ML20038B985
| ML20038B985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/10/1981 |
| From: | Stello V Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038B986 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112090393 | |
| Download: ML20038B985 (50) | |
Text
-
/
~ '
/
t l
(
\\nnnacq UNITED STATES 8
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON Eh fgg WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 W(Qi November 10, 1981 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, NRR Edward L. Jordan, IE Donald B. Mausshardt, NMSS Robert M. Bernero, RES Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., AE0D Joseph Scinto, ELD FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr., Chairman Committee To Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
AGENDA FOR CRGR MEETING NUMBER 1 A meeting of the Committee to Review Generic' Requirements will be held on Thursday, November 12,1981, from 1-5pm in Room 6507 MNBB.
The agenda items include the following:
1.
CRGR Charter and Procedures (Lead-DEDROGRStaff) 2.
Survey of Mechanisms Used to Communicate (Lead-Scinto)
With Licensees and Proposed Method For Controlling Communications with Licensees 3.
Status of Implementation of Action Plan (Lead-Eisenhut)
Items (NUREG-0737) 4.
CRGR Review of Requests for 0MB Clearances (Lead-DEDR0GRStaff) for Reporting Requirements Under Paperwork Reduction Act I4terial on each of these agenda items is enclosed for your review prior to the meeting.
n Vic ] tor Ste lo, fr r
hairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated 8112090393 011110 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR PDR
]
I*
Nov.13,1981
?
e p
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS (CRGR) t I.
Charter II. Membership O
III.
Scope IV. Operating Procedures V.
Reporting. Requirements v
89
]
NOV. 13, 1981 t
I.
CHARTER The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has the responsibility to review and re'connend to the Executive Director for Operations (ED0) approval or disapproval of requirements to be imposed by the NRC staff on one or more classes of reactors. The CRGR will develop means for controlling the number and nature of the requirements placed by NRC on licensees. The objectives of these controls are to eliminate the unnecessary burdens placed on licensees, reduce the exposure of workers to radiation in implementing some of these requirements, and conserve NRC resources while at the same time not reducing the levels of protection of public Nlth and safety.
The controls should make sure that requirements issued (a) do in fact con-tribute effectively and significantly to the health and safety of the public, and (b) do lead to utilization of both NRC and licensee resources in as optimal a fashion as possible in the overall achievement of protection of public health and safety.
By having the committee submit recommendations directly to the EDO for approval, a single agency-wide point of control will be provided.
The CRGR will focus primarily on proposed new requirements, but it will also review selected existing requirements which may place unnecessary burdens on licensee or agency resources.
In reaching its recommendation, the CRGR shall consult with the proposing office to ensure that the reasons for the proposed requirement are well understood.
If the CRGR recommends disapproval or major modifications of a proposed requirement, it shall submit to the E00 a statement of the reasons for its recommendation.
This
4 t,
statement shall provide a clear indication of the, basis for the decision not to apply the requirement to individual reactors or classes of reactors.
Tools used by the CRGR for scrutiny would be expectM to include cost-benefit analysis and probabilistic risk assessment where data for its proper use are adequate. Therefore, to the extent possible, written just-ifications should be based on these evaluation techniques.
The use of cost benefit analyses and other tools should make it possible to determine which proposed requirements have real safety significance, as distinguished from those proposed requirements which should be.given a lower priority or those which might be dropped entirely.
II.
MEMBERSHIP This Comittee shall be chaired by ' lictor Stello, the Deputy Director occupying the, newly formed position of DED0 for Regional Operations and Generic Requiremer.ts, arH it shall consist of, in addition to the DEDROGR, one individual from each NRR, IE, NMSS, RES, AE0D and ELD, appointed by the Executive Director for Operations. The Office of the DEDROGR will provide staff support.
The Generic Requirements Review Committee may use several non-NRC persons as consultants in special technical areas.
1 The following individuals have been appointed by the EDO, effective l
November 2,1981, to the CRGR:
Robert M. Bernero, RES Darrell Eisenhut, NRR Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., AE0D 1
l l
2
I-Nov.13,1981 4 Edward L. Jordan, IE Donald B. Mausshardt, NMSS Joseph Scinto, ELD New members will be appointed by the EDO as the need arises.
