ML20211J387
| ML20211J387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/04/1998 |
| From: | Martin T Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211J391 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9909030133 | |
| Download: ML20211J387 (5) | |
Text
.
o e
%\\
UNITED STATES p
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\****,/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 4001 August 4, 1998 CRGR SUBJECT FILE Meeting No.: 32.1 MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Execubve Director for Operations FROM:
Thomas T. Martin, Chairman g' ~,,
~
_i Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF THE CRGR MEETING NUMBER 321 The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Friday, June 10,1998, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Attachment 1 contains a list of attendees.
R. L. Spessard (NRR), R. Gallo (NRR), and S. Guenther (NRR) presented for CRGR review and endorsement the final Operator Licensing Examinations Rule (10 CFR 55). This was the first opportunity the Committee has had to review the subject rule. In earty 1997, at the staffs mquest, the Committee had deferred the review of this ru;e,T,.;&g effort at the proposed rule stage because the rulemaking approach was consistent with the Committee's initial recommendation in 1996, when it reviewed the proposed generic letter on speietor licensing examinations. CRGR review of the proposed rulemaking was deferred with the knowledge that the staff would submit for CRGR review the draft final rule after resolution of public comments.
At this' meeting, the CRGR made various comments and recommendsbons. The Committee noted that further assessments on revised estimates of additional burden on hcensees, which may need further OMB clearance, need to be addressed if the rule remains mandatory. The Committee further noted that the NUREG-1021 guidance in certain areas is essentially prescripbve, and implementmg the examinabon standards included in this document is reportedly the only acceptable way to the staff for licensets to prepare and administer the operator licensing examinations, without a point-by-point jushfication. Because the provisions of NUREG-1021 are not enforceable unless they are made a part of the regulabon or incorporated in individual licenses (inclusion in the Statement of Considersbons is not sufficient), the minimum acceptable attnbutes of the operator licensing examinabon process must be included in the rule if the staffs expectations of required adherence to the standards are to be sustained. Finally and most significantly, the Committee is concerned about the staffs position that the backfit mie does not apply to this rule. The CRGR offered the staff two altamabves: either make the provisions of the rule voluntary, as suggested by the industry, or call this acbon a backfit and retum to the Committee with appropnate jushfication. In the absence of either, the members voted that the Committee should raise the backfit-related concems to the EDO's attention. Subsequently, the staff, after a meetmg between NRR managers and CGC, with a CRGR member and the CRGR staff present as observers, decided to stay the course. Subsequently, the CRGR received a memorandum from the Associate General Counsel for Licensing and Regulation, OGC, stating that the backfit rule does not apply to this rulemaking (Attachment 2). However, in this correspondena, OGC a&icii;+1 that this rule does impose new requirements. OGC also acknowledged that it would pose no 16 gal eyevden if the staff chose the option that the backfit rule does apply to this rulemaking. On Oh 15 9909030133 980004 dM PDR REVGP MtGCRGR d[
Q M N
,L NEETING321 PDR
,h c e6 f
L'J. Callan July 21,1998, at the CRGR Meeting No. 325, the Committee, in a closed session, discussed this memorandum and the members affirmed the original decision of raising the backfit issue to the EDO's attention.
The interpretation of inapphcability of the bacidit rule to the operator licensing examinations rule does not appear to be consistent with the staff position expounded in previous CRGR reviews of similar proposed changes to the operator hcense renewal and requalification process. The Committee noted that if, as a legal matter, changes to the operator licensing examination requirements (and apphcable staff possbons) are not subject to the bacidit rule because of a new interpretation of the phrase ' required to... operate a facility," the CRGR Charter will have to a
be modified to reflect this in order to ensure consistency in future staff treatments and CRGR handhng of any proposed baciditbng schons. In a memorandum dated July 27,1998, the Committee raised its backfit related issues to your attention (Attachment 3). The Committee has concluded that the rationale for inappirability of the bacidit rule to the operator licensing examinations rule is not defensible. The staff asserts that the operator licensing examinations rule is safety-and revenue-neutral; however, the Committee notes that backfit, as defined in 50.109 (a)(1), does not mention expense - who pays or, whether or not, in the final analysis,
- the proposal causes a net change in costs. In fact, the backfit definsbon would label any new rule or interpretation of a rule that modifies or adds to "...the pieced,ures or organization required to... operate a facihty..." as a backfit. However, the staff and OGC have chosen to support a very narrow int.ipietetion of the phrase "... required to... operate a facility" to exclude potentially required changes to hcensee procedures or eigenizeilen from applicatukty of the backfit rule. For example, the new secunty requirements proposed in this rulemaking clearly require new or changed procedures. Further, the hcensees will have to have quahfied staff to do what the NRC was doing so far. OGC acknco-ps that this rule will impose new requirements. Addebonally, the staff has a weak argument that costs are not increased.given the experience with the pilots and the reported general inability of many bconsees to demonstrate that they could produce an acceptable examination without multiple itershons, the principle source of excess costs. Finally, if the operator hcensing examinations rule is not subject to the backfit rule, similar arguments could have also been apphed to other rules such as the Maintenance Rule and 10 CFR Part 20.
