ML20040A859

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re Class Exemption for Generic Repts.Estimated Respondent Burden Is 2,000,000-h

ML20040A859
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1981
From:	Donoghue D, Scott R NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
Shared Package
ML20040A854	List: ML20040A853 ML20040A859
References
NUDOCS 8201220234
Download: ML20040A859 (21)

Text

-

REQUEST FOR OM3 REVIEW (Und:r th: Pap 3rwork R: duction Act and Ex:cutiva Ord:r 12291)

Imp;rt nt - Read instructions (SF-83A) before completing this Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs form. Submit the required number of copies of SF-83.together Office of Management and Budget with th9 material for which review is requested to:

Washington.O.C. 20503 1.D partment/ Agency and Bureau / Office originating request

3. Name(s) and telephone number (s) of person (s) who can best answer questions regarding request U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pat Woolley (301) 492-8137 2.6-digit Agency / Bureau number (firstpart of 11 digit Treasury

4. 3-digit f unctional code (last part of 11-digit Treasury Account Account No.)

-No.)

3 1

0 2 0

_0_

_2 _ _7_ _ f_

5. Tit lD of informatson Collectson or Rulemaksng C. Is this a rulemaking suomassion under Sectron 3504(h) of P.L.96-511 ? (Check one)

Class exemption for generic reports 12 No <section 3so7 submission) 2 O Yes.NPRM. Expected date of pubhcation:

6. A.ls any Information coIIection'(reporting or recordkeeping) 30 Yes.finalrule. Expected date of puchcation:

onvolved ? (Check one)

Effective date:

1 % Yes and proposal es attached for review D. At what phase of rulemaking is this submission made?

'2 O Yes but prcposalis not attached - skip to question D.

3 0 No - skip to ouestion D.

1 g Not apphcable B. Are the respondents pnmanly.educationalagencies or 2 0 Maior rule. at NPRM stage Institutions or as the purpose related to Federal education 3 0 Maior Final rule for which no NPRM was published programs ?

4 O Major Final rule. af ter pubhcation of NPRM O Yes 30 No 5 O Nonmajor rule, at NPRM stage 6 O Nonmajor rule,at Final stage COMPLETE SHADED PORTION IFINFORM ATION COLLECTION PROPOSALIS ATTACHED

7. Current (or former) OMB Number

8. Requested

12. Agency report form number (s)

,, ],,, ; ;,,,. _.

Expiration Date 3150-0012

~~

N/A Expiration Date

13. Are respondents only Federal agencies?

.g-11/30/83 11/30/83 O Yes db

^

9. Is proposed information collection listed in

14. Type of request (Check one) tha information collection budget?

O Yes O No 1 O prehminary plan

10. Will this proposed information collection 2 O new (notpreviously approved or expired more than 6 months cause the agency to exceed its information agol colisction budget allowance? (/t yes, attach O Yes JQ No 3 0 revision smendment request from agency head.)

4p extension ladiustment to burden only)

11. Number of report forms submitted for approval 5 O extension (no Change) 6 0 reinstatement (expired within 6 months) yjg 15.

16. Classification of Change in Burden (explain in supporting statement) 0 Approrimate size of univiest frf sampdel

/p No of Responses No.of Reporting Hours Cost to the Pubhc b sirset 3:mpi.

Varies

a. in inventory

-0 7,500,000 s

c Estem:ted number of

b. As proposed 720 2,000,000 s

rM oondents or varies

c. Dif f erence (b-a)

+720

- 5,500,000 s

d Arports annuaHy by each Explanation of difference (indicate as many as apply) risponcent 6 fem 25J varies -

Adjustments o Totionnuairesponses t,r:m f 5c x 75c;

d. Correction-error i

i l +, $

varies e Co"ection-ree5h**'e i i

15 t etimam...ere,e

",",*$'[$!"

f. Change in use i

li is o Estimited totalhours f,(".""y, buro e" '"

g. increase

+

+

+$

6t a '52' '5')

-5'500l'00 9 nnn nnn a-rease

-s 8201220234 811231 PDR OPG EUSOMB

~

PfGR Standard Form 8a CRT. lam

17. Abstract-Nssds cnd Usis (50 words orisss)

Pr6viderblanket clearance approval-for any:information<.requirei11ent, deemed necessary for public health and safety in an emergency incident-related situation.

