POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION

August 31, 2005 SECY-05-0158

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: PERIODIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE TO

REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS (CRGR)

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Commission with a periodic assessment of

the value added by the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR or the Committee)

in reviewing various generic actions proposed by the staff. 

BACKGROUND:

In response to the Commission’s direction, the CRGR proposed a process and criteria for

periodic reporting and evaluation of the Committee’s activities in SECY-97-052. The

Commission approved the recommended process and criteria by the Staff Requirements

Memorandum (SRM), dated April 18, 1997. Accordingly, since 1997, the CRGR has been

conducting an evaluation of its activities and reporting annually to the Commission. This report

contains an evaluation of the valued added by CRGR activities conducted from June 1, 2004,

through May 31, 2005.

The CRGR consists of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) senior managers from the

Offices of the General Counsel (OGC), Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR), Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), Nuclear Security and

Incident Response (NSIR), and one of the regional offices on a rotational basis. The CRGR

reports to the NRC’s Executive Director for Operations (EDO), who appoints the Committee

chairman and members. The CRGR conducts its activities in accordance with the Committee’s

Charter, Revision 7, dated November 7, 1999, which describes the Committee’s mission, scope

of activities, and operating procedures. RES provides technical and administrative support to

the Committee.

CONTACT: Sher Bahadur, RES

(301) 415-5779
The Commissioners -2-

The CRGR’s mission is to ensure that new or revised generic requirements proposed by the

NRC staff to impose on agency-licensed power reactor and nuclear materials licensees are

appropriately justified based on the backfit provisions of the applicable NRC regulations and

the Commission’s backfit guidance and pertinent policy. Specifically, these regulations include 

Title 10, Sections 50.109, 50.54(f), and 2.204, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for 

power reactors, as well as 10 CFR 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76 for nuclear materials facilities. 

Revision 4 of NUREG/BR-0058, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission,” dated July 2004, provides guidance relevant to the required backfit

analysis. 

The primary responsibilities of the CRGR are to recommend to the EDO either approval or

disapproval of the staff’s proposed generic actions and to assist the NRC program offices in

ensuring consistency with the implementation of the Commission’s backfit regulations,

directives and guidance.

To accomplish its mission, the CRGR reviews proposed new or revised regulatory requirements

related to nuclear power reactors; NUREG-series reports; safety evaluation reports (SERs) that

endorse generic vendor initiatives; generic correspondence, such as information requests

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f); regulatory guides; and NRC staff guidance on licensing, inspection,

assessment, and enforcement, which could imply or inadvertently impose an unjustified backfit. 

The CRGR also reviews selected nuclear materials issues and proposed new or revised

nuclear materials-related requirements, generic correspondence, and regulatory guidance. In

addition, the CRGR holds periodic meetings with stakeholders as part of its responsibility for

monitoring the overall effectiveness of NRC’s generic backfit management process. As part of

its responsibility for regulatory effectiveness, the CRGR may conduct periodic audits of NRC’s

administrative controls for facility-specific backfitting to assess their effectiveness.

DISCUSSION:

During this 12-month assessment period, the CRGR reviewed proposed new or revised generic

actions and evaluated their potential for improper or unjustified backfits consistent with the

Committee’s Charter. In doing so, the CRGR also identified pertinent technical, procedural,

policy and legal issues, and continued to support NRC’s move to less prescriptive, more

performance-based, and risk-informed regulations. This is the first time the CRGR also

reviewed a security-related proposed generic communication, i.e., Proposed Bulletin 2005-02,

"Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions for Security Based Events.

CRGR Activities

The CRGR held five meetings during this assessment period to review seven proposed generic

actions, which included two rulemakings, a generic letter, an SER, a regulatory guide, a bulletin,

and a Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS). Of these, NRR sponsored five actions; NSIR and the

Office of Enforcement (OE) sponsored one each (Attachment 1).

In order to gain efficiency in the review process, the CRGR chairman conducted a limited

review of several RIS and regulatory guides to screen out any potential backfit (Attachment 2). 

