ML19329G201
| ML19329G201 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/02/1979 |
| From: | Haller N NRC OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS (MPA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329G202 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-424, NUDOCS 8007140121 | |
| Download: ML19329G201 (33) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ -
s.-
o e
July 2, 1979 SECY-79-424 For:
T.e Cenm. e.v.ie.
CQ,MMA%910A!ER ACTION 0 iT* ce e f "ene 3e..ie.i;. ou d F. e i a4.. A.iebeis s
A Th ru:
Lee V. Gossick g
Executive Director for Operations /
g Subject.:
VALUE-IMPACT GUIDELINES
Purpose:
To obtain Commission approval of a Federal Register Notice inviting public comment on NRC's Value-Impact Guidelines.
Issues:
Has the requirement to prepare value-impact analyses dis-couraged the development of new regulations?
What issues were raised by staff comments on the guidelines?
To what degree should NRC consider costs as a criterion when making regulatory decisions?
Should office-specific guidelines be available for public comment?
Background:
When the Commission approved the agency-wide guidelines in January 1978, Commissioner Bradford asked that after one year we determine whether the guidelines had 'in any way discouraged the development of new regulations.
(See Enclosure A). Office Directors were asked to provide each member of their staffs the opportunity to comment on this matte r.
In an October 26, 1978 letter to the Administrative Conference t
on the use of benefit-cost analysis by regulatory agencies, the Commission made a commitment to publish the agency-wide Value-Impact Guidelines for oublic review.
Subsequently, the Commission directed the staff to review the agency-wide guidelines as a prelude to publishing them and to determine whether any office level guidelines should be published.
i (See Enclosure A).
Contact:
l J. A. Sullivan, MPA (492-7721)
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS s
~
POOR QUALITY PAGES
' $h.<
.... n&.~, fi.
a,%re 3%
b 1
a
['. WM*DO1ThM
.;#M 3 Mfj
'sa 8007140
. Ind' 4 #82 WhdthN6/ NNDf
C t
^
- The, Commissioners.
Discussion: _
l.
Has the reouirement to preoare value-impact analyses discouraged the development of new regulations?
We have assumed that the phrase " discouraging the develop-nent of new regulations" describes a situation in which the value-impact analysis process is considered so onerous
~
that an office elects not to' develop a new regulation.
The staff responses
- did not cite any examples of regula-tions that were not prepared as a result of t6e value-impact-requi rement.
However, one office noted that the value-impact requirement can lead to an extension in the time it takes to prepare and implement a regulation.
1 2.
What issues were raised by NRC's staff comments on the guidelines?
There were extensive comments on the agency-wide guidelines.
With one major exception identified as Issue #3 below, MPA L
believes that the comments can be accommodated or success-fully responded to without drastically revising the guidelines.
The comments, in summary, suggest that:
(1) more specificity on value-impact content and depth of analysis be required, (2)- value-impact analysis shouldn't be required for Regulatory Guides or Branch Technical Positions because they aren't legally enforceable, and (3) value-impact is the same as cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analysis, and hence is superfluous new terminology.
3.
To what degree should NRC consider costs as a criterion j
when making regulatory decisions?
The comments from the Office of the Executive Legal Director raised a major ' issue.
Their memorandum of May 1,1979 is quoted below in its entirety:
"0 ELD has only one comment on the existing guidelines for conducting value-impact analysis.
The guidelines provide that cost considerations may not take precedence over con-siderations of health, safety, environment, or national security, und imply' that cost considerations are relevant only in choosing among alternative means in realizing Staff responses ~ are part of Enclosure E, the package of materials that will be placed in the "H" Street Public Document Room (PDR) and all local PDR's.
,,.m
~
_. ;.1,.
4 c.
The Commissioners 3-equivalent benefits in regu'atory matters.
The Commission itself needs to address whether cost considerations may play a role in health, safety, and national recurity issues.
The present guidelines pmvide for only limited considera-tion of cost in this context, and there has been considerable debate as to whether the Commission could or should bmaden the role of cost considerations in this regard.
The guide-lines could be made more explicit on this point and/or public coment could be focused on this matter.
Also, the limited role provided for cost considerations in making environmental decisions is not entirely consistent with the Commission's interpretation of NEPA.
NEPA clearly contemplates that cost could be the deciding factor in some instances."
We propose to address the above issue in the Federal Register Notice that invites public comments on the Value-Impact Gui delines.
4.
Should office-specific guidelines be available for public coment?
Staff views on publishing office-specific guidelines are mixed.. SD and ADM favor publication, while other offices (excepting NMSS) offered no opinions.
NMSS has " serious reservations" because they believe that the implementation guidelines may differ enough from office to office that
~
the public would be confused.
We believe the benefits of public exposure outweigh the reservations expressed.
The proposed Federal Register Notice (Enclosure B) includes a summary of the guidelines and notes that the agency-wide guidelines, recent office comments, previous Commission comments, and office-specific guidelines will be available in the "H" Street Public Document Room, as well as all local PDR's, and will be ' mailed upon request.
After receiving public comments, we propose to analyze the comments, revise the agency-wide guidelines as necessary, and ask for Commission approval of the revised guidelines.
It is estimated that 1 to 2 staff months of effort will be required to complete these tasks.
Recomen.ation:
That the Commission:
(a) approve the Federal Register Notice contained in Enclosure B;~(b) note our congre.esional oversight Comit will be informed by letters such as Enclosure C; and (c) note that a public announcement such as Enclosurc ; will be issued r
j upon filing of the notice with the Federal Register.
e A_
= SupWW
The Commissioners Coordination:
The Officer aents on the guidelines are attached. The Office of Lv..gressional Affairs concurs in the letters to tihe Congressional subcomittees and the Office of Public Affairs concurs in the draft public announcement.
f d
Noman M. Haller, Director Office of Management and Prot m Analysis e-
Enclosures:
M A.
(Item 1) - Memo from S. Chilk to L. V.
Gossick, dtd.1/23/78.
(Item 2) - Letter from Chmn. Hendrie to Robert Anthony, Chmn.,
Administrative Conference of the U. S., dtd. 10/26/78.
(Item 3) - Memo from S. Chilk to L. V.
Gossick, dtd.1/18/79.
B.
Draft Federal Reaister Notice
'C.
Draft letter to Congress D.
Draft Public Announcement E.
Value-Impset related materials to be placed in PDRs.
(Commissioners, Comission Staff Offices Only)
Commissioners' comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Tuesday, July 17, 1979.
Comission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT July ll,1979, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the l
paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
l Comissioners Commission Sta'ff Offices Exec For for Operations Secretariat ACRS
-s
(
,h 4'
>1 s
b
\\
N ENCLOSURE A N*
(ITEM 1) - MEMD FM CHILX TO GOSSICK DTD 1/23/78 f
be u
N N
N G
i I-=
'iiHi""
(
lly.ij TidiiiNi:
"^
- h*?i::: EiNii -'
iiE:
~~
.:s:::93 E
- c
- :j5[, _ _ _
'{:Ell'
- ll.
.......'~~~.:::.
- gf;
=r" ,}}