ML20052F634
| ML20052F634 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F635 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-RII, TASK-SE SECY-82-187, NUDOCS 8205130275 | |
| Download: ML20052F634 (26) | |
Text
u N.
p*"
f, '
'c c ( }
. ) y May 7,1982 SECY-82-187 RULEMAKING ISSUE (Information)
For:
The Commissioners
~
From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
REVISED GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING VALUE IMPACT ANALYSES
Purpose:
To inform the Commissioners of the proposed changes to the agency value impact guidelines.
Discussion:
By memorandum dated November 10, 1981 (SECY-81-647),
I advised you that the staff's review of the agency's Value Impact Guidelines concluded that those guidelines basically satisfy the requirements of sections 2 and 3 of Exec +.uive Order 12291.
I also informed you that a Task Group would be established to review the existing guidelines and recommend changes that would improve their quality and use.
The revised guidelines, entitled Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, are enclosed.
The title of guidelines was changed to reflect terms used in Executive Order 12291.
The revised guidelines apply to proposed rules and final rules which would likely have an effect on the economy in excess of $100,000,000 in direct and indirect costs; would likely result in a significant adverse impact on health, safety or the environment; or would substantially increase costs or prices.
This coverage is similar to that set forth in Executive Order 12291 and pending regulatory reform legislation.
To assure that other rulemaking actions and non-rulemaking generic requirements are also supported by a thorough analysis I intend to direct the staff to prepare an evaluation of the actic'1 being proposed that addresses the topics set forth in Section III.B of the guidelines.
The evaluation would at a minimum
Contact:
Donnie H. Grimsley g as13697f XA 49-24220 SECY NOTE:
inis paper is currently scheduled for a briefing at a Commission meeting on Monday, May 10, 1982.
include an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed action compared to the existing situation.
The evaluation will accompany all rulemaking actions which do not meet the threshold criteria for performing a regulatory analysis and other generic requirements that are submitted for review to the Committee to Review Generic Requirements or to the Deputy Executive Director for Operations, or for decision by the Executive Director for Operations or the Commission.
Based on the task group's evaluation of agency experience in using the Value Impact Guidelines, several specific factors are emphasized in the revised guidelines.
First, it is specifically required that the problem giving rise to the need for a regulatory action be documented.
Second, the analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed generic regulatory action has been expanded to include those that would result from the impact of the proposed action on other NRC programs and licensee operations.
Third, it is emphasized that the rationale for rejecting any alternative considered should be provided.
Fourth, it is required that sources of cost data and the methodologies for deriving cost estimates be documented.
Fifth, the schedule and conditions necessary for the licensee to implement the proposed action are to be described.
The revised guidelines incorporate the requirements for analyses imposed by the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Also, the task group incorported the criteria set forth in Executive l
Order 12291 for preforming regulatory analyses to the extent the criteria were consistent with NRC's responsibilities to protect the public health and safety, and common defense and security, provided for in the Atomic Energy Act.
The revised guidelines provide the flexibility to t
tailor the scope of the analysis to the significance of the regulatory action being considered.
The structured, but general framework will permit the staff to select methodologies for assessing cost and benefits that are most appropriate for evaluating effects of actions taken in the particular program a rea.
To aid the staff in performing regulatory analyses, I intend to establish a separate staff in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to develop cost data, and to provide consultation to the staff in performing an assessment of cost estimates for proposed requirements which affect reactors.
This staff will be assigned responsibility to develop, in consultation with the Committee to Review Generic Requirements, detailed methodological guidance for assessing costs and benefits.
Staff and contractor resources additional to those expended following the existing guidelines will be required to perform analyses required by the revised guidelines.
This is primarily the result of the need to obtain more creditable cost data and the need to conduct rigorous analyses.
Since actual resource requirements will depend on the scope of each regulatory analysis, precise resource estimates are difficult to develop.
However, I anticipate that staff and contractor resource requirements can be met within existing budget and manpower allocations.
We believe the revised guidelines will result in improved analyses of proposed regulatory actions and will significantly contribute to our efforts to develop cost effective regulatory actions that are consistent with the agency's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act.