The CRGR supports staff efforts to reduce the agency budget through initiatives like this one.
The Committee recognizes that the operator licensing examinations rule does have ment from the regulatory efficiency perspective, and it also gives the licensees a greater control on costs.
However, absent a convincing argument in support of ineppi;c4,i;ity of the backfit rule and absent staff's arguments for apphcability of any of the exceptions of the backfit rule to this proposal (namely, as being necessary for adequate protechon, or substanbal increase in safety -
or comphance), the Committee remains convinced that the staff has not demonstrated the basis for the conclusion that 50.109 does not apply; therefore, CRGR, as constituted on the day of the review, concluded that the staff's posibon could not be sustained if challenged. Therefore, the CRGR recommends that either the implementation of the provisions of the operator hcensing examinations rule be voluntary (as a voluntary program it will not be a backfit), or the i
staff request the Commission to exempt this rule from the requirements of the backfit rule.
Details are included in Attachment 4.
1 i
1 L. J. y i On July 29,1998, the staff submitted the red-kne/ strike out version of the revoed text of the aNected sections of the rulemaking package. Based on~a review of the proposed changes by the CRGR sta# and dia-lat with the cognizant sta# in a meeting on July 30,1998, it was concluded that the staff did not address all of the Committee's concems. The CRGR endorsement is necessanly contingent upon the staff's satisfactonly resolving these issues.
Therefore, the Committee does not endorse this rule, as proposed, because it does not include in the rule the minimum acceptable attributes of the operator licensing examination process, and the arguments regardmg inapplicability of the bacidit rule are not defensible.
i Questions concoming these meebng minutes should be referred to Raji Tripathi (415-7584).
Attachments: As stated cc:
Commission (3)
SECY i
J. Lieberman, OE E. Halman, ADM H. Bell, OlG K. Cyr, OGC J. Larkins, ACRS B. Sheron, NRR H. Miller, R-I L Reyes, R-Il J. Caldwell, R-ill E. Merschoff, R-IV C. Paperiello, NMSS A. Thadani, RES S. Collins, NRR J. Lieberman, OE Distribution:
File Center (w/atts.)
PDR (NRC/CRGR)(w/o attch)
CRGR SF CRGR CF STreby WTravers JMitchell RGallo SGuenther HTovmassian RAuluck MSchwartz FCollins GUsova RSpessard DISK / DOCUMENT NAME: S:CRGRWilNUTES.321 To receive a % of this document. Indcste in the toc 'C" = Copy w/o attactanent. "E" = Copy w/anachment. 'W" = No any OFC CRGR D:AE[
NAME RTria=+hl:Je h artin DATE E / 4 198 F/ 4 /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
)
\\
1 L J. Callan On July 29,1998, the staff submitted the red-line/ strike-out version of the revised text of the j
affected sechons of the rulemaking package. Based on a review of the proposed changes by the CRGR staff and h=='m with the cognizant staff in a meeting on July 30,1998, it was concluded that the staff did not address all of the Committee's concems. The CRGR endorsement is necessanly contingent upon the staffs satisfactorily resolving these issues.
Thorofore, the Committee does not endorse this rule, as proposed, because it does not include in the rule the mamum acceptable attnbutes of the operator hoensing examination process,
)
and the arguments regarding inapphcability of the backRt rule are not defensible.
Queshons concoming these meeting minutes should be referred to Raji Tripathi (415-7584).
Attachments: As stated cc:
Commission (3)
SECY J. Lieberman, OE E. Halman, ADM H. Bell, OlG K. Cyr, OGC J. Larkins, ACRS B. Sheron, NRR H. Miller, R-l L Reyes, R-il J. Caldwell, R-ill E. Marschoff, R-IV C. Paperiello, NMSS A. Thadani, RES S. Collins, NRR J. Lieberman, OE
O
' LCRGRiMeeting';No 32' 1(Attendance List:-
TJune 10,1998 i CRGR MEMBERS NRC STAFF T. Martin R. L. Spessard, NRR B. Sheron for F. Miraglia R. Gallo, NRR J. Murphy S. Guenther, NRR W. Kane for M. Knapp H. Tovmassian, NRR D. C. Dambly R. Auluck, NRR D. Chamberlain for G. Usova, NRR.
J. Dyer, RIV (Video-Conf.)
F. Collins, NRR M. Schwartz, OGC CRGR STAFF R. Tripathi l
ATTACHMENT 1
.