If a member cannot attend a meeting of the CRGR, his Office Director may propose an alternate for the chairman's approval.
It is the responsibility of the alternate member to be fully versed on the agenda items before the Committee.
III.
CRGR SCOPE A.
The CRGR shal! consider all proposed new generic requirements to be imposed by the NRC staff on one or more classes of reactors.
These include:
(i) All staff papers which propose the adoption of final rules or policy statements affecting 10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 51, 55,100 or modifying any other rule so as to affect technical requirements applicable to reactor licensees, including technical information required of reactor licensees or applicants for reactor licenses or construction permits.
(ii) All staff pape-s proposing new proposed rules of the type described in paragraph 1, including Advanced Notices.
(iii) All proposed new or revised regulatory guides; all proposed new or revised SRP sections; all proposed new or revised branch technical positions; all proposed generic letters; all multiplant orders; show cause orders; all 50.54f letters; all bulletins
r Nov.13,1981 and circulars; all USI NUREGS; and all new or revised Standard Tech. Specs.
B.
The CRGR shall consider all cps, Ols, approvals of PDAs and FDAs, minutes of conferences with owners groups, licensees or vendors, staff approvals of topical reports, information notices, and all other documents, letters or communications which are represented to reflect or interpret NRC staff positions, unless such documents refer only to previously approved requirements or staff positions,* for example:
(1) only positions or interpretations which are contained in regu-lations, policy statements, proposed regulations, regulatory guides, the Standard Review Plan, branch technical positions, generic letters, orders, topical approvals, PDAs, FDAs, licenses and license amendments which have been promulgated prior to Nove'ber 12, 1981, or which had been used in the review of at m
least three facilities (including amendments) prior to November 12, 1981. Any document or communication of this type shall cite and accurately state the position as reflected in a previously promulgated regulation, order, Regulatory Guide, SRP, etc.
(ii) only positions after that date which have been approved by CRGR.
- It is expected that the Offices will develop internal procedures to ensure that the documents and communications referenced above will contain only previously approved requirements or staff positions.
Noy, 13,1981 0 C.
For those rare instances where it is judged that an emergency action is needed to protect the health and safety of the public, no review by the CRGR is necessary.
However, the Chairman should be notified by the office originating the action.
These emergency action requirements will be reported to the Committee forinformation and will be included in the report' to the Commission.
D.
For each proposed requirenent not requiring immediate action, the proposing office is to identify the requirement as either Category 1 or 2.
Category 1 requirements are those which.the proposing office rates as urgent to overcome a safety problem requiring immediate resolution or to comply with a legal requirement for immediate or near term compliance.
Category 1 items are expected to be infrequent and few in number, and they are to be routinely approved or otherwise dealt with within 2 working days of receipt of the CRGR.
If the appropriateness of f
designation as Category 1 is questioned by the Chairman, and if the question is not resolved within the 2 working-day limit, the pro' posed l
l requirement is to be forwarded by the Chairnan to the EDO for decision.
i Category 2 requirements are those which do not meet the criteria for designation as Category 1.
These are to be scrutinized ccrefully by the CRGR on the basis of written justification, which must be submitted i
by the proposing office along with the proposed requirements.
Upon notice to the members of the CRGR, and without objection, the Chairman nay exempt any Category 2 proposal from review on the grounds that he concludes that it involves only an insigificant effect on the NRC staff 2:a on licensees.
N:v.13,1981
- E.
The DEDR0GR shall compile and maintain a list of projected generic
~
requirements based on input from the NRC Offices. The CRGR shall re-ceive an early briefing from the Offices on the proposed new generic requirements before the staff has developed the requirements and held discussions with the ACRS.
F.
The CRGR shall be consulted on the proposed backfit policy to be developed by DEDR0GR staff.
G.
The CRGR shall be consulted on the propo. sed plan to control communica-tions with licensees, which is to be developed by DEDR0GR staff.
H.
The CRGR may be consulted on any issue deemed. appropriate by the Chairnan.
