ML20217F049
| ML20217F049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1998 |
| From: | Martin T Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Byrne S SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804280039 | |
| Download: ML20217F049 (13) | |
Text
e s ua [ O Vt W
/ % UNITED STATES N~8 4
g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'# WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001
- 4. , o April 16,1998 Mr. Steve Byme General Manager Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 29065
Dear Mr. Byme:
I would like to thank you for accepting our request that the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) visit with the management and staff of the Virgil C. Summer plant on May 7,1998. You should note that this visit is not an inspection; rather, it is an informal exchange of views on the role that backfit management plays in the regulatory process.
We would propose that our one-day visit include meetings with plant management and an operating crew, and some time for follow-up remarks. Our intent in speaking to members of an operating crew (perhaps a crew that is going through a training session)is to obtain their views on the impact of generic communications on the performance of their licensed duties.
Enclosure 1 provides a preliminary agenda. Enclosure 2 provides a list of potential discussion questions relating to the evaluation and implementation of new generic requirements. The questions in Enclosure 2 are simply illustrative of subjects that are of interest to the CRGR, and do not constitute a request to you for a written reply. Let me know if you would like to add some items to this preliminary agenda. Enclosure 3 provides a summary of recent CRGR activities in reviewing new generic requirements. Enclosure 4 provides a list of attendees. Enclosure 5 contains the CRGR Charter, Revision 6.
Please refer any questions to me (301-415-7472), or Dr. Raji Tripathi of the CRGR staff on (301) 415-7584.
Sincerely, Thomas T. Martin, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures: See next page
\ \
0 me y,g m bm M (tal(c.q q g i R6vWtsL & v 63 -
.. 9804280039 980416 PDR ADOCK 05000395
.P PDR l
April 16,1998
- Mr. Steve Byme General Manager Operations South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 83 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 20065
Dear Mr. Byrne:
I would like to thank you for accepting our request that the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) visit with the management and staff of the Virgil C. Summer plant on May 7,1998. You should note that this visit is not an inspection; rather, it is an informal exchange of views on the role that backfit management plays in the regulatory process.
We would propose that our one-day visit include meetings with plant management and an operating crew, and some time for follow-up remarks. Our intent in speaking to members of an operating crew (perhaps a crew that is going through a training session) is to obtain their views on the impact of generic communications on the performance of tieir licensed duties.
Enclosure 1 provides a preliminary agenda. Enclosure 2 provides a list of potential discussion questions relating to the evaluation and implementation of new generic requirements. The questions in Enclosure 2 are simply illustrative of subjects that are of interest to the CRGR, and do not constitute a request to you for a written reply. Let me know if you would like to add some items to this preliminary agenda. Enclosure 3 provides a summary of recent CRGR activities in reviewing new generic requirements. Enclosure 4 provides a list of attendees.
Enclosure 5 contains the CRGR Charter, Revision 6.
Please refer any questions to me (301-415-7472), or Dr. Raji Tripathi of the CRGR staff on (301) 415-7584.
Sincerely, Original signed by T. T. Martin Thomas T. Martin, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements I
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enclosures: See next page Distnbution-CRGR Members CRGR CF CRGR SF Public LReyes, Rll SCollins AThadani RTripathi RZimmerman MPadovan BBonser TFamholtz DOCUMENTNAME: S:\CRGR\SUMVISl 598 Ta receive a copy of this document, Indicate in x: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE AEON /CRGR- C:QRGR NAME RTripathi #7 Tidartin DATE 1//d98 P/$98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY t
O S. Byrne cc:
Gary J. Taylor, Vice President, Nuclear Operations
]
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 29065 April Rice, Licensing Manager South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Post Office Box 88 Jenkinsville, South Carolina 29065 cc w/o Enclosure 5:
S. Collins, NRR L. Reyes, R-IV 1 l
1 l
j
PRELIMINARY AGENDA CRGR Visit to Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Plant May 7,1998 INOTE: ORDER OF EVENTS AND TIME ALLOCATIONS MAY CHANGE 1 THURSDAY - May 7,1998 l l
8:00 a.m. - 8:15 a.m. Arrival at Summer Plant Site & Badging Process 8:15 a.m. - 10:45 a.m.
- Discussions with South Carolina Electric & Gas Company Management General review of the backfit process and the role of CRGR; discussion of recent backfits (either generic or plant-specific) and their impact on the plant.
l 10:45 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Discussion with Operators 11:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m. Lunch ;
12:45 p.m. - 2:45 p.m. Plant Tour j 2:45 p.m. - 4:45 p.m. Discussions with South Carolina Electric & Gas Company I Management (cont.)
4:45 p.m. - Wrap-up l
ENCLOSURE 1
I QUESTIONS FOR POSSIBLE DISCUSSION CRGR VISIT TO VIRGIL C. SUMMER PLANT May 7,1998 A. Evaluation of Recently issued Generic Requirements
- 1. Have you had any difficulty in understanding documents (e.g., bulletins or generic letters) that transmit new or changed generic requirements / positions? i 1
(a) Has NRC applied the new requirements / positions appropriately in )
accordance with your understanding of them? 1 i (b) Cite examples of any specific difficulties.
i i
- 2. Generally, do you agree with the need for the new requirements / positions that have been transmitted over the past couple of years? Has implementation of the new requirements / positions improved safety (significantly, some, not at all) at !
your plant? Has any of these adversely affected safety in any instance in your l judgment? Which have not improved safety or have not been technically i justifed?
- 3. Did you send feedback to NRC on any difficulties encountered?
(a) In your view, are there appropriate mechanisms for such feedback?
