POLICY ISSUE

NOTATION VOTE

May 13, 2002 SECY-02-0081

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: STAFF ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE NRC GOAL OF REDUCING

UNNECESSARY REGULATORY BURDEN ON POWER REACTOR

LICENSEES

PURPOSE: 

To gain Commission approval of the staff’s plans related to the performance goal of reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden on power reactor licensees and related changes to Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) Annual Performance Plan milestones in the Nuclear Reactor

Safety arena, as called for in the NRC Strategic Plan. Specifically, the staff recommends that

the Commission approve: (1) the initiation, development and submission of proposed

rulemakings arising from the short-term, limited-scope initiative described in this paper without

formal rulemaking plans; and (2) performance plan milestones to complete the limited-scope,

short-term initiative (including issuing the small number of associated rulemakings) by

September 30, 2004. 

SUMMARY:

The NRC Strategic Plan directed the NRC staff, consistent with the year 2000 Energy and

Water Appropriations Bill, to develop milestones related to reducing unnecessary burden

caused by regulatory requirements imposed by the NRC. The NRC’s strategy includes actively

seeking stakeholder input and accordingly, the staff issued a notice in the Federal Register and

sponsored a workshop in May 2001, to solicit comments on the NRC’s activities to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden on nuclear power plant licensees. 

Contacts:

William D. Reckley, NRR

(301) 415-1323

William S. Raughley, RES

(301) 415-7577
- 2-

For the workshop and this paper, the staff groups activities into four categories:

(1) risk-informed regulation; (2) obsolete, paperwork-oriented, and other (non-risk-informed)

changes; (3) regulatory requirements other than regulations (e.g., Technical Specifications);

and (4) the proposed information collection initiative discussed in the Annual Performance Plan

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2002. The staff’s plans for these areas are summarized below: 

• The staff’s activities related to risk-informing NRC regulations are described in the

Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan (RIRIP). The staff will continue to use

the RIRIP to plan and define performance measures for activities related to

risk-informing NRC regulations.

• The staff intends to undertake a short-term, limited-scope initiative to review and revise

requirements that are not addressed by an ongoing activity and that could be completed

in a limited time period with relatively few resources. The initiative will involve evaluating

requirements that might be changed to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and

pursuing a small number of rulemakings, revisions to guidance documents, or other

activities. In deciding which suggestions to pursue, the staff will consider issues raised

by stakeholders during the workshop or in other forums. The staff intends to develop

and submit the proposed rulemakings without a formal rulemaking plan. This is

necessary for the staff to meet the established milestones for this activity. 

• The staff will continue its current activities and performance monitoring for developing

and revising Technical Specifications. No changes or actions requiring Commission

review are being pursued at this time. 

• The information collection initiative, described in the NRC Annual Performance Plan for

FY 2002, was proposed to licensees and stakeholders. The initiative involved

developing a process for collecting data (e.g., cost savings) and identifying activities that

have the greatest impact on reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. Licensees

generally disliked the idea of providing additional information regarding cost savings or

other benefits for licensing actions. In light of the lack of support for this initiative and

the expected lack of information voluntarily supplied by licensees, the staff is no longer

pursuing this initiative.

BACKGROUND: 

The NRC Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2000 – Fiscal Year 2005, describes the NRC performance

goals for the Nuclear Reactor Safety arena, which are: (1) maintaining safety and protecting the

environment and the common defense and security; (2) increasing public confidence; (3)

making NRC activities and decisions more effective, efficient, and realistic; and (4) reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden on stakeholders. The NRC Strategic Plan defines unnecessary

regulatory burden on NRC licensees as requirements that go beyond what is necessary and

sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the public health and safety, the environment,

and the common defense and security will be protected. The NRC Performance Plan and its

associated goals and measures for reducing unnecessary regulatory burden do not directly

credit many activities completed by the staff that reduce costs or provide operational flexibility to

power reactor licensees. Examples of such activities include the processing of routine licensing

actions proposed by licensees, processing of license renewal and license transfer applications,

and rulemakings developed by the staff. 
- 3-

The NRC has periodically sponsored initiatives to review regulatory requirements to ensure that

the agency’s regulations and practices do not result in burdens beyond those necessary to

ensure the public health and safety. Although these initiatives have resulted in significant

reductions in unnecessary regulatory burden, licensees and other stakeholders state that the

NRC can and should conduct further reviews to minimize unnecessary costs associated with its

regulation of the nuclear power industry. The United States Congress further directed the NRC

to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden in the year 2000 Energy and Water Appropriations

Bill, which stated: 

The Committee directs the Commission to examine reforms to the scope of

power reactor regulations that will promote a higher level of confidence that the

revised regulations, when issued, are consistent with the fundamental

accountability of the Commission and that regulations which do not contribute to

adequate protection are eliminated....