IV. CRGR OPERATING PROCEDUP.ES A.
Meeting No'tices Meetings will generally be held at regular intervals and will be scheduled well in advance. Meeting Notices will ger.erally be issued by the Chairnan 2 wqeks in advance of each meeting, except for Category 1 itens, with background material on each item to be con-sidered by the Committee.
B.
Contents of Packages Submitted to CRGR Each package submitted to the CRGR for review shall include ten copies of the following information:
(1) The proposed generic requirement as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees.
Nov,13,1981
' (ii) Draft staff papers for underlying staff documents supporting the requirements.
(A copy of all materials referenced in the document shall b'e.made available upon request to the DEDR0GR staff. Any committee member may request DEDR0GR staff to obtain a copy of any referenced material for his use.)
(iii) brief description of each of the steps anticipated that licensees must carry out in order to complete the requirements; e.g.,
Are there separate short-term and long-term requirements?
Is it the definitive, comprehensive position on the subject or is it the first of a series of requirements to be issued in the future?
How does this requirement affect' other requirements? Does this requirement mean that other items or systems or prior analyses need to be reassessed?
Is it only computation? Or does it require or may it entail engineering design of a new system or modification of any existing systems?
What plant conditions are needed to install, conduct preoperational tests and declare operable?
Is plant shutdown necessary? How long?
Does design need NRC approval?
Does it require new equipment?
Is it available for purchase in sufficient quantity by all affected licensees or must such equipment be designed? What is the lead time for availability?
May it be used upon installation or does it need staff approval before use? Does it need tech. spec. changes before use?
Nov.13,1981 (iv)
Identification of the category of reactors to wh.ich the generic requirement is.to apply (that is, whether it is to apply to new plants only, new OLs only, OLs after a certain date, OLs before a certain date, all Ols, all plants under construction, all plants, all water reactors, all PWRs only, some vendor types, some vintage types such as BWR 6 and 4, jet pump and nonjet pump plants, etc.
(v)
For each such category:
A risk reduction assessment performed using a data base and methodology connonly accepted within NRC (for example, similar to that outlined in SECY 81-513).
An assessment of costs to NRC; an assessment of costs to licensees, including resulting occupational dose increase or decrease, added plant and operational complexity, as well as t'otal financial costs.
Consistent with the first two items above, provide the basis for requiring or permitting implementation by a given date or on a particular schedule.
Any other suggested implementation schedule and the basis there-for.
This should include sufficient information to demonstrate that the schedule is realistic and provides sufficient time for indepth engineering, evaluation, design, procurement, installation, testing, developaent of operating procedures, and training of l
operators.
Schedule for staff actions involved in completion of requirement l
(based on hypothesized effective date of approval).
I i
,-a,
+.
9 Pricritization of the proposed requirement considered in light of all other safety related activities under way at all affected
' faciliti es. This prioritization shall be based upon the guidance and direction provided from time-to-time by DEDROGR. Until such time as such advice is provided, each proposing office shall use its best technical judgment and explain the basis therefor.
For proposed requirements involving reports and/or record keeping, an assessment of whether such reporting or record keeping is the best means of implementation and the appropriate degree of formality and detail to be imposed.
To the extent that the category contains plans of different types or vintages, the items listed above shall be provided for each type and vintage, or justification shall be provided demonstrating that-the analysis of each item is valid for all types and vintages covered.
(.vi) Each proposed requirement shall contain the sponsoring office's position as to whether the' requirement implements existing regulations or goes beyond them.
(vii) The proposed method of implementation along with the concurrence (and any. comments)'of OELD on the method proposed.
(viii)
Information needed to obtain OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
C.
DEDR0GR Staff Review DEDROGR staff shall review the package for completeress.
If incomplete, the package shall be returned by DEDROGR to originating office with reasons
Nov.13,1981 for incompleteness. Prior notice to committee not needed; however, at each meeting of the Committee, DEDROGR staff shall report on rejected packages.
If a package is complete, it shall be scheduled for CRGR consideration; however, scheduling priorities shall be at the discretion of the Chai rman.
