ML19308B713
| ML19308B713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/1978 |
| From: | Bryan Parker ATOMIC INDUSTRIAL FORUM |
| To: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308B711 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001160780 | |
| Download: ML19308B713 (3) | |
Text
Atomic IndustrisI Forum, Inc.
7101 Wisconsm Avenue Washington. D C. 20014 Te:ephone. (301) 654 9260 Cat'e. A:omforum Washingtonde B.B. Parker Chairman
'~
September 6, 1978 The Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h'ashington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman-Hendrie:
The Atomic Industrial Forum has long maintained a useful dialogue with you and the members of your staff on the subject o.f teactor licensing., In our past communications with you, we have emphasized the need for improved procedures and a more
~
balanced decision-making process for evaluation of changes in licensing requirements prior to their implementation.
Although the Commission has responded in part to our past recommendations, we. feel that substantial improvement is still needed in this area.
h'e continue to believe that the NRC Staff is not collecting and utilizing all the available, pertinent and necessary information that should be factored into the decision-making process for implementation of new regulatory requirements.
This is particularly crucial in the deliberations of the Regulatory Requirements Review Committee, commonly known as the roc.
It is this group that approves new Staff technical requirements, revisions to existing Staff requirements and resolves any differences in technical opinions expressed by I
Staff members, or disputes between the Staff and applicants or other-parties.
In deciding whether the issue should become a regulatory requirement, the R3C assesses the value (in u
terms of public health and safety improvement) and weighs this against the impact of the proposed new or revised require-ments.
i In addition, we observe that.the deliberations of the R C I
3 are not at this time open to public scrutiny, in accordance
[
with the prevailing trend in our government's administrative e
practice.
h'e feel it is crucial to regulatory credibility that important-Staff deliberations be made public.
It is L
vital to building confidence in the regulatory process that h
U
.i 307 TO 80 011 i
m-
g
... u. w. x. :.- q.
. : :.... e the public be. aware of the balancing of differing opinions, the weight accorded various perspectives, and the deliberate nature of the resolution of such differences.
The public availability of minutes of R3C meetings would provide assur-ance that. differences of opinion are thoughtfully considered and that appropriate and proper emphasis is accorded to items under consideration.
From the industry's point of' view, such openness would also be reassuring.
Rightly or wrongly, the industry generally perceives the R3C to.be a " rubber stamp" for new NRC Staff requirements,.without adequate consideration of industry's
. viewpoint.- Many have alleged that insufficient emphasis is placed upon the impact of new requirements, with even im-mea'surably small improvements in safety considered as adequate
~
~
j ustifica tion for 'any cost incurred.
This, together with vague,or distorted assessments of value, leads to improper balancing in the decision-making pr'ocess.
h'e are not the only ones to hold this view.
The need for im-provement in-this area was also pointed out by GAO.in their report to Congress, " Nuclear Plant Licensing:
The Need for
.I mp ro ve men t," dated April 27, 1978.
In a.recent attempt to improve the situation, NRC issued NRR Office Letter No. 16 that establishes procedures for preparing.
the value-impact statements required to su'pport changes or additions to regulatory requirements.
Industry input is neces-sary for any reasonable assessment of costs and values associated with regulatory changes.
However, no established procedure exists for assuring industry input is available and properly considered by R3C in: their deliberations.
In order to:
3 e
Assure that the Regulatory Staff and R C avail themselves of the available information necessary for informed de-cision-making; Assure the regulated industry that technical issues are e
carefully reviewed, using the best available* in formation,
before the; imposition of new or revised regulatory re-quirements; and'to s.
c..
=
2:a.. nc..d : c' l a u ;. :; T..._..
- e i.,.t: ccr 5,
.::E
~
Assure the public that the technical decisions of the Regu-e-
latory Staff are subject to the same balancing of consider-
.ations as other events molding our social structured we recommend the following procedural changes for R3C meetings:
3 1.
R C meetings shc"'.d be noticed in the Federal Register with an outline of the complete agenda at least two weeks prior to the meeting.
Concurrent with the Fed-eral Register notice, the draft calue/ impact statements applicable to the noticed R3C agenda items should be made available in the Public Document Room.
~2.
The notice should reques't the interested public to sub-mit written information they wish considered in the decision-making process.
3.
The notice should also provide the opportunity to appeal the R3C decision and indicate the proper authority to which the appeal should be directed.
3 The minutes of the.R C meeting outlining the subj ects 4.
discussed, the relevant documents reviewed and a sum-mation of the considerations leading to a decision should be made publicly available.
The minutes should be published promptly so that appeals can be submitted
-in a timely manner and be considered before the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation takes action on R3C recommendations.
The appeal period would therefore not commence until the. minutes are actually available to the public and run for a reasonable duration to allow
-for the formulation of.a meaningful appeal, if appropriate.
We urge you to consider these recommendations thoughtfully.
Ye believe that publicly documented R3C meetings could go far towards establishing regulatory credibility with the regulated industry and the public.
We stand ready to' discuss these recommendations with you and other members of the Commission.
Sincerely,
/
/ tG v w
EBP/skh 1
b