In addition, the Committee directs the Commission to review existing regulations

to reform those that are outdated or paperwork oriented to a set of regulations

that are performance based by 2004.

Consistent with the NRC Strategic Plan to actively seek stakeholder input to identify and

discuss opportunities for reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, the NRC sponsored a

workshop on May 31, 2001. The workshop involved a facilitated, roundtable discussion that

engaged a broad spectrum of external stakeholders. The NRC staff also used notices in the

Federal Register and on the NRC Web site to encourage participation in the workshop and to

solicit comments from stakeholders on the NRC’s efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory

burden. Approximately 45 external stakeholders representing 25 groups including members of

the public, licensees, States, industry, and nongovernment organizations participated in the

workshop. In addition, 11 organizations provided comments in letters to the NRC after the

workshop.

DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the stakeholder comments and the information from the workshop, the staff

compiled and summarized the suggestions for reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. In

reviewing the comments, the staff also identified several overarching issues. To facilitate

discussions at the workshop and to plan the staff’s activities, the various proposals related to

reducing unnecessary regulatory burden are categorized into one of four topical areas:

• risk-informing 10 CFR Part 50

• eliminating or reducing regulations that are obsolete or involve paperwork requirements

or technical areas in which changes would not be justified primarily by risk insights

• improving regulatory requirements other than those defined in regulations (e.g., the

Technical Specifications)

• the information collection initiative proposed by the staff to measure the reductions in

unnecessary regulatory burden accomplished through the NRC licensing processes

(see 65 FR 76669, December 7, 2000) 
- 4-

Discussions on each of the topical areas and general insights from the workshop are provided

in Attachment 1. The staff’s proposals for new activities are related to eliminating or reducing

regulations that are obsolete or involve paperwork requirements or technical areas in which

changes would not be justified primarily by risk insights. To address this issue, the staff

intends to undertake a short-term, limited-scope initiative to review and revise requirements

that are not addressed by an ongoing activity and that could be completed in a limited time

period with relatively few resources. Based on initial discussions among the staff and with

stakeholders, the staff believes that it may be able to improve some regulations, including

administrative or reporting requirements, using a small-team approach. It is recognized that

the follow-up activities from the workshop and broader initiatives may identify additional

opportunities to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. However, the staff believes that it can

effectively start this activity based on recent discussions, and on its own review of the existing

regulatory requirements. 

After reviewing various administrative or technical requirements, especially those concerning

licensee reports, the staff expects to submit one or more proposed rulemakings to the

Commission. To meet the milestones included in this paper, the staff needs to pursue

efficiency gains such as proposing rule changes to the Commission without first preparing and

submitting formal rulemaking plans. The staff believes that formal rulemaking plans may be

omitted for this initiative because of the nature of the rulemakings to be pursued in the limitedscope effort and the resource constraints defined for this activity. Examples of suggested

changes from stakeholders that will be evaluated and possibly pursued under the initiative are

provided in Attachment 2. The staff hereby requests the Commission approve the initiation,

development and submission of proposed rulemakings arising from this initiative without formal

rulemaking plans.

Possible changes to rules that are not undertaken directly as part of this limited-scope, shortterm initiative may be pursued as part of longer term efforts to reduce unnecessary burden or

as part of other rulemaking activities. These other possible rulemakings would be handled

under the normal planning, budgeting, and rulemaking processes.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The staff recommends that the Commission approve the initiation, development and

submission of proposed rulemakings arising from the short-term, limited-scope initiative

described in this paper without formal rulemaking plans.

2. The NRC Annual Performance Plan for FY 2003 refers to this Commission Paper for

the milestones to measure the agency’s performance in the area of reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden on power reactor licensees. The staff proposes the

following milestones be used and incorporated into future NRC Performance Plans:

(1) The NRC will complete the limited-scope, short-term initiative described in this

paper (including issuing the small number of associated rulemakings) by

September 30, 2004. 

(2) On or before June 30, 2003, the NRC staff will report to the Commission on

(1) the status of the limited-scope, short-term initiative to reduce unnecessary
- 5-

regulatory burden and (2) the status of suggested changes deferred or

assigned to the NRC’s routine planning, budgeting and rulemaking processes.