All requests for particular scheduling shall be made to the Chairman not to the Committee The ROGR staff may obtain factual information from industry and con-sultants on such proposals, particu'larly with respect to cost of implementation, realistic schedule for implementation, and effect of carrying out the proposed work on the ability of licensees to safely and efficiently carry out the full range of safety related activities at each facility.
D.
CRGR Meeting Minutes At each meeting, for each package scheduled for discussion, the sponsoring office shall attend to respond to comments and questions. The DEDROGR staff shall present a brief analysis of the package. A reasonable amount of time, within the discretion of the Chairman, shall be permitted for discussion of each item by Committee members. At the conclusion of discussion, each Committee member shall summarize his position.
Minutes of the meeting, including minutes of the discussion, shall be maintained and the position of each member as summarized by that member shall be accurately recorded.
N;v.13,1981
.. Minutes shall be circulated to all members within 3-working days after the meetings, and each member shall have the opportunity to comment in writing on soch minutes. All such comments received within 5-working days shall be maintained as part of the minutes of the meeting.
Based on consideration of the comments of the Committee members, the -
Chairman shall recommend to EDO approval, disapproval, modification, or conditioning of each recommendation for generic requirements con-sidered by the Committee, as well as the method of implementation of such requirements and appropriate scheduling for such implementation, which shall give consideration to the ability of licensees to safely and efficiently carry out the entire range of safety related activities at each facility.
Copies of the Chairman's recommendation, and EDO approval, disapproval, or other action shall be provided to Committee members.
E.
Record Keeping System The DEDROGR staff will maintain an archival system for keeping records of all packages submitted to DEDR0GR, actions by the staff, summary minutes of CRGR consideration of each package, recommendations by the Chairman, and decisions by EDO.
V.
REPORTING SYSTEM The DEDR0GR staff shall prepare a report to be submitted by the ED0 to the Commission each month. The report will provide a brief summary of the number
~ packages received, the number returned, a summary of those considered by the CRGR, the decision by the EDO on each proposed requirement, and the number '
4-N3v. 13, 1981 12 -
. i
.I
)
of packages yet to be considered by the CRGR. Committee members will be on 4
distribution for these reports.
I l
1 -
1
\\
n 1
l y
l e
e
~
1%
kJ-Tovem er 1981 Note to: Victor Stello From:
Joseph Scinto
)
l
Subject:
Survey of Mechanisms Used to Communicate Requirements I have reviewed Mr. Bassett's memorandum to you dated November 2,1981.
My comments ire as follows:
1.
From the list, I would delete:
These are licensee documents.
PSAR and FSAR Each of the separate steps should be separately Regulations considered (see. item 2 below).
Pub'i Hearing Records -
It is not the transcript that communicates NRC requirements; rather, the various elements of the i
hearing process. These should be separately considered (see item 2 below).
These are not the only license (amendment)
Denial Letters (Operator Licer.ses) requests we deny.
I would consider the entry for licenses and amendments to encompass both positive and negative action on such requests.
2.
To the list. I would add:
Advanced Notices Decisions and Orders of Licensirig Board l
Proposed Notices Decisions and Orders of Appeal Boards Final Rules Decisions and Orders of the Commission Policy Statements.
Pleadings SRP Proposed Findings Staff Approval of Topicals Testimony Plant Specific Letters PDA's Show Cause Order FDA's 50.54f Lette'rs Standard Technical Specifications Response to 2.206 Requests Notices of Violation USI Nureg's Noti?es of Proposed Enforcement Action Consultant Reports Imposition of Civil Penalties SER Conferences, Meetings Telephone Calls Facility Licenses with Vendors l
l r
2-
~
3.
I believe it is essential to distinguish' between the nature of the require-ments " imposed" in order to develop procedures for controlling generic requi remen ts.
For this reason, I have developed a categorization of require-ments communications (attached) different from that reflected in Mr. Bassett's memorandum.
I believe that a categorization similar to the attached would be submitted to the Office ' Directors for comment and be used in developing procedures for controlling communication of generic requirements to licensees.
l Attachment J
I e
8 j
w
}
.s-*
,_r-
l t
NO,TES ON TABLE r
Notes on Categories NRC staff documents and communications, including those Staff Doc.
of branches, task forces, working groups, etc., and of individual staff members.
