ML20046D455
| ML20046D455 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/23/1993 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NRRL-500, NRRL-500-R2, NUDOCS 9308200098 | |
| Download: ML20046D455 (62) | |
Text
(
i am tso UNITED STATES 8-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _
j
=j n-
. r, wAssiwaTon, o. c. 20sss k,...../
f 1
i 1.;
i
]
MEMORANDUM FOR: All NRR~ Employees FROM:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor l Regulation i
(
SUBJECT:
NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 500, REVISION 2, PROCEDURES FOR
.I l
CONTROLLING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND REVISED GENERIC 1
REQUIREMENTS FOR POWER REACTOR LICENSEES l
1
\\
PURPOSE i
This revised office letter supersedes NRR Office Letter No. 500, Revision 1,.
'l of September 27, 1991.
The procedures stated in the enclosure provide 1
guidance to all NRR staff to ensure that they conform with the revised Charter-of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements of April 18, 1991.
l BACKGROUND The Commission approved the Charter of the Committee to Review Generic l
Requirements (CRGR) on June 16. 1982. The CRGR was established to review l
generic requirements that the NRC staff proposes for' power reactor. licensees.
l
_i This office letter establishes the procedures NRR personnel are to follow, consistent with-Revision 5 of the Charter, to' (1)- control the communication of generic requirements to the' industry, (2) request CRGR review and obtain its approval of new generic requirements and changes in existing generic requirements,~and (3) support the consideration of generic requirements-l proposed by other NRC offices.
j The division within NRR that sponsors a new generic requirement or change to an existing generic requirement is responsible for ensuring that a. complete.
.l CRGR package is transmitted to the CRGR.
This package includes the description of the proposed generic action and the appropriate analyses of the-i action. 'The individual responsible for preparing the package must budget.
.i sufficient time for a thorough internal reviewL as specified in the enclosed procedure. The director of the sponsoring division'is responsible for
.t presenting the proposed requirement and the supporting bases that the CRGR is l
to consider.
i I
. CONTACT:
Andrew J. Kugler, NRR 504-2828 f
9308200098 930623
-PDR ORG NRRB
C U!M I
All NRR Employees -
L J
All substantive written communications from NRR to the CRGR will be signed by the Deputy Director of NRR. However, our policy encourages the continued exchange of technical information between the NRR and CRGR staffs.
This t
technical exchange may include discussion of facts and analyses but should not attempt to prejudge or resolve issues.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES See.the enclosure for pertinent discussion.
BASIC RE0VIREMENTS See the enclosure for discussion.
EFFECTIVE DATE This office letter is effective immediately.
Original signed by Tho::ns 2. Enr1ey Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Encl')sure:
Office Letter - Procedures for Controlling the Development of-New and Revised Generic Requir2ments cc:
J. Taylor, EDO J. Sniezek, DEDR H. Thompson, DEDS E. L. Jordan, AE00 D. Ross, AEOD J. Conran, AE0D D. Allison, AE0D B. Sheron, RES J. Moore, OGC T. Martin, RI S. Ebneter, RII J. Martin, RIII J. Milhoan, RIV l
B. Faulkenberry, RV bgf$
~
(~[6 den ' /b DISTRIBUTION w/ enclosure
'LCentralLfiles; PDR BKGrimes, NRR GHMarcus, NRR AJKugler, NRR RIngram, NRR (w/ original & 5 copies)
DORS R/F OGCB R/F AKugler R/F pocument Name: OL500REV.WP U
i W PREVIOUS CONCURREf S
/'D/NRR DD/N ADPR/H4g
.N.M D/PMAS:NRR f
,h Q
-T ey FJ.i a
Partlokt
/ ussell DWessman g d
/ /93
/93
/9/93 Os /4 93 06/n/93 y
/
OGCB: DORS:Ny *D/ DORS:NR'l C/PMSB:PMAS:fjk
- 0GCB:00RS:NRR *RP DM AJKugler TechEd GHMarcus BKGrimes MXS4ewen Ap*,
N 03/03/93 OI/II/93 03/04/93 05/18/93 05/// /93 D{h
/
"4
?JRC HE CENIB COPY
- ~..
_,N
' All NRR Employees - All substantive written communications from NRR to the CRGR will be' signed by the Deputy Director of NRR. However, our policy encourages t e continued exchange of technical information between the NRR and CRGR sti ffs. This technical exchange may include discussion of facts and analyses but should not-attempt-to prejudge or resolve issues.
RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES See the enclosure for pertinent discussion.
BASIC RE0VIREMENTS See the enclosure for discussion.
EFFECTIVE DATE This office letter is effective immediately.
h Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Office Letter - Procedures for Controlling the Development of New and Revised Generic Requirements
.i cc:
J. Taylor, ED0 J. Sniezek,'DEDR
'i H. Thompson, DEDS E. L. Jordan, AE0D t
D. Ross, AE00 J. Conran, AEOD i
D. Allison, AE0D I
B. Sheron, RES i
J. Moore, OGC i
T. Martin, RI 4
S. Ebneter, RII J. Martin, RIII j
J. Milhoan, RIV q
B. Faulkenberry, RV j
SECY o
OGC-d l
]
--,------------r----
6
.[
Enclosure l
t l
l l
(-
j NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 500 REVISION 2 l
l PROCEDURES FOR CONTROLLING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND REVISED GENERIC REQUIREMENTS
'l FOR POWER REACTOR LICENSEES
[
i i
i l
-~
-l 5
1 l
-i I
1 i
1 i
)
l i
l l
l
'f
.d CONTENTS
.l i
Pace I.
Purpose 1
i II.
Background
I
}
III. Definitions 3
A.
Generic Communication 3
l B.
Backfit 4
i C.
Applicable Regulatory Staff Position 4
D.
Plant-Specific Backfit 5
E.
Generic Backfit 5
F.
A Requirement 5
G.
Generic Issue 6
H.
Regulatory Analysis 6
1.
Backfit Analysis 7
i J.
Predecisional Information 7
i K.
Urgent Generic Communication 7-l l
IV.
Responsibilities and Authorities 8
l A.
Director, NRR 8-B.
Deputy Director, NRR 8
l C.
Associate Directors 8
O.
Division Directors 8
E.
Branch Chiefs 9
F.
Section' Leaders 10 G.
All NRR Staff Members 10 j
V.
Basic Requirements 10 A.
Generic Issue Development and Resolution 10 i
B.
Generic Backfit Proposed by NRR Staff 12 C.
Generic Backfit Proposed by Other Offices 16 i
D.
Contents of CRGR Packages 16 E.
Protocol Requirements 18 References 20 i
APPENDICES I.
CRGR rh.-+-
i II.
Sample CRGR Package l
III. Generic Backfit Reporting Requirements Form i
i 1
'I
q
.i
.f
'NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 500 REVISION 2 l
l PROCEDURES FOR CONTROLLING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND REVISED GENERIC REQUIREMENTS FOR POWER REACTOR LICENSEES
_l l
I.
PURPOSE i
This office letter has four purposes:
_l
-l A.
It establishes procedures that NRR staff shall use to id:ntify, propose, develop, impose, and establish priority ror new or revised generic staff positions or requirements for power reactor licensees l
i so as to ensure that they contribute effectively and significantly to public health and safety, while avoiding unnecessary burden on licensees, avoiding unnecessary exposure to workers, and conserving NRC resources.
B.
It establishes the procedures that NRR personnel shall use to control the communication of generic requirements to the industry.
ft establishes the procedures for implementing the requirement's of C.
Sections 50.54(f) and 50.109 of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reoulations (10 CFR 50.54(f) and 10 CFR 50.109.)
D.
It establishes the procedures by which NRR will support other NRC offices in developing new generic requirements or in changing existing generic requirements.
l l
II. BACKGROUND i
The Commission approved the first Charter of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) on June 16,.1982, and made it mandatory for l
all NRC staff to comply with the Charter for actions associated with power reactor licensees. The latest revision of the Charter is Revision 5 dated April 18, 1991. A copy of this Charter is included as Appendix I to this letter, therefore, its requirements will not be repeated here.
The CRGR reports to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) regarding approval or disapproval of all new generic requirements or staff positions to be imposed on power reactor licensees or regarding any l
changes to such previously established requirements or positions. TL.
requirements that existed before November 12, 1981, were not subject to CRGR review.
However, the CRGR has been responsible for the review and
-.f approval of all new generic requirements for power reactor licensees developed after November 12, 1981.
In addition, the CRGR Charter permits the CRGR to review selected existing requirements and staff positions.
l 1
)
1 l
.d-New or modified generic requirements (see Section III.F. of this letter) for power reactor licensees may arise from many types of actions, including multiple applications of those actions that begin as plant-specific actions on individual licensees. The NRC staff is responsible i
for knowing the circumstances that can cause plant-specific actions to assume generic significance and to fall within the purview of the CRGR Charter.
i i
The NRC Manual Chapter 0514 (to become Management Directive 8.4 in the NRC Management Directives System), 'NRC Program for Management of Plant-t Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants" (Reference 1), describes the program for management of plant-specific backfitting, and NRR Office Letter 901, " Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting" (Reference 2),
provides the procedures to be used by NRR staff on plant-specific r
actions.
~
The CRGR Charter provides a comprehensive list of staff actions that may become new or modified generic requirements. Among these actions, NRR i
has the lead responsibility for the issuance of generic letters and l
bulletins for nuclear reactor issues that may require substantial participation and support from other offices.
Examples of this support include supplying required data, such as that required in regulatory analyses, or organizational interactions that support interaction with the industry and the public on new requirements.
Because this office letter cannot anticipate every possible need for support, NRR staff should determine those specialized functions that may exist within the NRC and utilize them as appropriate.
The NRC staff has the authority under Section 182 of the Atomic Energy Act to require applicants and licensees to submit written statements under oath or affirmation.
For power reactor applicants and licensees, j
this authority is implemented in 10 CFR 50.54(f). When the staff requires applicants or licensees to submit written information (usually under reporting requirements in generic letters and bulletins), the regulation 10 CFR 50.54(f) applies whether or not it is specifically cited in the communication.
In association with the authority to require reporting of information,10 CFR 50.54(f) imposes the following responsibility on the NRC staff:
"Except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for that facility, the NRC must prepare the i
reason or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to i
ensure that the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view l
of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed in the i
requested information.
Each such justification provided for an evaluation performed by the NRC staff must be approved by the Fxecutive Director for Operations or his or her designee prior to issuance of the request."