RESOURCES:

The resources needed for the limited-scope, short-term initiative (including screening

evaluations and rulemaking activities) are included in NRR's FY 2002 and FY 2003 budgets

and have been proposed for the FY 2004 budget. The staff estimates that 2 FTE will be used

each year in FY 2002 through FY 2004 for the initiative. Note that this estimate does not

address burden reduction items covered as part of ongoing activities or those referred to line

organizations for consideration, which, if the staff decided to pursue, would be planned and

budgeted for using the PBPM process in NRR. In addition, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research may contribute to this effort in its role of assessing the regulatory effectiveness of

proposed rulemakings. 

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its

content.

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and

has no objections.

/RA/

William D. Travers

Executive Director 

 for Operations
- 5-

(2) On or before June 30, 2003, the NRC staff will report to the Commission on

(1) the status of the limited-scope, short-term initiative to reduce unnecessary

regulatory burden and (2) the status of suggested changes deferred or

assigned to the NRC’s routine planning, budgeting and rulemaking processes.

RESOURCES:

The resources needed for the limited-scope, short-term initiative (including screening

evaluations and rulemaking activities) are included in NRR's FY 2002 and FY 2003 budgets

and have been proposed for the FY 2004 budget. The staff estimates that 2 FTE will be used

each year in FY 2002 through FY 2004 for the initiative. Note that this estimate does not

address burden reduction items covered as part of ongoing activities or those referred to line

organizations for consideration, which, if the staff decided to pursue, would be planned and

budgeted for using the PBPM process in NRR. In addition, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory

Research may contribute to this effort in its role of assessing the regulatory effectiveness of

proposed rulemakings. 

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its

content.

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and

has no objections.

/RA/

William D. Travers

Executive Director 

 for Operations

ADAMS TEMPLATE: SECY-012

ACCESSION NO.: ML020420137

OFC NRR:DLPM:PM RES:DSARE NRR:DLPM:LA NRR:PMAS NRR:DRIP:RGEB

Name WReckley WDR WRaughley WR THarris TLH MCase MC CCarpenter CAC

Date 12/07/01 12/12/01 12/10/01 01/08/02 12/21/01

OFC NRR:DRIP:RTSB TechEd NRR:DLPM:D RES:DD OGC

Name WBeckner WDB PKleene* PK JZwolinski Z RZimmerman RPZ STurk/LChandler 

Date 12/10/01 12/04/01 01/07/02 02/08/02 12/26/01

OFC OCFO NRR:ET EDO

Name RNubgaard email BSheron/SCollins WTravers

Date 02/11/02 02/28/02 5/ /02

OFFICIAL RECORD
DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP ISSUES AND TOPICAL AREAS

Consistent with the NRC Strategic Plan to actively seek stakeholder input to identify and

discuss opportunities for reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, the NRC sponsored a

workshop on May 31, 2001. The workshop involved a facilitated, roundtable discussion that

engaged a broad spectrum of external stakeholders. The NRC staff also used notices in the

Federal Register and on the NRC Web site to encourage participation in the workshop and to

solicit comments from stakeholders on the NRC’s efforts to reduce unnecessary regulatory

burden. The workshop objectives were to (1) provide an NRC management perspective on

burden reduction efforts and the input needed from the stakeholders; (2) explain the NRC

plans to risk-inform 10 CFR Part 50, eliminate or reduce outdated and paperwork-oriented

requirements, and review other regulatory requirements; (3) share input received to date from

stakeholders; (4) obtain broader stakeholder participation and input regarding the scope and

relative priorities and concerns regarding NRC initiatives; (5) provide a forum for identifying

unrecognized opportunities and exploring concerns associated with unnecessary regulatory

burden reduction; and (6) provide background information for stakeholders who wanted to

submit detailed written comments on the agency’s unnecessary burden reduction initiatives. 

Approximately 45 external stakeholders representing 25 groups including public, licensees,

States, industry, and nongovernment organizations participated in the workshop. In addition,

11 organizations provided comments in letters to the NRC after the workshop.

The following sections summarize the general discussions and the four topical discussions

with various stakeholders during and subsequent to the workshop on May 31, 2001. 

Overarching Stakeholder Issues

The licensees and industry groups generally supported reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden and identified regulatory effectiveness and efficiency issues. The citizen, State, and

nongovernmental stakeholders raised safety and confidence issues. 

Relative to maintaining safety, various stakeholders stated that the burden reduction initiatives

should (1) not result in unintended safety consequences, (2) determine and address the safety

impact of diverting NRC resources from existing safety activities to activities to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden and not further delay responding to unanswered public

concerns, (3) make the case that reducing unnecessary regulatory burden will allow a better

focus on safety, (4) establish criteria to guide the staff’s decisions on revising regulations,

(5) evaluate the applicability of the original safety bases for the requirement, and (6) use a

panel to review proposed changes.

