a safety or Region will review the documentation to detemine if there-concern that requires immediate action. The technical staff on is responsible corrective for development, initiation, and follow-through actions. Allegations or documents containing a sub-stantial number of allegations once entered in the AMS can be screened using the following criteria:
a.
Is there an imeediate safety concern which must be quickly -
addressed?
- b.
Is the allegation a specific safety or quality issue or 'a gener-alized concern?
- c. Has the staff previously addressed this issue?
4
- d. Detennine whether the allegation package contains sufficient
! information - for a thorough evaluation.
the additional information that is needed, If it does not, identify f
Al-7 Approved:
.- NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS,
- e. Determine whether all aspects of the allegation are adequately defined and described to permit or require a meaningful and exten-sive evaluation. This is a screening process that may result in a decision not to consider the allegation further. If the latter is the decided course of action, the a11eger should be so informed in a courteous and considering diplomatic manner along with the rationale for not it further.
be recognized when taking this action.The. potential for adverse publici) f.
Determine thorough evaluation. whether the identity of the alleger is necessary for a g.
Determine what specific issues are involved in the allegation and whether the issues can be adequately addressed by. 'a technical inspection.
- h. Determine
' a routine, scheduled if the allegation can be examined and resolved during inspection.
mine the best way to address the issues.If this is not possible, deter-
- e 1.
Determine whether licensee / vendor resources can reasonably be A used in resolving the allegation to conserve staff resources.
Consider potential problems associated with " turning the issue over to the licensee." '
- j. .
Determine whether the allegation has the potential to require escalated enforcement action.
k.
i Determine the time sensitivity of the allegation, and what immed-iate actions are necessary.
1.
Determine whether investigative assistance will be needed.
m.
Identify peripheral issues that could develop.
n.
i Consider if any licensing actions or board proceedings are pending which could be influenced or affected by the allegation. When an allegation involves a case pending before a licensing or appeal
. board or the Commission. information concerning it should be provided to NRR or INSS as soon as possible to assist in the determination of whether or not a board notification should be made.
.'. This decision must be made promptly by NRR or HMSS in accordance with office procedures. - ' '
o.
Determine if other NRC Offices that may have an interest should i
i be notified. '
- p. As soon as possible after the receipt of an allegation and the relevant information has been reviewed and evaluated, the Action Office will make a preliminary determination of the safety signi-ficance of the item and the need for immediate regulatory ar. tion.
This determination will be reported in the next AMS update.
I i Approved: Al-8
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 q.
Establish a schedule for the resolution of each allegation which is consistent with the licensing schedule, if appifcable.
r r.
Notify or the(s) action OAC or designated staff member when the status changes is complete.
.i 2.
It is the responsibility of the technical staff within the Office or i Region and to resolve each allegation that falls under its jurisdiction, subsequently, to notify the OAC or designated staff member of the action taken closeout. Final so that the status of each allegation can be tracked to resolution of an allegation shall be documented and placed in the working file along with all supporting documentation. The final report should state the facts clearly, in a style that does not belittle or disparage the alleger.
3.
For those allegations resulting in the need for corrective action, the affected organization (s) shall be properly informed. ,
, Fart VII: A11ecation Resolution Documentation
, 1.
t Allegation resolution documentation ' officially closss the file for
- 4 athat case case closed and shall file. be placed in the working file which new becomes j Closed case files shall be retired to inactive storage through according to thetheDocument Management Branch, TIDC, and destroyed Comprehensive Records Disposition Schedule -
(NUREG-0910).
Appropriate documents, including those 'necessary for an shall individual to understand the incoming allegation and its resolution, be placed in the NRC records system (POR, LPDR, Docket File, alleger. File, DCS) and must be treated to protect the identity of the Subject 2.
A final report should be prepared that sets forth the facts about the allegation and its resolution clearly and conclusively. The final re-port can be a memorandum for a relatively minor matter, an investiga-tion / inspection generic matter. report, or a technical paper for a complex or major proximate to OL Itissuance. can be an SER supplement for multiple allegations It should not contain the name of, or material Requirement 054). that could be used to identify, the alleger (See Basic i
! 3.
The final report should include a summary of the concern, a descrip-
- tion of the evaluation performed and the conclusions drawn. It should
. be written in a style that does not belittle or disparage the alleger. -
- 4. .
i Appropriate tion. entries should be made in the AMS to close out the allega- '
- 5. 1 When the final report has been approved (i.e., the case is closed), all
! allegation documentation is subject to release under the F0IA with j 1
appropriate precautions to protect confidentiality. Until that time, .
