ML20205G288
| ML20205G288 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/30/1999 |
| From: | Marsh L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Marion A NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| References | |
| PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9904070200 | |
| Download: ML20205G288 (13) | |
Text
_
c S
,7 March 30,1999 Alex Marion, Director Distribution: w/att Programs Central Files SCollins/RZimmerman Nuclear Energy Institute PUBLIC GTracy, EDO Suite 400 PECB r/f SMagruder 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
NRC PAPEP. ON THE GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS
Dear Mr. Marion:
One of the NRC's ongoing initiatives is a review of the generic communications process, and related issues s.uch as application of the backfit rule and citation of 10 CFR 50.54(f) in generic communications. This review was, in part, prompted by concerns raised by stakeholders, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The NRC staff has drafted a paper as a result of this review (enclosed) and intends to brief the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on April 7,1999. The staff would also be imerested ir NEl's views on the paper.
Please contact Jim Shapaker (301-415-1151) or John Tappert (301-415-1167) of my staff with any comments.
Sincerely, Original signed by Ledyard B. Marsh, Chief Events Assessment and Generic Communications Branch 904070200 990330 DR REVQP ERONUMRC Divis,!on of Regulatory improvement Programs PDR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 3
,h \\ c)
Project No. 689
Enclosure:
as stated cc: w/ enclosure See next page W-P DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\JRT\\NEl_LTR.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PECB. DRIP lE SC/PEMIP
[E C/PGEB: DRIP l C/PECB:DRih jE NAME JTappert*
JLyons 7 'l CCarpenter*
LMarsh
//~
DATE 03/26/99 035dJ9 03/26/99 n35099 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
(.... g Q O,nO Rtur, few;
p
' Nuclear Energy Institute Project No. 689 cc:
Mr. Ralph Beedle Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director Senior Vice President Plant Support and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 Suite 400.
1776 l Street, NW 1776 l Street, NW Washington. DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director Progra.ns Washington Operations L
Nuclear Energy Institute ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc.
Suite 400 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 1776 i Street, NW Rockville, Maryland 20852 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Mr. Nicholas J. Liparulo, Manager Engineering Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear and Advanced Technology Division Suite 400 Westinghouse Electric Corporation 1776 i Street, NW P.O. Box 355 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Mr. Jim Davis, Director Licensing Operations Nuclear Energy Institute Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 l Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 l
DRAFT.. 03/22/99......
March xx.1999 SECY-99-vvy 1
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
GENERIC COMMUNICATION PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of actions taken or planned by Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) staff to address the concerns of the nuclear power industry about the agency's generic communication program and its implementation (Chairman's Tasking Memo issue IV.F) i
SUMMARY
j l
I This paper describes the staffs evaluation of the generic communication program and its implementation in response to the Senate Committee on Appropriations report, dated June 5, 1998, and various industry communications. Based on this evaluation, the staff identified several improvements to the generic communication p.acess. They include: (i) More rigorous application of the compliance exception to the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) through the use of improved documented evaluations to justify invoking the exception provision and through the use of limited value-impact assessments even though the exception has been appropriately invoked; (ii) Restricting citation of 10CFR50.54(f) to only those matters in which the NRC is contemplating the modification, suspt,ision, or revocation of facility licenses; (iii) Clearly defining the application of the various generic communication products and, in particular, providing a clean istinction between bulletins and generic letters; and (iv) Improving the management of emergent issues by including early senior management review and encouraging early interaction with the nuclear power industry. The staffs finaings conceming these improvements are presented in this paper.
BACKGROUND:
The Senate Committee on App.opriations report entitled " Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill,1999" (Report 105-206, dated June 5,1998) states, in part, in discussing its concems about NRC regulatory practices, that "(t)he NRC frequent!y imposes regulatory requirements using informal approaches that circumvent legal requirements for imposing legal requirements, including the Administrative Procedures Act. Those infwmal practices include:
gene;ic communications that reactor operators feel obligated to follow,, "
Enclosure
]
i The Commissioners 2
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), as a follow-up to the NRC-sponsored public meeting on July 1
17,1998, to address stakeholder's concems, recommended in a letter dated August 11, l
1998, several near-term actions the NRC could take to improve its regulatory processes. Two of the recommendations are pertinent to the agency's generic communication process. One 3
addresses the need for a more rigorous and broader application of the backfit rule (10 CFR I
50.109) to ensure that NRC staff focus on adequate protection issues and evaluate all additional requirements, expansion in scope, or unique interpretations, against the actual impact on public health and safety. The other addresses the need for greater recognition of industry programs for evaluating events, conducting assessments and effecting changes to avoid duplicative re, views and the issuance of redundant generic communications.
