ML19329G203
| ML19329G203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1978 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19329G202 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-79-424, NUDOCS 8007140122 | |
| Download: ML19329G203 (1) | |
Text
"
A.YU -
-?
.s n.
l 4* "86g*,..
%DCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!gJF-
- ~'
~
UNITED STATES
- ~ dg [
a wAswincron, o, c. 20sss
~
\\[..W... /
January 23, 1978 GFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
/
1/
n-MEMORANDUM FOR:
Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary
SUBJECT:
SECY-77-388A - VALUE-IMPACT GUIDELINES (COMMISSIONER ACTION ITEM)
This is to advise you that the Commissioners (Commissioner Gilinsky noting without objection) have agreed to adopt the guidelines contained in the subject staff paper for use in value-impact analysis (VIA).
In connection with his concurrence, Commissioner Bradford has provided the i
following comments:
"1.
I would like to know in a year whether staff members feel that this exercise serves in any way to discourage regulatory initiative; 2.
I assume that Enclosure D will be revised to reflect the EDO staff reorganization eliminating the Office of Planning and Analysis."
The Office of the Executive Director for Operations was informed of this acticn by telephone on January 20, 1978.
l L
cc:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commis.eioner Kennedy l
Commissioner Bradford l
General Counsel Director, Policy Evaluation L '.ing Director, Planning & Analysis Enclosure A (ItemI)-
8 007140 hD
\\
q r
.=.m.=_._.
sup Ou W
5 9
d ENCLOSURE A (ITEM 2) - LTR FM HENDRIE TO ANTHONY, CHMN, ADMIN CONF i
l
--...;-x-
"g h@.. n 4
=--.. -.
- ~F y UCL5 N REGULATORY COMMISSION Dlstr1Dution:
LVGossack F-R v..e wecion, c. c. :osss
~
w-.
WJDircks
.WM7 s
TARehm
'Y NHaller October 25, 1978 HDenton H5hapar
- ~
cmes o.= vue owwn
- D i.
]
~'
- n..
Honorable' Robert A. Anthony
~
Chairman Administrative Conference of the
~
Unite'd States 2120 - L Street, N.W., Suite 500
,'a'as hi ngton', D. C.
20037 i
y.
Dear Chairma ' Anthony-
.Thank you for your letter recuestino our comments on draft recor$endations regarding the use of cost-benefit and other similar analytical methods in recul aliion.
Your letter notes that the primary phrpose of the proposed re:.omendation is to enhance the effectiveness of agency decision-making in those instances where Congress.or agencies decide that such. techniques are to be used; the recommendation is not ini; ended to promote or discourage the use of cost-benefit analysis Der se.
~
The NRC recognizes the importance of making the.Jcisar regulatory ' process
~
as efficient and effective as possible.
Some time ago, the Commission instituted a policy of carefully assesfing.the impacts as well as the value of proposed major regulatory actions. c,
~
Regarding the recommendations, I will confine my remarks to those directed to regulatory agencies.
First, you reco=meni that each agency, by means of notice-and-co= ment procedures, develop gen.. al statements of policy or re;:iiations describing the procedures which it would observe in the use of such techniques.
In January 1978, the Commission adopted for NRC use a set of "Value-Impact Guidelines." These Guidelines were primarily cesicned to assist the NRC staff in performing. impact-value analyses and, because they were considered internal management tools, wer'e not made available for public comment as the Conference ' recommends.
I believe, however, there w'ould be acvantages to publishing a policy statement for cotlent.
Such a statement could lay out for public review NRC.'s perspective en its cost-benefit approach (e.g.. method for evaluating regulatory impacts, in:iudino so-called intangibles, d.scounting future costs or benefits, har.dlinc distributional effects, etc.) as well as the legal basis for an acency's conduct of the analysis,and the manner and extent of public irticipation in the orocess.
Therefore, the Co= mission is asking the staff to review the Yalue-Impact Guidelines to prepare thed for publication l
for public comment.
Enclosure A (Item 2) g
1 I
n h.: rrible"Reber;t A. Anthony 0 li i!
The second and third recomendations assume the acency has. a general policy F
statement or reculations on the use of cost-benefit analysis.
iowever, I 8
infer the intent of these recomendations is to assure that the public is fully informed regarding the 'uses to which cost-benefit analyses have been l
1 or will be put in the context of a regulatory proceeding.