The information that the staff submits to the CRGR to support its consideration of the new or amended generic requirement can also fulfill i
staff obligations under 10 CFR 50.54(f).
l 2
Attachment I-to the CRGR Charter describes the process by which new generic requirements and staff positions are developed, revised, and implemented. The process provides for discussions with external entities in the industry and the public in the early stages of developing such requirements.
The purpose of these discussions is to obtain information on the costs and safety benefits of a proposed action that the NRR staff should consider in the early stages of defining the proposed action.
For example, there was interaction and discussions between the staff and industry representatives and licensees in preparing NRC Bulletin 89-02, which involved inspection of valves in high-radiation areas. To prepare the CRGR package for this bulletin, the NRR staff obtained information from NUMARC and from specific licensees with applicable experience.
Thus, the CRGR received the necessary information to include in its considerations of the costs and radiation exposures that would result from the proposed actions.
t The CRGR Charter states the following with regard to CRGR review of staff approvals of topical reports for referencing by licensees:
III.B.
The CRGR shall consider... staff approval of topical reports...and all other documents, letters or communications of a generic nature which reflect or interpret NRC staff posi-tions, unless such documents refer only to reouirements or staff positions previous 1v acclicable to the affected licensees and approved by the appropriate officials.
(emphasis added)
In a memorandum of September 29, 1989, from E. L. Jordan, Chairman, CRGR, to T. E. Murley, Director, NRR, "CRGR Consideration of Topical Reports,"
(Reference 3) the CP,GR proposed that the determination by NRR become the final staff action without a review by CRGR for topical reports that only refer to previously applicable requirements or staff positions. The procedures described in this letter provide the mechanism by which NRR is to make such determinations.
III. DEFINITIONS A. Generic Communication A " generic communication" is defined as a transmittal to one or more classes of licensees.
Identical communications addressed separately to individual licensees should also be considered generic communications.
The various types of generic communications are described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720, " Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Communications Regarding Nuclear Reactor Issues," (Reference 4). These are of four general types:
bulletins, information notices, generic letters, and administrative letters. The enforcement aspects of bulletins, information notices, and generic letters are discussed in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C,Section V.H, "Related Administrative Actions."
3 i
)
i B. Backfit j
"Backfit" is defined for power reactor licensees in 10 CFR 50.109 as the l
modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design f'
of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility. A backfit related to NRC actions may result from l
a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imposition of a i
regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable regulatory staff l
position. A backfit may be a new requirement, an increase in the i
stringency of existing requirements, or a relaxation of existing requirements.
In order for an action to be considered a backfit for a licensee or applicant it must occur after a date defined in 10 CFR 50.109 that is related to the application for or issuance of a license.
i Technically, backfitting is done by the licensee and may or may not be related to a new requirement or staff position.
For the purpose of this office letter, only actions taken as a consequence of.NRC regulatory l
oversight will be considered backfits. The justification for a backfit may be (a) to ensure compliance, (b) to ensure adequate protection, (c) to define or redefine adequate protection, or (d) because a substantial increase in safety would result and the safety benefit outweighs the cost.
Even for backfits that result from a relaxation of staff requirements, the staff shall submit an information package for the CRGR to review. Such an information package would be similar to the i
package for other types of proposed backfits.
C. Aco'licable Reaulatory Staff position An " applicable regulatory staff position" is defined as a staff position that has been imposed on or committed to by one or a group of power f
reactor licensees at the time of a proposed backfit.
A backfit necessarily involves a new or different applicable regulatory staff l
position. The following are sources of applicable regulatory staff
=
positions.
1.
NRC requirements from the CFR such as in explicit regulations, orders, and plant licenses (amendments, conditions, technical specifications).
Some regulations have inherent update features, such as 10 CFR 50.55a, " Codes and Standards." Changes brought about by implementing the update features do constitute changes to l
applicable regulatory staff positions as defined in this letter.
2.
NRC staff actions based on written commitments contained in the i
final safety analysis report (FSAR), licensee event reports (LERs),
and docketed correspondence, including responses to bulletins, generic letters, confirmatory action letters, inspection reports, or notices of violation.
3.
NRC regulatory staff positions to which a licensee has previously l
committed and that are documented, approved interpretations of the more general regulations and are contained in documents such as the standard review plan, branch technical positions, regulatory 4
l
.j guides, generic letters, and bulletins.
If the staff has excepted one or more licensees from positions contained.in these documents, then those positions are not considered applicable regulatory staff positions for those specific licensees.
Positions documented in staff safety evaluation reports (SERs) are considered applicable i
regulatory staff positions. A NUREG-series document must not contain new or different applicable regulatory staff positions unless the document is submitted for' review by CRGR in accordance with the terms of this office letter.
l D. Plant-Soccific Backfit A " plant-specific backfit" imposes a new or different applicable regulatory staff position (or positions) uniquely to a particular plant.
l The staff shall follow the directions of NRR Office Letter No. 901, l
" Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 10 CFR 50.54(f)
Information Requests," and NRC Manual Chapter 0514 (to become Management i
Directive 8.4 in the NRC Management Directives System), "NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants," for these backfits.
E. Generic Backfit A " generic" backfit imposes a new or different applicable regulatory staff position (or positions) on more than one plant. At this time, no NRC Management Directive exists for generic backfits, but the CRGR Charter serves the same purpose.
j F. A Recuirement A requirement is an obligation by licensees that flows from a regulation in the CFR, the specific terms of a license, the specific commitments of a licensee, an Order, or the reporting requirements in a generic communication. A change in an applicable regulatory staff-position could result in a new requirement because actions previously taken by a licensee may be rendered inadequate because of the change in position, even though the new position itself may not'specify a new action.
For example, in Generic Letter 89-10, on safety-related motor-operated valve testing and surveillance, the staff changed its position on the adequacy of analyses and ASME Section IX testing being sufficient to demonstrate operability. No specific new requirements were imposed on the subject valves.
However, to address the staff concerns, the NRC expects that licensees will make commitments to the NRC that effect changes to their i
testing and surveillance programs. These commitments then become requirements on the licensees. The term " requirement" is frequently used in conjunction with " plant-specific," " generic," or "backfit" as appropriate to better define the applicability. The term " requirement" i
has been used incorrectly by staff members when referring to actions that are requested or expected, but that the licensees or vendors over whom the staff exercises regulatory authority are not committed to or obliged to take.
)
5
-i I
,j G. Generic Issue A " generic issue," as defined for the purpose of this office letter, is an issue that could merit the issuance of a document that promulgates a j
new or different applicable regulatory staff position or.a new or different requirement (see " Definitions" in this letter).
A generic issue that is expected to require more than 40 staff hours of deliberation and review must be issued a Technical Assignment Control System (TACS) number and entered into the Workload Information and -
i Scheduling Program (WISP) system to track and account for staff hours expended.
In most cases, issuance of a-generic communication to resolve a generic issue would take more than 40 staff hours and so must be entered into the WISP.
In most cases, a generic issue would lead to a bulletin, generic letter, temporary instruction, generic SER, regulatory guide, standard review plan (SRP) revision, or a proposed rule. The only types of generic issues that might develop and be resolved in fewer than 40 staff hours are immediately effective and Category I actions as j
defined in Sections III.C. and III.D. of the CRGR Charter. The resolution of a generic issue will normally require the preparation of a CRER package consistent with the procedures described in this office letter.
r H. Reaulatory Analysis A " regulatory analysis" (or " regulatory impact analysis") is one of the tools used in regulatory decision making.
In practice, regulatory analysis is the documented process for accomplishing one or more of the i
following:
~
1.
Describing the alternative means considered to achieve a desired l
safety objective; 2.
Applying quantitative criteria, if appropriate, to compare the alternative means against each other; 3.
Using quantitative and qualitative methods to perform cost-benefit or value-impact analyses, as appropriate.
i A formal regulatory analysis is not required when an action is' proposed to ensure licensee compliance with the existing-licensing basis, I
including licensee commitments, or when the action is taken to ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety. %owever, preparation of the CRGR package entails developing certain information i
regarding alternatives and costs. When a staff action is proposed to j
substantially improve safety at a cost that is considered justified, the-l.
staff shall prepare a regulatory analysis. The general guidelines for a regulatory analysis are provided in Item IV.B.(v) of the CRGR Charter and indicate that NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568 are to be used. However, in many instances much simpler methods may be appropriate.
6 i
9 I. Backfit Analysi_s f
A backfit analysis is the result of a disciplined process conducted to assess the safety benefit of a proposed action and the probable effect of a proposed staff action on the industry and on the NRC staff. The need t
for a backfit analysis or other documented evaluation is prescribed in' 10 CFR 50.109. A backfit analysis is also a mechanism to clarify whether a proposed action changes any applicable regulatory staff position.
In practical terms, the analysis consists of the responses to the 10 I
questions defined in the CRGR Charter in Section IV.B.(vii).
These questions are substantively the same as the items to be considered under 10 CFR 50.109(c). The staff is expected to consider these questions l
(informally, in most cases) when it encounters a potential plant-specific or generic backfit. Although every staff action need not be accompanied I
by a backfit analysis, some actions can be fully evaluated for backfit considerations only after a structured analysis such as the backfit analysis is accomplished.
In many cases, the most significant item will t
most likely be the potential effect on safety and the relationship of the action to other requirements, as stated in 10 CFR 50.109(c)(6).
Therefore, if the procedures for backfitting are carefully followed, l
every backfit will be accompanied by an analysis similar to a backfit analysis. Also, adherence to these procedures over time will produce a number of actions for which the staff has developed backfit analyses only to support a decision that the actions were not backfits.
In these l
cases, the backfit analysis may be performed and documented informally.
J. Predecisional Information l
I "Predecisional information" is defined and controlled by the guidance in-NRR Office Letter No.106, " Release of NRC Draft or Predecisional Documents and Information," (Reference 5). The information that is developed to support a proposed generic action ar.d that must be transmitted to the CRGR is considered predecisional until the action is completed or, for bulletins and generic letters, until the CRGR has endorsed the document for publication in the Federal Reaister or for issuance. At that time the information sent to the CRGR is no longer i
considered predecisional.
The staff must exercise caution so that draft material that is predecisional is not released inappropriately.
K. Uroent Bulletins or Generic letters An urgent bulletin or generic letter is defined as any proposed bulletin
^
or generic letter that is handled as an immediately effective action or as a Category 1 action under Sections III.C. and III.D. of the CRGR
(
Charter respectively.
NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720 provides more information on the handling of urgent generic communications.