Relative to effectiveness, efficiency and realism of NRC decision-making, various stakeholders

suggested that the staff should (1) review all of NRC's regulations periodically; (2) focus on

internal process changes (e.g., by making greater use of precedent); (3) avoid intensive

programs for simple changes; (4) avoid becoming less effective and efficient by creating a new

risk-informed/performance-based program in addition to the existing program; (5) work to

make the rulemaking process more efficient; (6) ensure that NRC management is supportive

and involved; and (7) treat repetitive licensing actions as candidates for generic action to

reduce unnecessary burden. 

ATTACHMENT 1
- 2 -

Relative to public confidence, various stakeholders suggested that (1) some currently available

information such as radiological and emergency planning requirements and data are important

to maintaining public confidence (e.g., data from routine effluent reports may be used in

explaining the environmental and health effects of nuclear plant operations), (2) public

confidence comes from NRC involvement as an independent technical regulator, and (3) much

of the general public does not understand, or care to understand, risk-informed regulation, but

trusts the NRC to maintain regulations and provide oversight to protect the public health and

safety. The stakeholders suggested that, in reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, the NRC

could increase public confidence by (1) maintaining its role as an independent technical

regulator; (2) informing stakeholders about potential changes as early as possible; (3) assuring

that the risk-informed approach is being supported with state-of-the-art probabilistic risk 

assessment (PRAs) and an industry commitment to fully participate in activities related to

risk-informing regulations; (4) providing access to information on criteria used to make

regulatory decisions on burden reduction; (5) improving several communication tools including

the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), access to

state-of-the-art PRAs, and external distribution lists; and (6) having informed spokespersons

keep the media, the general public, and people near the plants advised of changes that may

affect the public health and safety.

Each of the topical areas is discussed below. The discussions provide: (1) background

information (including staff’s current activities related to each of these areas); (2) the insights

gained from the workshop; (3) the staff’s planned activities; and (4) proposed changes to the

NRC Annual Performance Plan.

(1) Risk-Informed Regulation

Background

The Commission’s 1995 PRA policy statement provides guidance on risk-informing regulatory

activities. In the policy statement, the Commission said it expected that implementation of the

policy statement would improve the regulatory process in three ways: by incorporating PRA

insights into regulatory decisions, by conserving agency resources, and by reducing

unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees. The RIRIP implements that policy. Accordingly,

the RIRIP documents guidelines for selecting candidate programs, practices, and

requirements for risk-informing and includes ongoing and planned activities to implement

strategic plan strategies for risk-informed regulation. The RIRIP documents, for example, such

burden reduction efforts as risk-informing the scope of the special treatment requirements in

10 CFR Part 50 (RIP 50, Option 2), developing risk-informed improvements to the Standard

Technical Specifications, and risk-informing the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, “Standards for

combustible gas control in light-water-cooled power reactors" (RIP 50, Option 3).

Insights From Workshop

At the May 2001 workshop, the staff discussed the process and criteria that it was using to

prioritize potential risk-informed changes to Part 50 technical requirements. The staff noted

that the results of an initial prioritization were that 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and special

treatment requirements were of the highest importance.
- 3 -

The staff identified three potential approaches for further prioritization:

• Continue with the Option 3 framework approach.

• Assess the results from other programs:

– Use Option 2 for the initial structure, system, and component categorization to

determine where potential changes to the Part 50 technical requirements might

be made.

– Assess feedback from the revised reactor oversight process regarding where

design-basis and risk insights are inconsistent and where potential changes to

the Part 50 technical requirements should be made.

• Defer further resource expenditures on prioritization and reallocate resources to

support rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.44 and 10 CFR 50.46.

Stakeholders stated that the NRC should finish risk-informing 10 CFR 50.44 and 10 CFR

50.46 before taking on any new work in this area.

Planned Activities

The staff will continue to use the RIRIP to document its ongoing and planned risk-informed

burden reduction activities. The latest version of the RIRIP was provided to the Commission

with SECY-01-0218, "Update of the Risk-Informed Regulation Implementation Plan," dated

December 5, 2001. The RIRIP is periodically updated and provided to the Commission.

Performance Plan

The NRC Annual Performance Plan contains measures related to the NRC staff’s completion

of specific milestones in the RIRIP. The staff will continue to use the RIRIP to define its

performance measures for activities to risk-inform NRC regulations. 

