ML20141F538
Text
g .
og UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\
%.....]
MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert F. Burnett, Ofrector Division of Safeguards Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM: Raymond J. Brady, Director Division of Security Office of Administration
SUBJECT:
RELIEF FROM DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS OF SNM ACCESS AUTHORIZATION APPLICATIONS Thank you for your June 16, 1982 memorandum, subject as above. We have closely coordinated your proposals in the subject memorandum with our legal counsel in ELD. We have been advised by ELD as we have in the past that the documentation requirement in 10 CFR 11.15(b) and (c) is a regulatory requirement not a SEC requirement subject to our interpretation as suggested in your memorandum. We are further advised that any relief from the requirement of 11.15(b) and (c) must be accomplished by amendment to the Rule. This same legal opinion was discussed with a member of Mr. L. J. Evans' staff during the preparation of
( his April 26, 1982 response to Babcock and Wilcox. (See Enclosure 1.) As you are aware, SEC/ADM's role in the Rule is that of providing a support function, i.e., processing and granting SNM access authorizations under the criteria and procedures detennined by NMSS/RES.
During the development of the Rule as well as subsequent to its publication, SEC repeatedly brought significant policy and procedural points to NMSS/RES's attention. (See Enclosures 2 and 3.) Some of these were acted on by NMSS/RES through revisions to the Rule but most were not addressed. For instance, SEC continually sought clarification as to NM2/RES requirements for the type and level (s) of investigations required, the method of processing such investiga-tions, and of evaluating the investigative information to best meet the intent of the Rule and the postulated threat.
- "Grandfathering" was suggested (see Enclosure 2) as a possible processing alternative, based on SEC's experience under Part 25, to reduce adminis-trative burden on licensees. During a series of meetings, NMSS/RES rejected "grandfathering."
- " Certification" was also suggested. (See Enclosure 2.) NMSS/RES accepted this position but stipulated during a series of meetings their intent to CONTACT: ti. J. King, PERSEC 42-74474 i
8601090410 051223 PDR P$"50N39076 i
\
4tm -
Robert F. Burnett (.
require a complete security forms packet to secure up-to-date personal background data.
SEC advised (see Enclosure 2) that any decision on "grandfathering" or
" certification" may require revision to 10 CFR Part 11. While certifica-tion was factored into the Rule, reduced or substitute forms requirements were not since NMSS/RES indicated that a complete security forms packet was required.
SEC repeatedly attempted to secure an accurate breakout, facility by facility, of the number (s) of full field background investigations (FFI's) and National Agency Checks (NAC's) that would be required by this Rule to support "U" and "R" SNM access authorization, respectively. The numbers provided by NMSS/RES have varied from 3,300 FFI and 1,200 NAC estimates at the time the Rule was published in November 1980 to 2,200 FFI's and an indetenninate number of NAC's as given in October 1981. (See Enclosure 4.) We are still uncertain as to exact figures.
We agree that our respective staffs should meet to discuss and resolve these long-standing concerns. As indicated, we stand willing to provide NMSS the support needed to fully implement the Rule consistent with your interpretation of its intent and the postulated threat. In that regard, to further clarify the intent of the Rule, we feel it would be beneficial if your staff could rereview and formally address the issues raised in Enclosures 2 and 3 which
( were originally supplied to members of your staff, but were never adequately responded to.
A frank and open discussion concerning the unresolved areas highlighted in the July 9,1980 and December 19, 1980 memoranda would be benefical to all parties concerned.
Raymond J. Brady, Director Division of Security Office of Administration
Enclosures:
- 1. Note 5/20/82, J. J. Dunleavy to R. J. Brady, w/att
- 2. Note 7/9/80, Dick Dopp to John Montgomery and Bud Evans, w/att
- 3. Memo 12/19/80, Martin J. King to Frank P. Gillespie
- 4. Ltr 10/30/81, Raymond J. Brady to Peter Garcia, w/att
(
6