ML20197B187
| ML20197B187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/21/1978 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | PRESIDENT OF U.S. & EXECUTIVE OFFICES |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197B182 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7811010260 | |
| Download: ML20197B187 (10) | |
Text
w-e-
1 t.
- s
~
~ ~ONitED STATES 3..
. ?g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 i E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
' :i,.
a July 21,1978 g *. s,g /,
W CHAIRMAN l
~i The President The White House Washington, DC '20500
Dear Mr. President:
-I am pleased to transmit the NRC report of progress in improving its J
regulations as requested by your letter of March 23 accompanying Exe-cutive Order 12044.
We fully support the basic objectives of the Order and believe that the preparation of clearer and less complex regulations is a necessary prerequisite for satisfying these objectives.
We have carefully examined the provisions of the Executive Order 12044 to determine how current NRC procedures compare. He have found that, for the most part, our procedures appear to satisfy the requirements of the Order, or a-t least,will. satisfy its intent upon suitable modifica-y 6
tien., Irhone at.ea (Sectio.n ~4.).further study;is needed to. determine our position.
The NRC is fully cognirant of the importance of eliminating unnecessary burdens upon those'being regulated, and of reducing as far as possible the economic cost of government regulation. The following quote from the NRC's Value-Impact Guidelines, adopted by the Commission in January 1978, illustrates our commitment to these ideals
)
"The policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is that value-impact analysis be conducted for any proposed regu-J latory actions that might impose a significant burden on the public (where the term public is defined in its broadest sense).
Such policy is not to be construed to mean that cost considerations take precedence over considerations of health, safety, environment, or national security. These factors remain paramount.
However, where there are alter-native means of realizing equivalent benefits in regulatory matters, cost should be a prime consideration."
Enclosed is a section-by-section response to the provisions of Executive Order 12044.
In each case we outline briefly'our current procedures and
?S11ogoge,
The President 2
plans for some future changes in certain areas.
In our comments on Section 4 we indicate why further study is needed.
Respectfully,
\\ kkh Joseph I!. Hendrie r
Enclosure:
Analysis e
1.-;
3 3-i f$
^
s y'
i l
l i
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12044 SECTION 2(a)
Requirements Publish semi-annual agenda of regulations under development or review.
Each item should include a staff contact.
Comment SECTION 2(a)
The NRC now employs four separate procedures which seek to achieve the goals of this section:
(1).NRC publishes gn, agenda of pet.idens for rulemaking a
e
- 7. e n 3
currently under review; (2)
NRC publishes proposed regulations for public comment; (3)
A status summary report listing, among other things, those regulations under development by the Office of Standards Development (the " Green Book") is published quarterly and is available to the public on request; (4)
Commission staff papers, which are discussed in Commission meetings open to public attendance, are placed in the Wash-ington Public Document Room on the day of the Commission meeting.
~-
2 The NRC proposes to publish a semiannual list of significant regulations under review by the staff, in addition to the procedures already in A staff contact will be listed where possible.
pl ace.
~
SECTION 2(b)_
Requirements Agency head must review issues and alternatives before staf f initiates development of significant new regulations.
Comment "Predevelop-The Commission is kept informed of current staff efforts.
~
ment" revie's arE condudted oliTy selectdely*by the Commission.
~
~
- However, w
1 the staff generally prepares pre!iminarj regulatory analyses of signi-ficant regulations in early stages of theh development.
SECTION 2(c)_
Requirements 1.
Provide opportunity for public participation.
2.
Allow 60 days for comments.
3.
Notify interested parties directly if necessary.
Under present NRC procedures public comment on proposed regulations is Most Commission invited upon publication in the Federal _ Register.
)--------------___--_
_s; g;-
3 meetings on proposed regulations are open to the public.
Current prac-tice is to allow 45 days for public comments.
The 60-day period for public comment can be implemented without diffi-culty.
In certain rare cases immediate action must be taken for safety, security, or other reasons, and a regulation may then be issued prior to the expiration of time for public comment.
In such cases the need for immediate implementation is explained in the published notice of the new regulation.
Certain licensees who may not have immediate access to the Federal Reaister (e.g., physicians and radiographers) are generally notified by
(
t.
L direct mai1 of proposed regulations affecting them.
SECTION 2(d)
Requirements 1.
