ML20216D170
| ML20216D170 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1995 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216C659 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-61FR24669, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-61, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 AF17-2-020, AF17-2-20, NUDOCS 9709090227 | |
| Download: ML20216D170 (3) | |
Text
=
cW -
. ,pa n ogs p* 8*, UNITED STATES 3
j e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WA8HINGTON, D.C. 202H001 A F /7 .1 g
%, *****l
- lW tbvenit;er 17, 1995 i
HEMORANDUM 10: David L. Morrison, Director Of e of u Regulatory Research FROM: Jpeh. dray [ephDirector
//ffigeofEnfvceme
SUBJECT:
REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON FINAL RULE, PARTS 20, 30, 40, 70, AND 72, TERMINATION OR 1RANSTER Of LICENSED ACTIVITIES:
RfCORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS As requested by yourj emo of November 3, 1995, OE has reviewed the subject t
/rulemaking 1.
and does(noDoncur in light of the following comments.
Proposed 6630.51(d), 40.61(d), and 70.5)(b)(6), are internally _
contradktorLas they require the licensee to retain required records "until the Commission terminates each pertinent license requiring the record.' but go on to say that "Before ... license termination, those licensees ... shall forward all records described in this paragraph to s
the appropriate NRC Regional Office." yd p Oc ,gm 94 % d. w ', h A f R u u~T X clat kCrwh@used 2. p/ in proposed 661.31(c)(3 , the an phrases with the existing ead-in do not create a specific requirement.
"be V
forwarde
'd
., m ik 14 h;eu f~ ~' 3 1 6630.36, 40.42, and 70.38, in each instance:
/ - p(% / /3 ,4 ,,l, A< c s ,J, 8
-ved /
Lld g '/- (a) the than "(j)"new (60 FRparagraph "(4)"and 38235 refers), is being added to subsection "(k)" rather/is,e;t.,i,
/lff htt&
AyN.
,di;, 4f n%g-r-(b) the word "and" should be moved from present paragraph "(2)" and agg'%,g
%4;(_J v added to paragraph "(3)", with appropriate changes in_ punctuation, ,gg, J4/.
IJ.
- 4 (In 561.31(c): Y'E I v $ )a)the proposed new language should end with a period rather than a T k3 semicolon, and I
N.//(b) the "and" needs to be moved as noted above.
- 5. An 672.54:
(a) the new paragraph "(3)" is being added to subsection "(m)" rather 7 than "(1)" (60 FR 38235 refers), and
_(b) the "and" needs to be moved as noted above.
cc: H. Thompson, DEDS T. Johnson, NMSS H. Thomas, RES 9709090227 970904 6t 24669 PDR
p uq
. [f uo 4
t E
UNITED STATES 5, 'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION cc: Thomas WARHINGTON. D.C. 306MWoot Trottier t
f' Morris November 17, 1995 dm MENORANDUM 10: David L. Morrison, Director 0' ce of u ar Regulatory Research FROM: p . dray epu Director ffi d 9 of Enf ceme
SUBJECT:
REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE ON FINAL RULE, PARTS 20, 30, 40, 70, AND 72 TERMINATION OR TRANSFER OF LICENSED ACTIVITIES:
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS As t equested by your memo of November 3,1995, OE has reviewed the subject rulemaking and does not concur in light of the following comments.
- 1. Proposed il30.51(d), 40.61(d), and 70.51 '
contradictory as they require the licerse(b)(6), are required e to retain internallyrecords "until the Commission terminates each pertinent license requiring the record." but licensees ...go on to say that "Before ... license termination, those shall forward all records described in this paragraph to the appropriate NRC Regional Office."
- 2. In proposed 661.31(c)(3), the phrases "be forwarded" and "be sent", when used with the existing lead-in do not create a specific requirement.
- 3. In $$30.36, 40.42, and 70.38, in each instance:
(a) the new than "(j)" (paragraph 60 FR 38235 "(4)" is being refers), and added to subsection "(k)" rather (b) the word "and" should be moved from present paragraph "(2)" and added to paragraph "(3)", with appropriate changes in punctuation.
- 4. In $61.31(c):
(a) the proposed new language should end with a period rather than a semicolon, and (b) the "and" needs to be moved as noted above.
- 5. In $72.54:
(a) the new paragraph "(3)" is being added to subsection "(m)" rather than "(1)" (60 FR 38235 refers), and (b) the "and" needs to be moved as noted above.
cc: H. Thompson, DEDS T. Johnson, NMSS M. Thomas, RES
e s
Comments on the records retention rule.
The Agreement State compatibility section should col.tain the following information.
Based on the current compatibility procedure, the rule sections should be classified as follows:
The requirement to transfer-certain records to the subsequent licensee of a site should be a Division 2 matter of compatibility. This would apply to Sections 30.35, 40.36, 61.30, 61.31, 70.25 and 70.38.
The requirement to transfer certain records to the regulatory agency are institutional information in nature and as such should be a Division 3 matter of compatibility leaving it up to each Agreement State whether to require these records to be transferred to them. This would apply to 30.51, 40.61, 60.80, and 70.51.
The records requirements in Part 72 should be a Division 4 matter of compatibility since only NRC regulates this class of licensee.
It is difficult to do a clean classification as the-requirements are changing as we are reviewing the last draft, future rules may require a rethink on the Division of compatibility if the requirements are significantly changed.
Conceptual comments:
The records to be transferred to the NRC appear to be for informational purposes because the staff should have reviewed this type of record in making its determination that the license could be terminated. The disposal of the licensed material should have been reviewed as part of the inspection of the facility and the disposition of the licensed material would require the reviewed as part of the determination that the site was releasable for unrestricted use. We recognize that this type of information has not been retained-in the license file in the past, however, this rule appears to require a fair amount of redundant records to be filed at license termination.
It would appear to be more efficient to require these records to be submitted as part of the decommissioning plan or in support of the justification for license termination so that the information could be considered in cleaning up the site. This would negate the need for a separate. records submittal at license termination.
Since not all of the licensees to be required to submit public dose records are required to submit occupational dese records it appears that the real significant health and safety records are not being required. This does not make a lot of sense, it would make it easier to explain the rule if there were some explanations of how these record will be reviewed and used by the regulatory agency if we are going to require the Agreement States to adopt (Division 2) the records transfer to the regulatory agency. Without such an explanation, it appear to be records that we think it would be nice to have.
______ __u