18. R;lztsd report f orm(s) (give OMB number (s). IRCN(s),

20. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number intxrnalagency report form num,ber(s) or symbol (s))

N/A 21.Small business or organization (C Yes O No 19.Typa of affected public (Check as many as apply)

22. Type of activity of affected public-indicate 3-digit Standard industrial Classification (SIC) code (s) (up to 10) - if over 1 CX individuals or households 10, check O Multiple or O All 2 O state orlocalgovernments 3 O larms 4 0 businesses or otherinstitutions (except farms)

A 8

3 23.Brist descr;ption of affected public leg." retail grocerystores."" State education agencies,""householdsin 50 largest SMSAs")

.NRC licensees

24. Purpose (Check as many as apply. It more than one. indicate

26. Collection method (Check as many as apply) predominant by an asterisk) 1)g( mail self-administered

'1 O, application for benefits-2 0 other self-administered 2 O program evaluation 30 telephoneinterview 3 0 general purpose statistics 40 personalinterview 4 [X regulatory or compliance 5O recordkeeping requirement:

5 O program planning or management Required retention period:

years 6 0 research 6 O other-describe:

25. Frequency of Use

27. Collection agent (Check one)

~

1 O Nonrecurring 1 g requesting Department / Agency Recurring (Check as many as apply) 2 O other Federal Department / Agency g

2 jp on occasion 6 O semiannually 3 O private contractor 3 0 weekly 70 annually 4 O recordkeeping requirement 4 O monthly 80 biennially 5 O other-describe:

3 O Quarterly 90 other-describe;

28. Authority for agency for information collection or

30. Do you promise confidentiality?

rulemaking-indicate statute, regulation, judicial decree, (If yes, explain basis forpledge etc. 42 USC 52201 as implemented by 10 CFR 30,

'" 8'PP '"9 8'8* *"' l U ***

D*

40, 50 and 70 31.Will the proposed information collection create a new or become part of an existing Privacy Act system of records?

29. Respondent's obligation to repiy (Check as many as apply)

(If yes, attach Federal Register notice orproposed draft of 1 O voluntary notice.)

O Yes

@ No 2 % required to ootain or retain benefit

32. Cost to Federal Government of 3 O mandatory-cite statute,not CFR (attach copy of information collection or rulemaking S Rnn ;nnn statutory authority)

COMPLETEITEMS 33 THRU 35 ONLY IF RULEM AKING SUBMISSION

33. Compliance costs to the public

,34. Is there a regulatory impact

35. ls there a statutory or judicial analysis attached?

deadline affecting issuance?

O Yes O No O Yes. Enter date-0 No l CERTIFICATION BY AUTHORIZED OFFICI ALS SUBMITTING REQUEST-We certify that the information collection or rulemaking submitted for r$visw is necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions, that the proposal represents the minimum public burden and Federal cost consistant with need. and is consistent with applicable OMB and agency policy directives. Signature and title of apPaoVING POLICY OFFICIAL FoA AGENCY DATE susuiTTING of ri iAL oATE k

D e

og f.

phe c

l

j.

.O r^') ~

w' r

l l.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR CLASS EXEMPTION FOR REPORTS CONCERNING POSSIBLE' NON-ROLITINE GENERIC PROBLEMS l

l i

i 1.

Justification As a part of its normal program activities, the NRC conducts an inspection and enforcement program to assure that activities conducted by the applicant / licensee during the regulatory licensing review process, which includes both the construction and operation phase of a nuclear power plant, are perfomed in a manner to ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of the public, the common defense and security, and the. quality of the environment.

Reportable occurrences or unusual events, equipment failures, construction problems, and issues discovered or raised by the technical staff during the safety review are brought to the attention of the NRC through licensee reporting procedures, the safety review process itself, and by NRC's inspection staff.

Repoits submitted by the licensee and issues ~ discovered by the staff are evaluated, and if the NRC deter-mines that the. reporting event or issue may have immediate significant generic implications -- that' is, that the event or issue has or might have the potential for immediate occurrence at other. facilities -- a sumary notification and/or request for information is immediately sent to other licensees and applicants that may be similarly affected. The notice alerts the-licensees / applicants and requests them to immediately begin to take appropriate action to assure that the same~ situation does not exist or will not occur at their facility.-Depending upon the seriousness of the problem, the notice may require prompt reports to the NRC presenting the results of the inspection, corrective measures taken, or analysis performed.