1111am/J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
1.
Regulatory Analysis Guidelines 2.
Draft Implementing Directive DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Exec Dir for Operations ACRS ASLBP ASLAP Secretariat
y - -
e e
e 8
o ENCLOSURE 1
+
g -
-n
-mm-a n
REGULATORY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES OF THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.
Purpose..........................................................
1 II.
Coverage........................................................~..
1 III.
Procedures for Preparing a Regulatory Analysis....................
2 A.
Instructions for Preparing a Regulatory Analysis..............
2 1.
Introduction..............................................
2.
Scope of the Analysis.....................................
3.
Consideration of Alternatives.............................
4.
Analyses Required by Statute..............................
5.
Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement...............................................
B.
Analyses Required by Statute..................................
3 C.
Contents and Format for the Regulatory Analysis...............
3 1.
Problem...................................................
3 2.
Objectives................................................
3 3.
Alternatives..............................................
3 4.
Consequences..............................................
3 a.
Costs and Benefits of Alternatives....................
3 b.
Impact on Other Activities............................
4 c.
Constraints...........................................
4 5.
Decision Rationale........................................
4 6.
Implementation...........................................
5 a.
Schedule for Implementing the Proposed Action.........
5 b.
Relationship to Other Proposed or Existing Requirements........................................
5 Appendices:
Appendix A - Analyses Required to Justify the Imposition of an Information Collection Requirement.........................
1 Appendix B - Analyses Required When a Substantial Number of Small Entities will be Affected..................................
1 Appendix C - Checklist for Identifying Potential Impacts on NRC Programs and Activities....................................
1 Appendix D - Examples of Effects that Could Resuit In a Cost or Benefit....................................................
1 i
REGULATORY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES I
PURPOSE The principal purpose of these Regulatory Analysis Guidel.ines is to ensure that the NRC Regulatory decisions are based on adequate information concerning the need for and consequences of a proposed regulatory action and to ensure that the cost effective regulatory actions, consistent with providing the necessary protection of the public health and safety and common defense and security, are identified.
High quality regulatory analyses should serve as the basis for NRC decisions.
Therefore, a regulatory analysis must be included in all decision packages on matters covered by these guidelines.
II COVERAGE d
A.
A Regulatory Analysis, which includes a discussion of any reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, shall be prepared for each proposed rule and final rule that, in the determination of the responsible office director or the Executive Director for Operations, will likely result in the following:
a.
An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 in direct and indirect costs, or b.
A significant adverse impact on health, safety or the environment, or c.
A substantial increase in the cost or prices for individuals, businesses, non profit organizations, Federal, state or local government, and geographical regions.
2 III GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING A REGULATORY ANALYSIS A.
Instructions for Preparing a Regulatory Analysis 1.
Introduction The following guidelines are designed to provide a framework for structuring the analysis required to support proposed and final generic regulatory require-ments.
The analysis is intended to aid the staff and the Commission in deter-mining whether to initiate a regulatory action, in selecting the preferred regulatory alternative, and in providing a coherent, understandable, and well-documented explanation of why a particular action was recommended.
Making the performance of a regulatory analysis an integral part of developing a staff position on a proposed regulatory action, not as an afterthought simply to meet a procedural requirement, a better and more efficiently prepared analysis should result.
Also use of the procedures to outline the scope of the analysis could significantly aid in determining the level of effort and associated resources required to perform a regulatory analysis as well as contributing to the early identification of potential alternatives, possible consequences and information that may be needed to perform the analysis.
A regulatory analysis should accompany all proposed rules and final rules which are covered by these guidelines which are forwarded for review by the Cocmittee to Review Generic Requirements or the Deputy Executive Director Regional Opera-tions and Generic Requirements, or submitted for decision by the Executive Director for Operations or the Commissioners.
2.
Scope of the Analysis The scope of the regulatory analysis should be in proportion to the signifi-cance of the regulatory action being addressed.
The emphasis in implementation of the procedures should be on simplicity, flexibility, and common sense, both j
in terms of the type of information supplied and in the level of detail provided.