(b) Would you have any reluctance to use such mechanisms? l
- 4. What has been your experiences with and what are your comments on the following:
l (a) Generic Letter (and Supplement) on Thermo-Lag fire barriers )
(b) Supplements 1-6 to Generic Letter 89-10 regarding motor-operated valves l
Supplement 4 to Generic Letter 88-20 regarding individual plant l (c) examinations for external events (IPEEE)
(d) Generic Letter 91-07 regarding reactor coolant pump seal failures and the potential impact on station blackout (e) Information Notice 93-17 regarding design to accommodate ;
LOCA/ delayed LOOP )
l ENCLOSURE 2 I
~
i l
(f) Generic Letter 92-01, Revision, Supplement 1, conceming reactor pressure vessel integrity, and the recently issued RAls (g) Bulletin 96-02 on movement of heavy loads (h) Generic Letter xx-xx, " Degradation of Control Rod Drive Mechanisms and Other Vessel Head Penetratior.s." What is your experience? Is Summer vulnerable?
(1) General regulatory guide and standard review plan on risk-informed regulations (recently published for comments), as well as application-specific risk-informed guidance documents, namely, regulatory guide and standard review plan on in-service testing; regulatory guide and standard review plan on technical specifications; regulatory guide on graded quality assurance; and regulatory guide and standard review plan on in-service inspections (j) Generic Letter xx-xx, " Potential for Degradation of Emergency Core Cooling System and Containment Spray Systems Following a Loss-of-Coolant Accident Due to Construction Deficiencies and Foreign Material Inside the Containment,"(recently published for comments)
(k) Generic Letter 97-04, " Assurance of Sufficient Net Positive Suction Head for Emergency Core Cooling and Containment Heat Removal Pumps" (I) Proposed generic letter xx-xx, " Loss of Reactor Coolant inventory and Associated Potential for Loss of Emergency Mitigation Functions While in a Shutdown Condition" (m) Proposed Generic Letter xx-xx, " Year 2000 Readiness of Computer Systems at Nuclear Power Plants," (recently issued for comments)
(n) The proposed amendments of 10 CFR 50.55(a), " Codes and Standards,"
to revise the requirements for construction, inservice inspection and inservice testing of nuclear power plant components (recently published for comments)
(o) 50.54(f) Generic Letter on Design Basis Information (p) Maintenance Rule (q) Procurement and dedication of commercial grade items for safety applications B. What has been the impact of the new requirements / positions that have been transmitted over the past two years or so; specifically:
'd
- 1. What is your tally of the actual cost of implementing new NRC requirements?
(For example, what has been the actual costs of implementing specific new requirements / positions; and what has been the total cost of all backfits over a specific period?)
- 2. What is your view of the accuracy of NRC cost estimates?
- 3. Have any new NRC requirements / positions delayed or otherwise adversely affected intended improvements identified and undertaken solely on your initiative? Were any of your initiatives considered to be of higher priority than new NRC requirements / positions? Were any of higher safety importance?
C. How is NRC's backfit control process working in your view, specifically:
- 1. The CRGR review process for generic requirements?
- 2. NRC process for plant-specific backfits?
D. With regard to plant modifications / upgrades initiated by you (not resulting from new NRC generic requirements):
- 1. What were the most important/ effective actions you have taken to improve performance (e.g., significant capital improvement items in the plant; significant increases in operating budget / personnel / training etc.)?
- 2. Have new NRC generic requirements / positions helped or adversely impacted your ability to improve performance?
- 3. Have NRC feedback documents (information notices, AEOD case studies, etc.)
helped in a meaningful and specific way to improve plant performance?
E. NRC has placed an emphasis on the use of specific assessments to identify and characterize potential sources of increased risk. These include PRA studies such as
. NUREG-1150, individual plant examinations, specific containment reviews and severe accident studies. What comments would you offer on the benefits, costs, efficiency, impacts, knowledge, insights and values that are associated with these assessments?
F. Some of the comments received in the NRC's regulatory impact survey indicate that too
. many new requirements / positions are being issued (e.g., generic letters). Do you agree with this assessment? If so, are there far too many? Which new requirements / positions do you believe should have been withheld or postponed significantly?
G. Do you believe that any new positions or requested actions contained in generic letters and bulletins you have received from NRC ought to have been processed as new rules instead? Which ones? Please explain.
l 1
i l-H. Do the generic issuances generally explain the safety problem being addressed so that you can understand the motive behind the issuance?
l r
l t
p
[-
l t
j l
l l
l I
l 1
1 l
l
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS Generic requirements and positions proposed by the NRC staff for one or more classes of reactors are reviewed by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). The Committee is made up of senior NRC managers who review such proposals and advise the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) as to whether or not the requirement or position should be issued.
The current membership of the CRGR is as follows:
Thomas T. Martin (Chairman), Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
. William F. Kane (substituting for Malcolm R. Knapp), Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Special Assistant to the Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Dennis C. Dambly, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Materials, Anti-trust and Special Proceedings Office of the General Counsel James E. Dyer, Deputy Regional Administrator Region IV in making its evaluations of proposed requirements, the CRGR seeks assurance that a proposed requirement (1) is necessary for the public health and safety, (2) is needed for compliance with existing requirements or written licensee commitments, or (3) will provide a substantial improvement in public safety or security and to have a cost impact on the public, industry and govemment which is consistent with and justified by the improvement to be realized.
Since its inception in November 1981 through March 1998, the CRGR has held 318 meetings and taken up a couple of thousand separate issues. In the past year-and-a-half, the CRGR has considered the following items:
- Proposed Safety Evaluation Report on WCAP-14416-P related to credit for soluble boron.