See typical Inspection and Enforcement Bulletins attached.

Subsequently, based on the information obtained from licensees / applicants and the staff's evaluation of the problem, new regulatory requirements may be identified.

Depending upon the nature of the problent and its resolution, these new requirements could be imposed by. regulation, or they could be imposed on affected facilities individually by amendment to the technical specifications or coriditions of their construction pemit or license.

In addition, the NRC could issue a Regulatcry Guide which would describ the nature of the problem and the method or methods found adequate by the regulatory staff for its resolution.

Where the corrective action is taken by the issuance of a new regulation, any e

recordkeeping or reporting requirement would be cleared with GAO in the normal OM manner.

Where corrective action is imposed by amendment to a licensee's technical specification or condition of the construction pemit or operating license, the action and any subsequent reporting would not be subjec't to the clearance procedure since-the requirement would be imposed on a case-by-case basis. With respect to this request for a renewal of NRC's class exemption, however, we are concerned particularly with those initial communications sent i

j to licensees concerning a possible non-routine generic problem, which requires prompt action by them to preclude a potential threat to the public health and safety and which request the licensee to immediately begin to 'take action and report the results thereof to the NRC.

L -

k, h, f

3 L

i

2. ' Descriotion of Servsy' Plan'(Respondents)

~

Currently there are 72 nuclear power plants licensed for operation and 89 plants which have received construction permits.

In addition, applications for construction permits for 20 plants.are under review.

In the past, more i

than 90 percent of the non-routine generic problems identified have related to nuclear power plants.

In addition to nuclear power plants, there are.

appRix7mately 8,000 persons authorized by license to possess byproduct, source l

or special nuclear materials. Depending on the type.of problem identified, the number of licensees affected could vary considerably.

)

~

~

3.

Tabolation'and'Poblication Plans.

All of the ' orrespondence'between' the NRC and licensees 'concerning possible non-c routine generic problems is made available in the NRC public document room in t

Washington, D. C., and'at local public document rooms located in the vicinity-l

- - -- of the nuclear power plant site.

4.

Time ' Schedol e 'for Data ' Coll ection 'and ' P0bl i cation

)

..The information requests concerning possible non-routine generic problems are' event oriented, and there is no specified time schedule.

In addition, during the safety.

review of an' application, the NRC staff may discover possible generic items which i

mhy apply to several other utilities.:

5.*' Cons 01tations'00tside'the Agency

~

~

l None.

S.

Estimation of Complianca Burden

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

" '~ ~

j i

It is expected that there will be about 10 events per year requiring a report from licensees concerning possible non-routine generic problems.

Usually, between 10 and 100 licensees may be affected, and the average time necessary to conduct an inspection or an evaluation arid report the results may vary :.

between several hours and several months.

For each event concerning a i

possible non-routine generic problem for which information is requested of, l

licensees, the respondent compliance burden is estimated to vary from 800 i

itaff-brs, to about 4.,000,000 staff-hours. ~ It is estimated that the total annual respondent compliance burden is about 2,000,000 staff-hours.

7.

Estimate of Cost to the Federal ~ Government Dependent upon the severity of incidents that initiate generic requests for information, NRC staff review wuld vary.

Minimal dollar cost for reviewing a generic incident is estimated at $80,0001.e., one GS-14 reviewer's salary plus overhead. The total estimated annual cost to the Government is $800,000.

(10 incidents - requiring use of the generic clearance annually).

i 1

l 4

y e

~*

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS (CRGR)

I.

Charter II.

Membership III.

Scope IV.

Operating Procedures

~

V.

Reporting Requirements e

O M

e t.

9 g

4 e

e a

es 9

f a

5 4

e h

e 9

6 e

e O

e e

e e

o e

w

l..

I.

CHARTER The Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has the responsibility to review and reconmend to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO).

approval or disapproval of requirements to be imposed by the NRC staff on

~

one or more clcsses of reactors.

The CRGR will develop means for controlling

~

the number and nature of the requirements placed by NRC on licensees. The objectives of these controls are to eliminate the unnecessary burdens placed on licensees, reduce the exposure 'of workers to radiation in implementing some of these requirements, and conserve NRC resources while a't the same

. time not reducing the levels of protection of public health and safety.

~

The controls should make sure that requirements issued (a) do in fact con-tribute effectively and significantly to the health and safety of the public,

- and (b7 do lead to utilization of both NRC and licensee resources in as optimal ~a fashion as possible in the overall achievement of protection of public health and safety.

