Search Options | ||||
Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |
April 23, 1999 Dr. William D. Travers Dear Dr. Travers: SUBJECT: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE NRC GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS PROCESS During the 461st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, April 7-10, 1999, we reviewed the proposed revisions to the NRC generic communications process. During our review, we had the benefit of discussions with representatives of the NRC staff, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and the documents referenced. DISCUSSION There are four basic types of generic communications currently in use: (1) bulletins (BLs); (2) generic letters (GLs); (3) information notices (INs); and (4) administrative letters (ALs). The industry and the members of the U.S. Senate have expressed concerns regarding the staff's use of BLs and GLs. The industry argued that the differences in regulatory requirements of these generic communications were not clearly differentiated, and although the NRC has adopted a policy that BLs and GLs be subject to the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, the staff has often inappropriately invoked the compliance exemption of the rule in its requests for licensees' actions. Therefore, recipients of BLs and GLs feel obligated to respond and act on the actions requested. The industry expressed the need for the staff to clearly differentiate the differences between BLs and GLs, and to ensure appropriate consideration of the backfit rule requirements. In addition, a number of BLs and GLs have invoked 10 CFR 50.54(f) to require licensees to submit information under oath or affirmation that is necessary to enable the Commission to determine whether to "modify, suspend, or revoke" a license. In fact, few of these generic communications have involved potential modification, suspension, or revocation of a license. The staff and the industry agree that the use of 10 CFR 50.54(f) should be restricted. In responding to these concerns, the staff has proposed approaches to better define and specify requirements associated with BLs and GLs. The staff also has proposed to use the regulatory information letter (RIL) as a new generic communication tool. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We commend the staff for its early interaction with the industry and its efforts to resolve the concerns associated with the generic communications process. Sincerely ,/s/ Dana A. Powers Chairman References:
|