Since the principal purpose of the procedures is to assure that the proposed action has been rigorously analyzed and the rationale for its selection well l
documented, staff efforts should be primarily dedicated to achieving this pur-pose rather than spending great effort rigorously analyzing an alternative when it has become apparent that the alternative will not be acceptable.
- However, the written narrative should indicate the rationale for rejecting any alternative that was seriously considered even though the effort required to reach the decision was limited.
3.
Consideration of Alterr.atives A Regulatory ASalysis prepared for a proposed rule or final rule covered by l
Section II.A 09 these guidelines should include a discussion of any reasonable
+
e
3 i
alternatives to the proposed action.
Alternatives considered should be confined to major alternative regulatory approaches rather than to relatively minor vari-ations of the proposed action.
Among alternatives that could be considered are taking no action at all, making more effective use of existing enforcement mechanisms, establishing performance standards and deregulation when appropriate.
The extent to which costs and benefits should be assessed for alternatives is to be determined by the responsible program director.
4.
Analyses Required by Statute Information collection requirements (application, reporting and recordkeeping) affecting ten or more persons or organizations must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Instructions for addressing factors needed to obtain the OMB's approval are contained in Appendix C.
These factors must be addressed in the regulatory analysis when the alternative regulatory actions involve information collections.
Where a rulemaking action is likely to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the impact be addressed specifically.
Appendix 0 provides guidance on the factors that must be addressed when evaluating economic impacts on small entities.
5.
Relationship to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement In those circumstances where a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) has been prepared and forms the basis for the proposed action, a brief summary of the GEIS will be an acceptable substitute for Section III.B.1,2,3,4 of the regulatory analysis guidelines which address the problem, objectives, alternatives, and consequences, respectively.
Staff will have to provide an explanation of the rationale for selecting the proposed action and rejecting other alternatives considered in the GEIS (Section III.B.5), and describe the implementation schedule and relationship of the proposed action to other requirements and programs (Section III.B.6).
B.
Contents and Format of the Regulatory Analysis 1.
Statement of the Problem Explain the nature of the problem that will be addressed by tb proposed regulatory requirement and why any action is necessary at this time.
Identify the class or classes of licensees, reactor or other facilities affected by the problem.
Discuss any applicable existing or proposed NRC regulatory actions that currently address the problem, their achievements and costs, and significance of taking no action to address the problem.
2.
Objectives Within the general objectives of protecting the public health and safety and the common defense and security and of identifying cost-effective alternatives, precisely state the specific objectives that the proposed regulatory action is designed to achieve.
4 3.
Alternatives Identify any reasonable alternatives considered for achieving the specific regulatory objectives.
4.
Consequences Provide an analysis of each alternative considered that discusses the following factors:
a.
Costs and Benefits of Alternatives For proposed rules and final rules above the thresnolds set forth in Section II the regulatory analysis should describe the benefits and the costs, including any cumulative effects, that may result from the implementation of the pro-posed requirement or any reasonable alternative that was considered.
Exam-ples of the types of effects that could result in a cost or benefit are listed in Appendix 0.
The Analysis should also. identify the classes of persons or organizations who will receive the benefits, or incur the costs from the proposed alternatives.
These could include licensees, vendors, licensee suppliers or contractors, the NRC staff, Federal, State or local governments or small business establishments and other small entities.
Any effects on geographical regions should also be identified.
The sources of cost data and methodologies for deriving costs and benefits should be identified and referenced.
Every attempt should be made to quantify the costs and benefits that may result from a particular alter-native, even if uncertainties in the data prevent a precisely accurate numerical estimate. Where it is not possible to quantify costs and benefits, the reason should be indicated; and the analyst should describe the nature and extent of the costs or benefits in as precise and succinct a manner as possible. All assumptions and uncertainties underlying the data and methodologies should be stated.
Where possible, costs and benefits should be expressed in monetary terms.
Monetary costs and benefits should be expressed in present value through the use of an annual discount rate of ten percent (10%).
However, other discount rates may be used to test the sensitivity of the analy:,f.