As a result, only a RIS or regulatory guide that had backfit potential or dealt with key issues was

presented to the Committee.
The Commissioners -3-

As part of its efforts to meet the strategic goals of openness and effectiveness, the CRGR

meets periodically with licensees and other stakeholders. In October 2004, the CRGR

chairman and another CRGR member participated in the “Industry Feedback on Backfitting and

Generic Requirements Breakout Session” at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Licensing

Forum held in Baltimore, Maryland. In a panel discussion during this session, they solicited

feedback on NRC’s generic backfit process and addressed questions posed by audience

members. 

The CRGR continued addressing the findings and recommendations included in its report on

administrative controls for plant-specific backfits that was submitted to the Commission on

September 24, 2003 [NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

(ADAMS) Accession No. ML032550007]. That report was prepared at the EDO’s direction in

response to the concerns raised by industry representatives in the November 2001 NEI

Licensing Forum on the adequacy of NRC’s controls for the plant-specific backfit process,

including appeals of imposed backfits. Some of the recommendations by the CRGR, as

delineated in the backfit action plan (ML033210331), were already accomplished in the previous

years. Those include the development and publication of MD 8.4, “Management of Facilityspecific Backfitting and Information Collection” (ML050110156), and the inclusion of an NSIR

representative on CRGR (ML032720457). These were reported to the Commission in the

Committee’s last periodic assessment (ML042710601). Currently, the revision of the CRGR

Charter is in its planning stages, and will reflect NSIR representation appropriately in the

Committee and expand the scope of CRGR’s review to include staff proposals related to

security or safeguards. Furthermore, the Committee plans to review the office and regional

backfitting procedures that are currently being developed or revised in accordance with MD 8.4,

and to periodically conduct the audits of the effectiveness of NRC’s backfit controls.

In addressing one of the CRGR recommendations, RES developed a backfit recordkeeping

system to facilitate effective storage and retrieval of the agency’s backfit-related documents. 

This system is contained within the structure of ADAMS, and RES delivered the plans for its

implementation to the Office of Information Services on March 7, 2005 (ML050610550). In

consultation with RES and OGC, the Office of Human Resources is pursuing another CRGR

recommendation, the development of a backfit training program for the NRC staff. This

program will include the three-tier graded approach recommended by the Committee and utilize

the video-recordings of training sessions that were conducted in June 2004. Additionally, RES

is developing a Web site on backfitting that will serve as a training aid. This Web site will

provide comprehensive information to the staff on the history of backfitting, related agency

regulations, and pertinent Commission guidance.

Self-Assessment

The periodic assessment of the value added by the CRGR reviews of the proposed new or

revised generic actions is based on both the program office input and the Committee’s

self-assessment of its activities and contributions to the agency’s mission. Specifically, the

CRGR’s value added is assessed in terms of its effectiveness in fulfilling the following three

categories of chartered responsibilities:
The Commissioners -4-

(1) Identification of improper, unjustified, or implicit backfits

The CRGR’s primary mission is to ensure that no inadvertent backfits are either

imposed or implied by the proposed new or revised generic requirements for

NRC-licensed power reactors and nuclear materials facilities and that the staff-proposed

actions are appropriately justified as required by NRC’s regulations, Commission

guidance and directives, as well applicable Acts and Executive Orders. Appendices C

and D of the CRGR Charter require that detailed backfit and regulatory analyses, as

appropriate, must be included in the packages submitted for the CRGR review and

endorsement. During this assessment period, the NRC staff ensured that the proposals

were consistent with the backfit provisions of applicable regulations and that any impact

of these proposals on NRC and licensees were assessed and explained. There were no

backfits identified during this assessment period.