- all allegation documentation is exempt from release under the F0IA in .I accordance for, law enforcement with 10 CFR 9.5 Exemption (7) due to actual, or the potential action. !
the F0IA request for release File documents, however, are frozen by l subsequent F0IA request be received. when the case is closed should a l Al-9 Approved:
__,._..______________.__m _
,A P
NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS Part VIII: Dissemination of Final Report
- 1. A copy of the final report'shall be sent to the alleger at$d, if appro-priate, to the affected outside organization (s). A transmittal letter may be needed to summarize the siatter. ~
-l
- 2. As in Part VII.1 above, copies of the final report shall be placed in i
the NRC records system, and should be treated so as not to reveal the
] identity of the alleger. '
- 3. The foregoing does not apply to 01 investigative reports.
j PART IX: ALLEGATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
- 1. General i
- a. For purposes of the Allegation Management System (AMS) the defini-1 tion provided for an allegation is very general and broad. The j
- significance or nonsignificance of an allegation will be judged
' during the Action Office review and follow-up activities. There j
J. is to be no screening of allegations for possible deletion prior to entering them into the system (except of course for duplication 4
of entries). The AMS should provide a vehicle for collecting, I storing and retrieving all key infomation regarding all allega-
- 1 i tions. The Action Office determines the necessary action to be taken based upon the specifics of the case. Some allegations may l be received and closed out the same day.
- b. The AMS provides basic descriptive and status information and j i
serves as a referral system. It identifies the office and staff i
t to contact for more specifics on an allegation. Additionally, it )
keeps the staff informed as to how the allegation was resolved i and provides reference to the close out documentation. '
- c. When an allegation is received, it is not necessary to identify by separate entry into the AMS every component or subset of the ellegation. For example, if an allegation is received that con-sists of 15 separate concerns of wrongdoing and technical deft-ciencies, the allegation may be entered as one allegation. However, the description of the allegation should include the number of
~ '
separate concerns and their subject area. In some cases there may be a distinct grouping of concerns, for example, in two areas such i as training and quality assurance. In such a case it may be
', appropriate to enter two allegations. A main objective is to ensure that the receipt of an allegation is entered and tracked in the system. An allegation is not completed and closed until an Action Office supervisor determines that appropriate action has j been taken.
i i
)
I l l
f Approved: Al-10
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 1
d.
Sensitive information such as the names of persons making allega-tions shall not be entered in the system.
All information entered on the form shall be unclassified and shall not contain any safe-guards information or any proprietary or commercial (2.790) infor -
nation. '
e.
Some allegations may require action by two or more offices. For purposes of entering the allegation into the AMS either separate entries should be made for each Action Office for their assigned action or one entry may be made with the involved 0ACs agreeing 1
on the lead Action Office for followup of the allegation. If
> another Office is involved l should be so indicated in the " remarks" section.in responding to an l i
- 2. .
Interfaces with the Office of Investinations
- a. I
- The Office of Investigations of wrongdoing has jurisdication over all allegations except those involving NRC employees or NRC l contractors and will forward all allegations of a technical nature to the appropriate Office'~or Region. The Office or Region will be e
i y responsible for entering all allegations--even 'those under the i
purview of 01--into the AMS using a Region or Office AMS number.
b.
For those allegations of wrongdoing, except those involving NRC '
4 employees or NRC contractors, assigned to the Region or Office: "
(1) The Region or Office OAC will coordinate with the 01 Field Director or 01 Headquarters representative to determine if sensitive into information is included which should not'be placed the AMS.
All sensitive and the word " sensitive" put ininformation 'is to be deleted its place. However
. an attempt should be made to provide descriptive material to assist the
, AMS user to the maximum extent possible.
- (2) The Region or ' Office OAC will assign a Region or Office AMS number. The CI assi as a cross-referer.ce.gned number should be entered in the AMS
- (3) The name and phone number of the OI Field Director or 01 Headquarters representative will be placed in the appropriate
! section of the form as the Action Office contact.
(4) The -01 Field Director will keep the Region or Office OAC apprised of the status of the allegation investigation and provide timely information necessary to determine the safety significance of the allegation to appropriate Regional or Office manage' ment and for use in updating the AMS.
i ,
Al-11 Approved:
L ______
NRC 0517. APPENDIX 1
. MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS (5)
- The allegation will be considered closed when the investiga-tion report has been issued and as long as no technical issues remain.
If technical issues or an investigation remain, the !
allegation remains open, reference is made to the technical report or OI investigation report if either-is complete, and a schedule for resolution of the allegation is placed in the I
Allegation Data Form or in the AMS update.
c.
For allegations of wrongdoing received by 01, the 01 Headquarters or Field Director will coordinate with the respective Office or
! ' Region 0AC to complete the items 2.b(1) through (5), above.
d.
i For allegations of a technical nature received by 0I, the OI Head-I quarters or Field Director will contact the respective office or forRegion and follow the Receiving Office. the procedures as indicated in item 3 below -
- 3. Re::aivino Office i e Upon receipt of. an allegation involving an NRC-regulated activity,
~g, the person receiving the allegation will provide the information rela-
- ' tive to the allegation (see Exhibit 1) to the OAC who will initiate steps into gation required the AMS. to identify the Action Office and to enter the alle-The Receiving Office OAC should, in addition to determining the appro-priate Action Office, coordinate with the Action Office, and receive concurrence from the Action Office before transfer of responsibility.
- 4. Action Office. The Action Office shall :
a.
i Complete that portion of the Allegation Data Form marked " Action 3 Office," assign an allegation number to it, and fonvard a copy of i the form to the NRR 0AC for entry into the AMS', and to the M155
! CAC, of the ifallegation appropriate, within 10 working days of the date of receipt for information.
