ML20198T236

Submits Rev 3 to NRR Ofc Ltr 19, Staff Policy & Procedures for Notifications to Adjudicatory Tribunals. Revised Procedures Reflect Experience Gained Since Issuance of Rev 2 on 821001 & Commission Guidance Set Forth in CLI-86-1

ML20198T236
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/29/1986
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20198T239	List: ML20198T236 ML20199A020
References
CLI-86-01, CLI-86-1, NUDOCS 8606110379
Download: ML20198T236 (9)

Text

._ . _. .

i ,

UNITED STATES 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066

\..... 3 8 tlAY 1986 MEMORANDUM FOR: All NRR Empicyees l

FROM: Harold-R. Denton, Director 1

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

NRR OFFICE LETTER N0. 19. REVISION 3 - STAFF POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR NOTIFICATIONS TO '

ADJUDICATORY TRIBUNALS h This Revision supersedes and replaces NRR Office Letter No.19. Revision' 2, i

dated Octobar 1. 1982. -

l Effective issnediately, all NRR personnel will'use the following revised proce-I dures for assuring prompt and appropriate action on notifying presiding officers Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards and the Commission of new information which is considered by the staff to be relevant and material to admitted issues in controversy in one or more licensing proceedings. These

,a revised procedures reflect the experience we have gained since issuing Revision 2 on.0ctober 1,1982 and the Consnission's guidance set forth in

~

Lcdistana Power & Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),

CLI-861, 23 NRC 1 (1986) and in a Commission Policy Statement and Staff j Requirements Memorandum.

l l

The major changes in this procedure from Revision 2, which were specified in .

SECY 86-134 dated April 28, 1986, reflect the following:

1.

• The guidelines for Board Notification set forth in CLI-86-1 regarding the st.bmission only of new infomation which is material and re".evant to admitted issues in controversy before adjudicato.y tribunals.

2. The screening of allegations made concerning a facility prior to issuance of any board notification on the allegations pursuant to the' Statement of Policy: Han-dlina late Allegations, 50 Fed. Reg. 11030 (March 19, .

1985).

3. The requirements for staff's notification of the Commission set forth in the July 6,1984 Staff Requirements Memorandum which are: (a) to infom the Consnission on all issues on cases before the Consnission regardless of the specific issues in the cases which are explicitly before:the Consnission and (b) to infom the Consnission on all matters on all cases (whether or not cases are before the i

L [

5 iggu$3Y\

M ---- - -

A P?' - - - - -

Comission) that may present serious safety or environmental issues or which may involve substantial public, press or Congressional interest.

In addition, the procedure has been changed to reflect the recent reorganiza-tion of NRR.

This Office Letter renews the obligation of all NRR staff members to be alert to the significance of new information that is developed in the course of their review and to consider whether this information is relevant and material to an admitted issue before NRC adjudicatory tribunals. This is the central theme of the procedures and requires the exercise of good judgment to assure that NRC adjudicatory tribunals will be properly informed of new infomation on

' issues before them but not be ~ burdened with material beyond that potentially significant to individual licensing proceedings.

Ha d R. Denton,{!' D re or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Boird Notification Procedure er'. E. Christenbury OELD A. Rosenthal, ASLAP P. Cotter ASLBP B. Hayes. OI J. Taylor, 18E

.J. Davis, NMSS

• T. Murley, Reg. I i J. Grace, Reg. II ,

J. Keppler, Reg. III R. Martin, Reg. IV J. Martin, Reg. V e

I L__--,,-.-- . . - - . - . - - - - . - . - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BOARD NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE A. BACKGROUND Following Connission approval of its Board Notification policy on May 4,1978, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued NRR Office il Letter No.19, dated July 6,1978, which contained Board Notification procedures to be implemented by NRR. The term " Board Notification" as used herein refers to the provision of new infonnation which is considered to be relevant and material to an admitted issue in controversy in one or more licensing proceedings, i.e., information relevant and material to an admitted issue (contention or properly admitted board issue) before a presiding officer., Licensing Board.. Appeal Board, or the Commission.