Mechanisms used to communicate generic requirements Generic Requirements which have been imposed in a manner which Fornal Req.
of itself imposes a legal requirement, e.g., regulations',
license conditions, orders Proposed Formal Mechanisms used to propose a formal requirement Req.
Mechanisms which reflect staff positions which, unless Staff Req.
complied with, the staff would impose (or seek to have imposed) by a formal requirement.
It includes matters which "for practical purposes" are requirements (alternatives are acceptable but it is usually very difficult to demonstrate that they are satisfactory).
Items approved at the Division or Office or Agency level are identified with the letter D.
It includes those which reflect the position of a branch or some members of a branch, sections, task forces, working groups, steering committees, or cognizant individual staff members which have not been reviewed or approved at the Division or Office level.
These are identified with the letter B.
Letter Notations N - No Y - Yes 0 - Often, but not in all cases.
S - Seldom does this document impose or result in a new generic position, but it is not rare for some elenent to be an initial use or interpretation of another generic requirement which subsequently is treated as precedent for other cases.
B - See Staff Requirements (above).
D - See staff Requirements (above).
t Numbared Notes (1) Although most proposed rules are (for formal purposes) Commission documents, often the principal sponsor of Commission rulemaking action is a staff office.
(2) Code cc..mittee documents which are covered by 50.55a do result in imposition of formal requirements by virtue of 50.55a.
(3) Although the amendment itself does not have generic effects, the SER supporting it may either impose a generic requirement developed else-where, or be the initial use of a new generic requirenent.
(4) Show cause order and 50.54f impose a requirement for information; they also constitute as a practical matter the requirement to do the job.
(5) The response to the 2.206 granted does not itself impose a requirement, but would, if granted, start a process to seek formal requirements from a Board (or the Director).
(6) USI NUREGS when adopted by the Commission are seldom new regulations or orders, but become requirements as a practical matter (by virtue of a genericletter).
(7) The " requirements" in other NUREGS are seldom adopted by the Commission, but often become incorporated into other " practical" requirements, such as SRP's, BTP's or generic letters.
(8) Many actions, which are plant specific requirements only, in fact, often carry a generic " message" to other licensees.
(9) SER's propose requirements which are made forral by Board actions or otherwise by issuance of license or license amendments.
.-.g.,.
d.
" 3.35. 6 i U. ;
I eo 8
u o*
i o n o* m a+ :
4
~
$8 8
N c8 i k S N N N_..
l Regulations and Related Issuances _
e i
+
(Regulations) i M
IM Y
~
Advanced Notices w'N a<n
'I Prcposed Notices
/
M Y
y
_i Final Rules o
,/
Y i
Petitions for Rulemaking o
7 y,
Polig Statements i
( Accepted' Criteria)
,1 1
Regulatory Guides 1
Y N
N D\\
SRP N
7 Mj d D
Branch Technical Post,tions 7
'Y N
i Code Committee Documents h
1 b' M9 Staff Approval of Topicals 3
Y D'
IEE Manual T
T I
I&E (HQ) Position Statements
)
lO !
Plant Specific Letters Y
N N
Generic Letters N
' / g' I
TMI Action Plan Letters y
Y h
Orders (including Confirmatory Orders) 7 O
Y Show Cause Order y
3 i y ca )
D 50.54f Letters O
M h
Response to 2.206 Requests b
(b
o 8 P'3 18
'i 8*
L' ro n. m n(..
ma 6
isa!
1 1
7 bJ S
gn)
Reports _,
N NUREG Reports Ci rculars Y
y 6J bJ p Information Notices Special Reports i
U Operator Examination Result Reports y
d
s/
g 3
i Consultant Reports Licensing and Amendment Process _
i
~
DES, FES j
M g) M y
p
' Technical Speci ficati,ons y
y ACRS Meeting and Letters N
O g g
y O
g N
SER Facility Licenses s
tJ Y
Facility License Amendments y
P Y
Operator (Senior Operator) Licenses I
y N
\\/
Operator (Senior Operator) Amendments p.,
g Decisions and Orders of Licensing Boards
[
Decisions and Orders of Appeal Boards Y
o y
~
Decisions and Orders of the Cominission Pleadings l
Y oN y
N u a
u&
oueaw O
b IO $!