- b.
- provide AMS updates to the NRR 0AC on a monthly basis by indicating updates on the previous month's status report. Updates are due i
to NRR by the 25th of each month. All input to NRR for the AMS l should be sent in " addressee only" envelopes to, " Allegation Management System, Mail Stop 528.
Completion of the follow-up -
j action for status report. an allegation will be recorded by updating the monthly tion Coordinators willName and telephone of Office or Regional' A11ega-be indicated at the top of the update sheets; any changes in the designation of 0ACs will be made here.
c.
As soon as possible after the receipt of an allegation and relevant information has been reviewed and evaluated, make a preliminary l determination 1 story action. of safety significance and the need for any regu-update. This determination will be reported in the next AMS :
i l Approved:
Al-12
MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS APPENDIX 1. NRC 0517 d.
Schedule the resolution of each allegation to be consistent with the licensing schedule and the safety significance of the alle-gation. .
e.
Make a determination regarding the need for a board notification to NRR or M4SS.
in nature, a follow If theupinitial board notificat' ion is preliminary notification is sent to boards when evaluation is completed, or whenever significant relevant informa-i tion is identified during the course of evaluating the allegation.
This determination should be made as soon as possible in accordance with the Action Office board notification procedures.
f.
Develop and maintain a working file for each allegation, which will contain all related documentation. For those allegations comprised i
of multiple concerns, separate working files may need to be estab-lished for each concern.
g.
Provide items c-f,status above.information to the NRR DAC for the AMS regarding h.
Thirty days prior to the construction completion date (appli-f, cant's estimate) for each pending OL, each Action Office will fomard to the Division of Licensing /NRR, an evaluation of the safety significance of all allegations not scheduled to be i resolved before the construction completion date, with a recom-mandation as to whether any or all of them constitute grounds for ,
delaying license. issuance of (or otherwise restricting) an operating 1
Thirty days prior to a Commission decision on . authorizing full-power
- prepared.
operation, a report similar to item h above, will be
.j .
Ensure protection of the identity of all al egers when confiden-tiality is requested or implied by their actions.
- 5. NRR OAC
- a. Upon receipt of an Allegation Data Form and updates, the NRR 0AC i
will perform a quality check and will transmit the information to the Office of Resource Management (RM) for input into the AMS.
This procedure will be modified when direct input or update capability ' to the AMS can be obtained for Offices and' Regions.
b.
NRR will coordinate with RM to provide Offices and Regions monthly status reports during the first week of each month. The monthly report will include a list of all open allegations and a list of those allegations closed during the last 30 days. The format for the status report is provided (Exhibit 3).
1 Al-13 Approved:
l .
- e . .
. .. s
'. MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHIBIT 1. NRC 0517 MRC Form 307 ALLEGATION DATA FORM I. ALLEGATION NUpBER: *
-A-d 2. FACILITY: -
Name Unit No. , Docket No.
a.
b.
a
- c. _
- 3. TYPE OF REGULATED ACTIVITY:
O a. Reactor O b. Vendor O c. Materials Od. Safeguards O e. Other
- 4. MATERIALS LICENSE NUPBER
- 5. FUNCTIONALAREA(s):
3 O a. Operations O b. Construction Q c. Safeguards C O d. Transportation O e. Emergency preparedness a Of. Onsite health and safety O g. Offsite health and safety i
Oh.Mur I 6. DESCRIPTION:
5.
3 7. NUM ER OF GUMGEMN5:
- 8. SOURCE:
~J. Oa. Contractor amployee O b. Licensee employee Oc. MRC employee O d. Former employee O e. News media O f. Private citizen O g. Organization 01. Anonymous -
O h. Other
- 9. CONFIDENTIALITY REQutsIto: -O Tes O Mo 1 '
- 10. DATE ALLEGATION RECEIVED: _/ /
II. EWLOYEE/0FFICE RECEIVING ALTL1lX1TIIN:
- L 12. ACTION OFFICE CONTACT / PHONE:
- 13. SAFETY SIGNIFICANCE: O High C] Medium O Low O Mone .
- 14. BOARD NOTIFICATION REC 0fmENDED: O Yes O No
- 15. O! NOTIFIED: O Yes O No
- 16. STATUS:
0 0 pen O Closed Scheduled Completion Date: J1 Date Closed: / / -
3 17. WAS ALLEGATI0tf3UBT1RTIATED: O Yes O No O Partially I
- 18. WAS ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN: O ves O No Q In Process
& SEVERITY LEVEL: OI O II O III O IV OV
- 19. WAS O! INVESTIGATION PERFORMED: O Yes O No O In Process 3
M O Yes O No 0 50.54(f) 0 30.32(d) 070.22(d) 0 40.31(b)
Disposition:
j .
' 21. ALLEGER NOTIFIED OF CLD5EUUT.:
O Yes O Mo
- 22. REMARKS:
P 23. CRQ55
REFERENCE:
- 24. PROJECT MANAGER /PhoMt:
I 25. APPLICANT'S CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE: /j-j , g 26. BOARD NOTIFICATION ISSUED: O Yes Ollii .
l Jf
~'
El-1 Approved:
.s ..