I i
7
l
.-l IV. RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES ~
A. Director. NRR The Director, NRR, has the overall responsibility to ensure that the actions taken by the office conform with the CRGR Charter. The Director, NRR has delegated functions as indicated in other parts of this office letter.
B. Deputy Director. NRR The Deputy Director, NRR, transmits information to the CRGR related to
[
the issues and actions that NRR wishes the CRGR to consider. The Deputy Director not only approves the content of the information packages but_
also approves the schedule associated with the NRR request.
If the i
proposed staff action involves another program office such as the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) or the Office for Analysis and l
Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00), the Deputy Director approves the information package that includes the NRR contribution.
C. Associate Directors l
I The associate directors approve proposed transmittals of staff safety evaluation reports to licensees, vendors, owners groups, or other outside i
organizations about generic actions that the staff has determined do not involve a new or different applicable regulatory staff position.
l Generally, these transmittals are staff evaluations of vendor topical reports. By a memorandum of September 29, 1989, to the Director, NRR (Reference 3), the Chairman, CRGR, proposed that NRR issue topical-report evaluations without CRGR review if no new staff positions or interpretations are incorporated therein. The Associate Director for I
Inspection and Technical Assessment (ADT) would approve a proposal from the appropriate division director to issue such a report. if justified.
In addition, NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720 specifies that the Associate Director for Projects (ADPR) authorizes the preparation of and signs the bulletins and generic letters that NRR issues. The ADPR also authorizes the handling of proposed bulletins and generic letters as urgent generic communications.
D. Division Directors A division director shall approve the development and proposed resolution of a generic issue (see Section III, " Definitions," and Section V.A,
" Generic Issue Development and Resolution," of this letter). The director of each division having a role in the development of the CRGR package has the responsibility for preparing and providing information on behalf of that division to the CRGR in support of a request for review.
The director of the division with lead technical responsibility for an issue shall ensure that all of the information that is submitted is in compliance with the appropriate aspects of the CRGR Charter.
Each l
8 i
I division director shall ensure that any necessary information is obtained from other NRR divisions or other NRC organizations. The lead technical l
division shall resolve any divergence of views.
E. Branch Chiefs 1
The branch chief of the lead technical branch is responsible for ensuring detailed conformance with the terms of the CRGR Charter as applied to r
each particular case. This responsibility begins with review of the safety benefits of a proposed action. When an action appears justified, l
l the branch chief must consider the other aspects of.the CRGR Charter requirements, such as the currently applicable regulatory staff positions, alternatives to the proposed course of action, and required inputs from other entities both from inside and outside the NRC.
In addition to ensuring appropriate technical input from other divisions'or offices in NRC, the branch chief shall obtain the appropriate management authorization to proceed. The CRGR Charter also provides for interaction with industry groups, the ACRS, and public organizations. The branch l
chief is responsible for evaluating the need for and appropriateness of obtaining such input.
r The Branch Chief of the Generic Communications Branch (0GCB) plays a key role in NRR in managing generic backfits. One of the functions of OGCB i
is acting as the NRC-wide point of contact for potential generic issues.
Inspection Manual Chapter 0970, "Potentially Generic Items Identified by Regional Offices" (Reference 6), provides the. procedures the regions l
follow to bring Potential Generic Safety Questions to the attention' of NRR through OGCB.
Inspection Manual Chapter 0720 directs the NRR staff l
to work with OGCB on information notices, bulletins, generic letters, and i
administrative letters. All members of the NRC staff, some of whom interface with NRR through the Program Management, Policy Development and l
Analysis Staff (PMAS), are expected to work with OGCB on all types of generic issues. The main factor that affects the manner in which NRR handles a generic issue is the safety significance associated with that issue.
Therefore, 0GCB will scrutinize each proposed generic issue for a well developed safety-oriented justification with managerial concurrence at least by the division director. An issue that includes no new staff positions and that warrants issuance of an information notice (which shall not contain any new staff positions) should be processed in accordance with NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720.
The Branch Chief, OGCB, fills an administrative, and sometimes technical, i
control function to ensure completeness of an information package for the CRGR.
Generally, the Branch Chief, 0GCB, conducts the review to confirm that (I) the package contains all the elements required for CRGR review, (2) the appropriate concurrences have been obtained, (3) the legal input from OGC has been sought and incorporated, (4) a technical editor has reviewed the generic communication, and (5) the information required for the Generic Communication Index has been provided, if appropriate.
9
F. Section leaders The section leaders have the key responsibility to ensure that sufficient information has_ been gathered to enable managers to make decisions about the safety significance of a proposed action, its effects on operational complexity, and its relationships to proposed and existing regulatory requirements.
The section leaders shall be sufficiently aware of staff activities to alert their managers to the likelihood that a plant-specific backfit action may be applied to more than one licensee, thereby making it a generic backfit. The section leaders shall direct the efforts of technical staff considering a potential backfit in such a way that the information gathered can be readily structured into a CRGR submittal, if found to be appropriate.
G. All NRR Staff Members Every staff member has the responsibility to recognize when the staff is developing a new or different position or when a new or different-interpretation of existing requirements-is being developed as a result of a proposed staff action. Under these circumstances, all staff members have the responsibility to apply the procedures of this office letter and to take actions consistent with it. Once the applicability of this office letter has been established (even for potential backfits), each staff member shall become adequately informed about all relevant existing and proposed regulatory requirements and guidance related to the proposed action.
It may be necessary to consult with other personnel within NRR, other headquarters offices, and the regions to develop a sufficient background to address all the issues raised in this. office letter.
I V.
BASIC RE0VIREMENTS The CRGR Charter states that every member of the staff is expected to be aware of the backfit implications of any proposed regulatory action. The procedures provided in this office letter come into force any time a regulatory action may fall within the definition of a " Generic Backfit" (item E of Section III, " Definitions," in this letter). A determination on the possibility of a " Plant-Specific Backfit" frequently precedes consideration of a generic backfit question. NRR Office Letter No. 901' addresses plant-specific backfits and the procedures therein shall be followed when applicable.
A. Generic Issue Development and Resolution 1.
The development and planning for resolution of a generic issue are to be based on the April 22, 1991, memorandum fror. the ADT (Reference 7).
This memorandum requires that the preparatory work on possible generic' backfits involve the division directors and be coordinated with RES.
In addition, NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720 requires the staff to obtain the authorization of the ADPR before proceeding with the development of a proposed generic letter or bulletin.
10
l.
i l'
I 2.
When any staff member identifies an issue that may merit issuance of a staff document'(including an information notice), the staff shall determine whether that issue could result in a new or different applicable regulatory staff position or whether a new or different requirement may arise.
If no such position or requirement is necessary, the procedures to be followed will not involve this office letter The development of any generic i
communications must be authorized in accordance with the requirements of NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720.
3.
If a new or different applicable staff regulatory interpretation, position, or requirement arises from the. review of and actions on an issue, the staff shall follow the procedures in this office 1
letter associated with identifying, proposing, developing, j
establishing priority for and imposing them.
The responsibilities for these considerations lie at the division level and must include interdivisional consultations on safety significance and resource limitations, as appropriate.
l 4.
If a generic issue is identified, the staff must obtain a TACS I
number to track the resources expended on the associated tasks in l
the WISP.
If the estimated resource requirement is greater than l
400 staff hours, the staff shall develop a written closure plan and l
have their division director approve it.
If the estimated resource l
requirement for a new or potential generic issue is fewer than 40 l
l staff hours, a new TACS number need not be obtained; however, this highly unlikely occurrence will probably be associated only with an immediately effective action. The priority and schedule must be i
entered into WISP. The Planning, Program and Management Support Branch (PMSB) should be consulted in this process.
l 5.
If a generic issue is identified formally, the division director shall document the scope and schedule of the issue and shall l
include a closure plan if appropriate. The NRR division director l
for the lead technical division shall define the generic issue in a l
i memorandum to the Division Director, Division of Safety Issue Resolution, RES, and send copies to the Director, NRR, the ADT, the ADPR, and the Director, PMAS. As stated in RES Office Letter No. 1, " Procedure for Identification, Prioritization, and Tracking l
of the Resolution of Generic Issues' (Reference 8), the information l
in the memorandum will be used to track the new generic issue.
This memorandum may mention the fact that RES need not assign priorities to those items for which NRR has taken the lead role.
If the resolution of a generic issue would most likely result in an action for which RES has lead responsibility (such as a new l
regulatory guide or rule), the memorandum may be used to refer the generic issue to RES for appropriate ar. tion.
i 6.
The rest of the procedures in this office letter apply if, as is i
probable, the actions resulting from the resolution of a generic issue would constitute a generic backfit.
However, if the staff l
does not change an applicable regulatory staff position (see Section III.C. of this letter) at the conclusion of the activity on i
11 i
~
a generic issue, the remaining procedures in this office letter do not apply.
B. Generic Backfit Proposed by NRR Staff 1.
A generic backfit requirement proposed by the NRR staff must receive a thorough review in the context of all related generic requirements and applicable regulatory staff positions. This review should be conducted at the lowest possible staff level so that managerial attention can be concentrated on policy issues.
Staff members who have expertise or regulatory interest in the issue should be consulted. The results of such consultations are i
considered predecisional information.
2.
When the applicable regulatory staff positions have been clarified and when staff managers (usually at the branch chief level) have been apprised of the potential implications for a generic backfit, i
the staff shall perform a backfit analysis as defined in item H of
" Definitions" of this letter. At this stage, the analysis can be performed informally and no specific documentation is required, although documentation would probably be helpful for later use.
i This analysis should result in a determination of whether the potential generic backfit is an actual backfit.
3.
When a decision to impose a generic backfit is made, the CRGR Charter provides for meetings and discussions with the industry, ACRS, the public, and representatives of.various types of organizations if appropriate. This will enable the staff to obtain preliminary information about the costs and safety benefits of the' proposed action. NRR Office Letter No. 903, " Meetings With Applicants / Licensees, Intervenors, Vendors, or Other Members of the Public" (Reference 9), provides for the policy and procedures for-holding such meeti g s.
If the organization represents a labor union or the interests of workers in the industry, the EDO has directed that the RES provide a point of contact for all groups withia the NRC. The Radiation Protection and Health Effects Branch, RES, provides this point of contact.
NRR Office Letter.
No. 703, " Interfaces and Meetings with Industry Groups (Federal Advisory Committee Act Requirements)" (Reference 10), delineates procedures that pertain to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which must be followed when the staff interacts with industry.
4.