By having the committee submit recommendations directly to the EDO for approval, a single agency-wide point of control will be provided.

The CRGR will focus primarily on. proposed new requirements, but it will also review selected existing requirements which may place. unnecessary burdens on licensee or agency recources.

In reaching its recommendation, the CRGR shall consult with the proposing office to ensure that the reasons for the proposed requirement are well, understood.

If the CRGR recommends disapproval or najor modifications of a proposed requirement, it shall submit to the E,D0 a statement of the reasons for its recomnendation.

This 9

r.

statement shall provide a clear indication of the basis for the decision not to apply the requirement to individual reactors or classes of reactors.

Tools used by the CRGR for scrutiny would be expectcd to include cost-benefit analysis and probabilistic risk assessment where data for its proper use are dequate.

Therefore, to the extent possible, written just-ifications should be based on these evaluation techniques.

The~use of cost benefit analyses and other tools should make it possible to determine which proposed requirements have real safety significance, as distinguished from those proposed requi.rements which should be given a lower priority or those which might be dropped entirely.

II.

MEMBERSHIP This Committee shall be chaired by Victor Stello, the Deputy Director occupying the newly formed position of DEDO for Regional 0perations and Generic Requirements, and'it shall consist of, in addition to the DEDROGR, one individual ~ from each NRR, IE, NMSS, RES, AEOD and ELD, appointed by the Executive Director for Operations.

The Office of'tfie DEDROGR will provide

' staff support.

The Generic ReqQirements Review Committee may use several non-NRC persons as consultants in special technical areas.

The following individuals have been appointed by the EDO, effective November 2,1981, t_o the CRGR:

Robert M. Bernero, RES Darrell Eisenhut, NRR Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., AEOD

a i

Edward L. Jordan, IE l

Donald B. Mausshardt, NMSS t

i Joseph Scinto, ELD New members will be appointed by the EDO as the need arises.

If a member cannot attend a' meeting of the CRGR, his Office Director may propose an alternate for the chairman's approval.

It is the responsibility of th,e i

~

alternate member to be fully versed on.the agenda items before the _ Committee.

III.

CRGR SC0pE f ~

' A.

The CRGR shall ' consider all proposed new generic requirements to be i

imposed by the NRC staff on one or more classes of reactors.

These' l

include:

i l.

(i) All staff pape~rs which propose the adoption of final rules or i

policy statements affecting 10 CFR parts 20, 50, 51, 55,100 or modifying any other rule so as to affect technical requirements -

l applicable to reactor licensees, including technical information i

required of reactor licensees or applicants for reactor licenses or construction, permits.

l (ii) All staff papers proposing new proposed rules' of the type l

described in paragraph 1, including Advanced Notices.

i (iii) All proposed new or revised regulatory guides; all proposed new or revised SRp sections; all proposed new or revised branch technical positions'; all proposed generic letters; all multiplant orders; show cause orders; all 50.54f letters; all bulletins-

_p

l i l

and circulars; all USI NUREGS; and all new or revised Standard Tech.. Specs.

B.

The CRGR shall consider all cps, Ols, approvals of PDAs and FDAs, minutes of conferences with owners groups, licensees or vendors, staff

~

approvals of topical reports, information notices, and all other documents, letters or connunications whic'h are represented 'to. reflect or interpret NRC staff positions, unless such documents refer only to-previously approved requirements or staff positions,* for example:

(i) only positions or. interpretations which are contained in regu-lations, policy statements, pioposed regulations, regulatory.

guides, the Standard Review Plan, branch technical positions, t

generic letters, orders, topical approvals, PDAs, FDAs, licenses and license amendments which have been promulgated prior to November 12, 1981, or which had been used in the'revie'w of at

~

least three facilities (including amendments) prior to November 12, 1981.

Any document or communication of this type shall cite and accurately state the position as reflected in a previously promalgated regulation, order, Regulatory Guide, SRP, etc.

(ii) only positions after that date which have been approved by CRGR.

{

"It is expected that the Offices will develop internal procedures to ensure j

that the documents and communications referenced above will contain only j

previously approved requirements or staff positions.

(

1 j

=

C.

For those rare instances where it is judged that an emergency action is needed to protect the health and safety of the public, no review by the CRGR is necessary.