NRC 0517. EXHIBIT 1 MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS INSTRUCTIONS I. Allegation ihm6er Action Office fill in the boxes to uniquely iden .
tify this allegation 0FFICE official NRC office abbreviation for the Office responsible for followup activities.
YEAR last two digits of the calendar year in
- which the allegation was reported to NRC.
A identifies this number as an allegation number.
NUISER sequential number assigned by the Office or -
t Region responsible for the followup activities. .
EXAWLE The 24th allegation mceived by IE in 1982 would be shown as IE-42-A-0024
- 2. Facility (ies) Give the name of the facility (fes) or company (tes)
Involved about whom the allegation is made. Write the docket nueer. if appropriate in the spaces to the right. If the allegation is made about a specific individual or if the infomation in this item is otherwise sensitive, write SDt$1TIVE. If
! more than three facilities or companies are in-volved write GENERIC.
- 6. Description Briefly describe the allegation (1 or 2 sentences).
Se concise. If an allegation includes several in-stances of technical deficiencies or wrongdoing. -
e 11st the assertions separately or group them by type.
- - NOTE: If the description of the allegation is sensitive, write only SDISITIVE.
- 7. Musber of Write the total number of concerns given in the i
Concerns allegation. Note that each Office or Region may need to establish a working file for each concern.
l
- 8. Source Check the box that most clearly describes the affiliation. DO NOT include the name of the indi-g.
vidual making the allegation..
Confidentiality Indicate whether confidentiality has specifically-
- Raouested been requested.
- 13. Safety Provide an estimate of the safety significance of Significance allegation Example (a) Check "high" for an alleged deft-ciency in an operating plant that could have an tunediate and great effect on plic health and safety (b) Check" Low for an alleged deficiency in a plant under construction that would have a minor effect on public health and safety
- 20. Did Disposition Check appropriate box (es) and briefly describe i Result in Letter
- to Modtfy or method of disposition report. inspection report.(e.g..
SER.letter.)
etc. andtechnical identify Revoke License document.
- 22. Rosarks Include additional information as app ~ropriate. '
i l
EXAMPLES: list other allegations related to this allegation; list other NRC offices responsible for followup activities on this allegation. ,
- 23. Cross Reference Identify other related allegations and.investiga-i .. .
tions hy alpha-numeric designation.
t
- 25. Applicant's . For plants under construction, enter the appii. '
Construction cant's estimated construction completion dates Completion Data there is no need to provide this information until 3 or 4 months prior to the estimated date.
- 26. Board Notification Indicate whether a board notification was issued.
1 Issued 4
{' Approved: El-2 I _.
.. T..
, m.
R-124813e . ,.
SUN Daft: og/e5/84 **.
STATISTICAL StasenRT I penf 3084 -
i $. '
FTl
! * . ~
ALLteATIONS ALLteATIONS ALLEGATIONS OpfW TOTAL TOTAL rn RECEIVED CLOSED OPER IRaeER OF NUIGES OF z
DUtING DURING ALLEGATIWS ALLEGATIWS H 0FFICE THE MONTN AS OF Tit TIS 90 DAYS OLD ALLEGATIWS o
I THE MDIffff _ 0F Tif MDIITN OR OLDER IN THE SYSTEN CLOSED n
' _ICUIcaptATIVE) ICtsetFLATIVtl it e M
e-O s(*) .(*)
4(. ) , g mas d
()
j a e a :( ) o( )
i $
i l
Wen e e () a :() s( )
j er e i0 -
e :( ) .: nes( ) n( )
i 8 nr as a u() as Te() u()
nir no n() si ree() 23f()
3 niit i s- Te( ) se us()
i su( )
,g uv ~
m o e .n() n us(). u( )
\3 i ;c, av 3 e se() se
!? im( ) s4( ) I m
- TOTALS T r
18 4Te( )
i 347 lets ( ) ses( )
i
^
- -Total number of Concerns involved
_o e
t .-
.A .
R-1244123 RUM DATE: 06/01/84
- PAGE 1
{
i l
LIST OF ALL ALLEGATIONS li .