NRR usually conveys a new or modified generic position'or-interpretation and requests addressee action in either a bulletin I
or a generic letter.
However, a generic letter may communicate a new applicable regulatory staff position without requesting any action by.the addressees. The staff shall not include new interpretations of existing staff positions or requirements in an information notice or administrative letter. The CRGR Charter l
includes a comprehensive list of other staff actions that may contain generic requirements.
Personnel in NRR should carefully review the guidance in this office letter when issuing the types of l
i documents covered in the CRGR Charter, especially NUREG-series 12
I i
reports, SERs for owners group submittals, SERs on one docket addressing issues that the staff is aware will be addressed on other dockets, individual plant amendments to standard technical 1
specifications, and responses to 10 CFR 2.206 petitions. These documents shall not contain new or different staff positions or interpretations if they have not been submitted to the CRGR for i
review.
Generally, NRR does not take lead responsibility for rules and regulatory guides.
5.
When the division director has given support for a generic backfit, i
the staff must formally prepare a CRGR package. The package must contain at least all the elements indicated in Section V.D.,
" Contents of CRGR Packages," of this letter. Generally, the lead technical division for the generic issue has the lead responsibility for the CRGR package.
If not, the divisions shall discuss who has the lead so that the technical scope of the backfit is well defined, the resources for timely preparation of the CRGR package are apprepriately allocated, and the presentation to CRGR properly planned to present a consistent and coherent office position.
If the lead technical division proposes to use a generic communication, they shall consult with the OGCB at an early stage and request that the OGCB include the topic in the next list of proposed generic communications.
6.
In preparing to meet with CRGR on a particular issue, the lead technical division shall adopt a broad perspective of the proposed
{
new requirements or change in regulatory interpretation or staff position. This broad perspective should include consideration of the specific effects on licensees, on the NRC staff, and on the-l consistency and coherence as they relate to existing regulatory staff positions. Although these specific effects may not need to be documented, their consideration is an integral part of the preparation necessary to discuss an issue with the CRGR. The following are examples of the types of questions that must be considered. Some of th? questions parallel those for which a formal response is included in the CRGR package or elsewhere.
?
Are there separate short-term and long-term requirements?
l What is the relative priority of the proposed action with respect to other proposals being prepared for changes in regulations, interpretations, or staff positions?
Is the proposed action the definitive, comprehensive position j
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, systems, or prior analyses need to be reassessed?
i l
13 i
i
Is this backfit only computational or does it require or may it entall an engineering design of a new system or modification of any existing systems?
What plant conditions are needed to install 4 new component or system, conduct preoperational tests, and declare it operable?
)
j Is plant shutdown necessary, and if so, for how long?
j Does the design need NRC approval?
Does this action require new equipment? Is such equipment available for purchase in sufficient quantity by all affected parties or must such equipment be designed? What is the lead i
time for availability of the equipment?
i May this equipment be used upon installation or does it need l
staff approval before use? Does it need technical specification changes before use?
i The facts identified in examining these factors must be used in responding to item (vii)(j) of Section IV.B. of the CRGR Charter.
l 7.
By a memorandum of November 3,1989 (Reference 11), E. L. Jordan, Chairman, CRGR, requested that NRR and other offices implement certain changes in the content of information packages presented for CRGR consideration. The changes requested require a definitive discussion of the backfit aspects of a proposed generic requirement or change in the applicable regulatory staff position. The purpose of the discussion is to incorporate into the communication that transmits a generic backfit statements that clearly indicate the justification of the action with respect to 10 CFR-50.109.
If the CRGR review is requested for issuance of a bulletin or generic letter, a specific paragraph must be included in the communication entitled "Backfit Discussion" and must contain a discussion of the following issues a.
If the bulletin or generic letter is being issued to request actions by licensees because such actions would provide substantial additional protection and the safety benefits are in excess of the associated costs, the CRGR package must i
contain a response to item _IV.B(v) of the CRGR Charter that requires a regulatory analysis. The regulatory analysis must be consistent with the guidance in the CRGR Charter.
Under these circumstances, the "Backfit Discussion" will summarize the costs and benefits of the proposed actions and indicate that they favor issuance of the communication.
b.
If the bulletin or generic letter is being issued to ensure I
that licensees act to remain in compliance with the licensing basis of the plant, the "Backfit Discussion" must specifically discuss the criteria that were used in-making a potential noncompliance finding. The licensing basis consists of the 14 f
b
~
~
sections of the CFR that are applicable to the licensees in
~
question, licensee commitments made in submittals to the NRC and in response to NRC-initiated actions, and applicable regulatory staff positions that are specifically documented in staff documents such as SERs. The finding of possible noncompliance must emphasize the need to correct significant safety problems and not merely to insist on compliance.
c.
If the bulletin or generic letter is being issued to ensure that licensees act to ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of the public or to communicate a redefinition of adequate protection, as provided in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii) and (iii), the "Backfit Discussion" must discuss the rationale for the actions and the reasons that such protection, although previously considered sufficient, is presently not so.
8.
NRR has the prime responsibility for maintaining and controlling the contents (including proposed revisions) of the SRP. Therefore, NRR has the lead responsibility for preparing.a revision, obtaining and resolving public comments, and obtaining CRGR review and approval for a proposed revision. The technical lead will be taken by the branch or branches within the organization of the Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment that have the assigned responsibility for the particular SRP sections.
NRR Office Letter No. 800, "NUREG-0800 - Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" (Reference 12), identifies primary and secondary review branches and also provides some of the procedures for revising the SRP.
Every revision to the SRP may become a generic backfit because it could change an applicable regulatory staff position. This office letter controls the determinations on the backfit question and preparation of the CRGR package, if appropriate.
NRR Office Letter No. 800 sets forth procedures for the preparation of the SRP revision, issuance of Federal Reaister notices, and incorporation of the revision into NUREG-0800.
9.
The following procedure is applicable to the issuance of safety evaluations of vendor topical reports that refer only to requirements or staff positions previously applicable to the affected licensees and approved by the appropriate officials.
a.
The staff member who determines that the document to be issued is of a generic nature but does not involve any new or amended staff position shall prepare a memorandum from the division director to the ADT.
b.
The memorandum must provide the requisite background and technical information to support a recommendation that the issuance does not require CRGR review.
15
~
c.
The memorandum must include a statement that CRGR review is not necessary according to the terms of the memorandum from E. L. Jordan to T. E. Murley, "CRGR Consideration of Topical Reports," of September 29, 1989 (Reference 3).
d.
The memorandum must include an approval signa +.ure line for the ADT. The ADT may signify agreement with the recommendation of the memorandum by signing on this signature line.
The issuance of the document can then proceed as planned.
If the ADT does not approve the recommendation, the staff shall prepare a CRGR package.
e.
A copy of the memorandum must be sent to the CRGR Chairman.
10.
If the bulletin or generic letter is being issued to request actions by licensees because such actions would provide substantial additional protection and the safety benefits are in excess of the associated costs, NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720 requires that OGCB shall assign the bulletin or generic letter a ranking in relation to other generic communications that have been issued based on a cost / benefit justification. This ranking information must be included in the CRGR package.
C. Generic Backfits Proposed by Other Offices 1.
The NRR staff is frequently requested to support generic backfits proposed by other offices such as RES. Generally, RES has lead responsibility for rulemaking and regulatory guides. 0GCB (for generic communications) or the Inspection and Licensing Policy Branch (ILPB) (for all other cases) coordinates all the support provided by NRR. Any request for NRR staff support by other offices must come through OGCB or ILPB, as appropriate.
1-2.
Although all offices within the NRC must conform to the CRGR Charter, frequently only NRR has the expertise needed to make the technical judgments about generic backfitting. As.such, the lead responsibility may be divided with lead administrative responsibility occurring in one office and the lead technical responsibility in NRR.
In such cases, NRR input should be consistent with this office letter, and the presentation to the CRGR must portray a unified and coherent staff position.
D. Contents of CRGR Packaaes 1.
The package of information that accompanies a proposed new or modified generic staff interpretation, position, or requirement for 1
consideration by the CRGR must provide the requisite information to enable the CRGR to make a prompt decision.
Generally, the CRGR assumes that the members of the staff preparing the information package are sufficiently familiar with the charter that the staff will not propose actions to the CRGR that directly conflict with any of the charter requirements. Also, the CRGR expects that each package is self-sufficient so that only rarely is additional 16 I
I package is self-sufficient so that only rarely is additional information needed from outside the package.
2.
Staff members preparing the information package shall determine which of the following three categories would be appropriate for the action:
l a.
Immediately effective action: The action is needed immediately to ensure that certain facilities do not pose an l
i undue risk to the health and safety of the public in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii). Although this category requires no CRGR review before the action is taken, the information package must be prepared for later consideration by the CRGR. The. staff may brief the CRGR on immediately effective actions before preparing the information package.
l b.
Cateoory I action: NRR managers have determined that the i
backfit is an urgent matter to overcome a safety problem requiring rapid resolution or to comply with a legal requirement immediately or in the near term.
If the action is considered Category 1, the CRGR is expected to review and act on the matter within two working days after receiving the required information.
c.
Cateoory 2 action: This category includes all actions that are not within either of the previous two categories. The CRGR will schedule consideration of such a matter at one of the regularly scheduled meetings.
3.
An example of a CRGR review package prepared under Revision 5 of the Charter is enclosed as Appendix II. The structure of the information is consistent with Section IV.B of the CRGR Charter.
i The response to each of the items needs to be succinct but I
sufficient to address the reasonable questions of CRGR members.
If I
l the backfit is justified to comply with 10 CFR 50.109 (a)(4)(1),
the CRGR Charter provides the option of avoiding a response to the set of questions under Section IV.B(vii). However, in accordance with the procedures in this office letter, the staff should have previously considered these questions to make a backfit determination, and, hence, the staff is expected to provide Section IV.B(vii) respenses for compliance issues.
4.
The staff is responsible for assessing the effect on staff resources of a generic backfit action. To support rapid recognition of the expected effect on the staff, each CRGR package must be accompanied by a Reporting Requirements Form as shown in Appendix III to this letter when the package is submitted to the Deputy Director, NRR. This form need not be sent to the CRGR.
1 5.
A regulatory analysis to fulfill CRGR Charter Section IV.B(v) is optional if the staff is taking a generic backfit action on the basis of compliance (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.109 (a)(4)(i)),
or on the basis of the adequate protection factors related to 17 i
i
public health and safety (in accordance with l
10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(iii)).
l 6.