Briefing on source term options - a Commission paper ENCLOSURE 3
Proposed steam generator rule and the associated regulatory guide a
Briefing on five proposed guidance documents on PRA applications - regulatory guides and standard review plans on risk-informed regulations Proposed general regulatory guide on PRA applications a
Proposed standard review plan on PRA applications a
Briefing on Proposed rule on shutdown and low power operations Briefing on historic perspectives of in-service inspections Proposed generic letter on effectiveness of ultrasonic testing systems in in-service inspections programs Proposed generic letter on steam generator tube inspection techniques Proposed generic letter on steam generator intemal degradation PRA application guidance documents - regulatory guide and standard review plan on in-service PRA application guidance documents - regulatory guide and standard review plan on -
technical specifications PRA application guidance document - regulatory guide on graded quality assurance a
Proposed generic letter on assurance of sufficient NPSH for emergency core cooling and containment heat removal pumps I
Proposed generic letter on modification of the staffs recommendations for the post-accident sampling system Proposed generic letter on degradation of control rod drive mechanism and other vessel head penetrations Proposed Revision 2 to regulatory guide 1.160 endorsing NUMARC 93-01, Revision 2,
" Industry Guideline for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants" Proposed generic letter on potential for degradation of the emergency core cooling system recirculation due to construction deficiencies and foreign material in the containment following a loss-of-coolant accident Revised generic letter and standard review plan on risk-informed regulations
Revised application-specific risk-informed guidance documents regulatory guide and standard review plan on in-service testing 1 regulatory guide and standard review plan on technical specifications regulatory guide on graded quality assurance
- Proposed Supplement i to Bulletin 96-01, " Control Rod Insertion Problems" 1
Proposed generic letter on potential for degradation of emergency core cooling and ,
safety-related containment spray systems following a loss-of-coolant accident due to construction deficiencies and foreign material inside the containment Briefing on the status and schedule of the proposed 10 CFR 50.67, " Shutdown Operations and Operations involving Fuel Storage Pools at Nuclear Power Plants" Review of proposed 10 CFR 50.67, " Shutdown Operations and Operations involving Fuel Storage Pools at Nuclear Power Plants" Proposed generic letter on problems with medium-voltage circuit breakers
- Draft stanbard review plan Chapter 7, " Instrumentation and Controls," Update
- Safety Evaluation Report on EPRI Topical Report, " Guideline on Evaluation and Acceptance of Commercial Grade Digital Equipment for Nuclear safety Applications,"
EPRI-TR-106439
-* Six proposed regulatory guides (1,168-1.173) for computer software to be used in safety systems of nuclear power plants
- AEOD briefing on operational experience related to primary system leaks Revised application-specific risk-informed guidance document regulatory guide and standard review plan on in-service inspections
- Proposed final Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 5.44, " Perimeter intrusion Alarm Systems" a' Proposed generic letter on steam generator tube inspection techniques l
4 Proposed revision to Generic Letter 91-18, "Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions,"
and briefing on the scope and schedule of related efforts Proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.55(a), " Codes and Standards" Proposed generic letter on laboratory testing of the nuclear-grade activated charcoal Briefing on the Proposed safety Evaluation of the Joint Owners' Group Program on Periodic Verification of Motor-Operated Valves Briefing on " Event Reporting Guidelines,10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73," NUREG-1022, Revision 1.
Proposed Generic Letter on augmented inspection of pressurized-water reactor Class-1 high-pressure safety injection piping Revised general regulatory guide and standard review plan for risk-informed regulation Proposed generic letter on Year-2000 readiness of computer systems in nuclear power plants Requests for additional information conceming generic letter 92-01, Revision 1, Supplement 1 - also subject of the February 1998 NRC-Industry workshop on the subject.
Proposed generic letter on degradation of emergency core cooling system and containment spray system after a LOCA because of construction and protective coating deficiencies and foreign materialin the containment Proposed generic letter titled, ' Loss of Reactor Coolant Inventory and Associated Potential for loss of Emergency Mitigation Functions While in a Shutdown Condition" Briefing on the historic perspectives and backfit aspects of the proposed final Fitness For Duty Rule (10 CFR 26). A full-scope CRGR review will be scheduled at a later date.
Proposed generic letter on guidance on the storage, preservation, and safekeeping of quality assurance records in electronic media
- . Briefing on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.65, " Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants' a
~
LIST OF ATTENDEES Thomas T. Martin (Chairman), Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data Frank J. Miraglia, Jr., Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation William F. Kane, Acting Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Denwood F. Ross, Jr., Special Assistant to the Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research Dennis C. Dambly, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Materials, Anti-trust and Special Proceedings Office of the General Counse!
James E. Dyer, Deputy Regional Administrator Region IV Raji Tripathi, Senior Program Manager CRGR Staff Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data ENCLOSURE 4
pa cto e 'a UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006M001
\..../ April 19, 1996 T0: ALL LICENSEES OF OPERATING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS AND FUEL FACILITIES
SUBJECT:
REVISED CHARTER FOR THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS (CRGR)
The Commission has recently approved a revised Charter for the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). Because of the substantive nature of some of the changes, this revision is being comunicated to all licensees in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Charter.
The CRGR has the responsibility to review and recomend 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 NRC staff proposals to increase, change or reduce existing requirements or positions. The objectives of the CRGR process are to eliminate or remove any unnecessary burdens placed on licensees, reduce the exposure of workers to radiation in implementing 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 NRC staff positions. The CRGR is chaired by me as the Director of the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00) and has a representative from each of the Offices of the General Counsel, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Research and (on a rotational basis) one of the Regions. The CRGR's purpose, scope, membership, operating procedures, and reporting requirements are described in detail in the Charter.
The recent revisions to the Charter approved by the Comission:
(I) Incorporate guidance reflecting the Commission's understanding of the
" substantial increase" standard of the backfit rule, specifically with regard to consideration of qualitative factors in the justification of proposed backfit; (2) Expand the CRGR review scope, on a trial basis, to include selected items in the nuclear materials area; (3) Reflect the recent approval by the Comission of the new Regulatory l Analysis Guidelines document, Revision 2 to NUREG/BR-0058; i (4) Include other modifications of a lesser nature, reflecting changes in staff practices made subsequent to the last Charter revision that are already being implemented; these include:
ENCLOSURE 5 Wes9fsf / W.A <
j
e a new instruction that changes to reporting requirements, such as those contained in 10 CFR 50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73, should be justified by evaluation agei;ist criteria similar to those in 10 CFR 50.54(f).
e a specific procedure for CRGR review of immediately effective actions promptly after they are issued.
e a new instruction that CRGR review packages should include the staff's evaluation of public comments (in order to make the handling of coments more apparent to the public).
e a confirmation that CRGR review is not necessary in standard plant reviews conducted under 10 CFR Part 52.
e a change in the reference provided for the companion document (Handbook) to the new Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, i.e., draft NUREG/BR-0184 instead of NUREG/CR-3568. The draft NUREG has been developed in parallel with the new Guidelines and is considered by the cognizant group in Research to be the more appropriate reference that contains the most current information to supplement the guidance provided in the new Guidelines document.
