ML20154M963
| ML20154M963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/02/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154M940 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-168-C, NUDOCS 9810210097 | |
| Download: ML20154M963 (5) | |
Text
... - -
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-168 - PROPOSED RULEMAKING ACTIVITY PLAN Approved /-
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
See attached comments.
at$%/A
" //
SI E
DATn
. Entered on "AS" Yes N No 9910210097 981019 RESA DE E PDR
- -. _ _ _. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _.. _ _. ~ _. _ _ _
i
'Comissioner McGaffiaan's Coments on SECY-98-168 l
l
. I. continue to be disappointed that there is apparently little effort being l
made at.taking a fresh look at the Regulatory Review Group (RRG) results to see if there are'additioral rulemakings that could be underte to reduce regulatory burden in a risk-informed, performance-based or risk informed, less prescriptive fashion.
In the July 30. 1998 Congressional heari.1g, the Comission was criticized for insufficient focus on regulatory *eform.
Removing unnecessary or duplicative regulations that divert licencee and NRC resources from more safety significant activity is risk-informed as far as I am concerned. Appendix C is not an adequate resp]nse to the Comission's
-request for a fresh look at the RRG results.
Burden reduction rulemaking needs a higher. priority in our rulemaking activities.
-1 agree with the specific coments offered by Commissioner Diaz and Chairman Jackson and the Chairman's general comment that the rulemaking activity plan (RAP).should independently provide a clear explanation of the staff's rationale for the intended actions so as to eliminate the need for supplementary information.
In other words, the RAP should be a " stand-alone" document.
l to the SECY paper, the " Summary of Changes to the Rulemaking Activity Plan Since Last Plan Update." could be made more helpful by including a heading that would capture changes of staff position other than those involving decisions to add an activity to a category, publish a rule for comment, or put on hold or terminate an activity.
For example as I. note below, the staff's position on item NRR-C4A-14. NEI's 1995 petition for rulemaking on OA ?.ograms, has changed since the last RAP was submitted to the Comission. However, nothing in the " Summary of Changes Since Last Plan Update" alerted readers to the change.
The staff paper states that EPA requested NRC to develop regulations for simplified procedures..for licensing the radioactive portion of waste in RCRA L facilities in parallel with EPA's rulemaking on mixed waste.
I believe that the Comission should respond positively and that the resources for this rulemaking should be identified in the next version of the RAP and budgeted by reprograming. Also, the write-up on the Part 35 rulemaking on page 4 of the l-paper is almost one year out of date.
i Additional coments are provided on specific items as follows:
l 1.
NRR C4A-14 PRM 50 62 "NEI 1995 petition for rulemaking on OA programs" j.
NEI seeks a rule that would permit nuclear power plant licensees to 2
change their quality programs as referenced or described in a Safety
(
~. _. -
L 2
o Analysis Report (SAR) without prior NRC approval under some conditions.
.The petition has been around for at.least three years, and the staff says that it " anticipates that the petition for rulemaking will be granted in part" (p. CIVA-1), yet the petition continues to languish in,
-Category IVA, among the ' petitions for which further assessment is required before' deciding whether to initiate rulemaking or to grant.-to deny, or to partially grant the petition." 'I would urge the staff to act soon on this petition.
I'further note that-the staff's pcsition on this petition has changed since the.last' RAP was submitted to the Commission last October.' A Commission paper recommending denial of the petition was apparently then in-preparation, but was sent back by senior managers with a revised
. position to ~ accept the petition in part.
When that paper is finally presented to the Commission. I may well decide to go further and grant-the petition-in large part or as proposed.
1 In this case the RAP has clearly not served the purpose of incorporating
" Commission policy direction into contemplated rulemakings at an early stage of' rule y an development before significant resources are expended." Much more detail would need to be included in the RAP (similar to the detail in the internal NRR Director's Quarterly Status Report) for the Commission to give early policy direction.
Either that needs to be done in the RAP or some other mechanism needs to be developed to get early policy direction on rulemaking petitions.
2.