If the staff is not taking a generic backfit action on the basis of i
the previously mentioned criteria, a regulatory analysis is required as part of a CRGR package.
l 7.
If the information in the Reporting Requirements Form identifies the need for either review guidance or inspection guidance, this-l guidance must accompany the CRGR package when it is submitted to the Deputy Director, NRR, but it need not be sent to the CRGR.
For iiinnediately effective and Category I actions, the preparation of j
the review guidance or inspection guidance may be deferred until l
after the CRGR package is submitted. However, the preparation of the guidance should be given high priority in order to make it i
available to the reviewers or inspectors in a timely manner.
8.
The CRGR package is transmitted using a cover letter that is signed by the Deputy Director, NRR. Guidance on the contents of the cover i
letter is available in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720.
E. Protocol Reouirements 1.
A CRGR information package must receive the concurrence of the originating staff and the lead technical division, the Branch Chief, 0GCB, the ADT, the ADPR, and the Deputy Director, NRR.
Section IV.B(iv) of the CRGR Charter requires formal 0GC concurrence in the proposed document (e.g., a generic letter).
However, the concurrence of OGC in the information package 1
transmitting the proposed document may be obtained either formally or informally, as appropriate.
If the package includes a generic communication, the package must receive a review by a technical editor.
Experience indicates that early consultations with and involvement of OGC attorneys, the editorial staff, and OGCB personnel lead to an expedited and higher quality package.
2.
Within OGC, the Senior Supervisory Enforcement Attorney has been i
designated as the lead legal contact. All requests for formal i
concurrence must come through this contact. Although one member of i
the CRGR is an attorney from OGC, the normal CRGR review does not constitute a legal review. To receive a formal OGC concurrence, i
staff attorneys assigned by the legal contact must conduct the review.
i 3.
It is advisable to contact the CRGR staff under the Deputy Director of AEOD to arrange for timely review. OGCB has responsibility for maintaining sufficient awareness of the CRGR schedule of meetings i
to obtain placement on a meeting agenda to support NRR needs.
In the absence of special circumstances that must be explained to the CRGR, a minimum of two weeks must be allowed for a CRGR information i
package to be reviewed by their staff and brought before the Committee.
18 i
r
F
\\
4.
The lead technical division determines who attends the CRGR meeting
, ~
for the presentation of a proposed document.
Those who attend shall be prepared to answer most of the CRGR's technical and other questions that can be anticipated during the time allotted for the discussion of a topic.
Sometimes the information r.eeded to answer the CRGR's questions may involve participation by more than one office or region. Also, this participation may involve presenting opposing points of view at the CRGR meeting.
If unusual circumstances such as unresolved opposing points of view are present, the lead technical division should contact the CRGR staff i
before the meeting to make arrangements to accommodate these circumstances appropriately.
5.
The lead technical division will resolve the comments made by the CRGR on the proposed document and obtain the concurrence of the CRGR.
6.
If any significant changes are made to a proposed document after it has been concurred in by the CRGR, the staff shall prepare a new CRGR package and request the CRGR to review the revised document.
Significant changes are defined as any that affect an applicable or proposed regulatory position, that change any actions requested of the licensees, or that would require modification of the responses to the information requested in Section IV.B of the CRGR Charter.
If minor changes are made to a proposed document after it has been presented to the CRGR, the staff shall prepare a memorandum to the CRGR enclosing the revised document, detailing the changes that were made, and requesting written confirmation that further CRGR review is not required.
In either case, the basis for the changes, including an analysis of the resoluticn of public comments, if applicable, shall be included in the package that is sent to the CRGR.
l t
]
i 19 i
I
REFERENCES i
r (1) NRC Manual Chapter 0514, "NRC Program for Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants" (2) HRR Office Letter No. 901, " Management of Plant-Specific Backfitting" (3) Memorandum from E. L. Jordan to T. E. Murley, "CRGR Consideration of Topical Reports," September 29, 1989.
(4) NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720, "NRC Generic Communications Regarding Nuclear Reactor Issues" (5) NRR Office Letter No.106, " Release of NRC Draft or Predecisional Docu-i ments and Information" (6) NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0970, "Potentially Generic Items Identified by Regional Offices" t
(7) Memorandum from W. T. Russell to ADT Division Directors, " Potential New Generic Issues," April 22, 1991 (8)
RES Office Letter No. 1, Revision 2, " Procedure for Identification, Prioritization, and Tracking of the Resolution of Generic Issues" l
(9) NRR Office Letter No. 903, " Meetings with Applicants / Licensees, Inter-1' venors, Vendors or Other Members of the Public" (10) NRR Office Letter No._703, " Interfaces and Meetings with Industry Groups (Federal Advisory Committee Act Regt'irements)"
(11) Memorandum E. L. Jordan to T. E. Murley, " Submittal of CRGR Review Packages," November 3, 1989 (12) NRR Office Letter No. 800, "NUREG-0800 - Standard Review Plan for the I
Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants" t
i 20
)
- f f
l f
I
,.t
?
d
.1 APPENDIX 1 I
CRGR CHARTER i
.I e
f f
?
?
t
)
6
?
.l
?
a t
1-i i
h.
e i
1.
l
. I
- I t
1 Y
- h 6
1 W
u i
?
' l
?
k 1
' i 1
0 P
i i
T W
e b
i s
-,..Ev.-r,.e r
r- - - - - -
s.
1 wes-
Revision 5 April 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace-3 I.
Purpose.................................................
4 II.
Membership..............................................
5 III. CRGR Scope..............................................
9 IV.
CRGR Operating Procedures..............................
17 V.
Reporting Requirements..................................
New Generic Requirement and Staff Position Review Process Procedures to Control Communication of Generic Requirement; :
and Staff Positions to Reactor Licensees APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION JUNE 16, 1982 (SECY-82-39A)
REVISION 1 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION (SECY MEMO DTD JANUARY 6, 1984)
REVISION 2 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION (COMSECY-86-5, JUNE 20, 1986)
REVISION 3 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION (SECY MEMO DTD AUGUST 13,1986) i I
REVISION 4 APPROVED BY THE EDO (MEMO TO COMMISSIONERS, APRIL 6, 1987)
REVISION 5 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION (SECY MEM0 DTD MARCH 8, 1991) l i
I I
i l
1 2
i
Revision 5 April 1991 I.
PURPOSE
'The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has the responsibility to review and recommend to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) approval or disapproval of requirements or staff positions to be imposed by the NRC staff on one or more classes of power reactors. This review applies to staff proposals of requirements or positions which reduce existing requirements or The positions and proposals which increase or change requirements.
implementation of this responsibility shall be conducted in such a manner so as to assure that the provisions of 10 CFR 2.204, 10 CFR 50.109 and 10 CFR 50.54(f) as pertaining to generic requirements and staff positions are implemented by the staff. The objectives of the CRGR process are to help implement the Commission's Principles of Good Regulation - specifically to eliminate or remove any 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 assuring the adequate protection of the public health and safety and furthering the review of new, cost-effective requirements and staff positions. The CRGR and the associated staff procedures will assure NRC staff implementation of 10 CFR 50.54(f) and 50.109 for generic backfit matters.
The overall process will assure that recuirements and positions to be issued (a) do in fact contribute effectively-i and significantly to the health and safety of the public, and (b) do lead to i
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.
l By having the Committee submit recommendations directly to the EDO, a single agencywide point of control will be provided.
The CRGR will focus primarily on proposed new requirements and staff l
positions, but it may also review selected existing requirements and staff positions 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 or staff position are well understood and that the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, i
3
4 Revision 5 i
April 1991 50.54(f), and 10 CFR 2.204, if applicable, are appropriately addressed by the staff proposal.
The CRGR shall submit to the EDO a statement of its recommendations in accordance with IV.D below.
f Tools used by the CRGR for scrutiny are expected to include cost-benefit analysis and probabilistic risk assessment where data for its proper use are adequate. Therefore, to the extent possibib, written staff justifications should make use of these evaluation techniques.
The use of cost-benefit analyses and other tools should help to make it possible to determine which proposed requirements and staff positions have real safety significance, as distinguished from those proposed requirements and staff positions which should be given a lower priority or those which might be dropped entirely.
When such techniques cannot be applied for lack of available, appropriate or relevant data, other methods will be used.
The EDO may authorize deviations from this Charter when the EDO, after consulting with the CRGR Chairman, finds that such action is in the public interest and the deviation otherwise complies with applicable regulations including 10 CFR 2.204, 50.54(f) and 50.109.
Such authorization shall be written and shall become a part of the record of CRGR actions.
~
A rulemaking proposal presented to and considered by the CRGR, and ultimately, if presented to the Commission, should include any necessary exemption request 4
with supporting reasons for the proposed exemption.
l 5
II.
MEMBERSHIP This Committee shall be chaired by the Office Director,- AEOD, and it shall consist of, in addition to the CRGR Chairman, one individual each from NRR, NMSS, the Regions, and RES appointed by the Executive Director for Operations and one individual from OGC appointed by the EDO with the concurrence of the General Counsel.
The regional individual shall be selected from one of the regional offices, and this assignment shall be on a rotational basis, with a 4
Revision 5 April 1991 new selection made by the appointing official after that official judges that sufficient experience has been gained by the incumbent regional representative. The CRGR Chairman shall assure that process' controls' for
^
overall agency management of the generic backfit process are developed and maintained. These process controls shall include specific procedures, training, progress monitoring systems, and provision for obtaining and evaluating both staff and industry views on the conduct of the backfit The CRGR Chairman is also responsible for assuring that each process.
licensee is informed of the existence and structure of the NRC program described in this Charter. The CRGR Chairman shall-assure that substantive changes in the Charter are communicated to all licensees.
AEOD will provide staff support. The Committee may use several non-NRC-persons as consultants in special technical areas.
New members will be appointed as the need arises.
If a member cannot attend a meeting of the CRGR, the applicable office may propose an alternate for the CRGR Chairman's approval.
It is the responsibility of the alternate member to be fully versed on the agenda items before the Committee.
Ill.
CRGR SCOPE A.
The CRGR shall consider all proposed new or amended generic requirements 1
and staff positions to be imposed' by the NRC staff on one or more classes of power reactors. These include:
)
(i)
All staff papers which propose the adoption of rules or policy statements affecting power reactors or modifying any other rule so
' Legally, a staff position would not be imposed until the point at which Documents such conformance is required, for example, by a rule or an order.
as bulletins and generic letters do not require compliance with staff positions; licensees are free to respond with alternative proposals.