All benefits and costs which are expressed in monetary terms should te converted to constant dollars (i.e., dollars should not be adjusted to reflect anticipated inflation).
The cost of complying with the proposed requirement or part of the proposed requirement through the use of a Regulatory Guide or other means deemed acceptable by the NRC should be specifically identified.
b.
Impacts on Other Requirements The effect of an alternative on all other NRC programs and requirements, as well as those of other government entities and licensees, should be considered.
Any associated costs of benefits should be indicated.
To assist the staff in identyfing impacts on other requirements or programs, use of a checklist such as the one described in Appendix C is recommended.
l
5 c.
L 2.vaints Identify any constraints that affect the implementation of the alternative, including scheduling, enforceability, policy, institutional, or legal considerations.
5.
Decision Rationale Explain why, in light of the analyses performed, the proposed action is recom-mended and why other alternatives considered were rejected.
Identify and refer-ence the data or studies on which the decision is based, including ANSI or ASME standards, staff papers or other documents.
Identify any decision criteria used.
Also, it should be indicated if the proposed action represents the staff's defini-tive position on the subject, or if the requirement is the first or part of a series of related requirements to be issued.
6.
Implementation a.
Schedule for Implementing the Proposed Requirement Describe the steps and schedule, or alternative schedules, that will likely be required to implement the proposed requirement.
Include in the schedule any staff actions which will be needed.
Sufficient information should be provided to demonstrate that the schedule or alternative sched-ules are realistic.
When the proposed action involves short-term and long-term requirements, those requirements should be stated.
Where one or more classes of reactors or other facilities are affected, it should be demonstrated that sufficient time is provided to make required computations, allow for any needed engineering design for new systems or for modifications or existing systems, obtain any needed NRC approval of designs or changes in technical specifications, test and evaluate designs, procure equipment and labor, install equipment, develop operating procedures and train operators.
Plant conditions which are necessary for installing equipment, conducting preoperational tests and operable tests should be described.
The length of time a plant must be shut down to meet the proposed requirements should be indicated.
Also indicate whether any required new equipment is available in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of all affected licensees or whether it must be designed.
b.
Relationship to Other Existing or Proposed Requirements Indicate the relationship of the proposed action to other existing or proposed requirements, its effect on priorities for implementing other requirements for related activities, and if the proposed action means that other actions or systems or prior analyses need to be reassessed.
.y, y---
APPENDIX A Analysis Required to Justify the Imposition of Information Collection Requirements The Paperwork Reduction Act (P.L.96-511) requires agencies to obtain a clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for all information collection requirements (applications, reporting, recordkeeping) that affect 10 or more persons.
The analysis required for OMB clearance must consider the necessity for the proposed information collection, its practical utility, the economic and time burden placed on the person subject to the requirement, and its cost to the federal government.
All regulatory actions proposed by the staff that involve information collections, whether mandatory or voluntary, must be accompanied by an OMB Supporting Statement that justifies and describes the requirement.
The regulatory analysis may constitute the supporting state-ment.
The following factors must be addressed in any regulatory analysis involving an action which imposes an information collection requirement.
(1) Justification (a) Explain why the information collection is needed (i.e.,
describe any problems that justify the need for the requirement and explain how it is the best means of achieving the regulatory objective).
(b) Explain to whom the information is to be reported and for what purpose it will be used.
Describe the NRC's capability to use reported information in a timely and useful fashion. Describe the purpose for requiring the maintenance of information and indicate if any NRC official will review it.
(c)
If the requirement duplicates or overlaps other information collections made by the NRC or other government agencies, identify those information collections and explain why that l
information cannot meet the need being addressed.
(d) Discuss any other information which may help in understanding and evaluating the need for and use of the information collec-tion requirement.
(2) Description of the Information Collection (a)
Identify the number and type of respondents to which the information collection requirement applies.
(
(b)
Explain why the schedule for imposing the information collection l
requirement is reasonable.
l t
l l
t I
(c) Explain why the information collection requirement selected is the least burdensome method for achieving the regulatory objective.