b5 i
FLCILITY MAME ALLEGATI0H HUMBER 9-ni I CONTACT FTS PHONE STATUS 35 i
(SISCO FIRE SEALS) NRIII-83-A-0029 C3 l W GULDEMOND 348-5608
DPEN AMERICAN TESTING LASS l AMERICAN TESTING LASS DIR4-83-A-0043 RK NERR 728-8110 Ef AMER 5 HAM CORP RIV-83-A-0023 TF WESTERMAN DPEN r-RII-84-A-0026 8 URYC 728-8800 CLOSED 5 AREANSAS 102 242-4193 ARKANSAS 182 RIV-84-A-0008 TF WESTERMAN OPEN $")
RIV-84-A-0041 728-8100 OPEN -4 ARMED FORCES RADIOSISLOGY RES INST TF WESTERMAN 728-8800 ARM 0/DAP CORP. MICHIGAN CITY, IN RI-83-A-9089 JD RINNERAN SPEN Ej WRIII-84-A-0083 448-1252 SPEN se ATLANTIC CITY MEDICAL CENIER DJ SREMIAW5El 388-5688 ATLANTIC NUCLEAR SERVICES RI-84-A-0024 JE GLENN 488-1260 CLOSED U' AUSURN STEEL MILL RII-83-A-0107 GA 1000 242-4993 CLO5ED RII-83-A-0015 GA 7000 242-4t93 CLOSED SANNSON, TNC. CLOSED j
BARCLAY INTERNATIONAL RII-84-A-0049 8 URYC 242-4193 BASIC ENGINEERS NATIONAL VALVE, PA RIV-83-A-0082 TF WESTERMAN 728-8800 CLOSED E3 NIE-84-A-0003 OPEN BAYTOMN INDUST X-RAY CONST CO EN MERSCil0FF 492-4572 BEAVER VALLEY 1 RII -6823 .GA TODO 242-4193 OPEN CLO5ES SEAVER VALLEY I RI-8 3- A(-0 0 7 M **)
RI-83-A-0080 LE TRIPP 488-1227 CLO5EO
{ BEAVER VALLEY 8 LE TRIPP 488-9227 CLOSED j BEAVER VALLEY l RI-83-A-0084 LE TRIPP 488-1227 4
SEAVER VALLEY I RI-84-A-0006 LE TRIPP 488-8227 CLO5EO 1 RI-84*A-0007 LE TRIPP Closed BEAVER VALLEY 2 RI-83-A-0048 488-1227 OPEN j
BEAVER VALLEY 2 LE TRIPP 408-1227 SEAVER VALLEY 2 RI-84-A-0009 LE TRIPP 488-1227 OPEN I BECNTEL RI-84-A-0043 LE TRIPP 488-1358 OPEN
- RIV-83-A-0035 OPEN BELLEFONTE 1 TF WESTERMAN 728-8800 l SELLEFONTE I RII A-003 9(**) OA TODO 242-4893 CLOSES i BELLEFONTE I RII-83-A-#040 GA 1000 242-4193 CLOSED l Q7 BELLEFONTE f - RII-83-A-0090 SA TODO 242-4193 CLO5EB I is SELLEFONTE 1 RII-83-A-0122 B URYC 242-4993 CLOSEB
! 2< SELLEFONTE 1 BELLEFONTE I RII-83-A-0123 RII-84-A-0001 8 URYC 5 URYC 242-4193 OPEN SPEN RII-84-4-0009 242-4193 OPEN l[
SELLEFONTE 1 BELLEFONTE I RII-84-A-0036 GA TODO Je LANRFORD 242-4993 '
OPEN pi RII-84-A-0052 242-4994 OPEtt 25 BEST INDUSTRIES INC. ARLINGTON VA JB LANRFORD 242-4894 BEYNESSA MOSP. CINCINNATI, OMIO RII-84-A-0027 A TILLMAN 242-5613 CLO5EO co BIS ROCK POINT RIII-83-A-0078 DJ SRENIANSKI 388-56tl CLOSED
[]
I BRE WASTE DUMP.,M. CDVINA, CA RIII-83-A-0047 LR GREGER 388-5644 CLO5ED h8 BORS WARNER RV-84-A-0048 RD THOMAS 463-3763 CLOSED
- BORIDE PR000 CTS INC RIV-83-A-0029 TF WESTERMAN 728-8800 CLOSED RIV-83*A-0060 RK NERR OPEN 2E BOVARI ELECTRIC INC OIR4-83-A-0077 728-8110 OPEN $$
SPB INSTRUMENTS INC, EVANSVILL, IN RK NERR 728-8110 OPEN
- BRAIBMOOD 1 RIII-84-A-0030 DJ SRENIAWSKI 388-5681 '
MS LITTLE CLOSED St mRIII-84-A-00td(**) 384-5578 OPEN q s m MULTIPLE
- Ih80bDr FACILITIES Of ennende ASSOCIATED
-4 swal v ed 4. + uWITH . -u THIS - -
ALLEGATION NUMBER
e . .
, I$ MANAGEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS EXHIBIT 4, NRC 0517 4
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREENENT I have information Regulatory that I Commission (NRC). wish to provide in confidence to the U.S. Nucle I request tiality as a condition of providing this information to the NRC.anI express will ple tiality being extended to me.not provide this information voluntarily to the agreeing to this confidentiality, will adhere to the (1) The NRC will not NRC initiated document,identify me by name or personal identifier in any conversation, or communication released to the public which relates directly to the information provided by me.I under-stand the term "public release" to encompass any distribution outside of the NRC with the exception of other public agencies which may require information in furtherance of their responsibilities under law or publ trust.
