ML20207D156
| ML20207D156 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Powers D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906030227 | |
| Download: ML20207D156 (10) | |
Text
=
.1 I
k p
UNITED STATES J
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS810N a.
S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20046 4 001 o
.m.
~May 26, 1999 Dr. Dana A. Powers, Chairman Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE NRC GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS
Dear Dr. Powers:
During the 461" meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, April 7-10,1999, the committee reviewed the proposed revisions to the NRC generic communications process.
Following your review, you presented a number of conclusions and recommendations regarding the revisions in a letter dated April 23,1999. This letter responds to those conclusions and recommendations.
Your first conclusion was that the committee agreed with the staff's proposal for resolving concerns associated with the present use of generic communications. I appreciate your endorsement of the proposed process improvements.
Your second conclusion was that the process for approving these generic communications is not clear from the description given in the Commission paper in that the paper did not comprehensively describe the role of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) in the process. I agree that this is important to clarify. The paper has been revised to indicate that the CRGR will be given the opportunity to review all bulletins, generic letters, and regulatory.
issue summaries (name changed from regulatory information letters) in order to provide oversight of the agency's generic communication process and also to assure that the provisions of the backfit rule are being complied with. In addition, the paper discusses how the organization sponsoring a generic communication must address the CRGR review package content requirements as discussed in the CRGR charter. The charter states that the review package must contain the following, among other things: (1) the proposed generic requirement or staff position, (2) underlying staff documents that support the requirement or position, (3) a backfit analysis as defined in 10 CFR 50.109 or a documented evaluation of the basis for
' invoking the compliance or adequate protection exemption, and (4) an assessment of how the proposed action relates to the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement.
Your third conclusion was that guidance for the decision to declare an issue " urgent" should be provided. I agree that this guidance is important to the process. The paper has been revised to indicate that the CRGR charter defines " urgent" 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 " The paper further indicates that, in practice, this means the public comment phase is omitted and the generic communication can be issued without prior CRGR review. For those generic communications issued without prior CRGR review, the proposing office is required to subsequently provide to the CRGR an h
h Y
r
+
9906030227 990526 PDR ORG NE E y p- -
y-omW%
,. < mm AC in
Dr. D. A. Powers, Chairman i evaluation of the safety significance and appropriateness of any actions taken. This requirement assures that the " urgent" classification is being appropriately applied.
3 Your fourth conclusion was that the staff should make clear that cost-benefit considerations (i.e., a limited cost-benefit analysis) will only be used as guidance on the appropriate disposition of compliance issues. The staff agrees with this characterization. The paper continues to state that the staff intends to perform a simplified value-impact analysis in those cases in which the compliance exception is invoked. Use of this simplified value-impact analysis will support better informed regulatory decisions for the disposition of compliance-based issues; for example, the decision may be to proceed with the issuance of a generic communication, revise an associated rule, or pursue an altemate regulatory action.
Your fifth conclusion was that all regulatory issue summaries (name changed from regulatory information letters) should always be reviewed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Executive Team and CRGR. I agree that this review is appropriate and the paper has been revised to reflect that CRGR will be given the opportunity to review all regulatory issue summaries.
I appreciate your involvement in our process improvement activities and value your comments.
Sincerely, y
[I William raver Executive Director 4
for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY
Dr. D. A. Powers, Chairman evaluation of the safety significance and appropriateness of any actions taken. This requirement assures that the " urgent" classification is being appropriately app!!ed.
_U Your fourth conclusion was that the staff should make clear that cost-benefit considerations (i.e., a limited cost-benefit analysis) will only be used as guidance on the appropriate disposition of compliance issues. The staff agrees with this characterization. The paper continues to state that the staff intends to perform a simplified value-impact analysis in those cases in which the compliance exception is invoked. Use of this simplified value-impact analysis will support better informed regulatory decisions for the disposition of compliance-based issues; for example, the decision may be to proceed with the issuance of a generic communication, revise an associated rule, or pursue an alternate regulatory action.