If you have any questions concerning CRGR, please contact me or my staff.
Information about application or specific NRC requirements for a particular facility will continue to be provided through the NRR project manager for that facility or through the appropriate NRC Regional Office.
Sincerely, 7 gn o an, Chairman Edward .
Comittee to Review Generic Requirkne ts
Enclosure:
CRGR Charter l
CHARTER COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS Revision 6 April 1996 i
4 l
l
^
'f60$u OO(/8'$ %(ffs
Revision 6 April 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS EASE I. Purpose ................................................. 1 II. Membership .............................................. 3 III. CRGR Scope .............................................. 4 IV. CRGR Operating Procedures ............................... 8 V. Reporting Requirements .................................. 20 Attachment 1: New Generic Requirement and Staff Position Review Process Attachment 2: Procedures to Control Communication of Generic Requirements and Staff Positions to Licensees Attachment 3: Guidance on Application of the " Substantial Increase Standard" 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)
REVISION 4 APPROVED BY THE EDO (MEMO TO COMMISSIONERS, APRIL 6, 1987)
REVISION 5 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION (SECY MEMO DTD MARCH 8, 1991)
REVISION 6 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION (SRM-SECY-96-032, MARCH 22, 1996) 1 i
l
Revision 6 April 1996 I. PURPOSE The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has the responsibility to review and recommend to the Executive Director for Operations (EDC) approval or disapproval of requirements or staff positions to be imposed by the NRC staff on one or more classes of power reactors. In addition, on a one-year trial basis, the Committee will review selected nuclear materials items at the recommendation of the Director, NMSS or at the ED0's request. The CRGR review applies to staff proposals of requirements or positions which reduce existing I requirements or positions and proposals which increase or change requirements.
The implementation of this responsibility shall be conducted in such a manner so as to assure that, for power reactors, 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. For proposed actions pertaining specifically to nuclear materials related activities, implementation shall assure that proposed new generic requirements and staff positions are justified by appropriate regulatory analyses in accordance with the NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines (NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2). 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 I 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 review 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 requirements and positions to be issued (a) do in fact contribute effectively and significantly to the health and safety of the public, and (b) do lead to utilization of both NRC and licensee resources in as optimal a fashion as possible in the overall
' See Attachment 1.
1
Revision 6
- April 1996 achievement of protection of public health and safety. By having the Committee submit recommendations directly to the EDO, a single agency-wide point of control will be provided.
The CRGR will focus primarily on proposed new requirements and staff positions,z 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, (a) for power reactors, that the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, 50.54(f), and 10 CFR 2.204, are appropriately addressed by the staff proposal; or (b) for nuclear materials related activities, that the applicable provisions of the NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines are addressed by the staff proposal. The CRGR shall submit to the EDO a statement of its recommendations in accordance with IV.D below.
Tools used by the CRGR for scrutiny are expected to include cost-benefit analysis and probabilistic risk assessment where the potential safety consequences warrant its use, sufficient data are availalbe, and the licensees can reasonably be expected to be capable of performing such analyses.
Therefore, to the extent possible, 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 quantifiable safety significance, or readily-demonstrated significant safety benefit based on straightforward and compelling qualitative considerations. These requirements are to be distinguished from those proposed requirements and staff positions not amenable to quantification and for which more arguable, tentative or indirect 2
See Attachment 2.
2
e Revision 6 April 1996 qualitative judgments must be deciding factors.3 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 l with supporting reasons for the proposed exemption.
II. MEMBERSHIP This Committee shall be chaired by the Director, AE00, and it shall consist i of, in addition to the CRGR Chairman, one individual each from NRR, NMSS, the Regions (on a rotational basis), 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 sclected from one of the regional offices, and this assignment shall be on a rotational basis, with a 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 process. The CRGR Chairman is also responsible for assuring that each licensee is informed of the existence and structure of the NRC program 3
See Attachment 3 for guidance regarding consideration of such qualitative factors in determining whether there is a substantial increase.
3
Revision 6 April 1996 -
described in this Charter. The CRGR Chairman shall assure that substantive changes in the Charter are communicated to all licensees.
AE00 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.
III. CRGR SCOPE A. The CRGR shall consider all proposed new or amended generic requirements and staff positions to be imposed' by the NRC staff on one or more classes of power reactors.' These include:
(1) 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 conformance is required, for example, by a rule or an order. Documents such 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 However, involvement of the CRGR in standard plant reviews being conducted under 10 CFR Part 52 is not necessary because the Commission and the ED0's office have participated closely in those reviews.
(Memorandum for the Chairman and Commissioners from J. M. Taylor, dated Detober 24, 1991,
Subject:
Deviation from CRGR Charter for Standard Plant Reviews.)
4
- m. . _.
Revision 6 April 1996 as to affect requirements or staff positions applicable to reactor licensees, including information required of reactor licensees or applicants for reactor licenses or construction permits.
(ii) All staff papers proposing new or revised rules of the type described in paragraph (1), including Advance Notices.
(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; all multiplant orders, show cause orders, and 50.54(f) letters; all bulletins and circulars; all USI NUREGs; and all new or revised Standard Technical Specifications.
In addition, the Committee will review selected nuclear material issues and proposed new materials-related requirements and staff positions at the recommendation of the Director, NMSS or at the ED0's request.
All staff-proposed generic information requests directed to power reactor licensees, or related to the selected nuclear materials items referred to herein, will be examined by the CRGR in accordance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.54(f). Except for information sought to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis for a facility, the staff must prepare the reason or reasons for each information request prior to issuance to ensure that the burden to be imposed on respondents is justified in view of the 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 may be granted by the Office Director only if the staff seeks information of a type routinely sought as part of the standard procedures applicable to the 5
Revision 6 .