(2) Identification of technical, procedural, or legal deficiencies, or flaws with respect to

backfit policy presented to the CRGR

In addition to technical expertise from the program offices and field experience from the

regions, the CRGR membership includes a senior manager from the OGC to identify

legal deficiencies or flaws in proposed staff actions with respect to the Commission’s

backfit rules, guidance, policies, and directives. Staff improved their proposals and

benefitted from CRGR’s reviews because these reviews provided improvements from a

process perspective and ensured consistency with the Commission’s backfit regulations,

directives and guidance.

(3) Consideration of the significance of the issues raised by the CRGR compared to the

impact on schedules and resources expended to address those issues

The CRGR provided guidance and consultation to the NRC staff to eliminate potential

backfits in the proposed documents, before issuing for public comment and a formal

CRGR review. To prevent unnecessary delays, the CRGR scheduled the Committee

meetings expeditiously as requested by the NRC staff. The CRGR scheduled special

meetings to meet the schedule demands and provide necessary assistance to the staff

prior to the formal CRGR review. When necessary to expedite the endorsement

process, the CRGR staff assisted the sponsoring office staff in satisfactory resolution of

the Committee’s comments. As a result, the sponsoring office staff generally required

minimal effort to respond to the CRGR comments and recommendations. The CRGR

reviews did not impact the scheduled issuance of any rulemakings, generic

communications or regulatory guidance.

The results of its self-assessment revealed that CRGR reviews were timely, focused on the

priority issues, and useful to the NRC staff. Interactions with the NRC staff have been positive

and professional, resulting in constructive feedback and useful insights to ensure product

completeness.

NRC Program Office Assessment of the Value Added by the CRGR 

The CRGR continues to seek feedback from the sponsoring offices on the value added by the

Committee’s reviews. The CRGR solicited feedback from sponsoring offices in a
The Commissioners -5-

memorandum, dated June 27, 2005, (ML051790042) regarding (1) the value that the CRGR

reviews added to the quality of the product, (2) staff efforts expended to address the CRGR’s

comments and recommendations, (3) impact on the staff’s schedules, and (4) significance of

the issues and associated costs in terms of overall impact on schedules and resources. During

this assessment period, NRR, NSIR, and OE sponsored seven proposals reviewed by the

Committee. The Committee did not receive any proposals for review from NMSS and RES. 

The feedback from the offices, whose proposals were reviewed by the CRGR, are included in

Attachment 3.

In general, the sponsoring offices indicated that the CRGR reviews were beneficial. The offices

also noted that the CRGR’s comments and recommendations improved their proposals by

helping the staff focus on the underlying safety concerns, enhancing the quality of the final

products, and ensuring that the products were consistent with the Commission’s backfit

regulations, directives and guidance.

The program offices indicated that the staff did not expend unnecessary effort and there was no

noticeable impact on resources to address the CRGR’s comments and recommendations. 

However, one of the program offices offered a suggestion to improve the Committee’s

effectiveness in streamlining the procedures for re-submitting the revised package for CRGR

endorsement. 

Specifically, NRR believed that the comments provided by the CRGR were insightful,

significant, and resulted in a more refined and much improved product. Resolving the CRGR

comments and recommendations did not significantly impact their schedule. Only in one

instance did staff indicate that there was a delay due to the administrative efforts required to

prepare the package for CRGR review.

NSIR considered CRGR’s review of Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency Preparedness and

Response Actions for Security-based Events,” was beneficial in ensuring a high-quality product. 

Also, special effort by the CRGR assisted the staff in fulfilling their Commission-directed

aggressive schedule to issue the bulletin on time. 

OE indicated that a limited review of its RIS should have been sufficient and that the RIS did not

warrant a formal CRGR review. Although the RIS was voluntary and may not have had any

backfit issues, the Committee performed a formal CRGR review because of the sensitive nature

of the issue and the stakeholders’ objection to receiving prescriptive guidance from the

Commission. The staff stated that value was indeed added to the product by the formal CRGR

review.