Your fifth conclusion was that all regulatory issue summaries (name changed from regulatory information letters) should always be reviewed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Executive Team and CRGR. I agree that this review is appropriate and the paper has been revised to reflect that CRGR will be given the opportunity to review all regulatory issue summaries.
I appreciate your involvemem in our process improvement activities and value your comments.
Sincerely, Original signed by Frank J. Mirng11a William D. Travers Executive Dimetor for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\ACRS-517.WPD
- See previous concurrence To receive a co )y of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE REXB: DRIP LA:REXB: DRIP C:REXB: DRIP D: DRIP NAME EBenner
- EHylton
- LMarsh* JLyons for DMatthews*
DATE 05/13/99 05/17/99 05/17/99 05/19/99 OFFICE Tech Editor N
AD: ADIP D:NRR EDO.,.n OCA NAME RSanders
- WKane* ouattnews for SCollins'
, bTra DATE 05/13/99 05/19/99 05/20/99
/h9
/
/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
t-DISTRIBUTION FOR GREEN TICKET NO.' 19990213 Central File (w/originalincoming)
PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
EDO #19990213 EDO Reading ACRS R/F W. Travers
' F. Miraglia M. Knapp P. Norry J. Blaha S. Burns A. Thadani J. Mitchell S. Collins /R. Zimmerman W. Kane B. Sheron REXB R/F (w/ incoming)
L. Marsh OGC OPA OCA SECY # CRC-99-0389 NRR Mail Room (EDO# G19990213 w/ incoming) (O/5E7)
N. Olson M. Manahan E. Benner (w/ incoming)
E. Hylton
Dr. D. A. Powers, Chairman,
evaluation of the safety significance and appropriateness of any actions taken. This requirement assures that the " urgent" classification is being appropriately applied.
Your fourth conclusion was that the staff should make clear that cost-benefit considerations (i.e.,
a limited cost-benefit analysis) will only be used as guidance on the appropriate disposition of compliance issues. The staff agrees with this characterization. The paper continues to state that the staff intends to perform a simplified value-impact analysis in those cases in which the compliance exception is invoked. Use of this simplified value-impact analysis will support better informed regulatory decisions for the disposition of compliance-based issues; for example, the decision may be to proceed with the issuance of a generic communication, revise an associated rule, or pursue an alternate regulatory action.
q l
Your fifth conclusion was that all regulatory issue summaries (name changed from regulatory l
information letters) should always be reviewed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Executive Team and CRGR. I agree that this review is appropriate and the paper has been I
revised to reflect that all regulatory issue summaries will receive this high level of review.
I I appreciate your involvement in our process improvement activities and value your comments.
Sincerely, l
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson i
Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\ACRS-517.WPD
- See previous concurrence To receive a copy of this document. Indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment /enclosyge N = No copy C:REWS:[ RIP h/.
)
OFFICE REXB: DRIP LA:REXB: DRIP D: DRIP NAME EBenner
- Ehylton
- l LMarsfy\\
D_Matthebs DATE 05/13/99 05/17/99
/ / /99 h / i/99
unium m
==== -
= emies i
_mi k
/
OFFICE Tech Editor N
AD: ADIP
]
D:Jd[h EDO f
NAME RSanders
- WKane k
nj s
WTravers h /\\ \\/99 h 9Y
\\
0 DATE 05/13/99
(
/
/99
/
/99
/99 OFFICIAL RD COPY
Dr. D. A. Powers, Chairman.
evaluation of the safety significance and appropriateness of any actions taken. This requirement assures that the " urgent" classification is being appropriately applied.
Your fourth conclusion was that the staff should make clear that cost-benefit considerations (i.e., a limited cost-benefit analysis) will only be used as guidance on the appropriate disposition of compliance issues. The staff agrees with the characterization. It was never the staff's intent for the cost-benefit analysis to be applied to adequate protection issues. The paper continues to state that the staff intends to perform a simplified value-impact analysis in those cases in which the compliance exception is invoked; however, the paper has been revised to state that adequate protection backfits will continue to be imposed regardless of the associated impacts, as required by the backfit rule.