Should the Adninistrative Conference adopt these recomendations, the NRC would
~
review carefully its present practices to assess whether additional actions would be needed to improve our current procedures.
KRC's licensing and rule-making proceedings. ' frequently do integrate cost-benefit or'similar analyses in the decision-making process.
President Carter's Executive Order 12044 called for preparation of a publicly available, analysis of economic consequences of proposed regulatory actions.
In co menting on the Executive Order, the Comission noted that the NRC staff perform,s a value-impact analysis for most proposed regulations according to Commission approved guidelines and it is now li?.C policy to make these value-impact analyses fully available for public review at the time preposed or final reculations are published.
In addition the NE?A cost-benefit analysis,in r'eactor licensing proceedings is carefully h
reviewed by.NRC hearing.bohrds, usually in public sessions.
The NEpA B
' analysis is always available to the public and in contested hearings may 5
be tested at length publicly throuch cross-examination.
.inally, with respect to recomendation 3, I.would note that Cemission and board decisions frequently re.ference and incorporate elements of the cost-benefit analysis.'
Hearing board decisions are always publicly wtil-able.
The Comissioners have also tak'sh'sYeps to ake public the steff
~
analyses and reccmendations.which serve as the bases for their own decisions on major regulatory issues.
While these NRC initiatives are perhaps somewhat less structured than the procedures contemplated in reccmendations 2 and 3, I believe they are consistent with the intent h
of those reco=endations.
The NRC staf ~ has not been able to conduct a detailed review of professor-Earam's study in the time available, but would be willing to do so if requested by the Acministrative Conferei.ce.
However, the staff '.as examined the port, ion of the report focusing on NRC and believes that in sc e, instances it mischaracteri2es HRC analytical efforts and is somewhat
' dated (see ' attached coments)..
'If I may be of further assistance, p\\ lease feel free to contact me retardinoi
-his matter.
~
l
~
\\
?
(Sincerely,
{
\\
(
N:.J:
Y r,.h M.'Hencrie p
Jose e
man i
r t
~
.W
?
~
g i
Some Preliminary NRC Staff Observations on Professor Baram's Study " Cost Benefit Analysis in Energy Decision-Making.of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission" i
v The NRC starf has not had time to study Professor Baram's report in:
[
de: ail in T.he time available for commenting on the reco=nendations.
Some r
preliminary observations are noted below.
In addition, the NRC staff
[
nctes that.the Appendix A which focused on the NRC is more than a year g
old ind thus does not reflect some important recent judicial decisions ccncerning cases cited.
1.
The st'udy could be improved by focusing on some rule-making proceeding 6
Other than the Anpendix I proceeding as an example of use of cost-benefit analysis in NRC decisiens.
Append.ix I was a unique proceeding which combined both Atomic Energy Act and NEPA considerations.
)
t 2.
The study indicates that tb Seabrook transmission line decision
{
represerited a departur'e from past practice in that substantial weight was given to unquantified environmental va' lues'.
There are
- any other occasions where NRC has given similar st.bstantial weight to these kinds of environmental impacts (e.o.', evaluation of coolino s
systems.for Indian Pojnt and Brunswick, and'improvine discharoe f
~
~
water ouality in Maine Yankee).,
9
<i n. c.
L 2.
The discussion of the Maine _ Yankee.' case would be improved by an f
E.alysis of the Appeal Soard ciecision in the case.
r
(
- 4. hether or not the Energy Reorganization Act precludes NRC use of dos -benefit analyses in Atomic Energy Act decisions can be argued either way.
However, if cost-benefit analyses 'are not used, then there must be some substitute method for addressing the competing
{
" 'i chhsiderations involved in public safety decisions.
Ii would be.
il 8
. helpful if.a discussion were added regarding-such subwicute methods
~.anfihok they would comply,with the reorganization act.
l
)
i.
t E. :The ~value-imp'act' guidelines mentioned on page A-19 are a preliminary-version specific to the Office of Standards Development and are not the generai guidelines,a'depted by the Commission in January 1978.
I l
=
B A
n.
O s
9 4
9 ENCLOSURE A (ITEM 3) - MEMO FM CHILK TO GOSSICK O
e
-