ML20149J159
| ML20149J159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/12/1997 |
| From: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Surmeier J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 SECY-96-249-C, NUDOCS 9707280080 | |
| Download: ML20149J159 (3) | |
Text
.
July 12,1997 p
MEMORANDUM.TO:
John J. Surmeier. Deputy Director 3-Program Management. Policy Development' fa and Analysis. Staff f
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
John T.- Greeves, Director [0riginal signed by]
Division of Waste-Management ~
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT INPUT TO THE STAFF S RESPONSE TO SECY-96-249 SECY-96-249 requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff " include in the semiannual u) dates for the Rulemaking Activity Plan a listing and description of tie applications for exemptions that have been received and the exem] tion applications that have been granted or denied during the 3eriod whic1 is the subject of the semiannual update." Division of Waste ianagement
-(DWM) staff has reviewed the licensing actions undertaken by DWM during the period from January 1, 1997, through June 30, 1997, and has determined that:
1.
DWM did not receive any applications for exemptions during this period, and:
2.
DWM staff did not grant or deny any applications for exemptions during this. period.
We will continue to track this issue in order to provide input for subsequent Rulemaking Activity Plan updates.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Nick Orlando at 415-6749.
g; TICKET: 9700264 DISTRIBUTION: Central File LLDP r/f DWM r/f-t/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC EBrummett JLambert CPaperiello MKnapp JLinehan CPoland ACNW MFederline LBell TCJohnson cttachment/ enclosure; "N" = No copy To receive a copy of this document in small box on "OFC:" line enter: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure; "E" = Copy wlth i
P;th & File Name: S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\DAO\\97-264 LLDP}h LLpP
,h D[M[
OFC LLDPj
/
NAME DQhdo/bg RNelbon Mckey h dves DATE 7/(g97 7M/97 Y///97 k 7////97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNW: YES.X. NO _
Category: Proprietai / _ or CF Only _
IG : YES ~ NO ~
LSS : YES _ NO _
Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No _
N 9707280000'970712 '
A/b PDR WASTE q
lI - >
WM-3 PDR '
W h
j w
~
l-j
- e*%q,%
UNITED STATES l -
g l
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001 o
49*****
,o l
July 12, 1997 l
MEMORANDUM TO:
John J. Surmeier, Deputy Director Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff l
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i
i FROM:
John T. Greeves. Director Division of Waste Manag p t Office of Nuclear Mater 1 Safety and Safeguards
+
l
SUBJECT:
DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT INPUT TO THE STAFF'S i
RESPONSE TO SECY-96-249 l
SECY-96-249 requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff " include in the semiannual u] dates'for the Rulemaking Activity Plan a listing and description of t1e applications for exemptions that have been received and the exemation applications that have been granted or denied during the period whic1 is the subject of the semiannual update." Division of Waste Management (DWM) staff has reviewed the licensing actions undertaken by DWM during the i
period from January 1, 1997, through June 30, 1997, and has determined that:
i 1.
DWM did not receive any applications for exemptions during this period, i
and:
2.
DWM staff did not grant or deny any applications for exemptions during this p -iod.
We will continue to track this issue in order to provide input for subsequent Rulemaking Activity Plan updates.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please centact Nick Orlando i
at 415-6749.
i l
L I
i t
l'
/f&sek d#gfunil TICKET
,yt
^
$dc
' DATr., RECEIVED: 06/23/97 ORIGINAL DUE DT: 07/29/97 CONTROL NO: 9700264 DIVISION. DATE:"07/15/97=
DOC DT: 01/29/97 FROM:
TIME:
COMP DT:
//
John Hoyle, SECY l
TO:
Thompson FOR SIGNATURE OF :
- SPEC **
SECY NO:
Callan ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
-PMDA
'i.
Surmeier IMNS FCSS 1
DESC:
ROUTING:
SRM - SECY-96-249 - STAFF RESPONSE TO SRM ON Paperiello SECY-96-147 REGARDING REDUCING NEED FOR EXEMPTIONS Knapp
& CONSISTENCY OF THE EXEMPTION PROCESS - UPDATES Linehan OF THE RULEMAKING ACTIVITY PLAN Poland SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
PMDA (Surmeier) has the lead.
IMNS/FCSS/SFPO/DWM -
Pltase provide input to PMDA by_7/15/97._
PMDA will consolidate input and provide a f1TriK1 response to Ng,-
RES by 7/29/97.
Duo to D'NM DitodelsMML~ g p A G~,
- by af ec: mF TCr 1
k 23
. -. - -. --. _. -. ~.