CONCLUSION:

The CRGR believes that it has been successfully contributing to the necessary staff and

industry awareness of the applicable NRC regulations and Commission policy regarding

backfits. The results of the self-assessment and feedback from program offices indicate that

the Committee has provided its review and evaluation in an efficient and effective manner,
The Commissioners -6-

adding value to the regulatory process and contributing to the accomplishment of NRC’s

mission by identifying technical, procedural, and legal issues. The Committee will continue to

monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations and make necessary modifications. 

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

Attachments:

1. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR Between 

 June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005

2. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR Chairman 

 Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005

3. Program Office Assessments of CRGR Activities 

 Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005
The Commissioners -6-

adding value to the regulatory process and contributing to the accomplishment of NRC’s

mission by identifying technical, procedural, and legal issues. The Committee will continue to

monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations and make necessary modifications.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

Attachments:

1. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR Between 

 June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005

2. Topics Reviewed by the CRGR Chairman 

 Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005

3. Program Office Assessments of CRGR Activities 

 Between June 1, 2004, and May 31, 2005

WITS No. 199700390

OAR in ADAMS? (Y or N) Y ADAMS ACCESSION NO.: ML052350407 TEMPLATE NO. RES- EDO-004 

Publicly Available? (Y or N) Y DATE OF RELEASE TO PUBLIC SENSITIVE? N 

OFFICE CRGR Tech 

Editor

X CRGR SISP

Review

SISP

Review

EDO

NAME LCupidon HChang SBahadur LCupidon SBahadur LAReyes

DATE 08/24 /05 08/22/05 08/ 24 /05 08/24 /05 08/24 /05 08/31/05
TOPICS REVIEWED BY THE CRGR 

BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2004, AND MAY 31, 2005

(CRGR Meeting Nos. 397 – 401)

CRGR Meeting No. 397 (August 10, 2004)

James E. Lyons (NRR/DSSA) — Proposed Generic Letter 2004-02, “Potential

Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency

Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at

Pressurized-Water Reactors” (GSI-191).

Presenter: David C. Cullison (NRR)

Michael E. Mayfield (NRR/DE) — Proposed Draft Final Rule Revising

10 CFR 50.55a, “Codes and Standards.” 

Presenter: Steve G. Tingen (NRR)

CRGR Meeting No. 398 (August 24, 2004)

David B. Matthews (NRR/DRIP) — Proposed Final Amendments to 10 CFR PART 50,

Appendix E Relating to (I) Nuclear Regulatory

Commission Approval of Changes to Emergency

Action Levels, Paragraph IV.B and (II) Exercise

Requirements for Co-Located Licensees,

Paragraph IV.F.2 and the associated Regulatory

Guide 1.101, Revision 5, “Emergency Planning

and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors.”

Presenter: Michael T. Jamgochian (NRR)

CRGR Meeting No. 399 (October 12, 2004)

James E. Lyons (NRR/DSSA) — Proposed Draft Safety Evaluation for Nuclear

Energy Institute Guidance Report (Proposed

Document Number NEI 04-07), “Pressurized

Water Reactor Sump Performance Evaluation

Methodology.” 

Presenter: Mark A. Giles (Region I

 Attachment 1
2

CRGR Meeting No. 400 (May 24, 2004)

James G. Luehman (OE) — Proposed Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-XX,

“Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining a

Safety Conscious Work Environment.”

Presenter: Lisamarie Jarriel (OE)

James E. Lyons (NRR/DSSA) — Proposed Draft Regulatory Guide, “Risk-Informed,

Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing

Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants” and the

associated document, Nuclear Energy Institute

guide, NEI 04-02, “Guidance for Implementing a

Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection

Program Under 10 CFR 50.48(c),” Revision 0. 

Presenter: Paul W. Lain (NRR)

CRGR Meeting No. 401 (May 31, 2004)

Eric J. Leeds (NSIR/DPR) — Proposed Bulletin 2005-02, “Emergency

Preparedness and Response Actions for

Security-Based Events” (ML051330192).