(2) Obsolete, Paperwork-Oriented, and Other (Non-Risk-Informed) Changes

Background

The NRC has periodically reviewed its requirements on a wide range of programs and activities

with the object of eliminating requirements with little benefit. There was the Marginal to Safety

Program in the mid-1980s and the Committee to Review Generic Requirements conducted a

special review in the early 1990s that resulted in several rule changes to reduce unnecessary

regulatory burden, most of which involved reporting requirements applicable to power reactors. 

Then came the Regulatory Review Group, which addressed a number of reports and other

administrative requirements that could be reduced or eliminated. In 1992 and again in 2001,

the event reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 were modified to eliminate certain

unnecessary reports. During the later rulemaking, candidates for similar changes to reporting

rules were identified, and rulemaking efforts are underway (see SECY-01-0054, “Rulemaking

Plan: 10 CFR Parts 72 and 73 - ‘Conforming Requirements of Event Notification’,” dated

March 27, 2001.) Several other suggestions that were received from stakeholders during the

rulemaking for 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 are described in SECY 99-191, “Proposed Plans and

Schedules to Modify Reporting Requirements Other Than 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 for Power

Reactors and Materials Licensees.” These initiatives have resulted in several specific changes
- 4 -

that reduced unnecessary burden. Licensees and other stakeholders have commented that the

staff should renew efforts to identify and eliminate excessive regulatory requirements.

More recently, in several public forums, the staff has discussed burden reduction with various

licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), and other stakeholders. One discussion involved

the staff and Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, now Exelon Corporation). The staff

was presented with a list of NRC regulations that ComEd believed could be changed to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden (see related trip report, ADAMS Accession No. ML003725832). 

Some of the regulations involved technical requirements. Others involved administrative

matters such as submitting reports. At a meeting held on September 9, 2000, between the staff 

and the nuclear power industry’s Licensing Action Task Force (LATF), the staff was given a list

of reporting requirements that the LATF thought could be revised or eliminated (see related

meeting summary, ADAMS Accession No. ML003762439). Some of the items that the LATF

identified as possible changes are listed in Attachment 2.

The staff held a workshop to expand the discussions on how the NRC can reduce unnecessary

regulatory burden. The staff continues to solicit ideas on reducing unnecessary regulatory

burden. A goal of this continuing effort is to collect suggestions from stakeholders, and to

develop strategies to improve the NRC’s regulatory effectiveness. The benefit of collecting

ideas and views is that it may help the staff combine activities, evaluate alternatives, and

schedule tasks more efficiently. 

Insights From Workshop

The portion of the workshop devoted to revising or eliminating unnecessary paperwork,

obsolete and other regulations not included within the NRC's risk-informed initiatives, showed

that change will need to be assessed from the perspective of not only the licensees and staff,

but also of the public and other government agencies. Some workshop participants expressed

concern about some of the proposed changes and about the public's need to have information

on emergency preparedness and routine releases of radioactive effluents. Some industry

participants suggested that the NRC consider using the reactor oversight process to collect

and disseminate information deemed critical by the NRC or the public. A top-down

examination of all the reporting requirements was also suggested. There was considerable

stakeholder discussion about the need to develop criteria for categorizing regulations as

unnecessary or obsolete. 

The NRC staff has compiled a list of stakeholder suggestions for reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden, including proposals to change various paperwork-oriented and possibly

obsolete regulations. The staff will use the compilation, and additions received from internal or

external stakeholders, to begin its review of regulatory requirements for opportunities to reduce

unnecessary regulatory burden.

Planned Activities

The staff intends to undertake a short-term, limited-scope initiative to review and revise

requirements that are not addressed by an ongoing activity and that could be completed in a

limited time period with relatively few resources. Based on initial discussions among the staff

and with stakeholders, the staff believes that it may be able to improve some regulations,
- 5 -

including administrative or reporting requirements, using a small-team approach. It is

recognized that the follow-up activities from the workshop and broader initiatives may identify

additional opportunities to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. However, the staff believes

that it can effectively start this activity based on recent discussions, and on its own review of

the existing regulatory requirements. The staff will consider suggestions received from

stakeholders, existing summaries of reporting requirements such as NUREG-1460, “Guide to

NRC Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,” and discuss related issues with both

internal and external stakeholders. 

The staff plans to assess the various regulations and categorize possible changes using the

process flowchart shown below.
- 6 -

As shown in the figure, the staff sees three ways to categorize the regulatory requirements

during the first phase of the burden reduction initiative.