(2) required for the conduct of NRC-related activities.The NRC (3)
- During the course of the inquiry or invest 5 1 ation the NRC will also y'
make every effort consistent with the investigative needs of the Comm sure of my identity to persons subsequently contacted At a latereffort able stage to Iprotect understand that even though the NRC will make every re my identity i my identification could be compelled by orders or subpoenas issued by cou,rts of law, hearing boards, or stella legal entities. ,
i fidentiality and any In such othercases, the basis for granting this promise of con-relevant authority ordering the disclosure in tiality.
facts will betocasuunicated an effort to the maintain ey confiden-If this effort proves unsuccessful, a representative of the NRC will attempt to inform se of any such action before disclosing my id confidentiality disclose sy identity. if I take any action that may be reas to have waived my rights to confidentiality if I provide (
t
. viously provided) information to any other party that contradicts the am intentionally providing false information to the NRC.i Other Conditions: (if any)
I have read and full with its provisions. y understand the contents of this agreement. I agree
.r Date * .
Rame:
Address:
- Agreed to on behalf of the U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
i -
l Date i signature l Name:
Title:
I E4-1 Approved:
i
m t'
. fp*y\ ,
- e i., ...../
January 20, 1984 SECY-84-26 For: The Comission O nadOd From: William J. Dircks .
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
STAFF PROCESSING OF ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING LICENSES
Purpose:
To infonn the Comission of improvements being implemented in the processing of allegations. .
Backcround: In. November 1982, an NRC Allegations Tracking System (ATS) designed to ensure that all incoming allegations are recorded was initiated. While that system appears to be working,
- certain improvements, to be discussed below, are needed to increase its usefulness as a management information system.
One of the most important changes to that system will be to redefine " allegations" to include a broader set of safety concerns originated outside NRC even if not provided by an
" alleger". This would include, for example, the technical audit reports received from two Congressmen regarding'the Pullman contractor at Diablo Canyon. Such a redefining of that system will more appropriately focus the staff's atten-tion on all safety concerns regardless of their origin and -
will permit them to be evaluated in an integrated sense.
l This change will be' included in an NRC Manual Chapter to be issued early next Spring that fonnalizes the ATS.
At present, IE has the responsibility for the Allegation
! Tracking System; responsibility for the evaluation of alle-gations/ concerns is divided among a number of Offices (OI, NRR, IE, NMSS, and the Regions) and the responsibility for Board Notifications and licensing reconynendations resides in NRR.
Discussion: I. Recent Experience We have experienced difficulties in several recent licensing .
cases that indicate a need to improve our handling of allega-
. tions. These difficulties are briefly described below.
(1) Safety Sionificance - Presently, for each alle ceived by the NRC, an Actio'n Office is designated such (gation as re-Regions,NRR,IE,01,orHMSS). Each Action Office is to manage the necessary evaluations or inspections to resolve the allegation. Similar to our approach for resolving
, j,, >
, 52.206 petitions, if the allegation is determined to be valid, and if the safety significance of the issue warrants, appro-priate regulatory action is taken (such as Stoo Work Orders
- or requiring correction of the deficiency before issuance of an operating license). This approach has been working reasonably well for individual allegations, particularly where there are only a few allegations on a given project. '
For projects with a large number of allegations or concerns raised, however, difficulties have been experienced in address-ing the safety significance of the allegations. This is princi-pally because with numerous allegations, we do not have a systematic approach for assessing the collective safety signifi-cance of the set of pending allegations on a particular project.
In addition, there are no schedular guidelines for completing such assessments. A more systematic program for the assessment of the significance of plant-specific allegations is needed.
- (2) Operating License Decisions - It has become clear that an i important element to consider when making a decision to issue. .
an operating license is the status and safety significance of i all pending allegations. In some cases, we have noticed an
! increasing number of allegations being surfaced as the licensing
- dec.ision date nears. We have not had systematic administrative
, controls in place that ensure timely and appropriate management-level attention to this matter.
! The preferred situation is to have all such allegations resolved prior to issuing an operating license (or authorizing full-power _
operation). For plants that are nearing the date of licensing, we need to ensure that as many as possible of.the pending alle-gations are resolved prior to that date and, in fact, that they are resolved in a systematic, routine way prior to an OL deci-sion so as to avoid an increasing accumulation of such issues at the last minute. Nonnally, this can be achieved by proper '
l advanced planning and prioritization. In some instances, as when there are a very large number of allegations, a special allegation management effort may be needed (e.g., as is being done for Diablo Canyon).
(3) Board Notification Issues - Many. times, a substantive alle-gation can be material and relevant to issues before a licensing board (ASLB, ASLAB, or Connission). The present allegation screening procedures generally in use in th'e Regions do not specifically require all allegations to be routinely reviewed to determine whether they contain new information that is i' material and relevant to issues in a licensing proceeding and.
thus, should be the subject of a Board Notification. In addi-4
' tion, the schedule for resolution of allegations has been particularly sensitive to licensing board schedules when such infonnation is pertinent to board decisions.
i
, 1,' * $ ' - -
. II. Revised Approach The key elements of the improvements being imp'.ari::. ed are
- outlined below. A more detailed description is contained in Enclosure 1. .
/
(1) The Allegation Tracking System will include all allegations or expressions of concern requiring evaluation from any source outside NRC (private citizens,,public interest groups, elected officials,etc.).
(2) In general, the present split of office responsib'ility for review and resolution of each allegation (as described in
" Background") will be maintained.