However, the Chairman should be notified by the office originating the action.

These emergency action requirements will i

be reported,to the Committee for3nformation and will be included irt the report to the Commission.

D.

For each proposed requirement-not requiring immediate action, the proposing office is to identify the requirement as either Category 1 or 2.

Category 1 requirements 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 routinely approved or otherwise dealt with within 2 working days of receipt' of the CRGR.

If the appropriateness of designation.as Category 1 is questioned'by the Chairman, and if the question is not resolved within the 2 working-day limit, the proposed reqQirement is to be forwarded by.$he Chairman to the EDO for decision.

Category 2 requirements are those which do ~not meet the criteria for t

l designation as Category 1.

These are to be scrutinized carefully by l

the CRGR on the basis of written justification, which must be submitted by the proposing office along.with the proposed requirements.

Upon notice to the members of the CRGR, and without objection, the Chairman may exempt any Category 2 proposal from review on the grounds that he I

concludes that it involves only an insigificant effect on the NRC staff

~

and on licensees.

~

.c E.

The DEDROGR shall compile and maintain a' list of projected generic.

r,equirements based on input from the NRC Offices.

The'CRGR shall re-ceive an early briefing from the Offices on the proposed new generic i

p r~ equi:ements before the staff has developed the requirements and held

~

discussions'with the ACRS.

l F.

The CRGR shall be consulted on the proposed backfit policy to be developed-by DEDROGR staff.

G.

The CRGR shall be consulted on the proposed plan to control comunica-tions with licensees, which is to be developed by DEDROGR staff..

H.

The CRGR may be consulted on any issue deeme'd... appropriate by the Chairman.

[

l IV.

CRGR OPERATING PROCEDURES

[

A.

Meeting Notices t

Meetings will generally be held at regular intervals and will be scheduled well. in advance.

Meeting Notices will, generally be issued t

by the Chairman.2 weeks in advance of each meeting, except for Category 1-items, with background material on each item to be con-

[

sidered by the Comittee.

(

B.

Contents of Packages Submitted to CRGR l

Each package submitted to the CRGR for review shall include ten copies of the following information:

(i)

The proposed generic requirement as it is proposed to be sent

~

out to licensees.

l

s,',

i ':

~..

(ii)

Draft staff papers for underlying staff documents supporting the requirements.

(A copy of all materials referenced in the' document

' hall be made available upon request to the DEDROGR staff. Any s

comittee member may request DEDROGR staff to obtain a copy of any referenced material for his use.)

i (iii)

A brief description of each of the steps anticipated that licensees l

must carry out in order to complete' the requirements; e.g.,

Aie there separate short-term and long-term requirements?

Is it che definitive, comprehensive position on th'e subject or is it the first of a series of. requirements to be issued in the future?

How daes this requirement affect other requirements? ( Does this requirement mean that other items or systems or prior a.nalyses need to be reas'sessed?

Or does it req' ire or may it entail.

Is it only computation?

u engineering design of a new system or modification of any existing systems?

What plant coriditions are needed to install, conduct preoperationa1 tests and declare operable?

I's plant shutdown 'necessary? How long?

Does design need NRC approval? -

,Does it require new e'quipment?

Is it available for purchase in sufficient quantity by all affected licensees or must such j

equipment be designed? What is the lead time for availability?

May.it he used upon installatio'n or does it,need staff approval before use?

Does it need tech. spec. changes before.use?

(iv)

Identification of the category of reactors to which the generic requirement is to ap'ly (that is, whether it is to apply to new p

plants only,' new OLs o'nly, OLs after a certain date, OLs before a certain date, all Ols, all plants under construction, all plants, all water reactors, all PWRs only, some vendor types, some vintage types such as BWR 6 and 4, jet punp and nonjet pump pl. ants, etc..

(v)

For each such category:

A risk reduction assessment performed using a data base and methodology commonly accepted within NRC (for example, similar to that outlined in SECY BI-513).

An assessment of costs to NRC; an assessment of costs to licensees, including resulting occupational dose increase or decrease, added plant and operational complexity, as well as total financial costs.

Consistent with the first two items above, provide the basis for requiring or permitting implementation by a given date or on a particular schedule.

Any other subgested implementation schedule and the basis there-for.

This should include sufficient information to d,enonstrate that the schedule is realistic and provides sufficient time for i'ndepth engineering, evaluation, design, procurement, installation, '

testing, development of operating procedures, and training of operators.