RES C4A 15 PRM 50 63 and RES C4A 27 PRM 50 63A - P.G. Crane petitions on stockpiling Potassium lodide
^These two descriptions, on pages 1 and 4 of CIVA. have been overtaken by later. commission decisions.
3 ~.
" Revisions to 10 CFR Parts 20. 32. 35, 36, 39 Regarding Minor Administrative Changes, Clarifications, and a Minor Policy Change" While I recognize that this rulemaking is categorized as a. low-priority item, it.is'not obvious from the write-up why a rulemaking to address
~ inor" changes results in a 10-month delay between when the final
'm rulemaking was sent for office review (9/97) and when it is scheduled to be submitted to the EDO (7/98).
4
-,---,n----,
r-
,w-
3 4
4.
NHSS C3H_P 20
" Options for the Use of Radiography and Radiographic l
Equipment and ANSI N432. Part 34" l
l-I am concerned that a Category III rulemaking that is described as L
potentially reducing the number of necessary exemptions from certain Part 34 requirements doe < not appear active. Specifically, the write-up states that the rulemaking plan was sent. for office review over one year l
ago (6/97) and no additional information on its status is provided.
5.
NHSS C3MP 26
" Compatibility with the IAEA Transportation Standards, Part 71" l
My approval of this rulemaking is based solely on the need to conform NRC requirements in Part 71 to the IAEA Transportation Standards promulgated in 1996.
I am concerned that the United States continues to 2
propagate the 4Bq/cm surface contamination standard for transportation l
packages, which is not risk-based and has recently proven problematic in l
Europe in the transportation of spent fuel casks.
I fully support the staff's plans to work with DOT and the IAEA by attending upcoming IAEA meetings for the purposes of revising the standards-setting process and l
specifically the current surface contamination standard for transportation packages to make it more risk-informed.
6.
NMSS C4A 17
" Portland General Electric Petition" for changes to Part.
72 and NHSS C5-38
" Storage of Greater Than Class C Waste, Part 72" I am concerned that this issue has not been resolved to date.
In March
~
1998, the staff requested an extension until July 10,'1998 to forward a
. Commission paper regarding the status of the petition. ~The rulemaking activity plan states that the staff is now proposing that the petition L
for rulemaking be denied and therefore, the rulemaking plan be l
terminated. The staff should ensure that its recommendations are forwarded to the Commission for review later this month as scheduled.
I withhold judgment of the staff proposal until more information is provided.
7.
NMSS C5-11
" Safe Concentration for Possession of SNM in Contaminated Soil" h
While I agree that the rulemaking originally planned should be terminated, the issue of the appropriate possession limit for special i
->~~s
.-e w
e e-----e,-
e n
+
4
. terminated, the issue of the appropriate possession limit for special nuclear. material (SNM) at this site should have been resolved long ago.
I understand that Envirocare recently informed NRC that it no longer intends to pursue a Part 70 license and instead will focus its resources on its original petition for rulemaking and exemption request. As I have previously stated, if the Part 70 licensi~ng precess is going to take too long (and it now obviously will), the staff should vigorously pursue the option of granting Envirocare an exemption from the 10 CFR Part-150 limits for SNM.
~
l l
l e
l
[
l h
p arou c%
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 g
g
\\**..+]
October 19,1998 SECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
L Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Karen D. Cyr-enyralC unsel 4-c W
FROM:
y ' ohn. Ho le, Secretary STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-98-168 - PROPOSED
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING ACTIVITY PLAN The Commission has approved the Rulemaking Activity Plan (RAP) subject to the comments provided below.
In NMSS-C5-30 (Extremity Dosimetry on page CV-6), under the section 1.
Racommendation to Proceed, the staff notes that the recommendation to terminate the rk making was sent to the Commission for approval. This should be corrected to note that the memorandum was sent to the Commission for information and there was no request for Commission approval.
In Appendix B, under ' Category IVB and V - On Hold / Terminated," in the first bullet, 'Pa 2.
35'should be corrected to 'Part 36.'
In approving the RAP, the Commission does not express a view on NMSS-C5-38 3.
(Storage of Greater Than Class C Waste on page CV-11) or NMSS-C4A-17 (Portland General Electric Petition). The staff has provided the Commission separate analyses and recommendations on these rulemakings.
