ML20154N419

Lists Recommendations from Internal Control Review Team Audit,Per Encl Results of Audit Review.Res Ofc Ltr 2 on Regulatory Analysis Procedures Should Be Issued & Procedure for Backfit Analysis for Generic Issues Should Be Prepared

ML20154N419
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/15/1988
From:	Morris B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
To:	Lahs W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
References
NUDOCS 8809290302
Download: ML20154N419 (3)

Text

r T

O i

AUG 151998 l

l fiEMORAN00M FOR: William Lahs, Acting Chief. Regulatory Development Branch

[

Division of Regulatory Applications RES FRON:

Bill H. Harris Director, Division of Regulatory i

Applications. RES i

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF INTERNAL CONTROL REVIEW f

?

Enclosed is a review done in the area of regulatory analysis by an internal control review team consisting of the following members:

(1) Ron Frahm, RES; (2) Bill Nilstead, RES; (3) Will Brown, NHS$1 and (4) Dave Tiktinsky, NMSS.

This internal control study was directed to be performed by a memorandum from Gordon Fowler, ARM, dated March 30, 1908.

Enclosed are the review results taken from a memorandum from R. Frahm to T. King, dated July 18, 1988, that presents the results of the internal control audit review.

j i

Based upon their recomendatiens, the following actions should be taken:

l t

1.

Issue RES OL #2 on Regulatory Analysis Procedures and 2.

Prepare and implement a procedure for the preparation of backfit analysis for Generic !ssues, including consideration of the recent court decision and revision of the backfit rule.

l If more practical, these two items could be combined into a single procedure.

l

! would like to have these procedures developed and issued before the end of

(

FYEC.

N D0 Bill M. Morris, Director f

g{

Division of Regulatory Applications l

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research j

S

Enclosure:

As stated l

$k O!$TRIBUT!0N: [HEMOTOLAHS)

W RUIT5WJ7c' ire /chron

{

U Pl>(*

>g florris j

og Roszteczy I

• o Xing j

('

Frahm

[

• See previous concurrencesz eiz 0FFC:ARGIB/ ORA * :ARGIB/0RA*:0RA:DerDir:0RA: Dim j

NAME:RTRAMt :sy:TKING

ZROSITOCZY:BMORRI$ M :

1 I 0 ATE:7/22/88

7/?1/88

i/3 /88 : //[/68 j

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY w

i i

ENCLOSURE 1 l

I Regulatory Analysis in Support of Generic Issues f

i In the review of AREA 11.2 "Regulatory Analysis," the following members of the Regulation Development Branch /0RA; J. Mate, S. Feld and M. Au, were j

interviewed and the following documents reviewed:

a a)

RES Office Letter No. 3 from E. Beckjord 5/10/88, Prondure &

Guidance for the Resolution of Generic issues.'

l t

b)

Heno from E. Beckjord to Office Directors 10/28/87, subject.

Revision of Procedures Relating to Regulatory input Analysis."

c)

Chapters 1 & 2 of the Draf t Research Procedures Handbook for Control I

of Niemking.

d)

NRR OL 16 Revision 3, "Regulatory Aaalysis Guidelines," 5/13/86 -

f obsoleted by the NRC reorganizaticn of 1987.

I The requirement that all Regulatory Analyscs (RIAs) be reviewed by RDB/0RA/RES i

is adequately emphasized in document b and the timetable for submittal for j

review is exhibited.

Controlling documents for the preparation of acceptable i

Regulatory Analyses (RIAs) are also identified and referenced in document b.

i We have identified only two problem areas as follows:

l 4)

RES OL-3 references RES OL 2 for guidance in the preparation of regulatory analyses. At the time OL-3 was being prepared RDB had I

initiated action to re-issue the 10/20/87 Beckjord memo (Document b) as RES OL-2.

For consistency, the Regulatory Analysis procedures j

shN d be reissued as Old as soon as practical, j

i b)

The new backfit rule (10 CFR 50:109) became effective October 21, 1985.

The rule defines backfitting, in part, as any modification or addition to a facility or procedures or organization required to I

design, construct, or operate a f acility. The rule states that f

backtitting of a f acility is required only when a systematic and t

docurented analysis shows that backfitting would substantially l

increase the overall protection of the pubite health and safety or the co mon defense and security and that the direct and indirect i

costs of backfitting or a facility are justified in view of the F

protection.

Ii A stater.ent of the determination, with regard to backfitting, made

[

by the regulatory analysis oust now be included in the preamble of each proposed or final rule. Comission guidance (Nemorandum.

S. Chilk to V. Stello, March S, !?B6) indicates that "the backfit analysis provided with a rulemaking package for public coerent j

l l

i

,,. ~ =,

ENCLOSURE 1 should contain sufficient detail in addressing each consideration listed in the backfit rule so that anyone wishing to comment on the analysis may do so without requesting additio& 1 detail or documents.

In addition, the analysis should clearly state, based on the facts considered, how the staff decided that the proposed rule would provide a substantial increase in public health and safety and that the costs are justified in view of this increased protection."

A literal interpretation of the Commission guidance would indicate that the regulatory analysis, along with all referenced documents, be published in the Federal Register. Clearly, this is not practical. Revision 3 to NRR OL-16, NRR (prior to the 1987 reorganization) interpreted the backfit rule as requiring a regulatory analysis for all proposed actions and a separate "backfit analysis" for all backfit actions which will be published for public review and comment (i.e., Rules,' Orders, Regulatory Guides, Standard Review Plans, Standard Technical Specifications or revisions thereto).

Interim guidelines for the preparation of a backfit analysis were provided as Enclosure 3 to 0L-16. No such guidance appears to exist today. Therefore, a procedure for the preparation of backf't analyses for Generic Issues should be developed.

2}