The NRO staff subsequently met twice with NEl representatives to discuss their views on the NRC generic communication process and its implementation. The first meeting with NEl occurred on August 27,1998, and the second meeting took place on November 3,1998. The discussions highlighted the follov;ing issues and concerns: (1) The inappropriate (in industry's view) citation of the compliance exception to the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i)) subverts the justification and discipline intended by the rule; (2) The frequent citation of 10 CFR 50.54(f) to gather information without regard for the significance of the issue conveys an unrealistic and unnecessary sense of urgency to gather information; (3) The generic communication process is imprecisry understood. This stems from the perception that current generic communication products cv not have a uniquely defined mission, particularly in regard to the distinction between bulletins and generic letters; and (4) Early interaction between the NRC and the nuclear power industry at the formative stage of an emergent issue can be successful and beneficial to both the NRC and the industry in terms of identifying mutually satisfactory resolution approaches and reducing resource burdens.
Itbn (4) above is being actively addressed under DSI-13 (The Role of industry). In this regard, SECY-99-xxx, The Use by Industry of Voluntary initiatives in the Regulatory Process, dated April xx,1999, presents the findings of a staff assessment of how voluntary industry initiatives may be used in lieu of, or to complement, regulatory actions, and commits the staff over a period of one year from the date of issuance of SECY-99-xxx to formalizing a process for initiating and implementing voluntary industry initiatives. Key elements of the process that are to be addressed include the basis for identifying regulatory issues that are amenable to resolution through voluntary industry initiatives, developing an appropriate approach for implementing voluntary industry initiatives, NRC fee assessment practices, defining NRC staff's role, establishing a mechanism for developing industry and NRC plans and schedules, providing for public participation, developing guidelines for tracking, developing inspection guidelines, and NRC enforcement aspects.
To some extent the concerns expressed by NEl have been addressed in a memorandum, dated August 7,1998, from Samuel J. Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), to senior NRR management on the subject "Recent Changes in the Procecs for the Preparation of Generic Communications". This memorandum informed NRR staff of two changes that were being implemented, including (1) the need to obtain early management support for a generic communication and (2) the need to develop an implementation plan that carefully considers the ramifications of any burden to be imposed on licensees and efficiently utilizes NRR resources to l
4
The Commissioners 3
achieve closure on an issue. In implementing this guidance, alternative resolution strategies are discussed, including those that may obviate the need for a generic communication. The new policy has already had a discernible impact. Recently, the staff has engaged the industry, at the direction of NRR management, on a number of potential generic communication issues.
This engagement has led to industry sponsored initiatives for issue resolution that were acceptable to the staff and, consequently, efforts on the proposed generic communications have been terminated.
The staff believes that the implementation of a more integrated and disciplined internal process for the handling of emergent safety issues, along with early and more frequent interactions with appropriate representatives of the nuclear power industry on such matters, willlead to a reduction of unnecessary burden on both industry and NRR resources. This is evidenced by the number of generic communications that have been cancelled. Had the staff proactively worked with the industry early on as potential safety issues arose, there would have been no need in many cases for the staff to expend resources prematurely preparing generic communications and for the industry to divert its resources to oppose their development. Therefore, issue resolution would be far more effective, and could very likely be handled far more efficiently through an industry-sponsored initiative, by interacting with the industry early on rather than waiting until interaction becomes confrontational. There is an additional advantage to be gained by interacting early on with the industry on emerging safety issues and that is the public would be given the opportunity to follow their evolution and participate in and comment on the resolution process. This increased pubuc awareness of emerging safety issues would instill greater confidence in the NRC as it carries out its safety mission. The following discussion addresses staff plans for improving the generic communication program and its implementation.