Schedule for staff actions involved in completion of requirement i

(based on hypothesized effective date of approval).

Q

.l.:

4

_g.

~

Prioritization of the proposed requirement considered in light of all'other safety related activities under way at all 'affected facilities.

This prioritization shall be based upon t,he guidance and direction provided from time-to-time by DEDROGR. 'Until such time as such advice is, provided.,each proposing office shall use its best, technical judgreat and explain the basis th'e'refor.

For proposed requirements involving reports and/or record keeping,.

an a'ssessment of whether such reporting or record keeping is the

(

best means of implementation,and,the appropriate degree of formality.

and detail to be imposed.

• ~To the. exterit that the category contafnf plais' of' d'iTie~r'en't" types I'-

or vintages, the items listed above'shall be pdvided for each typ[,.

and vintage, or justification shall be provided demonstrating that the analysis.o'f. each item is valid for akl, types and vintages covered.

(.vi)

Each proposed requirement shall contain the sponsoring office's position as to whether the requirement implements existing regulations or goes beyond,them.

(vii)

The proposed method of implementation along.with the concurrence' (and ani. coments) of OELD on the method proposed.

(viii)

Information needed to obtain OMB clearance under the Paperwork

~

Reduction Act.

l C.

DEDROGR Staff Review l

DEDROGR staff shall review the package for completeness.

If incomplete, the package shall be returned by DEDROGR to originating office with reasons

I m.

for incompleteness.

Prior notice to committee not needed; however, at each meeting of the Committee, DEDROGR staff shall report on rejected packages.

If a package is complete, it shall be scheduled for CRGR consideration; however,. scheduling priorities shall je at the discretion of the Chai man.

All requests for particular scheduling shall be made to the Chaiman not t'o the Committee The ROGR staff may obtain factual infomation from industry and con-

.sultants on such proposals, particularly with respect to cost of implementation, realistic schedule for implementation, and effect of carrying out the proposed work on the ability of licensees to safely and efficiently carry out the full range of safety related activities at each facility.

~

D.

CRGR Meeting Minutes ~

At each meeting, for each package scheduled for discussion, the sponsoring office shall attend to respond to comments and questions.

The DEDROGR staff shall present a. brief analysis of the package.

A reasonable amount of time, within the discretion of the Chaiman, shall be permitted i

for discussion of each item by Committee members.

At the conclusion of discussion, each Committee member shall summarize his position.

Minutes of the meeting, including minutes of the discussion, shall 'be maintained and the position of each member as summarized by that member shall be accurately recorded.

Minutes shall be circulated to all inembers within 3-working days after the meetings, and each member shall have the opportunity to tement in writing on such minutes..All sucn comments receivd within 5-working days shall be maintained as part of the minutes of the meeting.

Based on con, sideration of the comments of-the Committee members, the Chaiman shall recommend to EDO approval, disapproval, modification,

'~

or conditioning of each recommendation'for generic requirements con-sidered by-the Committee, as well as the method of implementation of,

l such requirements and appropriate scheduling for such implementation,

~

i which shall give considerati,on to the ability of licensees to safely and

~

efficiently carry out the entire range of' safety related activities at eac,h, facility.

Copies of the Chaiman's recommendation; and EDO approval, disapproval, or other action shall be provided to Comittee members.

E.

Record Keeping System The DEDROGR staff will maintain an archival system for keeping records of all packages submitted to DEDROGR, actions by the staff, summary minutes of'CRGR consi,deration of each package, recommendations by the Chairman, and decisions by ED0.

V.

REPORTING SYSTEM The DEDROGR staff shall. prepare a' report to be submitted by the EDO to the Commission ~each month.

The report will provide a brief sumary of the number packages received, the number returned, a summary of those considered by the CRGR, the decision by the EDO on each proposed requirement, and the number '

.--me

em.

12 -

of packages yet to be considered.by the CRGR.

Committee members will be on distribution for these reports.

o W

e G

G e

4 O

"bes

• e e

e e

a i

I e

9 9

e 9

I e

e O

9 m

e h

1

(

1

?

l l

e Q -

p v

9

(

[.