Action: Miraglia, NRR/
eriello, NMSS/
f *'.. #.., Wee;,io UNITED STATES 10R+ RES Cys on
_[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASWN GTON. D.C. 20555-0001 j
f B1aha Ng #
January 29, 1997 Morrison, RES Mate, RES FFICE OF THE
-SECRETARY.
a l'
i i
. MEMORANDUM TO:
'Hugh L. Thompson, Jr.
Act int..Rvecu ive Director for Ooeratiops.
I M
FROM:
Jo oyl, Secretary 1
SUBJECT:
' STAFF REQUIREGIFFSt-SECY-96-249 - STAFF RESPONSE 'IT) SRM ON SECY-96-147 REGARDING REDUCING NEED FOR EXEMPTIONS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE EXEMPTION PROCESS i
1
]
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 i
staff should develop more explicit guidance to ensure the 1
quality, objectivity) and consistency of exemption packages.
l (SDO) (NRR & NMSS (SECY Suspense:
7/31/97) 9700016 4
l The Conunission'is concerned, however,'that the recent Commission 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 i
affect % the application of the' exemption criteria, resulting in cn 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 4
{
number of exemption requests that can be considered or' granted.
3 The Conunission believes that the staff shosld. apply the j
regulatory criteria for exemptions objectively and without a preconceived notion that exemptions should either be limited or j
circumscribed or, conversely, readily available for anyone who L
.ceeks an exemption.
Objective evaluation of exemption requests j
will ensure that inappropriate regulatory requirements will be more readily identified through the number of' exemption requests that are' received.
i GECY NOTE:
THIS SRM, SECY-96-249, AND THE COMMISSION VOTI@#
h RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL i
COMMISSIONRRS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS :? ROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
p.
lL1LL2Vf<> l G W 2y p o
~
l.',
1 If particular regulations are unclear or difficult to comply with such that they engender an inordinate volume of exemption (so called " recurring exemptions"), the staff should requests 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 ruler.sking fixes to those regulations that have engendered recurring exemption requests.
These corrective rulemaking actions should not be delayed to incorporat'e " performance-based"-
regulatory concepts where such concepts are not necessary to address the " recurring exemption" issue.
4 Candidate rulemaking activities resulting from reviews of experience with exemptions should continue to be noted and progress reported in the i
semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan.
){
As a general praccice, the grant or denial of specific exemptions is purely a staff responsibility that does not involve the t
Cotanissioners.
However, the Commission reserves to itself the responsibility for policy determinations that guide these staff actions.
Tot allow-fororoutine cometission inonitoring '(for
" recurring exemption" requests), the staff should include in thei I
s sH ammum1,usMlates s oC the; Aulemaking ~ Activity; Plan e at11 sting, and deseWyetees;of^ the applications for exemptions.thet:havetbeati received and the~ exemption applicationecthatchave been*geessedvot deniedidustag the period which is the subject ^of1the semiennuale i
updater.
(REF/NRR/NMSS) l l i
! 1 cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Constissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Constissioner McGaffigan i
OGC OCA OIG-Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
J l
- ?
f
yn.va m m m m m m m m m = = = =,
(
+
7
\\...../
POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVti CONSENT) i March 14, 1997 SECY-97-062 i
FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ACTIVITY PLAN
]
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Commission paper is to provide for Commission review tha staff's proposed Rulemaking Activity Plan (RAP), (Enclosure 2). The RAP 4
includes descriptions of rulemakings under the direction of the EDO that are currently actively being conducted and those that are being considered for i
future action.
This process is intended to ensure that the staff incorporates Commission policy input to contemplated rulemakings at an early stage of rulo
[
plan development, before significant resources are expended.
It further will provide a mechanism to determine whether previously initiated rulemakings j
should continue, be redirected or be terminated.
Finally, the "Rulemaking Activity Plan" includes priorities for all ongoing and planned rules to allow i
effective allocation of resources in a manner consistent with Commission policy.
' BACKGROUND:
In a Commission Staff Requirement Memorandum (SRM) of April 7,1995, on the status of ongoing regulatory reform initiatives, the Commission directed the staff to (1) establish a process to. review and prioritize rulemaking efforts 4
i on a continuing basis and (2) pay particular attention to how rulemaking efforts receive staff approval for initiation. The Commission asked that the staff identify all rulemakings currently under development or being contemplated and, based on safety benefit and cost, make a recommendation on CONTACT:
L. B. Riani, RES/DRA (301) 415-6220 SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Monday, March 31, 7 1997, that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
L
~..
); -
i.,~
j-The.Commissi:ners i
4
. the need for continuing the rulemaking process,,and submit this information
[
to the Commission for its review.
In response to this SRM, the staff developed the initial version of the "Rulemaking Activity Plan" (RAP).