(1) A suggested change could be addressed as part of an ongoing rulemaking. 

Suggestions from either internal or external agency stakeholders would be considered

as part of the ongoing activity, as are any comments received prior to publication of a

proposed rulemaking. Many items in the list of stakeholder suggestions received to

date are included or could be included in an ongoing rulemaking.

(2) A suggested change could be addressed as part of the staff’s limited-scope, short-term

initiative. If the change involved an issue that could be handled by the short-term

initiative, the staff would determine whether the regulation(s) could be deleted or

revised or should remain as currently written. Preparing and issuing proposed and final

rulemakings are within the scope of this initiative. 

(3) A suggested change could be forwarded to the appropriate NRC organization for

consideration as a stand-alone activity or incorporation into a future rulemaking; and

the staff would decide whether to pursue the suggested change. If pursued, the

rulemaking would be assessed within the existing planning and budgeting process and

would likely be the subject of, or be incorporated into, a rulemaking plan submitted to

the Commission. In deciding not to pursue a rulemaking, the staff would not

necessarily be judging the rulemaking to be inappropriate, but would be deciding only

that the NRC staff would not develop, justify, and promote the proposed change. This

initiative, and the related solicitation of ideas, is not intended to supplant the process

defined in 10 CFR 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking,” including the petitioners need to

provide information supporting a petition to change a regulation. 

The staff views the first and third approaches as consistent with current policies and practices.

Regarding the second approach, the staff suggests developing one or more proposed

rulemakings as part of its limited-scope, short-term initiative. The limited-scope, short-term

initiative has been developed within existing resource constraints and agency priorities. These

constraints will limit the scope and number of rulemakings pursued under the initiative. In

evaluating requirements and developing proposed rulemakings (as either part of the

limited-scope, short-term initiative or as a stand-alone activity), the staff will use the

performance-based concepts described in SECY-01-0205, “Status Report on PerformanceBased Approaches to Regulation,” dated November 16, 2001. The staff will provide the

Commission with periodic updates about this initiative, including any proposals to extend,

suspend, or revise the staff's activities resulting from performance monitoring.

The staff will use the following criteria for selecting candidate requirements for the limitedscope, short-term burden reduction initiative:

• For reporting requirements, is the information needed for the NRC to meet its

performance objectives, including maintaining safety at nuclear power reactors and

maintaining or improving the public's confidence in NRC's regulatory processes? If not

related to reporting, is the requirement needed to protect the public health and safety or

the common defense and security or otherwise meet NRC performance goals?
- 7 -

• Can the information be found or collected in a more cost-effective way than requiring

licensees to submit a report? If a report is the most effective way of obtaining needed

information, could the information be collected in a less burdensome way (e.g., by

collecting the information less frequently, making reports conditional on circumstances

instead of being required at a fixed interval, or by reducing the amount of information

included in a report)? If not related to reporting, does the requirement duplicate other

regulatory requirements or could it be satisfied in a less burdensome manner?

• Would the suggested rulemaking be relatively simple and straightforward so that the

total resources needed for this initiative remain below the NRR budget allocations for

this activity (i.e., 2 FTE per year for 3 years)? 

The staff’s initial assessment is that unnecessary regulatory burden can be reduced sufficiently

by a small number of proposed rulemakings to justify the resources allocated for this initiative. 

After reviewing various administrative or technical requirements, especially those concerning

licensee reports, the staff expects to submit one or more proposed rulemakings to the

Commission. To meet the milestones included in this paper, the staff needs to pursue

efficiency gains such as proposing rule changes to the Commission without first preparing and

submitting formal rulemaking plans. The staff believes that formal rulemaking plans may be

omitted for this initiative because of the nature of the rulemakings to be pursued in the limitedscope effort and the resource constraints defined for this activity. The staff hereby requests

the Commission approve the initiation, development and submission of proposed rulemakings

arising from this initiative without formal rulemaking plans.

As previously mentioned, possible changes to rules that are not undertaken directly as part of

this limited-scope, short-term initiative may be pursued as part of longer term efforts to reduce

unnecessary burden or as part of other rulemaking activities. These other possible rulemakings

would be handled under the normal planning, budgeting, and rulemaking processes. The staff

will, as part of the planning, budgeting, and performance monitoring (PBPM) process in NRR,

assess the proposed disposition of various suggested changes to determine if work priorities or

resource allocations need to be adjusted for the current or future fiscal years. Some

stakeholders have commented that the NRC has periodically undertaken initiatives to reduce

regulatory burden but has failed to maintain the necessary focus or commitment to meet the

stated goals and expectations. The staff will communicate with the nuclear industry and other

stakeholders to minimize misunderstandings about our activities and the associated schedules.