Regardless, such documents and positions are to be reviewed by CRGR.
5 1
i Revision 5 April 1991 as to affect requirements or staff positions applicable to reactor i
licensees, including information required of reactor licensees or i
applicants for reactor licenses or construction permits.
(ii)
All staff papers proposing new or revised rules of the type 4
described in paragraph (1), including Advance Notices.
l (iii) All proposed new or revised regulatory guides; all proposed new or revised Standard Review Plan (SRP) sections; all proposed new or revised branch technical positions; all proposed generic letters;
-l all multiplant orders, show cause orders, and 50.54(f) letters';
all bulletins and circulars; and USI NUREGs; and all new or revised Standard Technical Specifications.
All staff proposed generic information requests will be examined by the CRGR in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f).
Except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for a i
facility, the staff must prepare the reasons or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure that the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of t te potential safety-
~
significance of the issue to be addressed in the requested information.
[
CRGR examination of generic letters will include those letters proposed to be sent to construction permit holders.
For those plants for which an operating license is not yet issued, an exception to staff analysis i
may be granted by the Office Director only if the staff seeks i
information of a type routinely sought as part of the standard procedures applicable to the review of applications.
If a request seeks i
to gather information pursuant to development of a new staff position, then the exception does not apply and the reasons for the request must f
be prepared and approved prior to issuance of the request.
When staff f
evaluations of the necessity for a request are required, the evaluation i
shall include at least the elements specified in IV.B(xi).
F 6
l
CHARTER COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS Revision 5 i
April 1991 f
b i
I l
l l
i
-1
)
~
Revision 5 April 1991 B.
The CRGR shall consider all licenses, license amendments, approvals of Preliminary Design Approvals (PDAs) and Final Design Approval (FDAs),
minutes of conferences with owners groups, licensees or vendors, staff approval of topical reports, information notices, and all other documents, letters or communications of a generic nature which reflect or interpret NRC staff positions, unless such documents refer only to requirements of staff positions previously applicable to the affected licensees and approved by the appropriate officials. The following are examples of approved staff positions previously applicable to affected licensees:
(i) positions or interpretations which are contr.ined in regulations, policy statements, 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 November 12, 1981.2 (ii) positions after November 12, 1981 which have been approved through this established generic review process.
C.
For those rare instances where it is judged that an immediately effective action is required (10 CFR 50.109 (a)(6)), no prior review by the CRGR is necessary. However, the staff shall conduct a documented evaluation in accordance with IV.B.ix below.
This evaluation may be conducted either before or after the action is taken and shall be subject to CRGR review. The CRGR Chairman should be notified by the Office Director originating the action. These immediately effective requirements will be included in the CRGR monthly report to the Commission.
Any document or communication of this type shall cite and accurately i
state the position as reflected in a previously promulgated regulation, order, i
Regulatory Guide, SRP, etc.
7 C
i e
i
)
Revision 5 April 1991 i
D.
For each proposed requirement or staff position not requiring immediately effective action, the proposing office is to identify the requirement as either Category 1 or 2.
Category I requiremet+s and staff positions 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 reviewed or otherwise dealt with within 2-working days of receipt by the CRGR.
If the appropriateness of designation as Category 1 is questioned by the CRGR Chairman. and if the question is not resolved within the 2 working-day limit, the proposed requirement or staff position is to be forwarded by the CRGR Chairman to the EDO for decision.
Category 2 requirements and staff positions are those which do not meet the criteria for designation as Category 1.
These are to be scrutinized carefully by the CRGR on the basis of written justification, which must be submitted by the proposing office along with the proposed requirement or staff position.
E.
The CRGR may receive early briefings from the offices on proposed new generic requirements or staff positions before the staff has developed the requirements or positions and held discussions with the ACRS.
F.
The CRGR may be consulted on any issue deemed appropriate by the CRGR Chai rman.
8 e
1 Revision 5 l
April 1991 B
IV.
CRGR OPERATING PROCEDURES i
A.
Meetino Notices i
Meetings will generally be held at regular intervals and will be scheduled well in advance. Meeting notices will generally be issued by the CRGR Chairman 2 weeks in advance of each meeting, except for 3
Category 1 items, with available background material on each item to be considered by the Committee.
B.
Contents of Packaoes submitted to CRGR i
The following requirements apply for proposals to reduce existing requirements or positions as well as proposals to increase requirements l
or positions.
Each package submitted to the CRGR for review shall i
l include fifteen (15) copies of the following information:
(i)
The proposed generic requirement or staff position as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees.
Where the objective or i
intended result of a proposed generic requirement or staff position can be achieved by setting a readily quantifiable t
standard that has an unambiguous relationship to a readily measurable quantity and is enforceable, the proposed requirement L
should merely specify the objective or result to be ' attained, rather than prescribing to the licensee how the objective or result is to be attained.
(ii) Draft staff papers or other underlying staff documents supporting the requirements or staff positions.
(A copy of all materials referenced in the document shall be made available upon request to I
the CRGR staff.
Any Committee member may request CRGR' staff to obtain a copy of any reference material for his or her use.)
f i
9
Revision 5 April 1991 (iii) Each proposed requirement or staff position shall contain the sponsoring office's position as to whether the proposal would increase requirements or staff positions, implement existing requirements or staff positions, or would relax or reduce existing requirements or staff positions.
t (iv) The proposed method of implementation along with.the concurrence The concurrence (and any comments) of OGC on the method proposed.
of affected program offices or an explanation of any non-l concurrences.
(v)
Regulatory analyses generally conforming to the directives and guidance of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568.
(This does not h
for backfits that ensure compliance or ensure, define or redefine adequate protection.
In these cases a documented evaluation is required as discussed in IV.B.(ix).)
(vi)
Identification of the category of reactor plants to which the generic requirement or staff position is to apply (that is, whether it is to apply to new plants only, new OLs only, OLs after t
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.).
I (vii) For backfits other than compliance or adequate protection The backfits, a backfit analysis as defined in 10 CFR 50.109.
backfit analysis shall include, for each category of reactor plants, an evaluation which demonstrates how action should be I
prioritized and scheduled in light of other ongoing regulatory.
activities.
The backfit analysis shall document for consideration f
information available concerning any of the following factors as i
10 I
1 Revision 5 April 1991 may be appropriate and any other information relevant and material to the proposed action:
Statement of the specific objectives that the proposed (a) action is designated to achieve; i
(b)
General description of the activity that would be required by the license or applicant in order to complete the action; i
(c)
Potential change in the risk _to the public from the accidental offsite release of radioactive material; l
s (d)
Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility q
employees and other onsite workers.
i (e)
Installation and continuing costs associated with the action, including the cost of facility downtime or the cost t
t of construction delay; j
(f)
The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to f
proposed and existing regulatory requirements and staff j
'i positions;
(
(g)
The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the l
i proposed action and the availability of such resources; i
l (h)
The potential impact of differences in facility type, design or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed =
j action; i
Whether the proposed action is interim or final, and if r
(i) i 11 t
I i
l Revision 5 April 1991 interim, the justification for imposing the proposed action on an interim basis.
(j)
How the action should be prioritized and scheduled in light j
f of other ongoing regulatory activities. The following information may be appropriate in this regard:
1.
The proposed priority or schedule, 2.
A summary of the current backlog of existing requirements awaiting implementation, 3.
An assessment of whether implementation of existing requirements should be deferred as a result, and 4.
Any other information that may be considered appropriate with regard to priority, schedule or cumulative impact.
For example, could implementation be delayed pending public comment?
l (viii)
For each backfit analyzed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(2) i (i.e., not adequate protection backfits and not compliance i
backfits) the proposing office director's deternination, together with the rationale for the determination based on the considerations of paragraphs (1) through (vii) above, that r
(a) there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the proposal; and t
h (b) the direct and indirect costs of implementation, for the facilities affected, are justified in view of this increased protection.
3 12
Revision 5 April 1991 4
(ix)
For adequate protection or compliance backfits evaluated j
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) 4 (a) a documents evaluation consisting of:
(1) the objectives of the modification (2) the reasons for the modification (3)
The basis for invoking the compliance or adequate protection exemption.
(b)
In addition, for actions that were immediately l
effective (and therefore issued without prior CRGR review as discussed in III.C) the evaluation shall document the safety significance and appropriateness of the action taken and (if applicable) consideration I
of how costs contributed to selecting the solution among various acceptable alternatives.
(x)
For each evaluation conducted for proposed relaxations or decreases in current requirements or staff positions, the proposing office director's determination, together with the rationale for the determination based on the considerations i
of paragraphs (i) through (vii) above, that (a) the public health and safety and the common defense l
and security would be adequately protected if the l
proposed reduction in requirements or positions were implemented, and (b) the cost savings attributed to the action would be j
substantial enough to justify taking the action.
j (xi) For each request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) l (which is not subject to exception as discussed in III.A) an evaluation that includes at least the following elements:
13 l
4
Revision 5 April 1991 (a)
A problem statement that describes the need for the information in terms of potential safety benefit.
I (b)
The licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request.
(c)
An anticipated schedule for NRC use of the information.
(d)
A statement affirming that the request does not impose new requirements on the licensee, other than for the requested information.
t 1
(xii) An assessment of how the proposed action relates to the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement. '*
C.
CRGR Staff Review CRGR staff shall review each package.
If the package is not sufficient for CRGR consideration, it may be returned by the CRGR Chairman to the t
originating office with reasons for such action.
Prior notice to the Committee is not needed; however, CRGR members shall be informed of such actions.
'The Policy Statement was published in the Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 162, page 30028 on August 21, 1985.
'The Commission directed the staff to develop procedures and begin implementing the statement i_n a memorandum for J.M. Taylor from S. J. Chilk, dated June 15, 1990.
i l
- The ED0 directed the CRGR to incorporate considerations regarding safety goals into its deliberations in a memorandum for E. L. Jordan from-J. M. Taylor, dated July 10, 1990.
' Specific procedures for addressing safety goals are being developed.
When they are developed and experience has been gained in using them, specific l
i In the guidance will be included in the CRGR Charter as appropriate.
meantime, the referenced documents provide a framework and guidance for
{
addressing the issue.
1 14 l
i i
i
i t
Revision 5 April 1991 In deciding whether a package should be returned and in scheduling its review, due consideration shall be given to the ED0's priorities and schedules for completion of work and resolution of j
issues.
An accepted package shall be scheduled for CRGR consideration; however, scheduling priorities shall be at the discretion of the CRGR Chairman.