This F
plan'was transmitted to the commission by memorandum dated May 10, 1995 and-the Commission approved the: initial version of the plan on May 26, 1995. The
' structure and format of the RAP has beer designed to facilitate a review of all ongoing and planned rulemaking actNisias-at various stages of i
development.
RES-is responsible for maintaining and periodically updating this Plan such that its updating will be synchronous with the 6-month update 4
and input interval. required for the OM8 Regulatory Agenda for major agency j
rulemakings, and for the more detailed NRC Regulatory Agenda, published as _
The Office Directors under the EDO are responsible for the timely supply of Plan input to RES for all rulemakings under developinent and those being contemplated for development in their respective offices.
RES wil1
- l continue to submit the updated Rulemaking Activity Plan for review on an j
approximate 6-month interval.
~
i On August 8,1996, the semiannual update of the "Rulemaking Activity Plan" was j
sent to the Commission for approval via SECY-96-176, and was approved by the Commission's SRM dated October 9, 1996.
Respondir.g to a previous Commission SRM, the staff provided a summary of significant changes to the rulemaking 4
activity-plan (new rulemakings and petitions, rules terminated and rules that are on-hold) in each of the updates. This summary of changes has been i-incl'uded as Enclosure 1.
Proposed changes in. the priority of certain rules
.are also. included in this enclosure.
i j
Reaulatory Improvement In Grantino Eeneric Exemptions From Reculations
[
- A Commission paper, Secy 96-147, "f lanning for Pursuing Regulatory Improvement in the Arca of Exemptions Granted t o Regulations," dated July 1,1996, j
l identified 11 rulemaking actions with the potential for reducing the present l
and future need for recurring exemptions. Nine of these rulemaking actions p
are included in the Rulemaking Activity Plan and specifically identified in f
l>
Appendix 8., Two of the rulemaking actions previously listed were dropped:
L the rulemaking to minimize exemptions to 10 CFR 50.55a is now not considered j
necessary (per Secy-96-218, PRA Implementation Plan) and the rulemaking to change various parts of the regulations to modify the definition of decommissioning has been subsumed into the rulemaking activity for license termination.
In Secy 96-147, the staff committed to review recent experience with exemptions to determine whether any changes or additions tb these nine
. candidate rulemakings are warranted.
This review will continue on an ongoing basis.
However, the staff has not identified any such additions at this time.
In addition to this, the.Cosmission SAM dated January 29, 1997 onSECY-96pt47,
" Staff Response to SAM on SECY-96-147 Regarding Reducing Need For Exemptions
-and Consistency of the Exemption Process" p ovided additional guidance to the staff.
Specifically, the staff was directed to -include in future semiannual updates of the Rulemaking Activity Plan a listing and description of the
a
'J i
[
The Coinmissioners 3-
)
applications fortaxemptions that~have:been received and'the exemptian ay11 cations that have been' granted oi' denied'during the reporting period of tia plan. The requested information will be included in the next update of the'Rulemaking Activity Plan.
j-Proposed Ma.ior Rulemaking Revision to 10 CFR Part 35 l
l The staff is preparing a Commission paper containing a proposed process for i
revising 10 CFR Part 35 which will reflect Commission Strategic Assessment i
direction.
The Commission paper will detail the development of a rulemaking l
plan including proposed resolutions for major issues, and the completion of i
appropriate public workshops and additional interactions involving the medical 4
community, public interests, and NRC's Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of
-Isotopes.
This Commiss. ion paper will identify certain rulemaking activities i
specifically associated with Part 35 that will be incorporated into this revision. The affected rulemakings include the following: RM #310-
" Pregnancy'and Breast-Feeding Status of Patients, Part 35"; RM #385
" Revisions to Parts 31 and 35 to Address MP Items"; RM #406 " Revise Brachytherapy Procedures, Part 35"; RM #478 " Relief From Requirements Dealing 1
with the Medical Uses of Radiation, Parts 35.29c and d"; and RM #463 "NRRPT -
Training Requirements for RS0s". These rulemakings will be subsumed in one rulemaking activity and will be dropped as individual activities-if the Commission approves the staff's proposed approach.
i RECOMENDATION:
Unless the Coimission directs otherwise, the staff will continue to-implement l
the RAP as prcvided in Enclosure 2.
L. J 4eph Callan Execdtive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
DISTRIBUTION:
)
1.
Summary of Changes to the RAP commissioners j
2.
Rulemaking Activity Plan Occ n
Appendix A to Encl. 2, Summary OCAA j
of Rulemaking Activities OIG i
Appendix B to Encl. 2, Exemptions OPA l
Granted to Regulations OIP OCA ACRS.
J ASLBP
.y EDO SECY i
i i
I
.