{

s UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OmCE WASHINGTON. D.1 20548 amesu g g uswr, B-180225 g.2 6 1980 Mr. William J. Besaw, Director Division of Technical Information Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555

Dear Mr. Besaw:

On July 28,1980, we rec 61ved your agency's request for review and cleara~nce--pursuant to section 409 of Public Law 93-153--of an extension of GA0's Class Exemption for Reports Concerning Possible Generic Problems (B-180225, R0072).

On September 12, 1980, we granted an interim continuation of the previous generic clearance through November 30, 1980, to provide. time for GA0 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to arrive at a mutually satisfactory.

j resolution regarding the need for continuing a generic clearance.

m b9

'r p"

We have reached aareement on. the need for and use of the generic clearance.

This agreement is set. forth below.

12 4

The generic clearance is to be used only in those instances

. 4 where the Director, Offices of Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear-Material Safety and Safeguards, or Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

determines that there is a non-routine generic problem which re-quires prompt action by both NRC and licensess to preclude a threat to the public health and safety.

This. clearance will cover occasions where licensees must take imediate action to begin developing information even though submission to NRC may not be made until the licensees complete action under the hulletin,, order, or letter.

NRC is to establish an internal policy statement which ex-plains the use and control of the clearance, and recognizes that GA0 retains the right of. review of each information request issued under the clearance.

The following controls for the use and processing of information requests under the generic clearance are to be established and maintained.

i

..w.

T:

^

N 9,

s B-180225 1.

NRC Program Offices The program offices should develop written procedures that include the following controls. -

a 1

--Establish a designated control point for coordination of the clearan.ce requests with the-NRC clearance office.

--Before issuance of each information request, verify through the c

NRC clearance office that the data. requested is not already available. Where this procedure would. delay a bulletin, order, or letter that must go out imediately because of a generic health or safety problem, the Office Director may make this detemination provided the NRC clearance office verifies the accuracy of the determination upon receipt of the issued bulletin, order, or letter.

--Include in each informati.gn request the clearance statement prescribed by GAO.

M

--Furnish a copy of each information request, when issued, to jj the NRC clearance office and a copy without attachments to GAO, 2.

NRC Clearance Office The clearance office must maintain an information locator system adequate to. determine whether infomation being requested duplicates information already available.

For each query from a program office for use of the generic clearance, the clearance offi,ce will:

-Search the infomation locator system promptly and advise the program office as to whether the'information is already available.

--Maintain a file of each infomation request including a copy of all respondent coments on burden and duplication.

--Periodically review and assess each request under the generic clearance for conformance with authorized use, discuss ques-tionable uses. with the appropriate program office, and document the reseTution of these cases.

G

,,,eo...g=.6

-e

L-o.

9 B-180225

--Submit to GA0 a cooy of any coments concerning burden and duplication received from licensees.

i

--Submit semi-annually and at other times as. requested,'to the j

GAO a listing by date of the individual information requests by program office; listing the number of licensees by type to

~

whom each request was sent and the e5timated~ reporting. burden under each, request.

3.

GA0 clearance' 0 Nice GA0's Regulatory Reports Review Office will monitor the use of this ' generic clearance as follows.

--Periodically review each information request issued under the

~i generic clearance for confomity with its authorized use, and' discuss questionable uses with the NRC clearance office and appropriate program office.

This' review may require additiona.1 fi NRC documentation.

9.4

--Any cases judged by GAO to be outside the scope of the generic N

clearance after discussion with the NRC clearance and program i

offices must be submitted promptly by NRC for specific review by GA0.

--Should NRC not submit such cases for review within a reasonable time, GA0 will publish a Federal Register notice of Federal

, Reports Act violation.

~

--Publish in the Federal Register the semi-annual infomation on use of the geneMS clearance as furnished by NRC.

~

--Periodically review NRC's administration of the generic clearance.

The following clearance infomation must appear on each information request which is issued as a non-routine generic request.

"This request for information was approved by GA0 under 'a blanket clearance number R0072 which expires November 30, 1983.

Coments on burden and-duplication may be directed to the U.S. General Accounting Office, Regu.latory Reports l

Review, Room 5106, 441 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

[

20548."

b.. *>

t O

t s

1 4

B-180225 We appreciate the cooperation of the NRC staff in resolving the issues associated with this clearance.

Sincerely yours, Norman-F. Heyl Regulatory Reports Review Officer T. Dorian, NRC cc:

S. Scott, NRC P. Woolley, NRC 241 NM CVg

^ 7, 5

me h

l 3

p 1

'J 2

l

^51

.1 l

..