ML20197D834

Approves Proposed Ltr W/Attached Edit Re 981, Regulatory Improvement Act of 1997

ML20197D834
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/26/1997
From:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	NRC
References
NUDOCS 9712290134
Download: ML20197D834 (3)

Text

ic~)~

~

n m w a p# ' 2a m My -

M**

U~~-~~'

• E" utmD sTANS

/g"%3o NUCLEAR HrGULATORY COMMISSION

/

g wAsootoN. o.c. 2osss-oooi g

5 I approve the proposed letter k!/

November 19, 1997 with the attached edits, bL orr o

e 11/26/97 cENEFML CoONSEL Shirlof Ann JfcIson liate MEMORANDUM TO:

Chairman Jackson COMSECY-97-030 Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz eee***ooeeeoeoeoooeoeoeo Commissioner McGaffigan RELEASED TOTHE PDR e

e e

FROM:

Karen D. Cyr h,

p/A'N#)

k) l General Counse ddo ird!!a!s l

o*ao...........

c.......

SUBJECT:

S.981, THE REGULATORY IMPRO ENT ACT OF 1997 PURPOSE:

The main purpose of this memorandum and its first Attachment is to describe for the Commission the most recent legislative proposal on " regulatory refonn*," namely, S. 981, a entitled the " Regulatory improvement Act of 1997? The memorandum also discusses the impact the bill might have on the independence of the NRC and provides a draft of a letter that a tho' Commisslori'coUld send to'the Senate'C'onImittee*on'Govemmental Affairs to%rge that the bill be modified to preserve the independence of the agenc?. See Attachment 2. Also attached

~

are the full text of the bill, Senator Thom; un's statement in the Senate when he introduced the bill, and testimony on the bill by Sal!y Katzeri, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

BACKGRQU.ND_AND

SUMMARY

Efforts in the last Congress to change the regulatory process in major ways failed in part for lack of bipartisan support of some of the more controversial features of the bills that proponents of reform introduced, such as cost-benefit decision criteria that would in effect have supplanted existing statutory health, safety, and environmental standards. Despite the lack of support for major refom1, Congtsss did enact the more modest Congressional Review Act (CRA), which was a portion of the Small Bus! ness Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act (SBREFA).dUnder the CRA, every " rule 5 (where " rule" is defined broadly enough to include policy statements and guidance documents) must be sent to Congress before the rule can become effective,'and Congress can use e.Ypedited procedures to enact legislation that would modify or repeal " major"

rules, in the current session, however, there is in the Senate a renewed effort, now bipartisan, to

. address long-standing and widely-shared cancems that the regulatory process is too costly;.

L70 ' ] '

> that it overlooks sess costly attematives; tt at it lacks sufficiently scientific underpinnings; that it does not take risk into account sufficiently, that it lacks centralized oversight of risk considerations; that it ico often ignores social values, distributional effects, and equitable ya

.,s

co.'cems; and that it does not provide the public with enough information.

L

!'gjj O f M - (t>CD CONTACT:

Steve Crockett, OGC r

(301) 415-1620 i[}Ml!}IM I,;

9712290134 971126 C * *

• PDR COMMS NRCC CCRRESPONDENCE PDR

-, s 7

g,

f; %,

4 -

4 o

a w

The[ Honorable Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman

^

Committee on'Govemmental Affairs:

~ United States Senate

' LWashinginn, D.C. 20510-p J

Dear Mr. Chairman:

1 fOn behalf of the Nuclear ReguMory Commission (NRC), I am writing to comment on S.981,'he

~

. Regulatory ?mprovement Act of 1997 rRIA), and especially on the new subchapter, "Exectdve 10versight,"which Section 3 of the RIA wouid add to the Administrative Procedure Act; iThe'RIA would aim at much that the NRC is working toward in its cwn regulatory process f

c 5 better cost-benefK analyses and risk assessmer,ts for major rules, greater emphasis on s#cience f and scientific information, better ways to express risk findings and deal with uncertainties and

+

(non-quantifiable factors, and comparison of regulated risks with risks routinely encantered by -

the public.4 The NRC would also welcome increased exchange among the regulatory agencies on the subjects of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. : The Commission believes that j-the agency could both contribute to and leam from such increased exchange.

. However, the Commission shares some of the concems expressed by Sa!!y Katzen, Administrator of the Office of information and Regulatory Affairs,-in testimony before your i>

Committee on September 12,1997.- We would want to be confident that the potential gains in regulation based on sound science and economics justify the added costs in time, money, and personnel, especially in a time of declining' resources.

h" l The Commission is most concerned, however, about an issue that Ms. Katzen did not discuss in her testimony, and that, if not dealt with sightly, could have a negative impact on achievement of the legislation's laudable goals.- The RINs subchapter on executive oversight might be read 7

to require that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review the substance of every

- proposed and final rule issued by any of the independent regulatory commissions not excluded -

,j

by the definition of"sule'Iin the bill. At the very least, such centralized reviews would greatly t

v lengthen the NRC's rule making process, which is already long enough.

d

- But most important, a requirement for such reviews would weaken the long-standing, statutorily-based, independence of the NRC. - That independence, established at the agency's founding by

- section 201 of the Energy Recrganization Act of 1974, has permitted the agency to deve!op the scientific expertise and information necessary for regulatirg (in an effective and timely way,)

/

the advanced and important set of technologies used in nuclear power and tne other uses of radioactive materials.

For example, in the last decade alone, the NRC has begun and completed rule makings on

m

retrofitting,' nuclear power plant maintenance, nuclear power plant license rc newal,

-?

L atandardtration of new nuclear power plant desigrjs, and decommission!ng and -

decontamination of nuclear facilities.- All of these rule makings required careful consideration of t

costs, benefits,land risks. During the same time, th? sgency hasyndertaken a number of =

Y y

[

• Q $-

y

f h g

['. -

- ~

o orojects a;med at increasing the consideration of risk in the agency's decision making. For example, the agency is engaged in research on probabilistic risk assessment and has worked with several utilities to develop methods of ranking risks. Had the agency been subject to -

centralized review of every proposed regulation, final regulation, guidance document, and policy statement the agency wanted to issue doring that decade, it is doubtful that the agency could t ave accomplished co much.

Adding to the agency's rule making the length and cost of OMB reviews of every proposed and final rule is unlikely to increase the scientific content or the effectiveness of NRC regulation, and it will certainly reduce its timeliness. At part of Ps reinventing govemment effort, the NRC is str}ving to reduce the t;me it takes to complete rule makings. Moreover, rules needed to f

prornote nue' ear safety might also be delayed or modified fo udr'eTted to safety. This legislation would instead prol:ng an already lengtSy process (. There are achieve the aims of better and more consistent use of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment in regulatorgapalysis pedormed by the independent regulatory agencies. An f

independent regulator 9glaffed and diected by the necessary expertise, as the NRC is, can adopt sound new piactices more quickly than a regulator subject to continuous central oversight. The RIA seems to have recognized this principin in excluding from its recch several categories of rules issued by some of the independent regulatory ageacies that regulate economic mattem.

For these reasons, the Commission therefore would urge that independent regulatory agencies with public health and safety responsibilities be explicitly excluded from the reach of the RtA's subchapter on executive oversight.

Sincerely, Shirley Ann Jackson cc: The Honorable John Glenn 6