Performance Plan

The NRC Annual Performance Plan for FY 2003 refers to this Commission Paper for the

milestones to measure the agency's performance in the area of reducing unnecessary

regulatory burden on power reactor licensees. The staff proposes the following measures be

used and incorporated into future NRC Performance Plans:

• The NRC will complete the limited-scope, short-term initiative (including issuing the

small number of associated rulemakings) by September 30, 2004. This initiative will

include a review of the regulatory requirements suggested by the agency’s internal and

external stakeholders as burden reduction candidates. The staff will consider each

suggested change and will document the rationale for deleting, revising or maintaining

the requirement. Suggested changes found to be beyond the scope of the limited-
- 8 -

scope, short-term initiative will be handled through the NRC’s routine planning,

budgeting and rulemaking processes

• On or before June 30, 2003, the NRC staff will report to the Commission on (1) the

status of the limited-scope, short-term initiative to reduce unnecessary regulatory

burden and (2) the status of suggested changes deferred or assigned to the NRC’s

routine planning, budgeting and rulemaking processes.

NRR will develop and implement lower level measures of success through its existing

performance monitoring processes.

(3) Regulatory Requirements Other Than Regulations (e.g., Technical Specifications)

Background

In addition to reviewing NRC regulations, the NRC staff is involved in various activities to

assess other regulatory requirements and administrative processes to identify possible

improvements in efficiency or reductions in unnecessary regulatory burden. The staff is

currently reviewing its internal procedures and processes and various reporting or

administrative requirements imposed on power reactor licensees. The staff also is continuing

with initiatives related to the content of Technical Specifications (TS). These initiatives have

potential for reducing unnecessary burden while maintaining or improving safety. The staff

routinely interacts with licensees and industry representatives during public meetings with

groups such as the Technical Specification Task Force, the Risk-Informed Technical

Specification Task Force, and the Licensing Action Task Force.

Insights From Workshop

The workshop participants generally acknowledged that the efforts currently underway

regarding TS are appropriate and are using processes that are well-established and

well-understood. The discussions were consistent with feedback received during other

interactions with stakeholders. The participants said changing technical specification

requirements was as valuable as many of the current or proposed rulemaking activities to

reduce unnecessary regulatory burden.

Planned Activities

The staff plans to continue interactions with the previously mentioned industry groups. The

discussions will be considered as part of the routine PBPM process in NRR, which could

change how resources for TS improvement efforts are currently allocated within the office. 

Performance Plan

The staff will continue to monitor its performance in this area as part of NRR’s PBPM process.

The staff has not incorporated additional measures for this area into the NRC Annual

Performance Plan. 
- 9 -

(4) Information Collection Initiative

Background

A Federal Register notice (FRN) soliciting public comments on the proposed information

collection was published on December 7, 2000, (ADAMS Accession No. ML003771785). The

purpose of the information collection initiative was to gather information that would be

voluntarily provided by licensees regarding the impact of NRC activities (e.g., reductions in

operating expenses). As discussed in the FRN, the information would assist NRR in allocating

staff resources and measuring how work completed by the staff contributes to the agency’s

goals in meeting the Government Performance and Results Act. Five different groups

commented on the proposed initiative (Tennessee Valley Authority, Illinois Department of

Nuclear Safety, Winston and Strawn, Hopkins and Sutter, and the Nuclear Energy Institute). 

Comments received from the stakeholders were generally opposed to the proposed initiative. 

Based on these comments, the staff determined that the initiative, as proposed in the FRN,

was not feasible. 

Insights From Workshop

The licensees attending the workshop viewed providing additional information about possible

cost savings resulting from NRC activities as an example of an unnecessary regulatory burden

and questioned how such information would make the staff more effective or efficient. The

workshop participants offered several possible ways to measure the staff's success at

reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. The suggestions included: track the completion of

the other initiatives discussed during the workshop such as risk-informing regulations and

technical specifications, use the reactor oversight and performance indicator program to

measure safety, determine how NRC fees are reduced by making the agency's processes

more efficient and effective, count the number of regulation changes that occur over the year

that reduce burden and how often the Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process is used. 

Planned Activities

Based on the feedback from the workshop and the public comments received from the

December 2000 and May 2001 FRNs, the staff has dropped this initiative.

Performance Plan

References to this initiative have been removed from the NRC Annual Performance Plan for

FY 2003.
Licensing Action Task Force

Partial list of suggested changes to delete unnecessary reporting requirements

10 CFR 26.71(d) - Submittal of fitness-for-duty (FFD) program performance data every six

months. 