(d) Explain why the method proposed for collecting or keeping the information is consistent with sound record management practices.
(e) Explain why the record retention period is sufficiently definitive and reasonable.
(f) Describe how the requirement adequately identifies the records to be maintained and the information to be reported.
(3) Estimate of Burden (a) Explain how much time (staff hours) the respondent will spend in complying with the information collection requirement.
(b) Explain how much it will cost (dollars) the respondent to comply with the information collection requirement.
(c) Describe the method used to estimate the burden (d) Explain why the burden estimates are reasonable when compared with similar requirements.
(4) Estimate of the Cost to the Federal Government (a) Describe the cost of the information collection to the NRC in terms of staff time and administrative expense.
(b) Explain the impact on the agency's information collection budget.
Commission procedures for implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act require each office, through its Information Management Coordinator, to submit the Sup-porting Statement to the Office of Administration for review before it is sub-mitted to OMB for approval.
For further information on procedures related to the Act see NRC Manual Chapter 0230 " Federal Reports Management" (to be published).
APPENDIX B Analyses Required When a Substantial Number of Small Entities Will Be Impacted The Regulatory Flexibility Act (P.L.96-534) requires an analysis of any proposed rule, or final rule that is preceded by a proposed rule, which is likely to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of "small entities" (small business establishments, non profit organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
The analysis must indicate the criteria used to identify the small entities (annual receipts for sales or service, number of employees, etc.)
and explain how the regulatory action will affect the small entity.
The analyst must determine whether a significant number of the small entities affected are likely to experience substantial economic consequences including additional burdens associated with information collection requirements as a result of the proposed rulemaking action.
It must also include consideration of alternatives which could accomplish the objective of the proposed regulation while minimizing the economic impact on small entities.
In cases where a proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, a " regulatory flexibility certification" to this effect must be included in the Federal Register Notice.
It should be noted that the Regulatory Flexibility Act applies only to rulemaking actions.
All the information required for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act should be contained in the analysis prepared pursuant to the Regulatory Analysis Procedures and a separate analysis need not be prepared.
For more information on the Act and its requirements, see " Guidance for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Preparation of Regulatory Flexibility Analyses," dated April 1 1981 (Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration).
l
APPENDIX C Checklist for Identifying Potential Impacts on NRC Programs, Licensee Operatic'ss and Other Activities Alternative:
Analyst:
Date:
Instructions:
This sample checklist is designed to aid the analyst in identifying the impacts of each alternative regula-tory action on other NRC programs, licensee operations and cther activities.
It is not intended to be all inclusive.
Rather, it is intended to serve as a guide for the analyst who may develop a more comprehensive checklist that would apply to his particular program area.
The analyst should indicate whether each alterna-tive being considered will affect (1) NRC programs and requirements, (2) licensee programs and operations, (3) interagency or intergovernmental agreements between NRC and other agencies, (4) U.S. international agree-ments and commitments, and/or (5) other analyses required by law.
The staff responsible for a specific activity should be consulted if the analyst cannot independently determine if an impact on the activity would result.
Each area or program identified as being affected should be evaluated and addressed in the regulatory analysis.
~
2 Checklist A.
NRC Programs and Requirements and Licensee Operations 1.
Indicate the areas or programs which may be affected by each alternative regulatory action being considered for each of the categories listed below:
NRC programs and requirements Licensee implementation
- Licensing Facilities Facilities actions Inspection /
in early in late NRC under enforcement 0,aw,ating construction construction regulations **
review program facilities stage stage (a) Reactors i.
Reactor construction, for example:
a.
Seismology b.
Welding c.
Concrete d.
Fire protection e.
Other (specify) 11.
Reactor operations, for example:
a.
Control room b.
Safety checks / tests aLicensee programs and operation.
on Proposed or existing regulations or any implementing guidance such as Regulatory Guides, or NUREGs.
3 NRC programs and requirements Licensee implementation i
Licensing Facilities Facilities actions Inspection /
in early in late NRC under enforcement Operating construction construction regulations review program facilities stage stage c.
Human factors d.