Agency head or designee shall review and approve significant regu-lations before publication in Federal Register.
The review shall include analysis of alternatives and impacts, including any burdens imposed by reporting' requirements.
2.
Agency head or designee shall determine that regulation is written in plain English and is understandable to licensees.
3.
A plan shall be developed for evaluating a regulation after it has been implemented.
4 Comment The Commission reviews all significant regulations prior to their pub-lication for comment in the Federal Register, and would consider most of the listed factors.
The NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement takes such additional steps as directly contacting affected parties to assure that licensees correctly understand the intent of our regulations.
The Commission does not at 'this time require a formal plan for evaluat-ing the regulation after its issuance (#8).
Such evaluation is per-formed on a continuing basis by the regulatory and enforcement staff, particularly in regard to'. neeregulation's of; uncertain impact ~.
(See comments isl:w cn a reia ec requirecer.t in Section 4.)
SECTIONS 2(e), 3(a), 3(b), and 3(c)
Requirements l.
Establish criteria for evaluating regulations and analyze alter-natives.
.. s 2.
Publish the analyses.
Comment
F7 I
5-
. ~,
Sections 2(e), 3(a)_:
The value-impact analysis currently performed by the fiRC staff for most proposed regulations weighs many of the listed factors, whe're applicable
)
g e
to the NRC situation. The NRC does not have a formal set of criteria to determine which regulations are "significant".
The guidelines for the value-impact analysis' stipulate only that all proposed regulatory actions which are non-recurring or non-routine should be~ examined.
[His-n torically, value-impact analyses have been performed on about 80% of i
significant proposed regulations.
Under the Commission's new Value-Impact Guidelines, adopted in January 1978, this figure is e'xpected to i
j increasil]
In certain cases;a more extensive Environmental Impact i
2 i
f i:'
5 t i 17 t
Assessment may be prepared which will consider the listed factors in greater detail.
Current NRC criteria for the value-impact analysis are more restrictive than those required by the Order, that is, the HRC performs an analysis of many regulations whose total economic impact is far less than $100 million.
Similarly an analysis may be performed on regulations having only a minor economic effect on 'the nuclear industry and hence on elec-tric consumers.
The Commission may, of course, order that an analysis be performed on any proposed regulation or other staff action.
In our view the NRC is in compliance with this section.
I w
u-.-
n
.A s.
6 Section 3(b):
At this time some proposed regulations are published accompanied by the value-impact analysis.
It will be NRC policy in the future to make any value-impact analyses available for public review at the time proposed or final regulations are published.
Section 3(c):
_ i The NRC Office of Standards Development now places in the Public Docu-ment Room a final value-impact analysis if there have been any modifi-cations or changes since the proposal was first published for comment.
This procygre xi,ll be e,psgded to all reculations subjected to value-1 i ;act analysis.
i SECTION 4 Requirements Periodically review existing significant regulations for continued need, burden, simplicity, duplication, and changes in economic or technical conditions.
H comment The NRC does not at this time have a comprehensive plan for review of existing regulations.
Some regulations are reviewed if a particular program is under review (for example, current safeguards regulations);
m others may be reviewed due to external events (such as petitions for rulemaking).
Finally, there are staff-initiated reviews, such as the current plan to review significant fuel cycle regulations beginning in
~
FY 1978.
The Commission soon will be discussing with its staff reasonable and resource-effective methods, involving full opportunity for public input,
~
for periodically reviewing our regulations as outlined in Section 4.
4, SECTION 5 Requirements
[
1.
Prephre a dlaft repor6. ohtlining (l') process for develo' ping regu-i lations and any proposed changes thereon, (2) criteria for iden-tifying significant regulations, or regulations requiring regu-latory analysis; and (3) proposed criteria for identifying regu-lations to be included in the periodic review; publish report in F_ederal Register and send report to Of.fice of Management and Budget.
~
2.
After revising report in light of public comments, send to OMB for approval before final publication in Federal Register.
l
8 l
Comment NRC will voluntarily comply with the reporting requirements of this sec-tion and submit the report to OMB for comment.
With suitable modifica-
+
tion this section-by-section analysis will constitute the draft report.
i Because the Order does not apply to flRC, an independent regulatory agency, we do not believe that OMB approval of our report should be required.
l
~
=
=.
h!.
l'
- . ; fa h
L
..