ML19282C679
| ML19282C679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/06/1979 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Petkas P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| RULE-PR-21 NUDOCS 7903300537 | |
| Download: ML19282C679 (5) | |
Text
hhk netop g
- o UNITED STATES 7
~'
,'g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiss!ON g
C WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 MAR 6 1979 Mr. Peter J. Petkas, Director The Regulatory Council 401 M. St., S.W.
Washington, D. C.
20460
Dear Mr. Petkas:
Chairman Hendrie has asked me to respond to your request of February 26, 1979, for a short and factual statement summing up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's successes in achieving overall regulatory goals. Accordingly, I have attached a statement which sets forth recent NRC successes in improving the management of the regulatory process in a manner which meets our statutory responsi-bilities effectively and efficiently. As part of this summary, I have provided selected specific examples of NRC actions which have reduced the regulatory burden on both the public and the regulated industry.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely, Y b YMf
/
Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of Standards Development
Enclosure:
As stated 78033005S7 fTMb
SUMMARY
OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S SUCCESSES IN IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF ITS REGULATORY PROCESSES In developing its rules and regulations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is aggressively soliciting early input from those individ-uals affected by or having interest in proposed rules or regulations.
For example, On the problem of transportation of radioactive materials in urban environs, public participation has been actively solicited to obtain information, expert advice, local data and comments on scope and methods needed in developing an environmental assessment of the problem and to identify issues most important to regulatory decisions concerning this problem.
Participants in a series of six meetings throughout the country and an informal workshop have included representatives of federal, state and local Government, industry, environmental activist organizations, academia and the general public.
Early public input, through comment on a staff document noticed in the Federal Register and through a workshop with invited participation by representatives of Government, the nuclear industry and public interest groups, is being sought in the development of a rule governing the consideration of alternative sites for nuclear power plants as part of the review process
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This rule should increase the predictability and stability of
" the r'egulatory process for evaluating alternative sites and reduce the financial vulnerability of applicants for nuclear facilities while simultaneously minimizing the likelihood that sunk costs w.ill be an overriding influence in the NEPA cost-benefit balancing.
NRC sent to the States for their comment a draft procedural rule for licens~in'g geologic disposal of high level radioactive waste (10 CFR Part 60) as part of its efforts to develop licensing procedures which allow for adequate participation by the States.
Comments on the draft rule have been constructive and generally favorable. The States expressed appreciation for the opportunity to comment and for what appeared to them as a genuine effort on the part of the Federal Government to cooperate with the States.
Our procedures were recently changed, so that now copies of draft regulatory guides, which describe acceptable ways of meeting NRC's regulatory requirements, are being sent to the interested parties for comment prior to review by NRC's Regulatory Requirements Review Committee.
In this manner, public comments can be considered by the Committee in deciding whether or not to approve publication of a guide.
==
e e
The NRC is trying to reduce the regulatory burden on the public and the industry while continuing to carry out its statutory responsibilities to protect the public health and safety and the environment.
Examples of where we have done so are:
In certain instances, it ray be possible to reduce the time required by the NRC staff to review applications for nuclear power plants.
In one case, where the application consisted of a replicate, standard plant design on a recently approved site, the safety evaluation will take only six months instead of the typical twenty-four months.
A recent clarification of 10 CFR Part 21 of NRC's regulations dealing with the reporting of defects in components which might cause substantial safety hazards also resulted in a reduction of regulatory requirements.
Prior to this clarification, it appeared that this regulation was applicable to the suppliers of "off-the-shelf" commercial' items having no safety significance.
Many of these suppliers were selling only a small part of their production to the nuclear industry.
Because compliance with this regulation by these suppliers would have been excessively
. and. unnecessarily burdensome,there was concern within the nuclear industry that sources of such supplies would dry up with possible adverse effects on the quality of available components.
The clarification eased this concern and will allow the broadest choice of qualified suppliers to the industry.
4-A number of proposed regulatory changes would bring about greater
, consi,stency between the NRC regulations and guides and the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, with the result that NRC safety objectives would be achieved at lower cost because the modified
~
requirements would better correspond with the latest accepted and established practices.
In its policy on the medical uses of by-product material, the NRC estchlished as one of its objectives minimal intrusion into the physician-patient relationship consistent with protection of the public, including patients.
In conformance with this policy, the NRC has relaxed its regulations to allow physicians greater flexibility in the use of radiopharmaceuticals for the diagnosis of disease with the result that physicians will be better able to treat their individual patients.
This modification has also brought about greater consistency in the regulatory approach of two Federal Agencies - NRC and the Food and Drug Administration -
in the area of the physician-patient relationship.
m _
e