DISCUSSION:
Current Generic Communication Products As described in NRC Inspection Manual Chapter (MC) 0720, there are four batic types of generic communications currently in use; they include bulletins (BL), generic letters (GL),
information notices (IN), and administrative letters (AL). The first two types of generic communications (i.e, BLs and GLs) are the focus of industry concern. The differences between the two are subtle and can lead to misperceptions of staff intent. Both bulletins and generic letters are used to request actions and/or information; both can require a response by invoking 50.54(f). Generic letters can also be used to transmit information without involving a response.
Bulletins typically convey a greater sense of urgency. However, both bulletins and generic letters can be designated as " Category 1," which the Charter of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) defines as an issue "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." In practice, this means the time spent preparing the BL or GL is truncated and the public comment phase is omitted. Both bulletins and generic letters are reviewed by the CRGR for compliance with the backfit rule (s50.109). In contrast, information notices and administrative letters are not subjected to the level of scrutiny that is given to bulletins and generic letters because ins and Als do not convey or imply new
' The Commissioners 4
requirements or transmit new interpretations of regulations and do not request or require licensee actions.
The role and purpose of bulletins seem to be better understood by the industry because they are more consistently aligned with matters of greater urgency, address more narrowly focused issues, and entail short-term, non-continuing actions. Therefore, as a primary goal, the staff examined ways to distinguish bulletins from generic letters. The staff also reviewed its experience with information notices and administrative letters to see if any changes were warranted. Changes to the types of generic communications are d scussed under " Proposed Generic Communication Products."
Generic Backfitting under the Compliance Exception l
The NRC and the industry both understand that from a legal perspective generic communications (bulletins and generic letters) do not convey legally binding requirements; only the legal instrument of a rule or an order can be used for that purpose. Nevertheless, it is
]
apparent to the NRC and the industry that the recipients of these generic communications feel obligated (and thereby voluntarily commit) to respono to and act on requested actions that they contain. Recognizing this defacto imposition of burden, the staff has been required by internal 3
procedure to address the issue of backfitting in bulletins and generic letters, which are reviewed j
by the CRGR. Historically, however, most generic communications have been determined to mee: :he compliance exception to the backfit rule. Thus, no value-impact analysis, per se, is required and none is performed. The industry has stated that the NRC has not properly implemented the compliance exception to the backfit rule, particularly in the context of generic communications (generic letters and bulletins).
l Bnause of continued criticism, the staff is reviewing its practice of invoking the compliance exception. The Statements of Consideration for the original 1985 rule state that, "The co! 1pliance exception is intended to address situations in which the licensee has failed to meet known and established standards of the Commission because of omission or mistake of fact. It should be noted that new or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance would not fall within the exception and would require a backfit analysis and application of the standard."
The Statements of Consideration also state, "To ensure that the discipline is maintained in the process and that the exceptions do not become the rule, the Commission directs the staff to document each exception." Apparently the Commission did not envision that the compliance exception would be the predominant mode of backfitting. Nevertheless, while clearly legally defensible and generally appropriate, how the staff invokes the compliance exception can be improved upon to ensure that the spirit of the rule is preserved.
The backfit rule requires a staff analysis that demonstrates a substantial increase in safety with justifiable costs for all backfits except those that are needed for compliance or adequate protection. The rule further states that the Commission shall always backfit a facility if it is necessary for adequate protection. The rule is silent on whether an identified backfit to assure compliance must be imposed. Nevertheless, the staff has generally taken the position that compliance backfits must be imposed. Furthermore, if discretion may be exercised in
)
The Commissioners 5
)
determining whether or not to impose a compliance backfit, the rule does not identify any j
criteria that should be used to make such a determination. This aspect is not addressed by any of the agency's implementing procedures. However, through the legal process, it has been established that, in those cases where the staff identifies a compliance backfit, cost need not be considered in deciding whether to impose the backfit.
Regulatory analyses are generally performed in accordance with the directives and guidance of j
NUREG/BR-0058, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission," and NUREG/CR-3568, "A Handbook of Value-Impoet Assessment," which describe the need for regulatory analyses and their preparation. NUREG/BR-0058 states that the emphasis in implementing the guidance should be on simplicity, flexibility, and ccmmon sense, in terms of the type of information supplied and the level of detail provided. Despite this guidance, the analysis is perceived by many to be burdensome and time consuming, thus creating an incentive for the staff to pursue a compliance exception argument. Rather than continue to debate the meaning of " compliance" in the generic context, the staff intends to enter into a dialogue with industry in an attempt to develop simplified analysis techniques to evaluate the values and impacts which could be applied to cases where the compliance exception is invoked. This should lead to a more comprehensive discussion of the merits of and rationale for requested actions, even for cases where compliance is appropriately justified.
Information Gathering On occasion, the staff needs to gather information from licensees to understand better the nature and extent of a potential problem. The staff has several avenues available to obtain this information. Surveys by project managers may be used for relatively simple matters in which licensees would be expected to have the information readily available. A Temporary Instruction (TI) may be used to have NRC inspection staff obtain information that is available at plant sites.
In addition, the staff has historically interacted with a broad range of standing and ad hoc industry groups to obtain needed information and resolve issues. Recently, interaction with these groups has occurred on such matters as emergency core cooling system (ECCS) recirculation capability, control rod insertion problems, gas intrusion and accumulation in the ECCS of pressurized-water reactors, and steam generator tube integrity. In meetings with the staff, the industry has encouraged this practice and has suggested that early discussion with the industry is a better way to gather information on emergent issues than issuing a generic communication. The staff agrees and will continue to increase the level of contact with the industry on matters of generic concern. Nevertheless, situations will occur where a bulletin or generic letter will be the appropriate regulatory vehicle for gathering information.
With respect to generic communications, the industry has expressed concem over the staff's practice of citing $50.54(i) when seeking information. Specifically, bulletins and generic letters routinely cite 50.54(f) as the basis for requiring a response from licensees.10 CFR 50.54(f) states, in part, that "The licensee shall.. Upon request of the Commission, submit.. written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the Commission to determine whether or not the license should be mvSed, suspended, or revoked". The industry has argued that (1) in the context of a generic communication, the NRC staff has rarely contemplated action to modify, suspend, or revoke a facility license based on licensee responses received, and (2) an
The Commissioners.
6 executive officer of a facility should not have to respond "under oath or aff.rmation" when the submittal would very likely be tretted no differently than if it had been been submitted as
" complete and accurate in all material respects" under $50.9. ' In response to industry concerns, the staff has reviewed the basis for invoking $50.54(f).
Information collection efforts that affect ten or more respondents are govemed by the Paperwork
- Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) which stipulates that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of all informatior, collections must be obtained. The law stipulates that Federal Agencies must justify to the OMB their information collection needs and provide industry-burden estimates to obtain an OMB clearance number, in this regard, the NRC has obtained blanket approval for information collections associated with 10 CFR Part 50, which
' includes the generic communications program. The OMB justification addresses generic communications that do, and do not, cite $50.54(f);Wre is no requirement to cite $50.54(f). If the NRC issues a generic communication without citing 950.54(f) to obtain information, it is credible to assume that licensees will exercise due diligence in responding in routine matters even if they are not required to respond "under oath or affirmation". Therefore, $50.54(f) should only be cited under those circumstances in which the NRC is actually contemplating the modification, suspension, or revocation of facility licenses.
The citing of $50.54(f) also imp'oses requirements on the staff. The regulation requires the preparation of the rationale for an information collection to ensure that the burden to be imposed on the respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the issue being addressed. This analysis is not required if information is sought to verify licensee compliance with the licensing basis for a facility. Nevertheless, there should be a rational basis for all information requests. This is an appropriate standard that should be applied to all generic communication information requests, even if $50.54(f) is not cited in the generic communication.
Proposed Generic Communication Products i
Based on the foregoing discussion of the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109), in the context of the generic communications program, and of the role of 10 CFR 50.54(f) in support of information gathering through generic communications, four generic communication products are contemplated, namely, bulletins, generic letters, regulatory information letters and information notices. Following are the characteristics of each generic communication product:
Bulletins Bulletins will continue t % used in much the same way as before; that is, to address significant issues that also have '
. urgency. Bulletins will now be the only generic communication j
product that may be dewgnated hi%ory 1" and, therefore, may be issued without public comment. Bulletins that request action will be reviewed against $50.109. Bulletins may request information and may require a response pursuant to $50.54(f). Bulletins will always be subject to CRGR review.