' (Note that the term " Board" will be used in this procedure to refer to

rcsiding officers, Licensing Boards, Appeal Boards and the Connission.) ,

In a memorandum dated May 10. 1978, the Commission requested that a'n evaluation of the Board Notification policy be prepared when approximate-ly one year of experience was available. SECY-80-129, dated March 10, 1980, provided an assessment of then current procedures and proposed changes to those procedures to correct problems encountered in

- - y bg out the Board Notification policy. In its approval of SiCV-80-129 policy changes, the Connission requested another review of i

' the new policy after one year of experience was gained. The review was completed and forwarded to the Connission as SECY-82-122 dated March 18, 1982.

In 'a December '22,1982 memorandum (Chilk to Dircks), the staff was re-quested to prepare a discussion paper and reconmendations concerning the merits of providing the Connission with a broader set of information ,

through the Board Notification process. SECY-84-97, dated February 27, 1984,presentedseveralalternativesandtheCommission(1) adopted,with some modification, a broader standard for notifications to the Commission and (2) suggested that the staff consider attaching an executive suonary toeachnotification(SRM, July'6,1984). This board notification proce-dure has been revised to incorporate this guidance on Connission notifications.

On March 19, 1985, the Commission published a statement of policy on the handling of late allegations which provides for an initial course screening by thetoNRC prior issuance staff. ofThis any Board Notification involving allegations received '

board notification procedure has been revised to specifically address that guidance on notifications concerning allegations.

In a Memorandum dated March 24, 1986, the Connission directed the staff to revise its notification procedures to incorporate the guidance in

_ Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit 3),

CL1-86-1, 23 NRC 1 (1986). This board notification procedure has been revised to incorporate that guidance--for presiding officers Licensing Boards and Appeal Boards, notifications will be made when there is new

information which is relevant and material to admitted safety or environ- -

mental issues in controversy before the adjudicatory tribunal.

B.

STANDARDS FOR DETERMINATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION BY TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUPS AND PROJECT MANAGERS i

The Board Notification policy is applicable to all adjudicatory proceedings, including operating license (OL), full-term OL, OL amendment, construc-

' tion permit (CP) and CP amendment proceedings. In these proceedings, the staff will send new information relevant (bearing upon, connected with or relating to an issue) and material (tending to influence or '

having the capability to affect the outcome on an issue) to admitted safety or environmental issues in controversy (i.e., admitted contentions, admitted board issues) to the Boards. _All staff members are responsible l

I for reviewing all infomation received in the course of their assigned tasks, including reports identified by the Safety Program Evaluation Branch as being appropriate for consideration for Board Notification, to '.

determine whether it may be related to adjudicatory proceedings.and may .

represent relevant and material new information which should be provided to appropriate Boards.

The following guidelines should be followed in considering whether a noti-titation should be made:

1. Staff will inform the presiding officer, the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board or the Commission of any new

' information that is relevant and material to an admitted issue in controversy (admitted contention or admitted ,

board issue) before that particular tribunal. In close -

cases where reasonable doubt exists as to whether the in-formation is relevant and material to an admitted issue, a notification should be made.

2. In addition, staff will inform the Commission: (a)onall issues on the cases before the Commission (regardless of the specific issues on those cases that are before the Com-mission as identified in the weekly reports of Adjudicatory Items Before the Commission); and (b) on all matters on -

all cases whether or not before the Commission that may present serious safety or environmental issues or which .

)

may involve substantial public, press, or Congressional '

interest. '

3. With respect to allegations made concerning a facility, the staff will perform an initial screening of allegations and '

inform the adjudicatory tribunal of those allegations which:

(a) are found not to be frivolous, (b) warrant further scrutiny, and (c) are relevant and material to an admitted issue in the proceeding. Those illegations which are not l

~

k relevant and material to an admitted issue, but which (1 are not frivolous and warrant further scrutiny and t

(2)i raise serious safety or environmental issues or may involv i

substantial public, press or Congressional interest, will be forwarded to the Commission pursuant to item B.2(b) above.

Each notification will contain an explanation as to how the information meets one of the three standards for notification listed above. Infor-mation received from outside sources and considered to be suitable for Board Notification must be handled in an expeditious manner. Some examples of information from outside sources are: (1) the reporting of errors discovered in a vendor's Emergency Core Cooling System ECCS) i models or codes which could result in changes to analyses prev (iously evaluated and discussed in the SER, (2) the reporting of geological fea-tures which ported b could result in significant changes to those previously re-SER, (3)ythose the applicant and evaluated by the staff as discussed in the reports identified by the Safety Program Evaluation Branch as being appropriate for consideration for Board Notification,

' and (4) allegations submitted by members of the public including current and former licensee and contractor personnel. All such information i'

should be proposed as a Board Notification according to the standards noted above and the procedures and timing of Sections C.1 and D below.