M TO $' N $!
Proposed Findings N
S N
Y 8
fjD N
,Y l~
Tes timony I
N
'y PDA's FDA's
.t y
y D
Standard Technical Speci fications Y Y.
Inspection and Enforcement Activities
%l N
Y U
h Inspection Reports 4
/
Perfonnance. Appraisal Team Reports N
0 Y
N N
N 6i Investigation Reports Entry, Exit, and Management Meetings b
SALP Reports Y
O N
bJ D
Orders y
5 4q U W
Show Causes (see above)
N/ %
ej.wL3 Bulletins
~
't ts v
N D
Immediate Action Letters Y
PJ N
N id Notices of Violation i'/
P4 N
N Notices of Proposed Enforcement Action 8
~
Imposition of Civil Penalties Ci rcul ars M
D f!
Information Notices
eo c:
- 5. cf o
5., cf h o.
.MS S
SM d*d f M M [.
Miscellaneous Activities gg g
Public Meetings
~
W 3
NN Preliminary Noti fications Lists of Personnel to Provide Access to [
Telephone Reports of Occurrences Licensee Event Report N
M ip Construction Deficiency Reports gg (Sent to 0ther Licensees )
Conferences', Meetings, Teldphone Calls to
'Li cens ees Licensee-Requested Y
b N
N 3[D NRC-Reques ted Matters of Current nterest - $
NRC Participation in and Comment on Licensee Drills Meetings Between NRC/ Licensee Public y
N bd p
Affairs People Press Releases Nf C
BJ G
Public Meetings (held quarterly) --- (
Resident Inspector Day-to-Day Contact M
O 3 NRC Operator Licensing People Contact Licensees on a Continuing Bas.is j
Q g
g 3
- i Periodic Vist ts to some Licensees by HQ.
Staff such as ELD or other ' Offices' Staff g
g-g Conferences, Meetings, Telephone can s with Vendors y
N gg Rx11adxhxxVandnx
4 g
g' g jeo i
%a n
i.&
o s e% &
M e e) 44 p, g M a i I
NiiC Discussions with Local Officials on I
p.)
p M
Ma tters Affecting Licensees
~
l 1
Speeches to Local Groups or Industry
]
p l 6/
N
[
Associations l
l Safety Evaluation Report Review for Licensing a
Code Committee Working Group ~
Y Phone Calls or Site Visits by NRC Staff or Commis'sion to:
Interpret Formal Requirements N
N b
h l
Obtain Information (i.e., Corrective
.i l
Actions, Schedules, Conduct Surveys, etc.)
l Precede a Formal Adtion (i.e., Immediate s;
Al jV, d,/
Action Letter, Notice of Civil Penalty, etc.)
I l
Discuss Proposed Requirements (i.e., New Security Plans, Proposed Tech Specs, etc.)
g
.y 3
y p
g h
Meetings with Owners' Groups (i.e., Unresolved Safety Issues and Generic Matters)
/
Other Information Exchange (i.e., Workshops,
Public Meetings, Technical Discussions)
Y h
N l.
SECY I/pers (some utilities apparently sent operators to college based on recent SECY p
y i
y s
paper on operator quali fications)
I l
' aining informa-Contractors (National Labs) - Ob[ic projects h
t tion from utilities for speci l
p-(i.e., plant-speci fic risk assessment, human factors, etc.)
e i
,--g g pi. i u u
11 a
- 1 1.5 o a &'a n 28 6
ea!
d:#.a e a!
~
Meetings 'with Industry Representatives (i.e., AIF, p
A./
M
^
INPO) on Matters Affecting Licensees Discussions Between NRC and Utility Legal Repre-Nf h
f)
N MI sentatives during Hearing Process M:dia Coverage (TV, Newsletters, Periodicals),
pg y
M
-Al f,- Q W
Y 1
l O
,3 8
9 g
I a.
t
~
A e
.