ML20134K817
| ML20134K817 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/1997 |
| From: | Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| SECY-96-249-C, NUDOCS 9702140244 | |
| Download: ML20134K817 (2) | |
Text
,
o February 3 0 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: FCLB Staff FROM: Michael F. Weber, Chief l Licensing Branch l Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION GUIDANCE ON EXEMPTIONS The Commission recently approved the staff's proposed action in a Commission paper (SECY 96-249) on reducing the need for exemptions and ensuring consistency of the exemption process. The Commission's decision provides additional guidance to the staff on the general process of considering exemption requests. I have attached a copy of the Staff Requirements !
Memorandum (SRM) on SECY 96-249 for your information and use in discussions with licensees.
Please note in particular the Commission's statement in the second paragraph of the SRM that reads "[t]he Commission believes that the staff should apply l the regulatory criteria for exemptions objectively and without any l preconceived notion that exemptions should either be limited or circumscribed j or, conversely, readily available for anyone who seeks an exemption." We should be applying this approach in discussions with licensees who may be <
seeking an exemption from a particular requirement. l Much of the rest of the SRM places the onus on the staff to modify and correct regulations that engender an inordinate volume of exemption requests.
Where we identify such regulations, we need to promptly communicate the need 1
for regulatory revisions to the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research through s a " User Need" memorandum. You should also note in the closing of the SRM that i the Commission has requested the staff to list the number of exemption requests received and the number granted or denied in the semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan. I anticipate that procedures will need to be d
developed to provide periodic updates on the status of exemption requests.
[ As we renew licenses, all of u:: need to carefully review any previous
- exemptions that have been issued to the fuel cycle licensees and either
- reaffirm the appropriateness of the exemption or conclude that the exemption can no longer be justified. Do not simply continue past exemptions without a proper and thorough review. In addition, be sensitive to recurring exemptions. If you identify one, please bring it promptly to your Section Chief's and my attention, so we can assess the need for a corrective rulemaking.
Attachment:
As stated /
DISTR 13UTION:
FCSS r/f Central File ~ FCLB r/f NMSS r/f v .
PUBLIC
%3 Path and File Name:q:\exem.mw 6 7h! ' b M'd 0FC JCLB E NAME kMWeber .
- DATE 02/03 /97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY Category
- Proprietary or CF Only Delete file af ter distribution: Yes No 77g
==wgag== NRC FILE CENTER COPY J"
. \
us ye uq)t UNITED STATES 2 E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.C. 2056H001
,o
- February 3, 1997 MEMORANDUM T0: FCLB Staff ,
gtsh-i FROM: Michael F. Weber, Chief Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION GUIDANCE ON EXEMPTIONS The Comission recently approved the staff's proposed action in a Commission paper (SECY 96-249) on reducing the need for exemptions and ensuring consistency of the exemption process. The Commission's decision provides additional guidance to the staff on the general process of considering exemption requests. I have attached a copy of the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on SECY 96-249 for your information and use in discussions with licensees.
Please note in particular the Commission's statement in the second paragraph of the SRM that reads "[t]he Commission believes that the staff should cpply '
the regulatory criteria for exemptions objectively and without any preconceived notion that exemptions should either be limited or circumscribed or, conversely, readily available for anyone who seeks an exemption." We should be applying this approach in discussions with licensees who may be seeking an exemption from a particular requirement.
Much of the rest of the SRM places the onus on the staff to modify and correct regulations that engender an inordinate volume of exemption requests. ,
Where we identify such regulations, we need to promptly communicate the need i
for regulatory revisions to the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research through a " User Need" memorandum. You should also note in the closing of the SRM that the Commission has requested the staff to list the number of exemption requests received and the number granted or denied in the semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan. I anticipate that procedures will need to be developed to provide periodic updates on the status of exemption requests.
As we renew licenses, all of us netd (6 a refully review any previous exemptions that have been issued to the 'ael cycle licensees and either reaffirm the appropriateness of.the excption or conclude that the exemption can no longer be justified. Do not simply continue past exemptions without a proper and thorough review. In addition, be sensitive to recurring exemptions. If you identif y One, please bring it promptly to your Section Chief's and my attention, se v; can assess the need for a corrective rulemaking.
Attachment:
As stated
January 29, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM: John C. Hoyle, Secretary /s/
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-249 - STAFF RESPONSE TO SRM ON SECY-96-147 REGARDING REDUCING NEED FOR EXEMPTIONS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE EXEMPTION PROCESS The Commission has approved retaining (1) the current criteria contained in 10 CFR 50.12 for considering exemption requests from reactor licensees, and (2) the current general criteria for considering specific exemptions requested by materials licensees.
In addition, the Commission agrees that the staff's own internal process for the staff's evaluation of exemption requests is adequate. With regard to this internal staff review process, the staff should develop more explicit guidance to ensure the quality, objectivity and consistency of exemption packages.
(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 7/31/97)
The Commission is concerned, however, that the recent Commission y! focus on exemptions (to identify regulations that are unclear or difficult to comply with so that such regulations may be ,
corrected) may have caused a misunderstanding by the staff and j affected the application of the exemption criteria, resulting in j an attempt by the staff to limit or reduce the number of exemptions that the NRC considers and grants. In fact, the Commission has not set any particular goals or limits on the number of exemption requests that can be considered or granted.
The Commission believes that the staff should apply the regulatory criteria for exemptions objectively and without a preconceived notion that exemptions should either be limited or circumscribed or, conversely, readily available for anyone who seeks an exemption. Objective evaluation of exemption requests will ensure that inappropriate regulatory requirements will be more readily identified through the number of exemption requests that are received.
If particular regulations are unclear or difficult to comply with such that they engender an inordinate volume of exemption requests (so called " recurring exemptions"), the staff should seek promptly to modify and correct these regulations and, in the interim period before completion of the corrective rulemaking, grant those exemptions that are properly justified under the exemption criteria. In addressing the " recurring exemption" problem, the staff should expeditiously proceed with the rulemaking fixes to those regulations that have engendered recurring exemption requests. These corrective rulemaking f77TXc4M,fWT M % D n,i
- i wn , w ,(, ac ,m p p
l s
l actions should not be delayed to incorporate " performance-based" regulatory concepts where such concepts are not necessary to Candidate rulemaking address the " recurring exemption" issue.
activities resulting from reviews of experience with exemptions should continue to be noted and pregress reported in the semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan.
)
As a general practice, the grant or denial of specific exemptions is purely a staff responsibility that does not involve the l Commissioners. However, the Commission reserves to itself the responsibility for policy determinations that guide these staff ,
actions. To allow for routine Commission monitoring (for l
" recurring exemption" requests), the staff should include in the semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan a listing and description of the applications for exemptions that have been received and the exemption applications that have been granted or denied during the period which is the subject of the semiannual i update.
\
i i
cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC OCA 01G Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) l
..