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit the data.

RATIONALE: FFD program performance data will still be collected, compiled, and available

for inspection.

SAVINGS: $2,000 annual savings from eliminating administrative cost to submit data.

 

10 CFR 50.36a(a)(2) - Submit annual radioactive effluent reports.

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit an annual report.

RATIONALE: 10 CFR 50 Appendix I Section IV.A requires the NRC be notified if actual

release during any calendar quarter would exceed one-half the design objective

annual exposure, otherwise routine information available for inspection.

SAVINGS: $2,000 savings annually per site by eliminating cost to submit report.

 

10 CFR 50.46(a)(3)(ii) - Requirement to submit a 30 day report any time the absolute value of

peak cladding temperature (PCT) changes by >50 degrees F and an annual report for any

change.

CHANGE: Eliminate these reporting requirements.

RATIONALE. This is the only core parameter with a calculated value that is required to be

reported to the NRC. This parameter only needs to be tracked internally by the

licensee and be available for NRC inspection upon request.

SAVINGS: $4,000 per year per site for annual report and one 30-day report.

 

 10 CFR 50.54(p)(2) and 10 CFR 72.44(e) - Submit within 2 months changes made to physical

security plans without prior NRC approval.

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit changes made without prior NRC approval.

RATIONALE. Submittal is of informational nature only, physical security plans are available for

inspection as are any related evaluations of changes made without NRC prior

approval.

SAVINGS. $1,000 savings by eliminating cost to submit changes.

 

10 CFR 50.54(q) and 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section V - Submit within 30 days any

changes made to the emergency plan or implementing procedures without prior NRC approval

(Note: 10 CFR 72.44(1) is similar requirement but allows six months.)

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit changes made without prior NRC approval.

RATIONALE: Submittal is of informational nature only, emergency plan and implementing

procedures are available for inspection as are any related evaluations of

changes made without NRC prior approval.

SAVINGS: $2,000 savings by eliminating cost to submit changes.

 

ATTACHMENT 2
- 2 -

10 CFR 50.54(w)(3) - Annual property insurance coverage report specifying level of insurance

maintained and its source.

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit report.

RATIONALE: 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1) specifies amount of insurance required and acceptable

sources, a licensee is required to comply with the regulations, submittal of the

information annually serves no purpose and is not required in the case of other

regulations to demonstrate compliance.

SAVINGS: $1,000 annual savings per site from eliminating cost to submit report.

 

10 CFR 50.54(bb) - Submit to NRC for review and preliminary approval the irradiated fuel

management and funding plan and notify the NRC of any future significant changes.

CHANGES. Eliminate requirement to submit plan and future notifications.

RATIONALE: In part, the information required is redundant to that required by 10 CFR 50.82

in the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report and the site-specific

decommissioning cost estimate. Also, if a licensee chooses dry cask storage,

the NRC is notified in accordance with 10 CFR 72.

SAVINGS: $2,000 savings from eliminating cost to submit plan and future notifications.

10 CFR 50.59(b)(2) - Periodically submit a summary of 10 CFR 50.59 and 10 CFR 72.48

evaluations.

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit summary reports.

RATIONALE: The completed evaluations are available for inspection, the submittal is of only

informational nature.

SAVINGS: $25,000 savings annually per site by eliminating cost to submit report.

10 CFR 50.71(b) - Submit the annual financial report, including the certified financial

statements, upon issuance of the report.

CHANGE: Eliminate requirement to submit report.

RATIONALE: Submittal is of informational nature only, the annual report is available for

inspection.

SAVINGS: $400 annual savings per site from eliminating cost to submit report.

10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) - Status of decommissioning funding. After initial report, this report is

required every two years thereafter. Reports should only be required if the approach is

changing, upon merger or acquisition, or about 5 years prior to decommissioning (as part of

the decommissioning plan).

SAVINGS: $ 1000/yr.

10 CFR 140.15(b)(1) - Financial statement. The value of this report is unclear. Unless this

report is actually used and reviewed by the NRC, it should be deleted. 

SAVINGS: $1000/yr.

 

10 CFR 140.21 - Submit annually evidence of guarantee of payment of deferred premiums. 

CHANGE: Eliminate submittal requirement.

RATIONALE: Submittal is of informational nature only and the reporting requirement is

redundant to base regulation 10 CFR 140.11 which a licensee must be in

compliance.

SAVINGS: $800 annual savings from eliminating cost to submit report.