Fire protection l
e.
Other (specify) iii.
Vendor reactor designs v.
Protecting workers from radiation vi.
Protecting members of public in unrestricted areas vii.
Protecting the environment viii. Safeguards physical security ix.
Licensee personnel access screening program x.
Safeguards infor-mation security program (b) Fuel Facilities and Materials i.
Protecting workers from radiation 11.
Protecting members of public in unrestricted areas
4 NRC programs and requirements Licensee implementation Licensing Facilities Facilities actions Inspection /
in early in late NRC under enforcement Operating construction construction regulations review program facilities stage stage lii.
Protecting the environment iv.
Safeguards material control and account-ability vi.
Safeguards physical security vii.
Licensee personnel access screening program viii. Safeguards informa-tion security program ix.
Transportation safety and security (c) Waste management, for example:
i.
Waste management site construction a.
Seismology b.
Hydrology c.
Geology d.
Other
5
~
ii.
Site operations etc.
a.
Public health b.
Environmental considerations iii.
Closure, decommission-ing and long-term care, etc.
iv.
Transporataion 2.
Indicate whether or not the NRC staff will have difficulty in inspecting or enforcing the alternative regulatory action being considered.
3.
Indicate whether the alternative regulatory action being considered will have an impact on the operational status of the facility 4.
Indicate if the alternative regulatory action being considered will have an impact on the NRC:
i.
Export / Import Responsibilities ii.
Rules of Practice (e.g., 10 CFR 2) iii.
Other (specify)
B.
Licensee Capabilities 1.
Indicate whether or not the alternative regulatory action being considered will have an impact on:
i.
The size or quality of the licensee's staff ii.
The licensee's ability to:
a.
Develop new equipment or designs b.
Acquire contract services iii.
The licensee's program for complying with the requirements of the license?
(e.g., QA test:, training reporting)
/
6 C.
Interagency or Intergovernmental Agreements 1.
Indicate whether or not the alternative regulatory action being considered will have an impact on:
i.
The NRC State Agreements Program a.
Licensing of byproduct, source and small quantities of SNM (specifically address changes that may be required of individual states' licensing rrograms) 11.
Any agreements (MOUs) between NRC and other U.S. Agencies (e.g., DOE, FEMA, EPA, DOT, DOL, D0J) iii.
Other regulatory programs of Federal and State Agencies D.
U.S.
International Agreements 1.
Indicate whether or not the alternative regulatory action being considered will have an impact on:
1.
Bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements between U.S. and other nations relative to nuclear trade, imports or exports:
11.
U.S. agreements with international agencies (e.g., U.S. - United Nations IAEA Safeguards agreement)
E.
Applicability of Other Analyses Required by Law 1.
Indicate whether or not the alternative being considered will impose an information collection (application, reporting, or recordkeeping) requirement?
If applicable, refer to Appendix C.
2.
Indicate whether or not the alternative being considered is likely to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities including those which may be licensees, vendors, or suppliers? If applicable, refer to Appendix D.
F.
Indicate Impacts Not Referenced in Sections A through E 1.
Specify
APPENDIX D Examples of Effects that could Result in a Cost or Benefit 1.
RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES (a) Change in accident probabilities; specify the accidents (old, new probabilities) 4 (b) Change in failure probabilities; describe the equipment directly and indirectly affected by the l
proposed action (old, new probabilities)
(c) Change in population at risk (% and absolute)
(d) Change in occupational exposure; during installation, operation or maintenance (rem)
(e) Change in unplanned radioactive releases offsite (curies)
(f) Change in routine radioactive effluent releases (curies) l (g) Change in operator response times (seconds / minutes)
(h) Change in maintenance capability (yes/no) (explain)
(i) Change in NRC's inspection and enforcement capabilities (yes/no) 2.
SAFEGUARDS IMPACTS (a) Change in facility security (yes/no) (explain) 1 (b) Change in materials control and accountability (yes/no) (explain) a (c) Change in transportation security (yes/no) (explain) 3.