April 1996 review of applications. If a request seeks to gather information to verify licensee compliance with the current licensing basis, the staff must identify explicitly in the request the requirement (s) (e.g.,
Commission regulation, license condition, order) or written licensee commitment (s), for which the staff wishes to verify compliance. If a request seeks to gather information pursuant to development of a new staff position, then the exception does not apply and the reasons for the request must be prepared and approvad prior to issuance of the request. When staff evaluations of the necessity for a request are required, the evaluation shall include at least the elements specified in IV.B(xi).
B. For power reactors, the CRGR shall consider all licenses, license amendments, approvals of Preliminary Design Approvals (PDAs) and Final j Design Approval (FDAs), minutes of conferences with owners groups, licensees or vendors, staff approval of topical reports, and all other j documents, letters or communications of a generic. nature which reflect l or interpret NRC staff positions, unless such documents refer only to requirements or 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 (1) positions or interpretations which are contained in regulations,
! policy statements, regulatory guides, the Standard Review Plan, branch technical positions, generic letters, orders, topical
' See footnote 5.
6
Revision 6 April 1996 report approvals, PDAs, FDAs, licenses and license amendments which have been promulgated prior to November 12, 1981.7 (ii) positions after November 12, 1981 which have been approved through this established generic review process.
1 i
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 l 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 such an action. Use of this provision l should normally be reserved for circumstances that pose an,immediate or imminent threat to adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Generally, the CRGR should review immediately effective actions promptly after issuance; the review should focus primarily on the appropriateness of treating the action on an urgent basis and on identification of any issues requiring EDO attention. The staff need not provide a written j CRGR review package but should be prepared to address, at the meeting, I the appropriate items from Section IV.B of this Charter. Immediately !
effective actions will be included in the CRGR monthly report to the Commission.
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.
7 Any document or communication of this type shall cite and accurately state the position as reflected in a previously promulgated regulation, order, Regulatory Guide, SRP, etc.
7
Revision 6
- April 1996 Category I requirements 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 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 or ACNW.
F. The CRGR may be consulted on any issue deemed appropriate by the CRGR Chairman.
IV. CRGR OPERATING PROCEDURES A. Meetina Notices 1
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 8
i
1 L .
Revision 6 April 1996 L
l Category 1 items, with available background material on each ites to be considered by the Committee.
B. Contents of Packaaes Submitted to CRGR The following requirements apply for proposals to reduce existing )
requirements or positions as well as proposals to increase requirements or positions. -Each package submitted to the CRGR for review shall 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 l intended result,of a proposed generic requirement or staff j position can be achieved by setting a readily quantifiable standard that has an unambiguous relationship to a readily
- j. measurable quantity and is enforceable, ,the proposed requirement 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 the CRGR staff. Any Committee member may request CRGR staff to obtain a copy of any reference material for his or her use.)
l (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 i requirements or staff positions.
9
Revision 6
- April 1996 (iv) The proposed method of implementation, along with the concurrence (and any comments) of OGC on the method proposed, and the concurrence of affected program offices or an explanation of any non-concurrences.
(v) Regulatory analyses generally conforming to the directives and guidance of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/BR-0184, as applicable.s (This does not apply for backfits that ensure compliance or ensure, define or redefine adequate protection. In such cases, for power reactors, a documented evaluation is required as discussed in IV.B.(ix). For nuclear materials items, there is no rule requirement for such an evaluation; but, for the purpose of CRGR review of such items under this Charter, a similar documented evaluation should be provided by the staff as part of the review package.)
(vi) Identification of the category of reactor plants or nuclear materials faclities/ activities 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 a certain date, OLs before a certain date, all Ols, license renewals, all plants under construction, all plants, all light water reactors, all PWRs only, some vendor types, some vintage types such as BWR 6 and 4, jet pump and nonjet pump plants, etc.).
s Ref: NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2, dated November 1995, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
Ref: Draft NUREG/BR-0184, dated August 1993, " Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook." (To be published in final in 1996.)
10
Revision 6 April 1996 (vii) For power reactor backfits other than compliance or adequate protection backfits, a backfit analysis as defined in 10 CFR 50.109.' " The backfit analysis shall include, for each category of reactor plants, an evaluation which demonstrates how action should be prioritized and scheduled in light of other ongoing regulatory activities. The backfit analysis shall document for consideration information available concerning any of the following factors as may be appropriate and any other information relevant and material to the proposed action:
(a) Statement of the specific objectives that the proposed action is designated to achieve; (b) General description of the activity that would be required by the license or applicant in order to complete the action;
' As a legal matter, the backfit rule does not strictly apply unless a j backfit is to be required by, for en.nple, a rule or an order.
However, the NRC backfit process, including the CRGR Charter, is defined on the principle that new positions, as well as new requirements, are to be reviewed for backfitting considerations and, if appropriate, meet the standards of the backfit rule before they are issued to the licensee (s). New generic positions in documents, such as generic letters, bulletins, and regulatory guides, whether affecting power reactors or nuclear materials facilities / activities, are to be considered and justified as' backfits before they are issued.
" Types of actions to which the standards of the backfit rule do not apply include: (1) voluntary actions (2) actions mandated by statute and (3) requests for information. (See NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines, July 1990, Section 2.1.1 for further discussion.)
" Reporting requirements, such as those contained in 10 CFR-50.72 and 10 CFR 50.73 (for power reactors), or those contained in 10 CFR 50.50 and 10 CFR 70.52 (for nuclear materials activities), are more akin to the information requests covered under 10 CFR 50.54(f) than they are to '
modifications covered under the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109). They should be justified by evaluation against criteria similar to the analogous provision in 10 CFR 50.54(f), i.e., by demonstrating that the burden of reporting is justified in view of the potential safety benefits to be obtained from the information reported.
11 I
Revision 6 '
April 1996 (c) Potential change in the risk to the public from the accidental offsite release of radioactive material; (d) Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility amployees and other onsite workers.