With regard to NRR-C4A-14 (NEl petition for rulemaking on QA programs on page 4.
ClVA-1), the staff should act soon on this petition.
Commission approval of NMSS-C3MP-26 (Compatibility with IAEA Transportation 5.
Standards on pages Clll-9 and Cll: 10) is based solely on the need to conform NRC requirements to IAEA transportation standards. The staff should work with DOT and IAEA and attend upcoming lAEA meetings for the purposes of revising the standards-setting process and specifically the current surface contamination standard of 4 Bq/cm for transportation packages to make it more risk-informed.
l l
With regard to termination of NMSS-C5-11 (Safe Concentration for Possession of SNM
' 6.
in Contaminated Soil on pages CV-2 and CV-3), the staff should assure that the report is 4
consistent with the SRM for SECY-98-108; gyroeio od c
l Due to the increasing number of permanently shutdown plants, NRR-C1MP-23 7.
(Emergency Planning Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Reactors on pages Cl-21 and Cl-22) should be moved to the Higher Priority category.
In some cases; such as' RES-C4A-15 and RES-C4A-27 (Potassium lodide stockpiling petitions),
NMSS-C2HP-04 (Recycle / Reuse Rule), NRR-C1HP-39 (Performance-Oriented Requirements for Fire Protection), and the write-up on the Part 35 rulemaking on page 4 of the paper; the information in the RAP is outdated or has been overtaken by events. The RAP should be updated as necessary.
In some cases, such as NMSS-C1LP-05 (Minor Administrative Changes) and NMSS-C3HP-20 (Options for Radiography), the information is not sufficiently detailed to explain apparent ten a twelve month lapses in progress.
In addition, the " Summary of Changes to the Rulemaking Activity Plan Since Last Plan Update" would be more helpfulif it were to include a heading that would capture changes of staff position other than those involving decisions to add an activity to a category, publish a rule for comment, or put on hold or terminate an activity. For example, nothing in the Summary alerted readers to the staffs change in position on NRR-C4A-14, NEl's 1995 petition for rulemaking on QA programs.
in several instances (such as NMSS-C5-37, NMSS-C5-38, and NRR-C4A-14), the Commission required more detail on the basis for recommendations, and to allow the Commission to give early policy direction. Either more detail needs to be included in the RAP or some other mechanism needs to be identified to get early policy direction on rulemaking petitions. In addition, the staff should ensure that the RAP independently provides clear statements to allow the Commission and others to understand the reasoning for the staffs intended actions with each rulemaking without the need for supplemental information.
Burden reduction rulemaking needs to be a higher priority in rulemaking activities. In the April 15,1997, SRM on DSI 12, Risk-informed, Performance-Based Regulation (COMSECY-96-061 the Commission directed the staff to " build [] on the Regulatory Review Group's results... witn a more focused assessment of those regulations which are amenable to a risk-informed, performance-based or a risk-informed less prescriptive approach." The Commission said further that,"[t}o minimize use of resources in any fresh look at the RRG results, such a review should be simply incorporated into the semiannual updates of the Commission's Rulemaking Activity Plan." Appendix C to the draft RAP, which is the staff's response to this direction, appears to be no more than a listing of existing rulemaking activity that could be called risk-informed, performance-based, together with a bare indication of a few other areas that are amenable to such rulemaking activity. The Appendix gives no indication that the staff has made any efforts to " build on the RRG's results with a more focused assessment," or take a i
at the RRG results." The next RAP should reflect such efforts.
Resources should be identified in the next version of the RAP and budgeted by reprogramming for simplified procedures for licensing the radioactive portion of waste on RCRA facilities in l
parallel with EPA's rulemaking on mixed waste. The staff should provide its recommendati i
I i
~~
v
~~~
l
_3 the Commission for how to proceed with the simplification of procedures for licensing the radioactive portion of waste in RCRA facilities before responding to any request by EPA fo action.
cc:
Chairman Jackson Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC i
CIO CFO i
OlG OPA Office Directors, Regions, AL.s, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
l i
I l
l-j I
4 l
s
.