OPERATIONAL IMPACTS i
(a) Change in reactor availability (hours / days)
(b) Change in facility down time beyond that normally scheduled (hours / days).
(c) Change in allowable reactor rating (% and absolute) i
9 4.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS (a) Construction cost change (dollars)
(b) Operating cost changes (dollars)
(c) Retrofit costs (dollars)
(d) Recordkeeping and reporting cost changes (staff-hour; dollars)
(e) Change in onsite personnel requirements (staff-hours)
(f) NRC costs change; include contractor technical assistance costs (staff-hours or dollars)
(g) Other increases in applicant expenditures for compliance with regulatory requirements (staf f-hours or dollars)
(h) Change in expected direct cost of an accident (dollars) 5.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (a) Change in water quality (b) Change in air quality 6.
INFORMATION COLLECTION IMPACTS (Resulting from application, reporting or recordkeeping requirements)
(a) Annual licensee / applicant staff hours (hours)
(b) Annual licensee / applicant cost (dollars)
(c) Annual cost to the NRC (hours / dollars) 7.
OTHER IMPACTS (for example)
(a) Consequences for small business (dollars / hours)
(b) Significant impacts on vendors, and equipment suppliers (yes/no)
(c) Anti-competitive consequences (impact on viability of existing firms to complete or provide equipment)
4 i
+,
J (d) Availability of skilled labor / professional assir,tance (regional employment figures by a relevant 2
category)
.i
.t (e) Number of licensees affected I
1 1
i l'
+
t-
.c
}
t.
i i
i I
i.
i Y
l 1
i.
1 s
t I
I t
i 4
i
-t l.
i 1
i i
i f
I I
l
.1 I
1
)
i
G 4
O ENCLOSURE 2
- [\\
UNITED STATES e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k
/
May 7,1982 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Office Directors and Regional Administrators FROM:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ADOPTION OF REGULATORY ANALYSIS GUIDELINES TO REPLACE VALUE IMPACT GUIDELINES On December 7,1981, I appointed an interoffice task group to review the Comission's guidelines for performing value impact analyses and to re:;ommend changes that would improve their use and quality. The revised guidelines, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, are enclosed. A regulatory analysis, prepared pursuant to tnese guidelines, must accompany all proposed rules and final rules to which the guidelines apply which are submitted for review by the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements and the Deputy Executive Director for Operations, and for decision by the Executive Director for Operations and the Comissioners.
To assure that other rulemaking actions and non-rulemaking generic require-ments are also supported by a thorough analysis, an evaluation of the action being proposed that addresses the topics set forth in Section III.B of the guidelines must be prepared. T'le evaluation at a minimum must include an assessment of the costs and benefits of the proposed action compared to the existing situation. The evaluation shall accompany all rulemaking actions which do not meet the threshold criteria for performing a regulatory analysis and other generic requirements that are submitted for review to the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements or to the Deputy Executive Director for Operations, or for decision by the Executive Director for Operations or the Comission.
The guidelines provide for a structured, but general framework for analyzing alternative regulatory actions. They provide instructions for completing tasks necessary for sound regulatory analysis. They also provide the flexibility to tailor 'the depth and length of an analysis to the significance of the Regulatory Action being considered. The procedures also provide for the incorporation of analyses of information collections required by the Paperwork Reduction Act and analyses of impacts on small entities required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A checklist approach is recomended for the use by the staff in identifying effects of alternative regulatory actions on other NRC programs, licensee operations, and other activities.
A sample checklist is enclosed with the guidelines as well as a list of effects that illustrate consequences that could result in a cost or benefit.
All Office Directors and Regional Administrators Page 2 The Regulatory Analysis Guidelines supersede the currently applicable value impact guidelines which were enclosed in a memorandum dated December 16, 1977 to the Commissioners from Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations (SECY-77-388A).
Office Directors and Regional Aoministrators should assure that analyses performed by their staff are of the highest quality.
Preparation of sound analyses will significantly aid the agency's decision makers in identifying cost effective alternative regulatory actions that are consistent with the NRC's mission to protect the public health and safety and assure the common defense and security.
/
ls 4
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated