ML20058M087
| ML20058M087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/24/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-268, NUDOCS 9309290083 | |
| Download: ML20058M087 (6) | |
Text
VMMMMMMMMMM A
numem e
5 _f/l/ffk
[#* %qA
<r l
c p,
...e e.eu+.e e.e.ece.3a.
T.
- j 9,
a
%,...../
September 24, 1993 SECY-93-268 (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY IMPACT SURVEY FOR MATERIALS LICENSEES PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the staff's plan for obtaining a broad range of licensee views on the impact and efficacy of NRC regulation and for systematically integrating consideration of regulatory impact on licensees' operations into the regulatory program.
BACKGROUND:
Following the staff's report of the first phase of the Regulatory Impact Survey for Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees in SECY 93-130, the Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum on June 30,1993 (Enclosure 1),
directing the staff to provide, for Commission approval, a plan that describes how the staff might systematically integrate consideration of the impact of regulatioa on licensees' operations into the regulatory program.
After discussion with Commissioners' assistants, the staff has developed the plan set forth here.
DISCUSSION:
In the first phase of the Survey, the staff interviewed, at length, l
representatives of nine large licensees in three categories according to a structured questionnaire. The objective of this second phase is to obtain a
Contact:
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE Paul F. Goldberg, NMSS WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE 504-2630 AVAILABLE hoq 33100@ M "1
030062 p
\\
'4 4
The Commissioners 2
larger and more diverse sample of licensees' views and, particularly, to obtain the views of small and medium-sized licensees. The information obtained will, of necessity, be less detailed than that obtained in Phase I because of the larger number of licensees in the survey. With contractor support, the staff proposes to systematically obtain a broad sample of licensees' views of the efficacy and impact of NRC regulation through a mail survey of between 300 and 500 licensees in the full range of license categories.
The licensees will be sent a questionnaire soon after an interaction with NRC, i.e., a licensing action or an inspection, so that the licensee will have had at least one recent experience to consider.
0uestionnaire The staff will identify the general areas of inquiry to be included in the questionnaire and will develop proposed questions. The contractor would then assist in appropriate phrasing of questions and overall questionnaire design-to maximize response rates and help minimize bias in the survey. To deal with the relatively large anticipated number of responses, the questionnaire will bc designed for automated processing. The questionnaire will contain numerically or qualitatively scaled questions (e.g., ratings of "very well" to "very poorly") to permit licensees to give a graded response and will cover generally the same areas as in the first phase:
1.
Regulations, policy, and regulatory guidance 2.
Licensing 3.
Inspection 4.
Reporting requirements 1
5.
Enforcement i
The category entitled " fees" which was included in the first phase, was deleted as it appears duplicative of an ongoing agency survey of licensees.
Also, the area of " investigations" was deleted because the respondents interviewed in the first phase had no experience with this topic and 4
consequently provided no information.
l t
I Samrle of Licensees i'
The staff will work with the Regions to select between 300 and 500 licensees to receive the questionnaire. These licensees would be distributed among the various program categories based on experience gained in the first phase of the survey, the judgment of the staff concerning heterogeneity and. regulatory issues among licensees within the categories, and the numbers of licensees within the categories. The licensees would be evenly split between those with a recent inspection and those with a recent licensing action.
The licensees
~
would also be distributed among the Regions roughly in proportion to the numbers of licenses in each Region. Civil Defense licensees, general i
licensees, exempt distribution licensees, and possession-only licensees would be excluded from the survey because their contacts.with NRC are minimal and i
there are fewer regulatory issues in those categories. Uranium mills, most of i
which are inactive, are a special case, and the staff proposes to exclude 1
them. Since five fuel cycle facilities were included in the first phase, the
P i
f a
1 The Commissioners 3
4 staff proposes not to examine them further in this survey.
j i
Analysis of Results l
The staff would also have the contractor receive and process the survey 4
information received from licensees, tabulate and sort data, and provide the results to the staff. The staff would evaluate the data to determine licensees' concerns and to consider what changes might be appropriate in rules, guidance, licensing and inspection procedures, and staff training. Any i
changes would be made only after staff analysis of matters such as the impact on safety and impact on staff and licensee resources.
Since it is not possible to predict what concerns licensees will express, it would be premature to determine in detail how the staff will incorporate them into the regulatory program.
t t
Schedule i
The staff is taking initial steps to secure a contractor for the tasks to be i
performed in support of the Survey. The staff anticipates having the contractor begin work in early FY 1994.
As noted above, the contractor would l
initially help the staff to refine the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire 4
is in final form, it must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection. That process normally i
requires about 60 days.
At the same time, the Office of Nuclear Material l
4 Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) in consultation with the Regions, would identify
{
5 the licensees to be asked to participate in the Survey. Once OMB approves the l
Survey, the contractor would begin to send the questionnaire to licensees --
in January or February, 1994 --and then to tabulate and sort the responses.
i i
The staff's current projection anticipates a final report from the contractor l
in September 1994. The staff would then make its final report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission in the late fall of 1994.
I Resources 1,
Resources to conduct the second phase of the regulatory impact survey are not included in the FY 1994-1998 Internal Program / Budget Review document.
The i
staff estimates that this project will require about $150,000 for contract I
support and 1.3 FTE for contract administration, staff support and subsequent l
analysis.
In FY 1994-1995 these resources will be reprogrammed from other, lower priority tasks.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission-i Note that the staff plans to implement the plan described above within ten (10) working days of the date of this paper unless directed otherwise.
t The Commissioners 4
COORDINATION:
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection.
amps M. Ta or 4cutive Director for Operations SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Friday, October 8,
- 1993, that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPh OCA OPP REGIONJiL OFFICES EDO SECY 4
[p** tog *'.
UNIT ED STATES c,
y y.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I -\\ Y**, e h W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 W2#fl
%,[,',,#
June 30, 1993 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for ations I
FROM:
Samuel J.
Chilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-130 - REGULATOF Y ]ICENSEES iPACT SURVEY FOR FUEL CYCLE AND MATERIA o
The Commission has not approved any of the options set forth in SECY-93-130.
The Commission found the staff's "first phase" effort of the regulatory impact survey to be particularly valuable and was encouraged to find that the staff also-found it to be of significant benefit (e.g.,
in the development of staff's management review of NRC's program for the medical use of byproduct material).
Therefore, the Commission directs the staff to provide a plan, for Commission approval, that describes how the staff might systematically integrate consideration of the regulatory impact on licensees' operations into the regulatory program.
The plan should specifically address, but not be limited to, the following:
1)
A mechanism for systematically obtaining critical input from affected licensees on the NRC's regulatery program; 2)
A means to obtain critical input from medium and small licensees in all categories on NRC's regulatory program 3)
A method for systematically tracking the input from licensees; 4)
A means for systematically evaluating the input from licensees; and SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-93-130, AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM Enclosure (1)
l>
i 1 i 5)
An explanation of how the input from licensees'will be incorporated into the development and application of the NRC's regulatory program.
i cc:
The Chairman Comissioner Rogers
]
Comissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick commissioner de Plangue OGC OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACIN (via E-Mail)
ASLBP (via FAX) d 1.
l 1
.