All requests for particular scheduling shall be made to the CRGR i
Chairman.
The CRGR staff may obtain additional information from industry and consultants on such proposals, particularly with respect to the cost of implementation, realistic schedule for implementation and the ability of licensees to safely and efficiently carry out the full range of safety-related activities at each facility while implementing the proposed requirement or staff position.
The CRGR staff should normally provide a brief summary analysis of each package to CRGR members prior to the meetings.
D.
CRGR Meetino Minutes At each meeting, for each package scheduled for discussion, the sponsoring office shall present to the CRGR the proposed generic A
requirement or staff position and respond to comments and questions.
reasonable amount of time, within the discretion of the CRGR Chairman, At shall be permitted for discussion of each item by Committee members.
the conclusion of the discussion, each Committee member shall summarize-his or her position. The minutes of each meeting, including CRGR recommendations and the bases therefor shall be prepared. Minutes normally shall be circulated to all members within 10 working days after the meeting, and each member shall have 5-working days to comment in 15
1 Revision 5 April 1991 It is the responsibility of each member to writing on the minutes.
All assure that the minutes accurately reflect his.or her views.
comments received shall be appended to or made part of the minutes of l
the meeting.
l The Comittee shall recommend to the EDO, approval, disapproval, modification, or conditioning of generic proposals considered by the Committee, as well as the method of implementation for such requirements or staff positions 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 The minutes shall give an accurate description of the each facility.
basis for the recommendations; shall relate this basis, as appropriate, I
to 10 CFR 50.109, 10 CFR 50.54(f) and 10 CFR 2.204 (as discussed in I)-
l and the Commission's safety goal policy (as discussed in IV.B (ix); and shall accurately reflect the consensus decision of the Committee.'
Copies of these minutes shall be distributed to the Commission, Office l
j Directors, Regional Administrators, CRGR Members, and the Public The ED0's action taken in response to the Committee's Document Room.
recommendations shall be provided in writing to the Commission.
E.
Recordkeeoino System The AEOD Assistant for CRGR !ssues will assure that there is an archival system for keeping records of all packages submitted to the CRGR i
Chairman, actions by the staff, summary minutes of CRGR consideration of each package including corrections, recommendations by the Committee, i
and decisions by the EDO and the Commission.
I
?
'The minutes should include a clear indication as to whether an action I
was considered to be justified as a backfit and, if so, whether it was (1) an adequate protection exception; (2) a compliance considered to be:
exception; or (3) a cost justified substantial safety enhancement.
1 l
r 16 l
6
Revision 5 April 1991 V.
REPORTING REOUIREMENTS The CRGR staff'shall prepare a report to be submitted by the EDO to the Commission each month. The report will provide a brief summary of CRGR activities. The report shall be included in the Weekly Items of Interest report to the EDO at the end of each month.
I 4
t 0
17
Revision 5 April 1991
~~
Attachment I to CRGR Charter NEW GENERIC REOUIREMENT AND STAFF POSITION REVIEW PROCESS The attached chart is a schematic representation of how new generic requirements and staff positions are developed, revised and implemented.
In the early stages of developing a proposed new requirement or staff position, it is contemplated that the staff may have discussions with the industry, ACRS and the public to obtain preliminary information of the costs and safety benefits of the proposed action. On the basis of this information, the proposing office will prepare the package for CRGR review.
The CRGR may recommend approval, revision, or disapproval or that further l
public comment be sought.
After CRGR and ED0 approval, there may be further review by the ACRS or the Commission. Decisions by the Commission are controlling.
1
Revision 4 April 1987 Schematic Representation of New Requirements Review I
tils Generic 18sves Prierttite she a
setses Leveles Freeeses Dhamens mb Bvisttas&Desers 1 Astutrement N
N' proposes Avles IhtlW8189 gtt.
Segulatory Analysts 4
t r
Ternattal Management Asetew iH CTttonal Cistusste*.s CeSR Revww ette leerstry l
i, EDO terise Petresal er
$cticit Public Coment er he furtmee werk Feether Aeriew ACRE, Cynmason i>
Uesssess PMs Woe WP.h insA usensees i
t i iese,.e,e inte 1 Cr:moesne y se..
s,...e..veen r=,i 4
< ime.
m.i.e schesaw i
2
Revision B' t
April 1991 l
i to i
~
CRGR Charter l
PROCEDURES TO CONTROL f
GENERIC REQUIREMENTS AND STAFF POSITIONS A.
Backaround In a memorandum from the Chairman to the Executive Director for Operations dated October 8,1981, the Commission expressed concern over conflicting or.
inconsistent directives and requests to reactor licensees from various components of the NRC staff.
By that memorandum, the Comission outlined certain recomended actions to establish control over the number and nature of i
requirements placed by NRC on reactor licensees. These included:
establishing a Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR); establishing a 1
new position of Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Reauirements (DEDROGR); conducting a survey of formal and informal mechanism to comunicate with reactor licensees; and developing and implementing procedures for controlling communications involving significant requirements j
covering one or more classes of reactors.
In February 1987 the Commission approved a NRC reorganization that, among other changes, placed the CRGR cperations under the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AEOD).
CRGR responsibilities and authorities were not directed to change f
unoer the new organizational structure; only organizational location was
{
changed.
The following procedures have been established for controlling generic requirements or staff positions and are designed to implement
[
provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, 50.54(f) and 2.204.
B.
Co mittee to Review Generic Recuirements (CRGR) i Except for immediately effective actions, the CRGR shall review all proposed new generic requirements and staff positions to be imposed on one or more l
I 1
I
^
~
Revision 5 April 1991' classes of power reactors in accordance with the Charter of the Comittee, j
before such proposed requirements or staff positions are forwarded to the EDO i
and Commission and imposed on, or communicated for use or guidance to, any reactor licensee.
C.
Office Resconsibility Each office shall develop internal procedures to assure that the following policy requirements regarding licensees are carried out:
(1)
All proposed generic requirements and staff positions with a direct or indirect impact on power reactors shall be submitted for CRGR consideration.
Table I (attached) provides examples.
(2)
All generic documents, letters and communications that establish, reflect or interpret NRC staff positions or requirements to be imposed on power reactors. Table II (attached) provides examples. These documents shall be submitted for revicw by CRGR unless these documents refer only to requirements or staff positions approved prior to November 12, 1981.
In the latter case, the previously approved requirement or staff position should be specifically cited and accurately stated.
Offices should be careful to review new or specific interpretations to assur2 that they are only case-specific applications of existing requirements rather than initial applications having potential generic use.
Case-specific applications are governed by NRC Manual Chapter 0514.
(3)
For all other comunications with licensees (Table III, attached), no statements shall be used that might suggest new or revised generic reovirements, staff positions, guidance or recommendations unless such statements have been approved by the EDO or the Commission.
t (4)
In developing a proposed new generic requirement or staff position for 2
i t
c.
Revision 5 April 1991 CRGR review, an office may determine that it is in possession of important safety information that should be made available to licensees.
It is the responsibility of that office to take imediate action to assure that such information is comunicated to the licensees by the appropriate office. Such actions may be taken before completion of any proposed or ongoing CRGR reviews.
D.
Imediately Effective Action For those rare instances where it is judged that an immediate effective action is recuired (10 CFR 50.109(a)(6)), no prior review by the CRGR is necessary.
However, the staff shall conduct a documented evaluation which includes a statement of the objectives of and reasons for the actions and the basis for invaking the exception.
The evaluation may be conducted either before or atter the action is taken and shall be subject to CRGR review. The evaluation shall also document the safety significance and appropriateness of the action taken and consideration of how costs contribute to selecting the solution among various acceptable alternatives. The CRGR Chairman should be notified by the Office Director originating the action. These imediately effective requirements will be included in the monthly report to the Commission.
~
3
i Revision 5 April 1991 TABLE 1 t
i PRINCIPAL MECHANISMS USED BY NRC STAFF TO ESTABLISH OR COMMUNICATE GENERIC REQUIREMENTS AND STAFF POSITIONS (See paragraph c(I))
t Rulemakino' Advanced Notices Proposed Notices Final Rules Policy Statements Other Forral Reouirements Multiplant orders including show cause orders and i
confirmatory orders a
Staff Positions Bulletins Multiplant letters (including 10 CFR 50.54f and TMI Action Plan letters)
Regulatory Guides SRP (including Branch Technical Positions)
Standard Tech Specs l
While Rulemaking is an action of the Comission rather than the staff, most rules are proposed or prepared by the staff.
3 i
The document itself imposes a legal requirement; e.g., regulatory orders
)
or license conditions.
2 Documents that reflect staff positions which, unless complied with or a satisfactory alternative offered, the staff would impose or seek to have imposed by formal requirement.
4 l
Revision 5 April 1991 TABLE II MECHANISMS OFTEN USED TO INTERPRET I
GENERIC REQUIREMENTS OR STAFF POSITIONS (See paragraph c(2))
Action and Petitions for Rulemaking Action on 10 CFR 2.206 Requests Approval on Topicals facility Licenses and Amendments SERs FDAs, PDAs NUREG Reports (other than USIs) j Operator Licenses and Amendments l
i Single Plant Orders Staff Positions on Code Committees i
Unresolved Issues Resulting from Inspections u
5
Revision 5 April 1991 TABLE III ADDITIONAL MECHANISMS SDMETIMES USED TO COMMUNICATE GENERIC REQUIREMENTS OR STAFF POSITIONS (See paragraph c(3))
DES & FES Entry. Exit and Management Meetings Information Notices Inspection Manual (Including Temporary Instructions)
Licensee Event Reports; Construction Deficiency Reports (Sent to Other Licensees)
NRC Operator Licensing Ptople Contact with Licensees Phone Calls or Site Visits by NRC Staff or Commission to Obtain Information (i.e., Corrective Actions, Schedules, Conduct Surveys, etc.)
Pleadings Preliminary Notifications Press Releases Proposed Findings Public Meetings, Workshops, Technical Discussions Resident Inspector Day-to-Day Contact SALP Reports SECY Paper (Some Utilities Apparently Sent Operators to College Based on Recent SECY Paper on Operator Qualifications)
Special Reports Speeches to local Groups or Industry Associations Technical Specifications Telephone Calls and Meetings with Licensees, Vendors, Industry Representatives, Owners Groups Testimony 6
a l
.c
'3 t
i d
APPENDIX II r
i SAMPLE CRGR PACKAGE l
i h
~!
P
?
i s
5 9
h k
F r
l
'k 5
e I
f 4
J
?
t i
1 9
f I
r P
I
CRGR REVIEW PACKAGE PROPOSED ACTION:
Issue the proposed generic letter supplement.