Bulletins must (i) document the chronology of the issue being addressed, and the staff's interaction with the ind9stry, as appropriate, and the circumstances that prompted the staff to 1
]
r The Commissioners 7
pursue the generic communication (i.e., the reasons why the staff is unable to fully endorse the viewpoints / positions of the industry on the issue, induttry-proposed resolution approaches, or industry-sponsored guidance documents), (ii) document the safety significance of the issue and the regulatory basis for staff action, including backfitting considerations, (iii) document the rationale for the requested actions / information that the staff finds appropriate for achieving issue resolution, and (iv) document the means by which issue closecut is to be achieved and the schedule, being mindful of the burden to be imposed on the industry and the impact on staff resources Generic Letters Generic letters will continue to request action and/or reques;information. Generic letters will address only technical issues. Generic letters will never be desigaated " Category 1." Therefore, the critical difference between bulletins and generic letters is that bulletins will be issued without public comment to address urgent issues and generic letters will always be published in the Federa/ Registerfor public comment. Generic letters that request action will be reviewed against 950.109. Generic letters that request information may not routinely invoke 950.54(f) since the safety significance of an issue addressed in a generic letter will typically not warrant citing @50.54(f). Generic letters will always be subject t> '3R review. Generic letters may not be promulgated without evidence of prio staff interactic oth the industry. The documentation and rationale for the generic letter is the same as for the bulletins.
Reaulatory Information Letters (NEW)
NRC staff must communicate with the nuclear power industry on a variety of matters that do not entail taking action or providing a written response. This functional need which was previously met by the use of some generic letters and administrative letters will be consolidated into a new type of generic communication that will be designated a "regu'atory information letter."
Regulatory information letters will be used to (1) announce staff technical or policy positions not previously communicated to the industry or not broadly understood, (2) solicit licensee participation in staff-sponsored pilot programs, on a voluntary basis, (3) solicit licensee acceptance of offers of regulatory relief, on a voluntary basis, (4) document the staffs endorsement of industry-sponsored initiatives to resolve a generic issue, and (5) address matters previously;eserved for administmtive letters. As appropriate, regulatory information letters may be reviewed bv the CRGR an.1 published in the Federal Register for public comment.
With respect to item (4), staff interaction with the industry on emergent issues may lead to industry-s nsored initiatives for their resolution that the staff can fully endorse; the objective of a regulatory information letter, then, will be to (i) document the evolution of the issue and the chronology of the staff's interaction with the industry, (ii) document staff assessments of issue safety significance and the regulatory basis, including the backfitting considerations (@50.109),
(iii) document the resolution approach agreed to between the industry and the staff, including industry initiatives and commitments, (iv) document the means by which issue closeout will be achieved (e.g., through staff evaluation of licensee responses that are submitted in accordance
1 The Commissioners 8
with the conditions of an industry-sponsored initiative and/or routine inspection followup) and the schedule, and (v) inform the public.
Information Notices Information notices will continue to be used to bring significant, recently identified matters to the attention of the nuclear industry. Recipients are expected to review the information for applicability 'to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems information notices may not convey or imply new requirements or transmit new interpretations of regulations, and may not require or request specific actions. Therefore, recipients are not required to respond to information notices. CRGR review and endorsement, a FederalRegister notice to solicit public comment, the preparation of a Commission information paper, and OMB clearance are not required for their preparation.
Process for Managing Generic Communications Once a decision has been made to proceed with the preparation of a generic communication, the process governing its development is essentially the same as it is now. This process is shown on the attached flowchart, and is applicable to bulletins, generic letters and regulatory information letters; the processing ofinformation notices will not change. Any exceptions to the process for handling a generic communication are noted in the respective discussions of the types of generic communications. Changes have been made, however, in the way generic communications (i.e., bulletins, generic letters, and regulatory information letters) are fimi proposed for development. As noted above in the Background section, the August 7,1998, memorandum from the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to senior NRR management, on the subject "Recent Changes in the Process for the Preparation of Generic Communications," notified NRR staff of the need to obtain early management support for a generic communication. Therefore, the sponsoring organization of a proposed generic communication must first brief senior NRR management to obtain their approval to proceed with the preparation of a generic communication. For those issues that are to be resolved by means of an industry-spu sored initiative, the briefing will focus on the evolution of the issue, staff interaction with the industry, and the basis for staff endorsement of the industry initiative. For those issues that do not result in mutual agreement between the industry and NRC staff on a resolution approach, the briefing will include the respective positions of the industry and the staff, the risk significance and regulatory basis of the issue, and the projected burden on both the industry and NRC staff in assessing alternative resolution strategies.