(e) Installation and continuing costs associated with the action, including the cost of facility downtime or the cost of construction delay; (f) The potential safety impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, including the relationship to proposed and existing regulatory requirements and staff positions; (g) The estimated resource burden on the NRC associated with the proposed action and the availability of such resources; (h) The potential impact of differences in facility type, design or age on the relevancy and practicality of the proposed action; (1) Whether the proposed action is interim or final, and if interie, the justification for imposing the proposed action on an interim basis. ,
i 12
Revision 6 April 1996 (j) For both rulemaking actions and proposed generic correspondence, staff evaluation of comments received as a result of the notice and comment process.tr (k) How the action should be prioritized and scheduled in light of other ongoing regulatory activities. The following information may be appropriate in this regard:
)
- 1. The proposed priority or schedule, )
- 2. A sunnary of the current backlog of existing l 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?
(viii) For each power reactor backfit analyzed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(2) (i.e., not adequate protection backfits and not compliance backfits), the proposing office director's determination, together with the rationale for the 1r Generic communications which articulate a new staff position or seek additional licensee commitments affecting power reactors are generally noticed for comment. The Commission's instructions in this regard are i documented in the following staff requirements memoranda:. (1) l Memorandum for J. M. Taylor from S. J. Chilk, dated October 27, 1992, )
Subject:
SECY-92-338 - Implementing Procedures for Issuing Urgent 1 Generic Communications, (2) Memorandum for J. M. Taylor from S. J. l Chilk, dated July 17, 1992,
Subject:
SECY-92-224 - Revised Implementing Procedures for Issuance of Generic Communications, and (3) Memorandum for J. M. Taylor from S. J. Chilk, dated December 20, 1991,
Subject:
SECY-91-172 -Regulatory Impact Survey.
13
Revision 6 ~
April 1996 determination based on the considerations of paragraphs (1) through (vii) above, 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;'3'" and (b) the direct and indirect costs of implementation, for the facilities affected, are justified in view of this increased protection.
NOTE: Although, as a legal matter, 10 CFR 50.109 does not apply to nuclear materials facilities / activities that are not licensed under Part 50, footnote 13 does apply 13 Attachment 3 to this Charter provides additional guidance on consideration of qualitative factors in applying the " substantial increase" standard of 10 CFR 50.59 for actions affecting power reactors. By its terms, 10 CFR 50.109 does not apply to nuclear material facilities / activities that are not licensed under Part 50; but much of the guidance in Attachment 3 is applicable, and should be considered by the staff, in evaluating qualitative factors that may contribute to the justification of proposed backfitting actions directed to nuclear materials facilities / activities.
" There may be proposed actions affecting power reactors which do not meet the " substantial increase" standard but, in the staffs judgment, should be promulgated nonetheless. The Commission has indicated the willingness to consider such exceptions to the Backfit Rule on a case-by-case basis; but such exceptions would be promulgated only if the proposal (not to apply the Backfit Rule to the proposed rulemaking) is made the subject of notice and comment. Such a rulemaking proposal presented to CRGR, for presentation ultimately to the Commission for consideration, should include any necessary request for exemption from the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 50.109, with supporting reasons for the proposed exemption. In such cases, the staff should seek advice from the Commission prior to finalizing the package for Commission consideration; and, in coming to the Commission for guidance, options other than an exemption should be discussed.
14
Revision 6 April 1996 to the evaluation of proposed backfits affecting the selected nuclear facilities / activities items submitted to CRGR for review. ;
(ix) For adequate protection or compliance backfits affecting power reactors, evaluated pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4),
(a) a documented evaluation consisting of:
(1) the objectives of the modification (2) the reasons for the modification (3) if the compliance exception is invoked, the requirement (s) (e.g., Comission regulation, license condition, order) or written licensee comitment(s), for which compliance is sought.
(4) if an adequate protection exception is invoked, the basis for concluding that the matter to be addressed involves adequate protection, and why current requirements (e.g., Comission regulation, license condition, order) or written licensee comitments do not provide adequate protection..
(b) In addition, for actions that were immediately 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 of how costs contributed to selecting the solution among various acceptable alternatives.
15
Revision 6 -
April 1996 (x) For each evaluation conducted for proposed relaxations or decreases in current requirements or staff positions, whether affecting power reactors or nuclear materials facilities / activities, 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 requirements or positions were implemented, and (b) the cost savings attributed to the action would be substantial enough to justify taking the action.
Also, the staff must indicate explicitly whether the proposed relaxation or decrease in current requirements or staff positions is OPTIONAL or MANDATORY.
(xi) For each request for information from power reactor licensees under 10 CFR 50.54(f) (which is not subject to exception as discussed in III.A) an evaluation that includes at least the following elements:
(a) A problem statement that describes the need for the information in terms of potential safety benefit.
(b) The licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request.
16
l
, Revision 6 April 1996 (c) An anticipated schedule for NRC use of the information.
(d) A statement affirving that the request does Dat impose ;
new requirements on the licensee, other than for the requested information.
(e) The proposing office director's determination that the burden to be imposed on the respondents is justified i in view of the potential safety significance of the issue to be addressed in the requested information.
Additional guidance for preparing this evaluation is provided in Section 5.4 of NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2. (See footnote 8.)
An analogous evaluation addressing items (a) through (e) above should also be provided for each information request directed to the licensees of the selected nuclear materials facilities / activities referred to in III.A.
l (xii) For each proposed power reactor backfit analyzed pursuant to !
10 CFR 50.109 (a)(2) (i.e., not adequate protection or l compliance backfits), an assessment of how the proposed action relates to the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement." l l
" Detailed guidance for addressing the Commission's safety goals is contained in " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Guidelines" (NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2, dated November 1995).
17
Revision 6 .
April 1996 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 originating office with reasons for such action. Prior notice to the Committee is not needed; however, CRGR members shall be informed of such actions.
- 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 issues.
An accepted package shall be scheduled for CRGR consideration; however, scheduling priorities shall be at the discretion of the l- CRGR Chairman.
All requests for particular scheduling shall be made to the CRGR Chairman by the sponsoring office director (or identified designate).
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.
