ML20040A795
| ML20040A795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1981 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Tourtellotte J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040A791 | List: |
| References | |
| 811102, NUDOCS 8201220128 | |
| Download: ML20040A795 (4) | |
Text
Q.;e g j RLEAR REGULATOR COfASSSi%
- ,qi[/~/ ~. g a 5 wAss
- Ncton. o. c. 20sss Noyember 2, i981 c
CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM FOR:
James Tourtellotte FROM:
Nunzio J.
Palladino
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY REFORM TASK FORCE During my confirmation hearings, I ' endorsed the need for a detailed evaluation of the NRC licensing process for nuclear l
power plants.
In addition -to taking immediate actions to improve NRC hffectiveness, I believe it is necessary to address the question of long-range streaml.ining of the regulatory process.
The four objectives are as follows:
-- to-create a more effect.ive and efficient
' vehicle for rai' ing and resolving legiti-s mate public safety and environmental issues regarding the applications under
- review,
-- to develop.means for more effective future -use of NRC resources in <the 1.icensing of new plar:.s,
-- to avoid regulatory uncertainty and placing unjustifiable economic burdens on utilities that may wish to build a nuclear plant (and their rate payers).
-- to accomplish the above without impairing j
protection of public health.and safety..
With the Commission's concurrence, I' now propose to go forth with an initiative on long-range regulatory reform as l
indi ca ted bel ow.
This effort is-to be carried out by a l
Regulatory Reform Task Force made up of senior NRC personnel to explore ways to make a basic overhaul of the process.
It is expected that this Task Force will sift important and workable ideas-f rom the numerous suggestions now available from previous studies.
The Task Force should obtain input from key persons and organizations both external and inter-nel to NRC.
I expect the group's work to focus on proposals for Commission consideration to streamline licensing, the main elements of 8201220128 811221 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
2 which will be familiar. concepts such as one-step licensing, standardization, early site r.eviews, increased reliance.on state environmental reviews, and changes in hearing formats.
I anticipate the group's work wiil develop sets of reforms which can be implemented by legislation as well as sets of reforms that can be implemented by the Commission without the need for legislation.
The Regulatory Reform Task Force is to be staffed with one person each from the.following NRC units:
ASLBP, OGC, OPE, ELD, NRR, and I&E.
In addition, in accordance with my previous discussions with.you., I would like you to serve as full-time chairman of this Task Force.
4 After _ consultation with Directors of the. aforementioned offices, I would like you to make recommendations f.or persons to serve on the Task Force.
After the names h' ave been col'lected, they will be screened and selections made by me with.your help and with guidance from other Commissioners.
the EDO, and my,sta.ff.
After individuals have been selected, and agree to serve, they will-be assigned to the Task.orce F
part-time and relieved of any conflicting duties in their respective organizations.
While the Task Force members are expected to draw on'the background gained in their offices, they are not on the Task Force to represent their office interests but instead are to consider the overall aims.and duties of the"Commiss. ion.
Shortly af ter the Task Force is established, you should
~
present to me a preliminary report which-will scope and prioritize the issues that can be covered within the scheduled period shown below.
Issues would include the familiar concepts mentioned earlier.as well as matters which may have impact on the four objectives in the opening paragraph.
an After we have agreed upon which issues should'be purs,ued, the Task Force will continue its work on these issues.
Initially, this will involve a review of literature, docu-ments, previous proposals such as those in.the Kemeny and Rogovin reports, current practices, and reform proposals by others.
The Task Force will also solicit views internally and externally.
Concomitant with the review, and upon my concurrence, you can request through the EDO that appropriate offices help you draft proposed regulations and legislation to implement general concepts such as standardization.
These prop.osals will be reviewed by the Task Force in coordination with the drafting offices so that they can be presented by you to the Comnission in accordance with the Task Force schedule.
- e The execution of the Task Force recommendations will ultimately appear in one of four forms.
~ Starting. with the more difficult 1,
form and movingsto the easier methods of execution, they are as follows:
1.
Legislati.ve proposals; 2.
Regulat. ion changes; 3.
Policy. papers from the Commission directing a course of conduct which the staff should follow; and r
4.
Administrative remedies such as simple ' interoffice memoranda and orders.
One of your goals should be to include with every recom-mendation the.necessary paper work to implement admini-strative remedies, Commi.ssion policy., regulatory changes or legislation.
The Task Force schedule would be as follows:
Nov 1, 1981 tiov 15, 1981 Staff Selection Nov 15, 1981 - Nov 30, 1981 Scoping and prioritizing issues Jan 15, 1982
-- Any necessary legislative package Apr 15, 1982
-- Internal Package (s)
It should also be noted that it may be expedient'to issue interim reports on discrete subjects if that is at all possible.
We cannot afford to let events overtake us.
Every effort should be made,to meet or beat the foregoing schedule.
By copy of this memorandum I am formally notifying the EDO and others of your assignment, and I am asking that the.
necessary administrative arrangements be made to provide-
~
personnel and other needed support for the Task Force.
External notices that the Task Force has been formed should i
be coordinated with my office.
cc:
Commissioner Gilinsky l
Commissioner Bradford' Commissioner Ahearne' Commissioner Roberts EDO SECY l
j l
ASLBP u
i 9
V-
s
+
--SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER AHEARNE I support-the' recommendations as a means of making the licensing process more rational'and effective.
I support the concept of the first recommendation, although the distinction between economic issues and environmental impact would need to be explored further.
For example, it is difficult'to divorce " alternative technologies" from consideration of the_ environmental impact of a plant since evaluation of -
' the impacts is often done on a comparative rather than on an absolute basis.
However, the antitrust area is an entirely distinct subject and could easily be removed from our jurisdiction.
In the past, Commissioners have had great difficulty dealing witF
" trust issges because these have virtually nothing to do with our ot.her *
.bilities.
~
' I support the second ani~ third recommendations, although it is unclear whether legislation is necessary to implement them.
I strongly support the general concept that we should not do a complete reevaluation at the operating license stage.
Instead, we should resolve as many issues as possible at the construgtion permit stage and focus on any remaining unresolved issues in the operating license review.
Theoretically, the Commission could adopt this approach.
However, it:has been our practice to take a relatively expansive view'of the. scope of review at the operating license stage and to allow the applicant to decide what will be presented at the construction permit stage.
The Congress.should recognize that the second recommendation could be implemented only for new construction permit applicants, hence it would not affect any of.the plants currently being built.
The third recommendation ' introduces. the concept that there should be a sub-stantial threshold for examining issues in the operating license hearing.
I agree.
In addition, consistent with the general thrust of not doing a complete reevaluation, I believe the Licensing Board for an operating license hearing should resolve matters in dispute' between the parties rather than make an overall finding on health and safety. Accepting this recommendation would require a Board to focus on issues raised by interested parties rather than independently pursue areas where the Board had possible concerns.
I also support recommendation 4 concerning ACRS review.
In the past the Commission has supported similar legislation.
m.
g a
r e
~
s q
t i
s