(3) ,The NRR Project Manager will play a more active and central role by maintaining an awareness of all allegations and the progress of their resolution, and by alerting NRR management of
-- -- - schedular difficulties or the development of substantive safety issues that could affect licensing decisions. -
(4) IE will continue to be responsible for the ATS and the necessary improveme'nts (including schedules) to enhance its jl 1 -
capability to become an Allegation Management System.
[ (5) IE has assigned a senior manager to a new position
! entitled, "Special Assistant for Allegations and Investigations".
(
(6) Action Offices fer allegations will:
(a) Within 30 days of receipt of an allegation, make a preliminary detennination of safety significance and the need for any regulatory action (similar to the approach to the review of 92.206 Petitions).
(b) Schedule the resolution of each allegation (to be '
consistent with the licensing schedule and the safety significance of the allegation).
k (c) Recomend Board Notifications to NRR.
(d) Develop and maintain case files for each allegation.
l which will include documentation of all preliminary
! and final resolutions.
(e) Take appropriate steps to protect the confidentiality
. of allegers, when requested.
t l
7 -.* --
\
,.,s.' ' '
w; (f) Provide information to IE for placement in the ATS.
(6) For each OL application, NRR will develop a plan for i assessing the collective significance of allegations consistent with licensing review schedules. This will require consultation with 01, IE, and the involved Regions. A listing of allegations for each case, similar to that developed for Diablo Canyon, will be maintained. The listing will utilize data from the ATS.
(7) The Director, NRR, will, as part of his decision-making
~
i process on the issuance of an operating license (or his recommen-i dations regarding full-power authorization), consider the safety
, implications of allegations not finally disposed of.
Underlying these improvements is a recognition of the key role' played by the NRR Project Manager as the principal focal point
, for all information related to licensing issues for any oper-ating license application. In the past, the processing of allegations has largely been accomplished within the Regional organizations, with technical assistance as needed from Head-quarters. This is appropriate, and will continue to be the case, particularly for those allegations related to site-specific constructfon-related and plant-specific operations-related issues. Perhaps because of'this, the NRR Project . f Manager, and in fact the Headquarters Offices, while being cognizant of pending allegations, have tended to view alle-gations and their resolution as a regulatory function which is principally within the purview of the Regional Offices. -
With the increasing awareness that allegations must be accorded deliberate consideration as an element in the overall licensing decision process, it is appropriate tha.t timely in-
, formation on all allegations be made available in a central
, location, that all allegations are resolved in a timely manner (at least in an interim fashion), that the resolution of such allegations is documented appropriately, that such information is provided to Hearing Boards. in a timely manner, and perhaps most importantly, that the collective safety importance of.such allegations is factored into licensing decisions. For pending operating licenses, that central location for such considerations must be the NRR Project Manager.
With regard to resource implications, for most cases, the .
additional effort involved in implementing these procedures can be absorbed within existing office resource levels. In special cases, a dedicated full-time team may need to be established for a short period of time (as in Diablo Canyon).
, j. ,'
i' l 1
- 5-NRR has dtsignated a full-time allegation coordinator to further develoo the inclementing procedures, assist in appropriate revisions to the NRC Manual, and, in general, ensure that the revised procedures are promptly put in place for all upcoming operating cases. As noted above, IE has designated a full-time special assistant to be responsible for allegation activities related to IE programs.
The above-mentioned improvements, which are being finalized and will be incorporated in the NRC Manual, will provide for more organized and systematic management of allegations related to pending operating licenses. Although our exper-1ences tn managing the resolution of allegations related to operating reactors have not been as troublesome as they have been for operating license application cases, the pertinent aspects of the improvements described herein will be made applicable to OR's as well.
i ,
I .
E -
h'5
, Wi liam J. rcks 2 -- - Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Procedures for Resolution of
- Allegations Related to Operating License Application Reviews ,
i .
1 1
i e
1 e
- _y .-___ .__ . . _ _ . , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ , _ - _ _____.._m . . - . . _ , ,, . . . _ . . _ , _ . _ , -. , . _ _ _
, 8 -
ENCLOSURE PROCEDURES FOR RESOLUTION OF ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO OPERATING LICENSE APPLICATICl. REVIEWS
- 1. The general procedures that are irr use within the Regions for screening and assessing allegations will continue to be followed. A copy of these procedures was furnished to the Comission by EDO memorandum dated October 28, 1983.
- 2. The Allegation Tracking System will continue to be maintained by IE.
It will be revised to reflect, for each allegation, the schedule for resolution and confirination that close-out has occurred.
4
summary of all allegations and the progress of their resolution, and is responsible for alerting NRR. management of schedular difficulties or the development of substantive safety issues that could affect licensing decisions. - -
4 4 Action Offices for allegations will:
(a) Within 30 days of receipt of an allegation, make and document a preliminary detennination of safety significance and the need for any regulatory action (simibr to the approach to the review of 92.206 Petitions),
(b) Schedule the resolution of each allegation (to be consistent with the licensing schedule and the safety significance of the allegation),
(c) Recomend Board Notifications to NRR, 1
(d) Develop and maintain case files for each allegation, which will i include documentation of all preliminary and final resolutions, ;
(e) Take appropriate steps to protect the. identity of allegers when confidentiality is requested, (f) Provide status information to IE for the ATS regarding each of the above items.
l
- 5. To provide greater assurance that Hearing Boards are informed of infor-mation that may be relevant and material, the existirig procedure for screening and assessing allegations is being modified to:
. (a) Ensure that notification of the existence of an allegation is promptly made to the appropriate NRR Project Manager, as well as IE.