18 E
9
. Revision 6 April 1996 D. CRGR Meetino Minutes At each meeting, for each package scheduled for discussion, the sponsoring office shall present to the CRGR the proposed generic requirement or staff position and respond to comments and questions. A reasonable amount of time, within the discretion of the CRGR Chairman, shall be permitted for discussion of each item by Comittee members. At the conclusion of the discussion, each Comittee member shall sumarize 4 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 l the meeting, and each member shall have 5-working days to comment in writing on the minutes. It is the responsibility of each member to assure that the minutes accurately reflect his or her views. All comments received shall be appended to or made part of the minutes of the meeting.
The Committee shall recomend to the EDO, approval, disapproval, modification, or conditioning of generic proposals considered by the Committee, as well as the method of implementation for such rdquirements 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 each facility. For issues affecting power reactors, the minutes shall give an accurate description of the basis for the recommendations; shall ;
relate this basis, as appropriate, to 10 CFR 50.109, 10 CFR 50.54(f) and 10 CFR 2.204 (as discussed in I) and the Comission's Safety Goals Policy (as discussed in IV.B (xii); and shall accurately reflect the 19
l Revision 6 April 1996 t consensus decision of the Comittee. For issues affecting selected nuclear material facilities / activities reviewed by CRGR, the minutes shall provide similar detail, except the basis for CRGR recommendations shall be related, as appropriate, to analogous provisions / criteria of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/BR-0184, as indicated in IV.B.(v); to the provisions of IV.B.(x); to the applicable provisions of IV.B.(xi); and to 10 CFR 2.204. Copies of these minutes shall be distributed to the Commission, Office Directors, Regional Administrators, CRGR Members, and the Public Document Room. The ED0's action taken in response to the Comittee's recommendations shall be provided in writing to the Comission.
E. Recordkeepina System The CRGR staff will assure that there is an archival system for keeping records of all packages submitted to the CRGR Chairman, actions by the staff, sumary minutes of CRGR consideration of each package including corrections, recomendations by the Comittee, and decisions by the EDO and the Comission.
V. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The CRGR staff shall prepare a report to be submitted by the EDO to the Commission each month. The report will provide a brief sumary of CRGR activities. The report shall be included in the Weekly Items of Interest report to the EDO at the end of each month.
The minutes should include a clear indication as to whether an action was considered to be justified as a backfit and, if so, whether it was considered to be: (1) an adequate protection exception; (2) a compliance exception; or (3) a substantial safety enhancement for which the associated costs of inplementation are justified in view of the safety benefits to be realized. (Also, see footnote 9.)
20
Revision 6 April 1996 NEW GENERIC REQUIREMENT 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, ACNW, 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 public comment be sought. After CRGR and EDO approval, there may be further review by the ACRS, ACNW, or the Commission. Decisions by the Commission are controlling.
ATTACMENT 1
Revision 6 April 1996 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF NEW REQUIREMENTS REVIEW Lills teneric Issues Priorittae and ,
Reg. $ sides Develop Proposed Dheussions Wkh Sv11etins & Orders I teguirasset induswy, ACR$.
Proposed Asles lastedtap ,
- Pi4Ee Etc. R89elatory Analysis s
Technical Manstement haview
< r Options) Discussions C#83R Aeview With Industry :
200 : Revise troposal er Solicit public Coment er he Further WerL Further Review ACRS, Commisalon Input : usensees a ,
l i r i C e.e L **me_ _ _ .;ys: smoum.
2
, Revision 6 April 1996 PROCEDURES TO CONTROL SENERIC REQUIREMENTS AM STAFF P05ITIONS 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 Commission outlined ;
certain recommended actions to establish control over the number and nature of requirements placed by NRC on reactor licensees. These included:
establishing a Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR); establishing a new position of Deputy Executive Director for Regional Operations and Generic Requirements (DEDROGR); conducting a survey of formal and informal mechanism to communicate with reactor licensees; and developing and implementing procedures for controlling communications involving significant requirements covering one or more classes of power reactors. In February 1987 the l Commission approved a NRC reorganization that, among other changes, placed the CRGR operations under the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data (AE00). CRGR responsibilities and authorities were not directed to 9 change under the new organizational structure; only organizational location was changed. However, subsequently, the Commission approved the expansion of the CRGR review scope, on a trial basis, to include selected issues / items in the nuclear materials area at the recommendation of the Director, NMSS or request of the EDO. 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 for power reactors and analogous control mechanisms for evaluation of proposed backfitting actions affecting selected nuclear materials facilities / activities as indicated in IV.D.
ATTACMENT 2
Revision 6 April 1996 B. Committee to Review Generic Reauirements (CRGR)
Except for immediately effective actions, the CRGR shall review all proposed new generic requirements and staff positions to be imposed on one or more classes of power reactors and selected nuclear materials facilities /
activities, in.accordance with the Charter of the Committee (as indicated in Section III.A ), before such proposed requirements or staff positions are forwarded to the ED0 and Commission and imposed on, or communicated for use or guidance to, any licensee of a power reactor or selected nuclear material facility / activity.
C. Office Responsibility Each office shall develop appropriate 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, or selected nuclear materials facilities / activities (as indicated in III.A), 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 or selected nuclear materials facilities / activities (as indicated in III.A). Table II (attached) provides examples. These documents shall be submitted for review 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 assure that they are only ' case-specific applications of existing requirements rather than initial applications having 2
' Revision 6 April 1996 potential generic use. Case-specific applications are governed by NRC Management Directive 8.4.
(3) For all other communications with licensees (Table III, attached), no statements shall be used that might suggest new or revised generic requirements, staff positions, guidance or recommendations unless such statements have been approved by the EDO or the Commission.
(4) In developing a proposed new generic requirement or staff position for 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 immediate action to assure that such information is communicated to the licensees by the appropriate office. Such actions may be taken before completion of any proposed or ongoing CRGR reviews.
D. Immediate1v Effective Action (Power reactors only)
For those rare instances where it is judged that an immediate effective action is required (10 CFR 50.109(a)(C)), 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 invoking the exception. The evaluation may be conducted either before or after 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 immediately effective requirements will be included in the monthly report to the Commissi'on.
