ML20246F017
| ML20246F017 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/09/1987 |
| From: | Cox T NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Bernero R, Jordan E, Martin T Committee To Review Generic Requirements, NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245C214 | List: |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-11-MISC, RULE-PR-110-MISC, RULE-PR-25-MISC, RULE-PR-30-MISC, RULE-PR-31-MISC, RULE-PR-32-MISC, RULE-PR-34-MISC, RULE-PR-4-MISC, RULE-PR-40-MISC, RULE-PR-50-MISC, RULE-PR-60-MISC, RULE-PR-61-MISC, RULE-PR-70-MISC, RULE-PR-71-MISC, RULE-PR-73-MISC, RULE-PR-74-MISC, RULE-PR-75-MISC, RULE-PR-95-MISC NUDOCS 8905120102 | |
| Download: ML20246F017 (7) | |
Text
h,,3
=.-
. July 9, 1987 l
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman, CRGR f
Robert M. Bernero, 255 r
T. T. Martin, RI l
Denwood F. Ross, RES James S. Sniezek, NRR Joseph Scinto, OGC l
THRU:
John E. Zerbe l
Assistant for CRGR Operations, AE0D FROM:
Thomas H. Cox Senior Program Manager, AE00
SUBJECT:
ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND SUMARY FOR CRGR MEETING NO. 119 Enclosed for your information and use is the staff summary associated with Proposed Rule Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 4, 11, 25, 30, 31, 32, 34, 40, 50, 60, 61, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 95, and 110: Retention Periods for Records.
This matter is scheduled for CRGR reviw at Meeting No.119 on Wednesday
- July.22,1987 in Room P-422, 1-3 p.m.
Thomas H. Cox CRGR Staff
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
V. Stello Distribution:
CRGR CF CRGR SF J. Zerbe T.ICoxy J. Conran B. Shelton, ARM /RMB W. Magee, ARM /DIRM OFC :AEOD:CRGR
- AE00:G 4
i NAME :TCox:cg
- JZerbe
........................)
DATE :7/7/87
- 7/ 7/87 i
0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 890512o102 870627 PDR REVGP NRCCRGR MEETING 119 PDC L---_____
f..
Issue Summary CRGR Review Item-Meeting No. 119 i
July 22, 1987 IDENTIFICATION Proposed Rule Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 4, 11, 25, 30, 31, ';2, 34, 40, 50, p
60, 61, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 95, and 110: Retention Periods for Records.
OBJECTIVE This proposal would amend eighteen parts of Title 10 to establish specific retention periods for NRC-required records that are currently kept indefinitely.
In addition, some existing retention requirements would be changed.
All nuclear facilities are covered by these amendments.
BACKGROUND A similar proposed amendments package was reviewed by the CRGR in a previous meeting, No. 74, 4-17-85. The text of the meeting summary from that meeting is attached.
CRGR generally endorsed the intent of the proposal, which was to reduce unnecessary records retention by specifying appropriate retention periods where currently no period is specified.
CRGR was concerned about at least one proposed amendment that CRGR viewed as likely to cause licensees to unnecessarily retain records which currently are not kept.
CRGR also recommended that the proposing office have the program office staff review the proposed amendments to assure that recordkeeping and retention periods were appropriate commensurate with the intended use of such records.
CRGR wished to review the proposal again after the staff work was accomplished.
The current submittal to CRGR was by memorandum, W. Mcdonald to E. Jordan, dated 6-05-87, subject: REQUEST FOR CRGR REVIEW 0F PROPOSED RULE, RETENTION PERIODS FOR RECORDS.
It contained the following enclosures:
- 1. Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- 2. Table of Proposed Changes to Record Retention Periods
- 3. OMB Supporting Statement
- 4. Letter from Dircks to DeMuth
- 5. Program Office Certification of Need for Recordkeeping Requirements
- 6. Impact of Rereview by Technical Staff After CRGR Briefing Several page changes were made in enclosures 1, 2 and 6 during and as a result of CRGR staff review of this issue.
Pages changed were: Enclosure 1; 4, 80, 81, 82, 83, 88. Enclosure 2; 1, 2, 4, 11, 19, 20, 22. Enclosure 6; 1, 2.