~

Internally generated information that could reasonably be regarded as new -

' information relevant and material to an admitted issue before Boards should also be reported as expeditiously as practicable. However, the '

Commission's policy recognizes the difficulty of determining the point . .

when an individual staff member's perceived concern has developed into a staff issue' of sufficient importance that Boards are to be notified. In accordance with the Commission's policy, internally generated.information otherwise qualifying for Board Notification should be provided to Boards at the point when the staff determines that it is necessary to get more information about a problem from a source external to the staff. That is, if such new information is determined to be of sufficient importance to seek further information, analyses, tests, or the like from licensees or vendors NRC contractors, or others outside the NRC staff, then the issue has developed to the point where appropriate Boards.should be informed.

As for internally generated information, technical papers and journal arti-cles otherwise qualifying for Board Notification should be provided to Boards at a point when the staff determines that (1) such information is of sufficient importance to call into question staff positions and criteria, or (2) the staff has determined to seek further information, analyses, tests, and the like from licensees, vendors, NRC contractors or others outside the staff.

l J

..n .-_-,,.e------,,-.,,---.- ...---,------~w--w- --,3-

, , . . . _ . . - , - . . . _ -_ ,----w- , . , - . - - - - - . , - , ,,,--,-.,,-.------_,,-.m- .4,.,.,-e--,er.< .. -

4 C.

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF A RECOMMENDA-TION FOR BOARD NOTIFICATION 1

1. Staff members should provide days, 4 days for allegations)promptly (i.e.,minimum the following within-2infor-mation, through their management, to an NRR Division Director (for DPL-A, DPL-8, or DBL as appropriate, or to the Deputy Director, NRR if the issue affects more than ,

j one reactor type). The proposed Board Notification items  ;

should be hand-carried through concurrence to destination and should include:

a. An exposition adequate to allow a ready appreci-ation of the precise nature of the Board Notifica-

, tj,on matter.

b. An exposition adequate to allow a ready appreci-ation of the extent to which the matter has a bearing upon. the particular facility before the Board and the extent to which the matter is rel -

evant and material to an admitted issue before the Board.

c. Considerations as to whether the information meets the standard for Commission notifications set forth in Section B.2(b) above.

+

d. A statement as to the perceived significance of

. the information as it may affect current staff ,

positions. (A clear assessment of the signifi- -

cance is not required at this time and the recom-mendation should not be delayed in order to per-mit lengthy determinations. If a clear assess-ment and final resolution is available, it obviously provides for a clear Board submittal.

For all recommendations which do not contain a final resolution, followup action is required to inform the Boards as to the ultimate staff dis-position.)

e. In the event a conclusion with regard to the i

safety or environmental significance of the Board Notification matter is presented, the reasoning i underlying that conclusion sufficient to allow the Board to make an informed judgment on the validity of the conclusion. ,

f.

If the information relates to a specific docket, a l

statement as to possible applicability to other dockets. The Board Notification Coordinator will assist in determining if other dockets have ad-mitted issues relating to the subject.

i

k i

g. An executive summary of any enclosure (e.g.,

technical reports, etc.) to the notification unless the enclosure .is brief.

The above information represents the minimum content of a pro-L posed notification as submitted to the appropriate NRR Division l Director. The safety or environmental significance / assessment of the matter and the basis for any conclusions must be presented to the Board either in the initial notification or in a followup notification.

2. NRR also has a responsibility for identifying information poten-

' tially relevant and material to Boards considering facilities licensed under Part 70 and under the cognizance of the Office of

' Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). Staff members should make"any such recommendations through their management to i the NRR Division Director. The information provided should, to the extent possible, conform to that listed in Item 1 above. The ap-propriate NRR Division Director will forward the Board Notification material to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. ,

3. The appropriate NRR Division Director shall review all recom-i mendations and determine whether they are relevant and material to admitted issues in controversy (1 working day from logging).

