ML19281A904
| ML19281A904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/29/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Kelley J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7904160128 | |
| Download: ML19281A904 (4) | |
Text
'#" "%
UtJiTED STATES
/
je NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
g 1.)k,,. *. $'[/
I 7"
"1 MMn M WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
?. %+.pa November 29, 1978 ms OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
James L. Kelley, Acting Ggal Counsel Ig FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta'.v e,
.p
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - DISCb ON OF SECY-A-78-79, REVIEW 0F ALAB-500 and ALAB-489:
OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS (FLOATING NUCLEAR POWER PLAtiTS), 3:55 P.M.,
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1978, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D. C. OFFICE (SEE ALSO 10/27/78 MEM0, J.
KELLEY AND K. PEDERSEN TO COMMISSION)
(OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Commission
- was briefed on possible Commission review of whether Class 9 accidents should be included in Environmental Inpact Statements for floating nuclear power plants.
The Co' mission did not reach a decision at this meeting.
Chairman Hendrie requested:
1.
that the original Draft Order contained in SECY-A-78-79 be revised to reflect the following changes:
a.
that the sentence on page 1 of the Order, beginning: "In that connection the Commission wishes the staff...," be inserted at the end of the second paragraph of the Order; b.
that the last paragraph of the Order attached to the October 27, 1978 memo replace the last paragraph of the Order contained in SECY-A-78-79.
(OGC)
(Subsequently, 0GC circulated the revised Order to the Commission on November 22,1978).
Commissioner Ahearne indicated that he had differing views and provided them subsequently (see attached).
Attachment:
As stated
- Commissioner Kennedy was not in attendance.
cc:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky CONTACT:
Commissioner Kennedy R. Tweed (SECY)
Ccmmissener Bradford 4-1410 Co :missioner Ahearne Djrector,PolicyEvaluation,
"/g(Jg g
Director, Congressional Affairs Director, Public Affairs
Iovember 27, 1978
- .'r:jority Opinion (?)]
E.issent (?):
In its order certifying the Class 9 question to the Commission, the A; peal Board stated, To be sure, as !!RDC sugcasts, a fuller record nicht assist in deciding what policy the Co. mission should ad:pt.
D. ever, the question is not what the policy ought to be but, rather, what policy governs OPS' pending application.
That question is manifestly ripe now.
Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-500, 8 liRC (September 29, 1978) (slip opinion at 3).
Contrary to this view, I beiieve the question before us is not what the Commission's policy on C1 ass 9 accidents is.but what it ouaht to be.
Apparently, the only guidance from the Commission itself on con-sideration of Class 9 accidents was given in 1971 when Annex A to Appen-dix D,10 CFR Part 50, was published as part of a proposed rule and in 1574 t; hen the Commission refused to include this Annex in the regu-lations since "[t]he prcposed Annex is still under consideration by the CcTT.ission." 39 FR 26279 (July 18,1974) (statements of consideration fcr 10 CFR Part 51). This state of affairs allowed the staff consid-ersble latitude in its accident analyses since the Annex was not made a binding regulation but was merely "useful as interim guidance until such tir.e as the Commission takes further action."
In addition, the preface specifically stated "other accident assumptions [besides those presented in the tables of the annex] may be more suitable for individual cases."
3E 3 22851 (December 1,1971).
However, the policy on treatment of Class 9 accidents appears to ha.'e been developed further through application of the Annex.
The Staff a;:erently has consistently taken a position in the past that Class 9 accidents were excluded on a strict probability basis.
Regardless of ccnsequences, an accident was excluded from consideration if the proba-Sility of occurrence was sufficiently low. This approach became estab-lished and was affirmed by both appeal boards and Federal courts of appeals.
See Offshore Power Systems (Floating fluclear Power Plants),
ALA3-489, 8 I;RC (August 2, 1978).
flow Staff appears to be shifting its position from a strict probability approach to a " risk" approach.
Sce e.g., "f!RC Staff Answer to Applicants' ' fiction for Reconsideration ar.d, in the Alternative, Certification to the Commission'" at pp.13-15 (Esptember 21,1978). Under some undefined "special circumstances."
S:cff now feels consideration of Class 9 accidents is appropriate.
2
- i: ti e for the Commission to involve itself in this question.
- is.;pr2;ri:te for the Ccmmission to decide whether Class 9 accidents si.oulc be cnalyzed from a strict probability or a risk perspective. How-ever, it is not a question of what we really meant all along.
The Cc cission gcVe scme general guidance which has been interpreted and applied b3 the Staff.
The Commission must now focus on the issues which have developed as a result of that application and make a decision on whtt the policy ought to be.
This questien has a significance beyond Offshore Poher Systems.
As Staff pointed out, the Appeal Board's resolution of the matter leads to scr.e " theoretical inconsistency." Staff answer, suora_.
It is incon-sistent to argue floating nuclear plants (FNP) shoult 5e evaluated on a risk basis, while icnd-based. plants should be evaluated on a strict prcbability basis.
Consequently, I believe this issue should be addres-sed immediately by the Commission on a generic level.
Although the Staff assures us inconsistencies are legally defensible, I would prefer to develop a consistent approach if possible.
Further development of Annex A and its status as a proposed rule tre currently being considered by the Staff.
Ho,;ever, the Cornission sh:ald not wait for the results of this analysis before taking action.
!t has been reported to the Cor. mission that details of this rule, which was proposed in 1971, will "ccme from the solution of Generic Task A-33.*...
The present target for completion of Task A-33 is 1/81.
The rule would be developec after this date."
"Information Report," SECY-78-534 (November 9,1978) (emphasis added).
I do not believe the "in-terim guidance" of the Annex can remain unexamined until the Staff completes its analysis of the situation.
I would request the Staff provide to the Commission its present recornendations on whether the Annex should be modified or replaced with some other proposal pending ccrpletion of Task A-33.
L'nilo the Commission is examining this issue en a generic basis, I w3ald instruct the Staff to bring to the Cc:r.missicn's attention any ccses in which it feels Class 9 accidents should be considered.
In the meantice, it is necessary to make a decision for the OPS case.
I would prefer not to deal with the issue in the abstract.
Consequently, I would remand this case to the Licensing Board for de-velopment of a record on the nature of the consequences of a Class 9 accident at a. floating nuclear plant with the specific objectivo of 15,eg "HRC Program for the Resolution of Generic Issues P. elated to i.. clear pcwer Plants," UUREG 0410 (January 1,1978).
3 e.'plorin,c the factual basis for Staf f's position that the consecuences c
c Class 9 for a F.*;? are so different frcm those of the typical land-e b;scd plant that they should be considered.
In essence, I '.;ould instruct the Board to define specific issues through consideration of "Appli-car. 's Motion to Plead a Matter in Controversy and Establish a Discovery and Hearing Schedule for Such Matter" dated September 5,1978, (along with any other similar motions) with a further instruction that the case is to be referred to the Commission upon completion of the record on those issres.
At that tine, the Commission could better address the appro-pe;_teness of a strict probability approach to cnalyzi g Ciess 9 acci-n dents as opposed to risk assessment which takes into account both crobability and conseqt ences.
.