Your fifth conclusion was that all regulatory issue summaries (name changed from regulatory information letters) should always be reviewed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Executive Team and CRGR. I agree that this review is appropriate and the paper has been revised to reflect that all regulatory issue summaries will receive this high level of review.
I appreciate your involvement in our process improvement activities and value your comments.
Sincerely, i
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DOCUMENT NAME: A:\\ACRS.WPD
- See previous concurrence To rtceive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE REXB: DRIP LA REXB: DRIP C:REXB: DRIP D: DRIP NAME EBenner
- EHylton bMN LMarsh DMatthews DATE 5/13/99 5 /11/99
/
/99
/
/99 OFFICE Tech Editor N
AD: ADIP D:NRR EDO OCA NAME RSanders
- WKane SCollins WTravers
'DATE 05/13/99
/
/99
/- /99
/
/99
/
/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Executive Director for Operations e
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner Megaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DOCUMENT NAME: P:%CRS.WPD T@ receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE REXB: DRIP LA:REXB: DRIP C:REXB: DRIP D: DRIP NAME EBenner EHylton LMarsh DMatthews DATE
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99 mummmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmmme unum
- --:- = -- = = -
namin
---- :
==
== -
a massa
-== -- =
mum OFFICE Tech Editor N
AD: ADIP D:NRR EDO OCA NAME MO WKane SCollins WTravers DATE N99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Dr. D. A. Powers, Chairman.
Your fourth conclusion was that the staff should make clear that cost-benefit considerations (i.e., a limited cost-benefit analysis) will only be used as guidance on the appropriate disposition of compliance issues. The staff agrees with the characterization. It was never the staff's intent for the cost-benefit analysis to be applied to adequate protection issues. The paper continues to state that the staff intends to perform a simplified value-impact analysis in those cases where the compliance exception is invoked, however, the paper has been revised to state that adequate protection backfits will continue to be imposed regardless of the associated impacts as required by the backfit rule.
Your fifth conclusion was that all Regulatory issue Summaries (name changed from Regulatory information Letters) should be reviewed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Executive Team and CRGR always. I agree that this review is appropriate and the paper has been revised to reflect that all Regulatory issue Summaries will receive this level of review.
I appreciate your involvement in our process improvement activities and value your comments.
Sincerely, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner Megaffigan Commissioner Merrifield SECY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\EJB1\\BACKFIT\\ACRS.WPD To r:ccive a copy of this document indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE REXB: DRIP
... LA:REXB: DRIP C:REXB: DRIP D: DRIP NAME EBenner 6/l3)
EHylton LMarsh DMatthews DATE
, / $99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99
==
suma = = = = =
- ===
e =i!!iisii - - -
e OFFICE Tech Editor AD: ADIP D:NRR EDO OCA NAME WKane SCollins WTravers DATE
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99
/ /99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l
W
l b
k? f
~
(
f@/2YM onu w m'!$
AN y a g g k,p: d
- r. 4.
J 7
sL YY EDO Principal Correspondence Control FROM:
DUE:.D5/24/99 EDO CONTROL: Gl9990213 DOC DT: 04/23/99 FINAL REPLY:
Dana A. Powers, ACRS TO:
Travers, EDO FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO:
Travers, EDO DESC:
ROUTING:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE NRC GENERIC Travers COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS Knapp Miraglia Norry Blaha Burns DATE: 04/26/99 Thadani, RES Mitchell, OEDO ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
ACRS File
_NRR_
Colling SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
Prepare response to ACRS for EDO signature.
Add Commissioners and SECY as cc's.
USE SUBJECT LINE IN RESPONSE.
NRR ACTION: DRIP:MATTHEWS NRR RECEIVED: April 27, 1999 NRR ROUTING:
Collins /Zimmerman
~
~'
Kane ACTION Sheron NRR Mailroom DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFICE BY T//'//77
[
~/
a nau o
UNITED STATES f
~,1, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,E ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS O
WASWNGTON. D. C. 20555 April 23,1999 Dr. William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations B
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 0
Dear Dr. Travers:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE NRC GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS 1
During the 461st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, April 7-10,1999, we reviewed the proposed revisions to the NRC generic communications process. During our review, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and the documents referenced.