Recommendations containing information considered to be directly related to a specific case are also reviewed for applicability to other cases. If the information and accompany-ing recommendation are i

• not clear enough for a determination to be made, the Director will '

request clarifying information from the originator. If it is deter-mined that a recommendation is not relevant and material to issues admitted before boards or otherwise should not be sent to the

' Commission under Section B.2, a memorandum to that effect is sent to the recommending parties. If the originator still feels that the j information should be provided to Boards, he or she should so state i

in a followup reconmendation. Such a followup recommendation will be processed through the normal Board Notification channels. Although

connents may be added indicating disagreement by those who judged the information not to be relevant and material, it will be forwarded to the Board. -

i

4. Board Notifications on differing professional opinions will follow the procedures of NRC Manual Chapter 4125. " Differing Professional Opinions."

5. Due to the increased scope of the Reg *9n's responsibilities under Regionalization, the Regional Office vill transmit potential'8oard Notification information directly to the appropriate NRR Division Director. The procedures of this Section C apply to these notifi-i I

-n- - ,,--- ,._n-_ , - . - - - .--.-,--. _ ,- - _. - - _ - . . - . - - . - - - - _ _

cations.

IE MC 1530.

The OIE Board Hocification Procedures are contained in In addition, with respect to allegations the Region will perform an initial coarse screening in accordance with Sections B.3 of these procedures and assure that the notification is written in a manner which would not compromise an inspection or investigation. If the Board Notification related to an allegation is not originated by the Region, the Region's concurrence that the notification is written in a manner which would not compromise an inspection or investigation should be provided within two days of

' the Region's receipt of a proposed notification. The NRR project manager, with input from the Region will make a detemination if OI concurrence is required in accordance with Section C.6 below.

6. The Office of Investigations will transmit information recom-mended for Board Notification to the appropriate Division Direc-

, tor. If the' Board Notification is not proposed by 01, the NRR Division Director should obtain OI concurrence on Board Notifi-i cations involving allegations concerning wrongdoing which have

' been or have the potential to be referred to 0I for investijation (SECY 82-340, dated August 17,1982). The OI prompt assessment >

will (1) assure that the Board Notification is written in a. manner which would not compromise an investigation or inspection and (2) perform a coarse screening of the allegations as described in Section

' ~

B.3. 01 should concur in proposed Board Notifications involving allegations concerning wrongdoing within five days.

7. Board Notifications containing infomation related to ongoing 4

investigations or inspections should be provided in accordance

'

• with the Statement of Policy Investigations. Inspections, and -

Adjudicatory Proceedings, 49 FR 36032 (September 23, 1984).

The publicly available portion of the Board Notification should contain only very general information with the enclosure marked for limited distribution and distributed in a limited manner in accordance with the above Statement of Policy.

i 8.

~

Following the appropriate NRR Division Director's concurrence or signature, as appropriate, the Board Notification will be promptly issued. The appropriate distribution list may be obtained from the PPAS Board Notification Coordinator.

D. TIMING OF BOARD NOTIFICATION REC 0tNENDATIONS

1. The key to commencement of Board Notifications on a specific case is the establishment of the date for the beginning of evidentiary hearing and issuance of related notice by the Board. Prior to 30 days before the hearing, new material which is considered material and relevant to admitted issues s

7-in a proceeding is presented to the Boards via SER supple-ment or other documents. However, if there are items that have not been appropriately disposed of, a sumary list is to be provided by the project manager to the Board 30 days before the start of the hearing. For cases within 30 days of the evidentiary hearing, or during or after an evidentiary hearing, new information found material and relevant to admitted issues shall be forwarded promptly to the Board (issued within two working days from receipt of the Direc-tor's concurrence) according to these procedures.

The NRR project manager is responsible for conducting a review of recent Board Notifications and other case specific

-information to ensure that items which are material and relevutt to admitted issues in proceedings and are not addressed in the existing licensing documents (e.g., FES, SER, SSER) or testimony are on the sumary list described above. The ~1ist should identify the method to be used to ,

3 address these items (e.g., testimony, SER supplement or-followupBoardNotification.)

2. OE(D will prwvide NRR with periodic updates of a list of current proceedings for facilities under the cognizance of NRR, indicating whether the proceeding is currently pending

before a presiding officer, Licensing Board, Appeal Board, ,

or the Comission and describing the general nature of admitted issues.

. 3. PPAS will establish and maintain the record-keeping system -

related to all Board Notification matters. This will include a log of current proceedings and a detailed Itst of adnitted issues in controversy. A system will be maintained which tracks outgoing Notifications which require followup action.

The Board Notification number will be assigned by the Board Notification Coordinator following Division Director approval.

f l

,_ ,,_. ..__----,n.-----