ML20216J121
| ML20216J121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/25/1987 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Bernero R, Martin T, Ross D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707020128 | |
| Download: ML20216J121 (3) | |
Text
i m
6' g
of o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
y p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% 4g#
June 25, 1987 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Robert M. Bernero, NMSS Thomas T. Martin, RI Denwood F. Ross, RES Joseph Scinto, OGC James H. Sniezek, NRR FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, CRGR Chairman
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR CRGR REVIEW 0F. PROPOSED RULE
" RETENTION PERIODS FOR RECORDS" TheOfficeofAdministrationandResourcesManagementhasmadethesubject j
request which concerns a proposed rulemaking that would amend 18 parts of the 10 CFR by establishing specific retention periods for NRC-required records that are currently kept indefinitely.
The CF,GR reviewed this proposal at Meeting No. 74, April 17, 1985, and recommended that more staff work be done to assure that records and record retention periods were justified, prior to resubmittal to the CRGR.
The work recommended by CRGR has been completed, and concurrence was obtained from all relevant offices.just prior to the reorganization in April 1987.
One CRGR recommendation was considered but not incorporated--the instruction to modify the proposed rule to provide for revision of specific record retention requirements by the Commission.
This change was considered unnecessary due to the Commission's inherent capability to change any rule.
The rulemaking is stated to be an overall relaxation in record retention requirements, although there are a few increases in retention times for existing records.
There are no new records created or existing records deleted by this rulemaking.
For reasons discussed below, I am recommending that the CRGR conclude that this proposal is not subject to CRGR review.
l In the two years since CRGR first reviewed this package,10.CFR 50.109 was issued and the CRGR Charter was revised to conform with the rule.
In June 1986 the ED0 addressed the Commission (SECY-86-175) regarding the applicability of the backfit rule to amendments to Part 50 concerning licensee written communi-cations with the staff, and particularly " administrative reporting require-ments." This paper, which received Commission assent by negative consent, i
proposed that the backfit rule would be considered to apply to licensee procedures dealing with the reporting of safety information to the NRC, but'not to those dealing with the NRC-licensee administrative interface.
The proposed rulemaking on record retention periods contains a statement in the Supplementary Information, under the heading " APPLICATION OF BACKFIT RULE,"
/
that says:
0W[,,
D$
CORRggpag{ggNyycgfhBB70625 p
i l
2-
"The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to the proposed rule. The proposed rule.is purely adminictrative in nature, and therefore does not result in the
' modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of.a facility...or the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility....' See 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1)."
The proposed changes in this rule are also stated to result in an overall reduction in the recordkeeping burden imposed on the applicant or licensee.
Therefore, the rulemaking would not be subject to the backfit rule for that' reason, but would be subject to CRGR review as a proposed change in staff position which is a relaxation in requirements.
But the finding to be made by an office (and reviewed by CRGR) in that case is that (1) adequate safety is maintained, and (2) the anticipated savings warrant the resource expenditure to i:e incurred.
Since there is in this rulemaking no change in reporting
- equirements but only changes in the length of time that copies of reports (or associated material) are retained (and no retention period is less than three years), there seems to be essentially no direct nexus with operational safety. The CRGR Charter states (Section III.A) that natters considered by the CRGR will include "All staff papers which propose...so as to affect l
requirements or staff positions..., including information required of reactor licensees or applicants for reactor licenses or construction permits."
(underline added).
The changes proposed in these amendments would not alter j
the type, kind, or amount of information required for licensing.
Therefore, the June 1986 precedent set by Commission utilization of the backfit rule regarding the NRC-licensee administrative interface should be appropriately applied to this records retention rule to support the conclusion that it is i
not subject to CRGR review.
With your concurrence, I will forward the enclosed memorandum to 0 ARM notifying that further CRGR review of this matter is not required.
original signed Bvi E. L. Jordan Edward L. Jordan CRGR Chairman
Enclosure:
Distribution:
Memorandum, E. L. Jordan to W. G. Mcdonald, tCentral Filew <
dated July X,1987,
Subject:
Request PDR(NRC/CRGR) for CRGR Review of Proposed Rule " Retention CRGR CF Periods for Records" CRGR SF E. Jordan cc:
J. Zerbe CRGR Staff 0FC :
- Ast.
RGR :
CpR ~ '
NAME $ TCox:cgTlk i JEtir e
[dJordan DATE$6/#/87 6/h/87
$60787 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
/
k UNITED STATES' 7,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
5
- p
! WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
%...../
\\
l MEMORANDUM FOR:
William G. Mcdonald, Director Office of Administration and Resources Management-FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
)
J
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR CRGR REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULE,
" RETENTION PERIODS FOR RECORDS" 1
I have examined your proposed rulemaking package sent to me with your memoran-dum of June S,1987, and have discussed it with. the CRGR at Meeting.No.
July X,'1987.
The conclusion of the Committee is that this proposed rulemaking.'
is:not subject to CRGR review, due primarily to the fact.that these proposed changes are relaxations in requirements'that do not affect safety and do not J
change the level of information required for obtaining or maintaining a reactor plant license or permit.
A more detailed discussion of this matter is con-tained in the enclosed memo to the CRGR.
i Edward L Jordan, Chairman
'l Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosure:
Memorandum, E. L. Jordan to CRGR members, July X, 1987,
Subject:
Request for CRGR Review i
of Proposed Rule, " RETENTION PERIODS FOR RECORDS" 1
a
?