The proposed generic letter supplement cows not reouest any actions by tne addressees.
Question (1):
The proposed generic requirement or staff position as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees.
Resconse:
The proposed position is set forth in the generic letter supplement.
Cuestion (ii):
- raft staff papers or other uncerlying staff documents supporting the recuirements or staff positions.
Desconse:
1.
Generic Letter 83-28, "Requireo Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATW5 Events," datec July 8,1983.
2.
Memorandum from William T. Russell to Thomas E. Murley, " Charles Morris Differing Professional Opinion - RE: Life Testing of Reactor Trip Breakers."
2.
- 0 CFR 50.52 "Recuirements for Reduction of Risk from Anticipated Transients without Scram ( ATWS) Events for Light-Water-Coolec Nuclear Power Plants."
Cuestion (111):
Each proposed recuirement or staff position shall contain the sponsoring j
office's position as to whether the proposal would increase staff require-nents or staff positions, would implement existing staff requirements or positions, or would relax or reduce existing requirements or staff
-l positions.
- esconse:
The purpose of the proposed generic letter supplement is to inform licensees that the actions of items 4.2.3 (life testing) and 4.2.4 (peri-edic replacement of breakers or components) as originally described in the enclosure to GL E3-28 are no lenger neeced. Thus, the proposed generic letter supplement would relax the original positions taken in items 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 of GL 83-28.
1 1
}
r, q
l Question (ivi:
The proposeo methoc of implementation along with the concurrence (ano any i
coments) of CGC on the r.ethod proposed.
Resoonse:-
l The method of implementation will be the proposed generic letter supple-l ment (Enclosure 3). 0GC concurrence has been obtained.
Ouestion (v):
Regulatory analyses generally conforming to the cirectives and guidance of i
NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568.
Response
t As stated above the proposed position is a relaxation of a previous staff i
position. No value/ impact analysis was made.
Ouestion (vi):
Identification of the category of reactor plants to which the generic requirements or staff position is to apply.
Fesponse:
The proposed generic letter supplement would apply to all holders of' i
operating licenses or construction perinits for pressurized-water reactors.
Ouestion (vii).
For backfits otner tnan compliance or adequate protection backfits, a backf1t analysis as definea in 10 CFR 50.109. The backfit analysis shall l
include, for each category of reactor plants, an evaluation which comon-strates how the action snould be prioritized anc scheouled in light of other engoing regulatory ectivities. The backfit knalysis shall occument for censideration information available concerning any of the following factor', as may be appropriate and any other information relevant and cat'erial to the proposec action...
Resoonse:
This generic lctter supplement is relaxing the original positions taken in items 4.2.3 ano 4.2.4 of GL S3-28 and is not considered a backfit.
However, even if this change in staff position is deemed to be a backfit, l
the stuff has prepared answers to the following questions-(a) Statement of the specific objectives that the proposed actiun is ca. signed to achieve...
l l
2 i
r Pesconse:
i The purpose of the proposec generic letter supplement is to inform licensees that the actions of items 4.2.3 (life testing) and 4.2.4 (peri-edic replacement of breakers or components) as originally described in the enclosure to GL 83-28 are no longer needed.
(b) General description of the activity that would be required by the licensee or applicant in order to complete the action...
Response
Response to this item is not necessary because the proposed generic letter supplecent requires no specific action or written response.
(c) Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental offsite release of radioactive material...
- esponse:
The revised staff position will not result in any significant change in -
risk relative to the original position.
Refer to memo from Russell to Murley, " Charles Morris Differing Professional Opinion - Re: Life Testing of Reactor Trip Breakers," dated January 16, 1992.
(d) Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees and other onsite workers...
Resconse:
No potential impact.
(e)
Installation and continuing costs associated with the actions, including the cost of f acility downtime or the cost of construction celay...
Resconse:
The proposed ac ons will decrease costs because the need to further implement items *. 3 and 4.2.4 of GL S3-28 will be eliminated.
(f) The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationships to proposed and existing regulatory requirements and staff positiuns...
Pesconse:
The potential safety impact of the changes due to this revised staff position are insignificant. Refer to memo from Russell to Murley,
" Charles Morris Differing Professional Opinion - Re:
Life Testing of Reactor Trip Breakers," dated January 16, 1992.
l (g) The estimated resource burcen on the NRC associated with the proposed action anc the availability of such resources...
3
r 4
Response
No increase in burcen on the NRC resources is expected because the pro-posed generic letter supplenent requires no specific action or written response.
(h) The potential impact of differences in facility type, design or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed action...
Response
There are no such potential impacts because the proposed generic letter supplement requires no specific action.
(1) Whether the proposed action is interim or final, and if interim, the.
justification for imposing the proposed action on an interim basis...
Response
The revised staff position is final.
(j) How the action should be prioritizeo and scheduled in light of other ongoing regulatory activities...
Response
The proposed generic letter supplement requires no specific action to be prioritized or scneouled.
Question (viii):
Fer each backfit analyzed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(2), the proposing office director's determination together with the rationale for the determination based on the consideration of paragraphs (i) through (vii) atove that:
A.
there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the proposal; and B.
the direct and indirect costs of implementation, for the facilities affectec, are justified in view of this increased protection.
Resocnse:
Response to this item is not necessary because the proposed generic letter supplement relaxes previous staff positions and requires no specific action or written response.
Cuestion (ix):
For adequate protection or compliance backfits evaluatec pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(4)(4) 4
9 (a) a documents evaluation consisting of:
(1) the objectives of the modification (2) the reasons for the modification (3) the basis for invoking the compliance or adequate protection exemption (b) In addition, for actions that were imediately effective (and there-fore issued without prior CRGR review as discussed in III.C) the evaluation shall document the safety significance and appropriateness of the action taken and (if applicable) consideration of how costs contributed to selecting the solution among various acceptable alternatives.
Response
Response to this item is not necessary because the proposed generic letter supplement is relaxing the original staff positions. The backfit rule 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4) coes not apply.
Question (x):
For each evaluation conducted for proposed relaxations or decreases in current reoutrements or staff positions, the proposing office director's determination, together with the rationale for the determination based on the considerations of paragraphs (i) through (vii) above, that:
A.
the public health and safety and the common defense and security would be adequately protected if the proposed reduction in require-ments or positions were implemented, and B.
the cost saving attributed to the action would be substantial enough to justify taking the action.
Resconse:
The public health and safety and the comon defense and security will not be impaired by this proposed relaxation of the staff position. Based on the staff's review of RTB operating experience, the staff has concluded that the actions already completed pursuant to GL 83-28 have been effec-tive in improving RTB reliability to open.
Furthemore, since issuing GL 83-28, the NRC has promulgated the requirements for reducing the risk from A1VS events in 10 CFR 50.62. The hardware and software modifications associated with this regulation further reduce the risk resulting from the tailure of RTBs. Therefore, the staff concludes that further actions in response to items 4.2.3 and 4.2.4 of GL 83-28 are not necessary. For detail, please refer to the memo from Russell to Murley, " Charles Morris Differing Professional Opinion - Re: Life Testing of Reactor Trip Breakers," datec January 16, 1992.
Substantial cost savings to the industry could accrue because of the elimination of the unnecessary test and the associatec administrative and cocumentation cost.
5
i i
' ') il 1
e Ouestion (xi):
3g For each request for_information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) an evaluation.that
'l includes at : cast the following elements:
i
Response
Response to'this item is not necessary because the proposed ceneric letters supplementdoesnotrequestinformationunder10CFR50.54(f).
_l Ouestion(xii):
An assessment of how the proposed action relates to the Commission's-l Safety Goal Policy Statement.
Response
4 The relaxation of staff position in the proposed generic ' letter supplement-i will have an insignificant effect on neeting the Commission's. safety goal.
I f
I i
h
'[
l l
i 6
r
-a2 r
k.
- 3.g, j
?
i
- i
' i
- i 6
APPENDIX III 1
GENERIC BACKFIT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FORM
- t' i
I
?
4 5
8 i
' I f
b i
~
i l
l l
i
- 1 I
4 I
1
h 3 i
4 V GENERIC BACKFIT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FORM Please respond to all five items. Use additional pages for explanations if needed.
1.
A report is to be submitted for staff approval before plant restart, or (for construction permit holders) before operating license is issued.
YES NO (a)
If "YES", is there a need for review guidance? Provide reason (s) if review guidance is not needed.
i YES NO N/A Reason:
(b)
If review guidance is needed, does it accompany the CRGR package?
Provide reason (s) if the guidance does not accompany the package.
YES NO N/A I
Reason:
2.
A report is to be submitted to the staff with no restriction on plant restart or the issuance of an operating license.
YES NO (a)
If "YES", does the staff intend to review all submittals?
YES NO N/A (i)
If "N0", provide reason (s) for requiring reports that will not be reviewed.
Reason:
(b)
If the staff will review all submittals, is there a need for review guidance? Provide reason (s) if review guidance is not needed.
YES NO N/A Reason:
t.-4 j
9 i
(c)
If review guidance is needed, does it accompany the CRGR package?
Provide reason (s) if the guidance does not accompany the package.
YES NO N/A Reason:
3.
A voluntary report may be submitted to the staff with no restriction on plant restart or the issuance of an operating license.
YES NO (a)
If "YES", does the staff intend to review all submittals?
YES NO N/A (i)
If "N0", provide reason (s) for requesting reports that will not be reviewed.
Reason:
(b)
If the staff will review all submittals, is there a need for review guidance? Provide reason (s) if review guidance is not needed.
YES NO N/A Reason:
(c)
If review guidance is needed, does it accompany the CRGR package?
Provide reason (s) if the guidance does not accompany the package.
YES NO N/A Reason:
l i
4.
Addressees are not required to submit a report but they are required to j
maintain quality records for audit or inspection by the staff.
Reporting requirements only cover the need to report the completion of actions.
YES N0 i
i 5
' t.
(a)
If "YES", is there a need for inspection guidance? Provide reason (s) if inspection guidance is not needed.
YES NO N/A Reason:
(b)
If inspection guidance is needed, does it accompany the CRGR package? Provide reason (s) if the guidance does not accompany the package.
YES NO N/A Reason:
i 5.
Addressees are not required to submit a report, and they are not required to maintain quality records for audit or inspection by the staff.
Reporting requirements only cover the need to report the completion of actions.
YES N0 r
6.
No response is required or requested from the addressees.
YES NO