ML20236X259
| ML20236X259 | |
| 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 | |
| ML20014B075 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR19868 AF62-2-044, AF62-2-44, NUDOCS 9808070238 | |
| Download: ML20236X259 (5) | |
Text
_ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ -. _
h K4bI
(
ns:%>1
+
4 UNITED STATES g
E g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006-0001
%g, August 4, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Thomas T. Martin, Chairman g'_ _,
Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF THE CRGR MEETING NUMBER 321 The Committee to Review Genenc 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.
I R. L Spessard (NRR), R. Gallo (NRR), and S. Guenther (NRR) presented for CRGR Jaview 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 early 1997, at the staffs request, the Committee had deferred the review of this rulemaking 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 operator lic ;nsing examinations. CRGR sovi sw of the proposed rulemaking was deferred with the knowledge that the staff wou'd submit for ORGR review the draft final rule after resolution of public comments At this meeting, the CRGR made various comments and recommendations. The Committee noted that further assessments on revised estimates of addebonal burden on licensees, which l
may nood further OMB clearance, need to be addressed if the rule remams mandatory. The Committee further noted that the NUREG-1021 guidance in certain areas is essentially prescnp6ve, and implemenbng the examination standards included in this document is repostedly the only acceptable way to the staff for licensees to prepare and admiruster the t
operator licensing examinations, without a point-by-pomt justificabon. Because the provisions of NUREG-1021 are not enforceable unless they are made a part of the regulation or inccsi,0,rd in individual licenses (inclusion in the Statesmnt of Considerations is not sufficient), the minimum acceptable attnbutes of the operator licensing examinsbon process
\\'/
must be ir.cluded in the rule if the staffs e4ect.t;0ns of required adherence to the standards are to be sustained. Finally and most sigruficantly, the Corr:mittee is concerned about the staffs posstion that the backfit rule does not apply to this rula. The CRGR offered the staff two i
alternahvos: either make the provisions of the rule voluntary, as suggested by the industry, or call this achon a bacidit and retum to the Committee with appropnate justification. In the I
absence of either, the members voted that the Committee should raise the backfit-related concerns to the EDO's attention Subsequently, the staff, after a mestag between NRR managers and OGC, 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 correspondence, 03C acknowledged that this rule does impose new requirements. OGC also acknowledged that it would pose no legal otyction if the staff chose the option that the backf4 rule does apply to this rulemaking. On D4t1
~)L % R
(
XoHA - G M Ghg I b.-
f ik W '
.cs 9808070238 980004
(
PDR REVOP NRCCRGR j
O MEETIr4G321 PDR i ) 3 ( (.y)N j
g gg g LL,j lO
4 4
3 4
l 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 bacidit issue to the EDO's attention.
i The interpretation of inapplicability of the backfit rule to the operator licensing examinatums rule does not appear to be consistent with the staff position expounded in previous CRGR reviews of similar proposed changes to the operator license renewal and requalification process. The Committee noted that if, as a legal matter, changes to the operator licensing examinatum requirements (and apphcable staff positions) are not subject to the bacidit rule because of a new interpretation of the phrase ' required to... operate a facshty," the CRGR Charter will have to be modified to reflect this in order to ensure consistency in future staff treatments and CRGR handling of any proposed baciditting actions. 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 inapplicability of the bacidit rule to the operator licensing i
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 not change in costs. in fact, the backfit definition would label any new rule or interpretation of a rule that modifies or adds to "...the procedures or organizaten required to... operate a facility..." as a backfit. However, the staff and OGC have chosen to i
support a very narrow interpretation of the phrase "... required to... operate a facility" to exclude j
potentially re, quired changes to licensee procedures or organization from applicability of the backfit rule. For example, the new security requirements proposed in this rulemaking clearly require new or changed procedures. Further, the licensees will have to have qualified staff to do what the NRC was doing so far. OGC ac;icWg.s that this rule will impose new requirements. Additionally, the staff has a weak argument that costs are not increased.given the exponence with the pilots and the reported general inability of many licensees to demonstrate that they could produce an acceptable examinD without multiple iterations, the pfic445 source of excess costs. Finally, if the operator licensing examinations rule is not subject to the backfit rule, similar arguments could have also been applied 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 hcensing examinations rule does have ment from the regulatory efficiency perspective, and it also gives the licensees a greater control on costs.
However, absent a convincmg argument 5 support of inapp;;cebility of the backfit rule and absent staff's arguments for applicability of any of the exceptons of the backfit rule to this proposal (namely, as being necessary for adequate protection, or substantial increase in safety '
or comphance), the Committee remains conymced 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 position 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 staff request the Commission to exempt this mie from the requirements of the backfit rulo.
Details are included in Attachment 4.
4 L J. CaRan On July 29,1998, the sta# submitted the red-ime/ strike-out version of the revised text of the afected sechons of the rulemaking package. Based on~a review of the proposed changes by the CRGR sta# and dimenanian with the cognizant sta# in a meeting on July 30,1998, it was concluded that the sta# did not address all of the Committee's concoms. The CRGR endorsement is necessarily contingent upon the. staffs satisfactorily 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 regarding inapplicability of the backfit rule are not defensible.
Questions concoming these meeting minutes should be referred to Raji Tripathi (415-7584).
Attachments: As stated cc-Commisa,lon (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. Merscho#, R-IV C. Paperiello, NMSS A. Thadani, RES S. Collins, NRR J. Lieberman, OE Distnbution-File Center (w/attch.)
PDR (NRC/CRGR) (w/o attch)
CRGR SF CRGR CF STreby WTravers JMitchell RGallo SGuenther HTovmassian RAuluck MSchwartz FCollins GUsota RSpessard ESM/ DOCUMENT NAME: S:CRGR441NUTES.321 To receive a copy of this domnent, indicate in the toc "C" = Copy w/o attachment "E" = Copy w/ attachment. 'W' = No copy OFC CRGR D AE[
NAME RTripathi:Jc d'
TT[artin DATE C / 4 /98 P/ Y /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
t 6
5 4
L J. Callan On July 29,1998, the staff submitted tha red-line/ strike 4ut version of the revised text of the affected sechons of the rulemaking package. Based on a review of the proposed changes by the CRGR staff and discussion with the cognizant staffin 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 necessarily contingent upon the staffs satisfactorily resolving these issues.
Therefore, the Committee does not endorse this role, as proposed, because it does not include in the rule the minimum acceptable attnbutes of the operator licensing examination process, and the arguments regarding inapplicability of the backfit rule are not defensible.
Questions concoming these meeting minutes should be referred to Raji Tripathi (415-7504).
Attachments: As stated cc:
Commission (3)
SECY J. Ueberman, 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. Merschoff, R-IV C. Papedello, NMSS A. Thadani, RES S. Collins, NRR J. Lieberman, OE f
4 4
CRGR Meeting No. 321. Attendance List
' June 10,1998 -
l CRGR MEMBERS NRC STAFF l
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 l
R. Tripathi 1
l l
I ATTACHMENT 1