DISCUSSIOR There are four basic types of generic communications currently in use: (1) bulletins (BLs); (2) generic letters (GLs); (3) information notices (ins); and (4) administrative letters (ALs). The industry and the members of the U.S. Senate have expressed concerns regarding the staffs use of BLs and GLs. The industry argued that the differences in regulatory requirements of these generic communications were not clearly differentiated, and although the NRC has adopted a policy that BLs and GLs be subject to the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, the staff has often inappropriately invoked the compliance exemption of the rule in its requests for licensees' actions. Therefore, recipients of BLs and GLs feel obligated to respond and act on the actions requested. The industry expressed the need for the staff to clearly differentiate the differences between BLs and GLs, and to ensure appropriate consideration of the backfit rule requirements.
In addition, a number of BLs and GLs have invoked 10 CFR 50.54(f) to require licensees to submit information under oath or affirmation that is necessary to enable the Commission to determine whether to " modify, suspend, or revoke" a license. In fact, few of these generic communications have involved potential modification, suspension, or revocation of a license. The staff and the industry agree that the use of 10 CFR 50.54(f) should be restricted.
In responding to these concems, the staff has proposed approaches to better define and specify requirements associated with BLs and GLs. The staff also has proposed to use the regulatory information letter (RIL) as a new generic communication tool.
4 9
EDO --Gl9990213 710 YttmLOTP NY
g 2
s CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
[1.
We agree with the staff's proposal for resolving concerm associated with the present use of generic communications. The benefits of this proposalinclude the following:
Reduction in the potential use of generic communications to impose regulatory requirements.
Assurance of appropriate consideration of the backfit rule and the associated compliance exemption.
Restriction of the use of 10 CFR 50.54(f) to cases in which the Commission is actually contemplating modification, suspension, or revocation of a license.
g Implementation of a more uniform process across the agency for the use of generic communications.
2.
The process for approving these generic communications is not clear from the description included in the draft Commission paper. Neither the generic communication development process discussed in the paper nor the flow chart presented by the staff at our meeting comprehensibly described the role of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR)in the process.
3.
Guidance for the decision to declare an issue " urgent" should be provided.
4.
The staff stated that a limited cost-benefit analysis would be performed, even for cases in which the initial screening indicated that an exemption to the backfit rule was justified. An adequate justification for the limited cost-benefit analysis has not been provided. The staff should make clear that such cost-benefit considerations will only be used as guidance on the appropriate disposition of compliance issues.
/.
5 In the draft Commission paper, the staff proposes that Rits be reviewed by CRGR "as appropriate." Because RILs can be used to announce the staff's technical or policy positions, we recommend that the paper be revised to require that all Rlls be reviewed by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Executive Team and CRGR.
We commend the staff for its earty interaction with the industry and its efforts to resolve the concerns associated with the generic communications process.
Sincerely, e
Dana A. Powers Chairman e
, {-
3
References:
1.
The 105* Congress, U.S. Senate, Report 105-206 dated June 5,1998,
Subject:
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill,1999.
2.
Letter dated August 11,1998, from Joe F. Colvin, Nuclear Energy Institute, to Shirley A.
Jackson, Chairman, NRC, regarding the July 17, 1998 NRC Public Meeting on Stakeholders' Concerns.
3.
Memorandum dated March 3,1999, from Robert L. Dennig, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to John Larkins, ACRS,
Subject:
ACRS Review of Draft Commission Paper on Generic Communication Process.
i i
i
fl ; g.
- l. e,;
OFFICE OF.THE SECRETARY
!i CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET 1 A PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-99-0389-LOGGING DATE: Apr 26 99 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
DANA POWERS
. AFFILIATION:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON' REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
. ADDRESSEE:
TRAVERS,. EDO
' LETTER DATE:
Apr 23 99, FILE CODE: O&M 7 ACRS
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED' REVISION TO THE NRC GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS ACTION:
Appropriate DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE-CONSTITUENT:
i NOTES:
1 DATE DUE:
1 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
v.