It is expected that generic communications will stem from a disciplined NRR process for the 1
identification and tracking of emergent issues to resolution, after a sponsoring organization receives the approval from senior NRR management to pursue a matter with the industry. In so doing, a proposed generic communication will be a logical extension of a known staff activity, i.e., an approved item in a NRR division operating plan, and, equally important, the need for a generic communication and the basis for it will become apparent as the staff proceeds to interact with the industry. Tracking an emergent issue will, of course, entail documenting the progress of staff interaction with the industry so that senior NRR management can make an informed decision regarding the need for a generic communication.
The Commissioners 9
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objections to its j
content.
J The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objections to its content.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer has reviewed this paper for information technology and information management implications and has no objections to its content.
1 I
GENERIC COMMUNICATION (GC) DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (FOR BULLETINS, GENERIC LETTERS AND REGULATORY INFORMATION LETTERS)
EVENTS ASSESSMENT / TRACKING OF EMERGENT ISSUES BY EVENTS ASSESSMENT AND GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH, DMSION OF REACTOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (PECB/DRPM) e COLLECT AND ASSESS FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC EVENT INFORMATION IDENTIFICATION OF EMERGENT ISSUES AND NEED FOR CONDUCT FOLLOWUP REVIEWS OF SELECTED EVENTS
(
e (N R N
S A F)
SUPPORT PECB/DRPM EVENT FOLLOWUP EFFORT IDENTIFY EMERGENT ISSUES e
NOTIFY PECB/DRPM (TRACKING)
NRR MANAGEMENT (EXECUTIVE TEAM (ET)) BRIEFED BY
- BRIEF ET( APPROVES ACTION)
NRR TECHNICAL STAFF
-INTERACT WITH INDUSTRY DOCUMENT EVOLUTION e ET ENDORSES EMERGENT ISSUES FOR STAFF ACTION IDENTIFY NEED FOR GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS e
. ET APPROVES THE PREPARATION OF GC
- NOTIFY PECB/DRPM (TRACKING)
BRIEF ET (APPROVES PREPARATION OF GC)
- 1. STAFF ENDORSESINDUSTRYINITIATIVE-REGULATORY INFORMATION LETTER
- 2. STAFF EXERCISES PREROGATIVE TO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION APPROACH (NO CONSENSUS WITH INDUSTRY PECB/DRPM FACILITATES THE PREPARATION OF GENERIC OR INDUSTRY SPONSORED INITIATIVE)-
COMMUNICATIONS (BL GL. Ril)
GENER C ER 3 p
_ BMM e CRGR REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT (INITIAL) e ACR$ BRIEFING (UPON REOUEST)
- PREPARE GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS e PUBLIC COMMENT (FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE) e CRGR REVIEW AND ENDORSEMENT (FINAL)
. COMMISSION INFORMATION PAPER
- ISSUE GENERIC COMMUNICATION i
l
)
i i_
pa nou y
2'l UNITED STATES g
,, j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
X WASHINGTON, D.C. 20 25-0001 Itrch 30,1999 Alex Marion, Director Programs Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708
SUBJECT:
NRC PAPER ON THE GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS
Dear Mr. Marion:
One of the NRC's ongoing initiatives is a review of the generic communications process, and related issues such as application of the backfit rule and citation of 10 CFR 50.54(f)in generic communications. This review was, in part, prompted by concerns raised by stakeholders, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The NRC staff has drafted a paper as a result of this review (enclosed) and intends to brief the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards on April 7,1999. The ste.ff would also be interested in NEl's views on the paper.
Please contact Jim Shapaker (301-415-1151) or John Tappert (301-415-1167) of my staff with any comments.
Sincerely, Ledyard B. Marsh, Chief Events Assessment and Generic Communications Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689
Enclosure:
as stated cc: w/ enclosure See next page l