ML20138J472
| ML20138J472 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/20/1996 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138J441 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-96-147-C, SECY-96-249-C, NUDOCS 9702070289 | |
| Download: ML20138J472 (2) | |
Text
.- - -
.=.
4 NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary 5
FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-249 - STAFF RESPONSE TO SRM ON SECY-96-147 REGARDING REDUCING NEED FOR EXEMPTIONS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE EXEMPTION i
PROCESS Disapproved Abstain Approved A
w 4
Request."'saussion Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comment.
1 i
/
N
\\
SIGNAT$#th (
3d Release Vote
/ 4. /
'DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on " A S
Yes 6
No 9702070289 970129 FDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONCENCE PDR
i Commissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-96-249:
Based on my review of SECY-96-249 and our recent and pa:t agency practice in dealing with exemption requests. I have the following comments on our l
exemption practices:
(1)
I agree with the staff's proposal in SECY-96-249 that the Commission retain:
?
(a) the current criteria in 10 CFR 50.12 for considering exemption I
requests from reactor licensees; and l
L (b) the current general criteria for.considering specific exemptions l
requested by materials licensees.
t These criteria have proven to be effective and useful and have served the agency well in its application of the exemption process in the past, I believe that the recent focus o.1 exemption prac+. ice may have gone too 1
(2) i far and inoppropriately impac9d the application of the established exemption criteria in an attempt to limit or reduce the number of exemptions that the NRC considers and grants.
Symptomatic of the 4
inordinate focus on exemptions are the current internal process requirements for 10 CFR 50.12 exemptions.
That process includes eight l
concurrences within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and the Office of the General Counsel, a supporting memorandum to the EDO. and consultation with the Chairman before an exemption can be approved.
This goes too far and is akin to the sort of denial of discretion to working 'evel staff that did so much damage to the Federal procurement From the discussions system before the reforms of the past few years.
in SECY-96-249. this process does, indeed, appear to have reduced the Whether number of exemptions applied for and granted in the last year.
it has enhanced safety or improved regulatory effectiveness is another issue, however.
It is my view that we should a] ply the regulatory criteria for exemptions objectively and witlout a preconceived notion that exemptions should be either limited and circumscribed or, conversely, readily available for anyone who seeks an exem] tion.
If particular regulations are unclear or difficult to comply wit 1 such that they engender an inordinate volume of exemption requests (" recurring exemptions" in the language of SECY-96-147), we should seek promatly to modify and correct these regulations and. in the interim period 3efore the completion of the corrective rulemaking, grant those exemptions that are properly justified under our exemption criteria. We should not discourage exemption requests in these areas by making the exemption process more difficult through our internal administrative procedures and internal I fully support the staff's approach, policy directives to the staff.
described in SECY-90-147. in which it attempts to identify those l
regulations which have resulted in recurring exemption requests and I
initiates rulemaking to address the problems with those regulations.
l would simply urge the Commission and the staff to objectively apply the l
10 CFR 50.12 and the materials exemption criteria to future exemption requests whila the agency proceeds with the rulemaking initiatives to correct those rules which engender recurring exemption requests, I
a
~
f l
[0+5 55c w
UNITED SlriE5 D
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C6MMISSION o
y" WASHINGTON, D C 2055b0001
- t 5
j 1
January 29, 1997
%...../
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY I
8 Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
MEMORANDUM TO:
Acti Executive Director for Operations MC John oylv, Secretary FPOM:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-96-249 - STAFF
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO SRM ON SECY-96-147 REGARDING REDUCING NEED FOR EXEMPTIONS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE EXEMPTION PROCESS e
(1) the cut.ent criteria The Commicsion has approved retaining 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 the With regard to this internal staff review process, adequate.
staff should develop more explicit guidance to ensure the objectivity and consistency of exemption packages.
l
- quality, (SECY Suspense:
7/31/97)
(EDO) however, that the recent Commission l
The Commission is concerned, focus on exemptions (to identify regulations that are unclear or such regulations may be to comply with so that difficult may have caused a misunderstanding by the staff rnd corrected) resulting in affected the application of the exemption criteria, an attempt by the staff to limit or reduce the number of-In fact, the the NRC considers and grants.
exemptions that set any particular goals or limits on the Commission has not number of exem.ption requests that can be considered or granted.
i The Commission believes that the staff should apply the l
j regulatory criteria for exemptions objectively and without a preconceived notion that exemptions should either be limited or conversely, readily available for anyone who circumscribed or, Objective evaluation of exemption requests seeks an exemption.inappropriate regulatory requirements will be will ensure that more readily identified through the number of exemption requests that are received.
i i
l AND THE COMMISSION VOTING SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-96-249, RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL i
COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 d
WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM,
-WO-N/W &
f to comply with If particular regulations are unclear or difficultthey engender a the staff should such that (so called " recurring exemptions"),these regulations and, in the requests seek promptly to modify and correctinterim period before completion o are properly justified under the grant those exemptions thatIn addressing the " recurring exemption" exemption criteria.the staff should expeditiously proceed with the rulemaking fixes to those regulations that have engendered
- problem, These corrective rulemaking recurring exemption requests.
actions should not be delayed to incorporate " performance-based" regulatory concepts where such concepts are not necessary toCandidate rulemcking address the " recurring exemption" issue.
activities resulting from reviews of experience with exemptions should continue to be noted and progress reported in the semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan.
denial of r-acific exemptions As a gei.eral practice, the grant c; involve the is purely a staff responsibility that does notthe Commission reserves to itself the
- However, Commissioners.
responsibility for policy determinations that guide these staff To allow for routine Commission monitoring (for the staff should include in the actions.
" recurring exemption" requests),
semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan a listing and have been description of the applications for exemptions thatreceived and the of the semiannual denied during the period which is the subject update.
1 cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Dia:
Commissioner McGaffigan OGC i
OCA Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
)