DISCUSSION /ISSVES This proposal is essentially a relaxation in requirements and is also a response to a legislative mandate (Paperwork Reduction Act and implementing OMB regulations).
Assuchtheproposalisnotsubjecttothebackfitrule.
In addition, the EDO has requested and received Commission assent to except from the backfit rule those rulemakings that deal exclusively with administrative reporting matters (licensee-NRC communications) having no direct safety implications.
. in requirements that have safety effects, and to other req"uirements such as those in the proposal at hand (See Charter, Section 1. Purpose, The CRGR will focus primarily on... but it will also review selected existing requirements... which may place unnecessary burdens on licensee or agency resources.").
While the proposal has no direct safety effects, it is certainly intended to reduce licensee paperwork burden.
The new OARM has submitted the aroposal in line-in, line-out style which generally shows the difference 3etween the current proposal and the version that was last presented to the CRGR.
A section has been added to the Supplementary Information that states that 10 CFR 50.109 is not applicable.
The finding directed by the Charter section IV.B.(ix) for relaxations, i.e.
that safety and security would still be adequately protected and that the cost savings would justify taking the action, is not found in this package.
Of the three recommendations made by the CRGR at Meeting No. 74, the first, that the proposal should be modified to provide for revision of the specific record retention requirements by the Commission, was not done.
0 ARM staff stated that the reason was that requirements specified in a rule can be changed by the Commission at will by changing the rule.
CRGR may wish to discuss this point with the 0 ARM staff.
The last enclosure in the package (un numbered) contains two pages indicating the impact of the staff's re-review of the proposal following the initial CRGR review. The second page is a comprehensive summary of the changes since April 1985, with explanatory notes. Enclosure 2 lists each of 180 records proposed to be changed and how the retention period would be affected by the proposal. The 18 deletions in this listing are the result of other rulemaking actions since April 1985 that have effected changes for those items.
The primary analysis of and justification for this package appears in Enclosure 3, the supporting statement for 0MB approval of the information retention.
A safety relationship is referred to in two places in this sup)orting statement.
In the last paragraph on the first page, staff states that w1ere proposed retention periods exceed a three year period, it has been determined by NRC staff, in consultation with NIRMA and NARA, that the data are directly related to public health and safety.
A similar statement is found under item 8 on the second page.
CRGR might wish to discuss with staff how NIRMA and NARA contributed to the determination of which records are directly related to health and safety.
From the chart on the last page of this package we can see that only one retention period greater than 3 years is used, i.e. for the life of the license or greater.
This period is proposed only for those records for which the existing retention period is either open-ended or specified as life or longer.
Thus there is no practical change in requirements for those records which are said to be directly related to safety.
CRGR may wish to examine a few of the other changes proposed which are said to not relate to safety, to assure that some of the proposed decreases in retention times provide adequate safety.
The only proposed decreases in retention periods are for 100 records which now have l
. no specific retention requirements, and for 3 records (2 are shown in chart but this is an error) now having 5 year retention.
Of the 100 (proposed 3 year retention), 48 are said to be new retention requirements for superseded versions of records for which the current version is kept for life /beyond.
Approximately 25 existing records are proposed to have increased retention periods. Overall, of the identified 180 separate existing records, about 50 from the current group of 139 oaen-ended records, and the three 5 year requit'ements, are the only ones for whica decreases are proposed.
CRGR ma I
are not more decreases in retention times.y wish to explore the reasons that there The technical staff certifications included under Enclosure 5 indicate a comprehensive staff review as requested by CRGR at Meeting No. 74.
Costs are discussed in items 12 and 13 on page 3 of Enclosure 3.
Costs to.the NRC for developing this package to date are said to be $180K.
The required OMB statement apparently asks for annualized cost, which number (s) does not appear.
The estimated annual cost reduction for industry is almost $28M.
f 1
k
f to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 74 Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Retention Periods for Recordkeeping Requirements in 10 CFR_
P. Norry (ADM) presented for CRGR review, a proposed rulemaking(t CFR) to revise 21 parts in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regu currently kept for an unspecified period of time.The proposal also would establish presentation to the CRGR is attached.