3
i l
Revision 6 April 1996 TABLE I PRINCIPAL NECHANISNS USED BY NRC STAFF TO ESTABLISH OR CONNUNICATE GENERIC REQUIREMENTS A W STAFF POSITIONS
[SeeparagraphC.(1)]
Rulemakina' Advanced Notices Proposed Rules Final Rules Policy Statements 3
Q1her Formal Reauirements Multiplant orders including show cause orders and confirmatory orders Staff Positions' Bulletins Generic Letters (including 10 CFR 50.54f information requests )
Regulatory Guides SRP (including Branch Technical Positions)
Standard Tech Specs USI NUREGs
' While Rulemaking is an action of the Commission rather than the staff, most rules are proposed by or prepared by the staff.
3 A Policy Statement does not impose a legal requirement, as does a rule, order, or license condition.
3 The document itself imposes a legal requirement; e.g., regulatory orders or license conditions.
' 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
__m_
Revision 6 April 1996 TABLE II MECHANISMS SOMETIMES USED TO INTERPRET GENERIC REQUIREMENTS OR STAFF POSITIONS
[See paragraph C.(2)]
Action on Petitions for Rulemaking Action on 10 CFR 2.206 Requests Approvals on Topical Reports Facility Licenses add Amendments SERs FDAs, PDAs NUREG Reports (other than USIs)
Operator Licenses and Amendments Single Plant Orders Staff Positions on Code Committees Unresolved Issues Resulting from Inspections 5
i
Revision 6 April 1996 TABLE III NECHANISNS THAT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO COMMUNICATE GENERIC REQUIREMENTS OR STAFF P05ITIONS
[See paragraph C.(3))
Administrative Letters 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 Staff Contact with Licensees in Operator Qualification /Requalification Process 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 Neetings, Workshops, Technical Discussions Resident Inspector Day-to-Day Contact SALP Reports SECY Paper (Some Utilities Apparently Cent Operators to College Based on Recent SECY Paper on Operator Qualifications)
Special Reports 6
Revision 6 April 1996 TABLE III NECHANISNS THAT SHOULD NOT BE USED TO COMMUNICATE GENERIC REQUIRENENTS OR STAFF POSITIONS
[See paragraph C.(3)]
(Continued)
Speeches to Local Groups or Industry Associations Technical Specifications Telephone Calls and Meetings with Licensees, Vendors, Industry Representatives, Owners Groups Testimony i 7
i s
- Revision 6 April 1996 GUIDANCE ON APPLICATION 0F THE " SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE" STAISARD The Backfit Rule states that, aside from exceptions for cases of adequate protection or compliance, the Commission shall require the backfitting of a facility only when it determines, based on a backfit analysis, "that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection."'
The Commission's Regulatory Analysis Guidelines are intended to be a primary source of guidance on application of the " substantial increase" standard as well as application of the Commission's safety goals.2 Generally, the staff should quantify the benefits of a proposed backfit to the extent feasible. With regard to cases where the safety benefits of a backfit cannot be quantified, or can only be partially quantified, a flexible approach is warranted.
In the preamble to the 1985 backfit rule the Commission said:
Substantial means "important or significant in a large amount, extent, or degree." Under such a standard the Commission would not ordinarily expect that safety improvements would be required as backfits that result in an insignificant or small benefit to public health and safety or common defense and security, ATTACMENT 3 1
2 Ref: NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 2, dated November 1995, " Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
\
t I
a Revision 6 April 1996 regardless of costs. On the other hand, the standard is not intended to be interpreted in a manner that would result in disapprovals of worthwhile safety or security improvements having costs that are jus wouldbeprovided}ifiedinviewoftheincreasedprotectionthat In a 1993 memorandum to the staff the Commission said that it continues to believe that these words embody a sound approach to the " substantial increase" criterion and that this approach is flexible enough to allow for qualitative arguments that a given proposed rule would substantially increase safety.'
Examples of general areas where the benefits of new requirements have not been considered amenable to quantification and, therefore, qualitative arguments have been used, include the following:
- 1. Plant access control (10 CFR 73)
- 3. Emergency Response Data System (10 CFR 50.72 and Appendix E.)
The Commission further said that the qualitative approach is also flexible enough to allow for arguments that consistency with national and international standards, or the incorporation of wide spread industry practices, contributes either directly or indirectly to a substantial increase in safety. Such arguments concerning consistency with other standards, or incorporation of industry practices, would have to rest on the particulars of a given proposed rule.5 3
50 FR 38102, September 20, 1985.
' Memorandum to James M. Taylor and William C. Parler from Samuel J.
Chilk, dated June 30, 1993,
Subject:
SECY-93-086, Backfit Considerations.
5 See footnote 4 above.
2
6-i Revision 6 4 April 1996 Incorporation of industry standards (including revisions to existing codes and standards) into NRC rules or staff positions, as a prudent means of assuring continued conformance with currently voluntary standards and practices that provide substantial safety benefit, can provide the basis for a finding that a proposed backfit meets the " substantial increase" standard of 10 CFR 50.109.
In addition factors such as the following may be argued to contribute directly or indirectly to a substantial increase in safety, depending on the particulars of a given proposed backfit.
- 1. Incorporation of advances in science and technology.
- 2. Greater uniformity of practice.
- 3. Greater flexibility in practice /less prescriptive requirements.
- 4. Greater specifity in existing generally-stated requirements.
- 5. Correction of significant flaws in current requirements.
- 6. Greater confidence in the reliability and timeliness of information or programs.
- 7. Fewer exemption requests and interpretive debates.
- 8. Better focusing of corrective actions towards the sources of problems.
- 9. Benefits that may accrue in the longer ters, beyond the immediately apparent effects of the backfit.
3 i -
~
N U
WC .
P ALE E S N
A H
I R A L N T
YO GR EU FF F
T O GN I OIC RI A ,N UT LE P
R L AD I
B D. T VU O TS A
TI S C. R ENE 2 YA T US 0CE SS
,E 5OS 5R 3
5- AA 0
0 0A I 0S 0S 1 I O
N P
o S F P
E Tm A
R GS T Mu E T S Act nun nO S A
6 7 i PL A
I _
D _
%%