Presenter: Greg A. Casto (NSIR)
 At 1 tachment 2

TOPICS REVIEWED BY THE CRGR CHAIRMAN 

BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2004, AND MAY 31, 2005

Document

Type Topic Decision on Formal

CRGR Review

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-13,

“Consideration of Sheltering in Licensee’s Range

of Protective Action Recommendations” 

(ML041210046) 

Waived

July 7, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2003-18,

“Supplement 1, Use of Nuclear Energy Institute

(NEI) 99-01, ‘Methodology for Development of

Emergency Action Levels,’ Revision 4" 

(ML041550395)

Waived

July 13, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-12, “Clarification

on Use of Later Editions and Addenda to the

ASME OM Code and Section XI” 

(ML042090436) 

Waived

July 27, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-16, “Use of Later

Editions and Addenda to ASME Code Section XI

for Repairs/Replacement Activities” 

(ML042590067)

Waived

September 7, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-19, “Providing

Access to the Authorized Nuclear In-service

Inspectors and NRC Authorized Alternatives to the

ASME CODE Requirements” 

(ML042520050)

Waived

September 8, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-14, “Focusing

Resources in the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation as a Result of Review of Security

Plan Changes” 

(ML042020241)

Waived

September 14, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-02, “Clarifying

the Process for Making Emergency Plan Changes” 

(ML042580404) 

Waived

September 30, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-20, “Clarification

of NRC Medical Requirements for Licensed

Operators” 

(ML042510509)

Waived

November 9, 2004
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

2

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-07,

“Performance of Compensatory Measures to

Satisfy the Fire Protection Requirements” 

(ML042360547)

Waived

December 21, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-01, “Changes to

Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) Process

and Staff Guidance” 

(ML043500532)

Waived

December 21, 2004

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-05, “Regulatory

Issues Regarding Criticality Analyses for Spent

Fuel Pools and Independent Spent Fuel” 

(ML043500532)

Waived

January, 12, 2005

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-04, “Guidance

on Protection of Unattended Openings that

Intersect a Security Boundary or Area” 

(ML042600481)

Waived

January 12, 2005

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2004-13,

“Supplement 1, Consideration of Sheltering in the

Licensee’s Range of Protective Action

Recommendations, Dated August 2004" 

(ML050340531)

Waived

March 3, 2005

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-07,

“Compensatory Measures to Satisfy the Fire

Protection Program Requirements” 

(ML042360547)

Waived

March 31, 2005 

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-XX, “Issuance of

NUREG-1482, Revision 1, Guidelines for Inservice Testing at Nuclear Power Plants” 

(ML050460055)

Waived

March 31, 2005

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-09,

“High-Security Protected and Vital Area Barrier

Breaching Analysis” 

(ML050040403)

Waived

April 13, 2005

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-14, “Clarification

of Implementing Guidance for Compensatory

Measures to Access Authorization Orders” 

(ML050070325)

Waived

May 5, 2005
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

3

RIS Proposed Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-XX,

“Guidance for Establishing and Maintaining a

Safety Conscious Work Environment” 

(ML051150276)

CRGR review needed

RIS Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-08,

“Endorsement of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

Guidance, ‘Range of Protective Actions for

Nuclear Power Plant Incidents’” 

(ML050870432)

Waived

May 31, 2005

Proposed

SRP and

NUREG

Standard Review Plan Chapter 13.1.2 – 13.1.3

and NUREG/CR-6838, “Technical Basis for

Regulatory Guidance for Assessing Exemption

Requests from Nuclear Power Plant Licensed

Operator Staffing Requirements as Specified in

10 CFR 50.54(m)” 

(ML041470005)

Deferred 

July 8, 2004

Proposed

Rule

Proposed Rule to Risk-Inform Requirements

Related to Large Break Loss-of-Coolant-Accident 

(ML041880093)

Deferred 

August 24, 2004

Proposed

Rule

Amendment

Proposed Amendment of the Fitness-for-Duty Rule

(10 CFR Part 26) 

(ML042180137)