NRC uniform record retention periods of 3 years, 5 years,10 years, until the terminates the license authorizing the activity or fac i
l period, beyond. The proposal revises:
10 CFR Part 4, Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Consnission Progra 10 CFR Part 11, Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for to or Control of Special Nuclear Material.
10 CFR Part 21, Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance 10 CFR Part 25, Access Authorization for Licensee Personnel 10 CFR Part 30, Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing o Byproduct Material 10 CFR Part 31, General Domestic Licenses for Byproduct Material 10 CFR Part 32, Specific Domestic Licenses to Manufacture or Tr Items Containing Byproduct Material 10 CFR Part 34, Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety R Radiographic Operations 10 CFR Part 35, Human Uses of Byproduct Material l
10 CFR Part 40, Domestic Licensing of Source Material 1
10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Fa i
10 CFR Part 60, Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologi i
Repositories j
10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radio 10 CFR Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material 10 CFR Part 71, Packeging and Transportation of Radioactive Materia l.
c.
' /
, A L
10 CFR Part 72. Licensing Requirements for the Storage of Spent Fuel Storage Installation.(IFSI)
- 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials 10 CFR Part 75, Safeguards on Nuclear Material - Implementation of US/IAEA Agreements l
10 CFR Part 95. Security Facility Approval and Safeguarding of National i
Security Information and Restricted Data 10 CFR Part 110, Export and Import of Nuclear Equipment and Material 10 CFR Part 140, Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements The proposal represents NRC's commitment to bring NRC regulations into compliance with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations (5 CFR 1320.6) that require a specific retention period for each required record.
The proposal is administrative in nature and does not address whether or not there is technical or legal need for the records.
Rather, the objective is to ensure a specific retention period is provided for recordkeeping requirements that have already been codified in NRC regulations without any specific retention period. Staff believes that establishing four uniform retention periods, as opposed to the existing nine, will reduce the licensee recordkeeping burden.
Furthermore, refention pdods will be more consistent with those in industry codes and standards and endorsed by NRC (i.e., quality assurance records required by 10 CFR Parts 50 and 71). The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.) added impetus to the NRC's interest in the regulatory burden imposed on an applicant or a licensee by the preparation and retention "
of records. The NRC staff believes that this rulemaking (e.g., specifying l
clearly in the NRC regulations what records to retain, how long to retain them, j
and the condition of a record useful for NRC purposes), will be mutually beneficial to applicants, licensees and the NRC.
Implementation of the proposal is expected to result in an overall reduction in the recordkeeping l
burden imposed on licensees. The major decrease in burden will result from l.
proposing 141 specific retention periods for records that must now be retained indefinitely. Because no retention period is specified, the CRGR noted that the Offices of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Regulatory Research, Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, State Programs, International Programs, and Investigation have concurred in this proposed rulemaking. The Office of the Executive i.egal Director has no legal objection to its publication.
Furthermore, representatives from each of these offices were requested to attend the CRGR meeting.
The CRGR endorsed the intent of the proposal, which is to reduce unnecessary recordkeeping (and therefore burden) by specifying appropriate record retention periods where currently no period is specified. The CRGR viewed the proposed amendments to the 21 rules as potentially requiring new record retention where currently records are not kept by licensees.
For example, the proposed
amendment to 1 CFR 50.71 states " records that are required by the regulations in this part, by license condition, or by technical specification, must be retained for the period specified by the appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical specification.
If a retention period is not otherwise specified, these records must be retained until the Commission terminates the facility license." The CRGR viewed this proposed rule amendment as likely to cause licensees to unnecessarily retain records which currently are not kept.
Furthermore, the Committee believed that the amendment should include provisions for the Comission to modify record retention. After discussion with representatives of the aforementioned offices attending the meeting, the CRGR concluded that the proposal needed review by the technical staff of cognizant offices to assure that record retention and specified periods for retention are appropriate.
In summary the CRGR recomended that the proposal be:
1.
modified to provide for revision of specific record retention requirements by the Comission, 2.
reviewed and modified by program staff of cognizant offices to assure that recordkeeping and retention periods are appropriate commensurate with the intended use of such records, and 3.
resubmitted for CRGR consideration after accomplishment.