-..,,--.w-- -
,- ,- , , , - . , , ------,-,,--y- ,---,--r w- -
c r -
w k.
. (b) Provide that the Action O'ffice will determine, within thirty days of receipt of an allecatier., whether a Board Notification should be recommended, and, if so, will forward such recommendation to the Director, Division of Licensing, NRR (with copy to the Project Manager). The Action Office case file record for each allegation will include an entry, approved at management level, regarding the disposition with respect to board notification (including a deter-mination that no board notification is warranted).
(c) Provide that, if the initial board notification is preliminary in nature, a follow-up notification is sent to boards when the eval-uation is completed, or whenever significant relevant information is identified during the course of evaluating the allegation.
(d) Ensure protection of the identity of all allegers when confi-dentiality is requested.
- 6. Thirty days prior to the Construction Completion date (applicant's
, estimate) for each pending OL, each Action Office will forward to the Division of Licensing an evaluation of the safety significance of all allegations not scheduled to be resolved before the Construction Com- .
pletion date, with a recommendation as to whether any or all of them constitute grounds for delaying issuance of (or otherwise restricting) an operating license. The NRR Project Manager will compile these inputs and provide an integrated judgement and recommendation as to the safety significance of all pending allegations (collectively and, if appro-priate, individually) as identified by all Action Offices. -
- 7. Thirty days prior to a Commission decision on authorizing full-power operation, a report similar to (3) above will be prepared. The NRR Project Manager will notify all Action Offices of the date this report is requested. S
- 8. During the period from thirty days prior to the Construction Completion date until the Commission meeting on full-power authorization, the Receiving Office for any new allegation will, within two working days, telephonically notify the NRR Project Manager of its receipt and the identification of the Action Office.
f 4
I i
tus: ass . c. O p ..
~ ~
- ,9'- ,
g g ,
- 'go asog'o, UNITED STATES *
! (, 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g fjl WA5HINGTON, D. C. 20555 s.p..ca/ ..* APR 2 41984 MEMORANDUM FOR: EDO Office Directors Regional Administrators FROM: Willianr.J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO LICENSEES l Memo, Dircks to Office Directors and Regional
REFERENCE:
Administrators, " Policy in Regard to Dealing with Those who Provide Information to the NRC," dated January 6,1984 The reference above deals with the general issue of dealing in a prompt and efficient manner with information provided to NRC with due regard for confidentiality of those who provide such infonnation. This memorandum deals with the narrower issue of release of such information to licensees / vendors. In addition to the need for expeditiously resolving any issue related to safety, recent experience has shown that considerable resources are being used to deal with allegations for NTOL plants. The policy set forth in the memo is intended to improve this situation.
The principal guidance on this point is that the licensee / vendor should be ;
advised of potential safety concerns raised by allegations as soon as feasible in order that appropriate review and subsequent action can be taken I to protect the health and safety. I expect that once infonnation 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 investigations / inspections should not be compromised, i.e.,
premature release should not allow licensees the opportunity to cover up problems or appear to do so.
There are two exceptions to this guidance. The first exception is where we i cannot release the information with sufficient detail to be of use to the I 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 inninent threat to the'public health and safety. I should be consulted in any case where it appears a need to release i
m
-m w - m p ,.,-e. ,,n.- - - ,_ , r, - - - - , , - -- .
--r -.
'u %_
f 1
r 4 ,,
j4 ,- -
't ,. .. .. ,
i The second exception is where a the identity of a confidential source. i licensee / vendor could compromise an investigation or inspection because of knowledge involved.
gained from the release of information especi Office of Investigations for investigations should make the decision of whethe 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 t1me, as has occurred with several plants as they approach issuance However, at suchof a an OL, the difficulties in executing this policy are enhanced.
time, high.
the requirement for a licensee to know where his pro these particular situatioris.
I am requesting that IE incorporate this policy in an appropriate Manual Chapter.
(Sig.tM.Th::11. E!=ks William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION VStello/DEDROGR WJDircks/EDO JWRoe/ DEDO
- RARehm/0EDO GCunningham JLieberman EDO r/f .
YNf
- x f
_ fj /
EDO :
JC : ELD :DEDROGRp :: _:.._. ___ ...:_______..__..... ________:..........
... _ _ : __. __$[.F _ _ . . : . . .pp_____ .....__ : : :
- WJDirc s :
- AME
- Liebennan:d :VStello __.....:. __________:.___________..______ .___:__
.TATE
. . _ :4/1/7/84
_ : . . . _ _ _:4/r. . . /84
_ _ _ : _:4/1
_ _ . . _ _ _ _: _ _ . : . _ _2_/ : 84
- r> . _ _ --3