Deferred

September 3, 2004

Draft

Regulatory

Guide 

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1130, “Criteria for Use of

Computers in Safety Systems of Nuclear Power Plants” 

(ML042390357)

Deferred

September 9, 2004

Proposed

Generic

Letter

Proposed Generic Letter, “Steam Generator Tube

Integrity and Associated Technical Specifications”

(ML041060456)

Deferred

September 22, 2004

Proposed

Bulletin

Proposed Bulletin, “Material Control and

Accounting at Reactors and Wet Spent Fuel

Storage Facilities” (ML042520279)

Waived

September 24, 2004

Proposed

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed Regulatory Guide 1.75, Revision 3,

“Criteria for Independence of Electrical Safety

Systems” 

(ML042720039)

Waived

October 18, 2004

Proposed

Rule

Post-Fire Operator Manual Actions Proposed Rule 

(ML042610111)

Deferred 

October 26, 2004
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

4

Proposed

Policy and

Procedure

Letter

Proposed Policy and Procedure Letter 1-84,

“10 CFR Part 72 Backfit Guidance” 

(ML041770583)

Waived

November 11, 2004

Regulatory

Guide and

NUREG

Regulatory Guide-1085, “Standard Format and

Content Guide of Decommissioning Costs

Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors,” and

NUREG-1713, “Standard Review Plan for

Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear

Power Reactors” 

(ML042440770)

Waived

November 19, 2004

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1127, “Combining

Modal Responses and Spatial Components in

Seismic Response Analysis” 

(ML042870453)

Deferred

November 19, 2004

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1137, “Guidelines for

Lightning Protection for Nuclear Power Plants”

(ML050260456)

Deferred

February 9, 2005

Draft

Management

Directive

“Second Draft Revision of Management

Directive 6.4, ‘Generic Issues Program’” 

(ML050120475)

Waived 

March 24, 2005

Proposed

Generic

Letter

Generic Letter, “Grid Reliability and the Impact on

Plant Risk and the Operability of Offsite Power” 

(ML050390189)

Deferred

April 4, 2005

Proposed

Revision to

Regulatory

Guide

Proposed Revision to Regulatory Guide 3.71,

“Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards for Fuels and

Materials Facilities” 

(ML050610258)

Waived 

April 19, 2005

Proposed

Rule 

Section

Revision

Proposed Rulemaking to Revise

Section 10 CFR 73.1, Design Basis Threat (DBT)

Requirements 

(ML051010079)

Waived 

April 28, 2005

Draft

Regulatory

Guide

Draft Regulatory Guide 8.7, “Instructions for

Recording and Reporting Occupational Radiation

Dose Data” 

(ML051220611)

Deferred

May 6, 2005
Document

Type Topic Decision on FormalCRGR Review

5

Proposed

SRP and

NUREG

Standard Review Plan Chapter 13.1.2 – 13.1.3

and NUREG/CR-6838, “Technical Basis for

Regulatory Guidance for Assessing Exemption

Requests from Nuclear Power Plant Licensed

Operator Staffing Requirements as Specified in

10 CFR 50.54(m)” 

(ML050910086)

Waived 

May 10, 2005
PROGRAM OFFICE ASSESSMENTS OF CRGR ACTIVITIES 

BETWEEN JUNE 1, 2004, AND MAY 31, 2005

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Revision 7 of its Charter, effective November 18, 1999, the mission

of the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) is to ensure that new or revised

generic requirements that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to impose

on agency-licensed power reactor and nuclear materials licensees are appropriately justified

based on the backfit provisions of applicable NRC regulations and the Commission’s backfit

policy. As such, the primary responsibilities of the CRGR are to (1) recommend to NRC’s

Executive Director for Operations (EDO) either approval or disapproval of the staff’s proposals

for new or revised generic requirements and (2) assist NRC’s program offices in implementing

the Commission’s backfit policy on nuclear power reactors and materials facilities.

To evaluate its effectiveness in terms of the value added by the Committee’s reviews,

the CRGR considered the significance of the issues raised and the associated costs,

as measured by staff efforts and resources expended to address the issues, as well as any

associated schedule impacts. This evaluation was accomplished through the CRGR’s

self-assessment of its activities and by soliciting input from the program offices that sponsored

the actions that the CRGR reviewed during this assessment period.

The CRGR Chairman also considered the adequacy and quality of incoming proposals

when the program offices submitted them for formal review by the Committee. In doing so,

the CRGR Chairman did not reject any proposals during this assessment period.

Criteria for Program Office Assessment of the CRGR

In a memorandum dated June 27, 2005, the CRGR Chairman invited the program office

directors to assess the value added by CRGR reviews of proposals sponsored by their

respective offices. Specifically, the CRGR Chairman asked the program office directors to

consider the following four criteria to evaluate the CRGR’s effectiveness:

(1) Value added by the CRGR review (e.g., improvement in the quality of the product from

the standpoint of underlying safety concerns and backfit considerations; completeness;

and consistency with the Commission’s policies, rules, and regulations)

(2) Staff efforts expended in addressing the CRGR’s comments and recommendations,

excluding the time required for reconcurrence by the program office and the Office of

the General Counsel (OGC)

(3) Schedule impact, if any

(4) Significance of the issues and associated costs, in terms of overall impact on schedules

and resources

 Attachment 3
1 The Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards did

not sponsor any issues for CRGR review during this assessment period.

 2

The program offices addressed these four criteria in the responses associated with their

respective staff proposals. In general, the offices indicated that the CRGR reviews were

beneficial and added value to the products without significantly impacting staff schedules

or resources. The offices also stated that the CRGR’s comments and recommendations

improved their proposals by helping the staff to focus on the underlying safety concerns,

identifying implicit backfits, enhancing the quality of the final products, and ensuring that

the products were consistent with the Commission’s policies, rules, and regulations.

The following sections summarize the highlights of the CRGR assessments provided by

the NRC’s Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), Enforcement (OE), and Nuclear

Security and Incident Response (NSIR)1

:

NRR Overall Assessment

(1) Value added by the CRGR review (e.g., improvement in the quality of the product

from the standpoint of underlying safety concerns and backfit considerations;

completeness; and consistency with the Commission’s policies, rules, and

regulations)

The staff stated that, the comments and recommendations of the CRGR members

improved the quality of the generic letter by identifying areas that could be modified or

strengthened to clarify the intent, action, and information requests contained in the

submitted packages. One significant area identified in a regulatory guide by the CRGR

was the existing coordination issue with other ongoing probabilistic risk assessment and

security requirements. Specifically the need to align the Probabilistic Risk Assessment

(PRA) terminology with the 10 CFR 50.69, draft PRA rule 10 CFR 50.46(a) and address

the safety/security interface when making risk-informed changes. 

(2) Staff efforts expended in addressing CRGR comments and recommendations,

excluding the time required for reconcurrence by the program office and OGC

The staff efforts to address the CRGR comments and recommendations were minimal. 

(3) Schedule impact, if any

The staff indicated that a rule package would have been issued approximately 1 month

earlier if a CRGR review had been required. For another rule package, the staff estimated

that the CRGR review of the submitted package added less than 2 weeks. However, staff

states regarding the other three packages reviewed, that the review did not impact the

schedule for preparing and issuing the documents.
 3

(4) Significance of the issues and associated costs, in terms of overall impact

on schedules and resources

The staff indicated that the CRGR did not identify any issue that significantly impacted the

schedule or resources associated with issuing the final product. In one instance, the staff

stated that the CRGR added significant value by questioning the role of regulatory

guidance in matters related to the safety/security interface and consistency among

risk-informed rules within the agency. They also stated that the questions of specific

CRGR members were insightful and helped the staff refine and improve various

documents. The resolution of the CRGR’s questions had no impact on resources beyond

the impact resulting from the preparation for the CRGR review. However, staff stated that

for one topic in CRGR Meeting No. 397, they required approximately 60 hours of staff

time to submit the rule package to CRGR.

NSIR Overall Assessment

(1) Value added by the CRGR review (e.g., improvement in the quality of the product

from the standpoint of underlying safety concerns and backfit considerations;

completeness; and consistency with the Commission’s policies, rules, and

regulations)

The staff indicated that CRGR review contributed significant value in terms of the quality

of their product. Through the processes employed by the staff to prepare for CRGR

review, (specifically the development of the CRGR responses to Appendix C of the CRGR

Charter and the additional senior management meetings held in advance of the CRGR

review meeting to validate the responses), a high level of attention to the bulletin was

maintained, and they were better able to ensure that the bulletin was consistent with the

scope and objectives of this type of generic communication. 

Of the nine recommendations in CRGR Meeting No. 401, adopted by the staff, only

one recommendation was subsequently removed at the Commission level prior to issue

(there was a reference to an NEI white paper that provided similar information to

licensees). 

(2) Staff efforts expended in addressing CRGR comments and recommendations,

excluding the time required for reconcurrence by the program office and OGC

Staff stated that modifications to address the comments from the CRGR required

approximately 16 person hours to complete; however, 2 days following the meeting, the

staff received additional editorial comments from several individual members. The staff

indicated that addressing these editorial comments added approximately 2 days to the

bulletin schedule and another 32 person hours. Additionally, they stated, that the

document control process for handling the CRGR-reviewed bulletin caused a delay of

approximately 2 days and 8 person hours. The staff requested a written process for

handling this step in the future, to eliminate this schedule lag.
 4

(3) Schedule impact, if any

The staff also indicated that preparation effort for the CRGR review was estimated at

approximately 120 person hours and included generation of the CRGR review package

document, preparation of presentation material, and pre-review meetings to review

documents used in the review. 

An aggressive 45-day target was given to the generation of this bulletin. The bulletin was

provided to the Commission for 47 days following the May 4, 2005, SRM authorization to

proceed with the bulletin. The staff requested and received an expedited review by

CRGR. There was no significant impact to schedule adherence from responding to and

preparing for CRGR reviews. 

(4) Significance of the issues and associated costs, in terms of overall impact

on schedules and resources

Staff states that the CRGR review process provided an overall benefit. Specifically, this

high-level, focused, and standardized review process ensures that generic information

issued by NRC maintains a high level of quality. Approximately 180 person hours for

CRGR preparation and response were incurred. Approximately 4 days were added to

address secondary (editorial) comments and document control issues. 

OE Overall Assessment

(1) Value added by the CRGR review (e.g., improvement in the quality of the product

from the standpoint of underlying safety concerns and backfit considerations;

completeness; and consistency with the Commission’s policies, rules, and

regulations)

Although the staff did not believe that there were any backfit issues to address and there

was a need for a formal CRGR review, they conceded that a modest value was added by

the CRGR review. Value was added in that, during preparation for the review, the OE

staff ensured that the intent of the document and expectations of licensees in response to

the document were clear. The benefits of issuing the document outweighed any potential

costs, and the document did not communicate that the practices in the guidance were

required.

Staff also believes that the endorsement by the CRGR will likely add credibility to the

document when it is issued and will further address concerns regarding NRC’s intended

use of the document.

(2) Staff efforts expended in addressing CRGR comments and recommendations,

excluding the time required for OGC and program office reconcurrence

Staff did not indicate how much effort was expended in addressing the CRGR comments

and recommendations.
 5

(3) Schedule impact, if any

Staff indicated that two members of the OE staff dedicated a total of approximately

1 month of time preparing for the CRGR review. 

(4) Significance of the issues and associated costs, in terms of overall impact

on schedules and resources

Staff used approximately 1 month of time preparing for the CRGR review and received, in

return, three statements in the guidance document that could be clarified, one editorial

revision, and a recommendation that communications with the inspection staff be

complete before issuing the RIS.