ML19340E327
| ML19340E327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/01/1980 |
| From: | Sege G NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| To: | NRC - INTEROFFICE STEERING GROUP ON DEVELOPMENT OF A SAFETY |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR71023, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8101140042 | |
| Download: ML19340E327 (5) | |
Text
.'
,/,...,),
U FR 71013 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
3 E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20586 December 1, 1980
' M 2cou
~
~
\\
NOTE TO:
Inter-Office Steering Group on
//
oces3 g
usu Development of a Safety Goal 2
,j t~
DEC FROM:
George Sege g
f ctnce eps:,q8 E80 >
Dockener a !: nice w
y 3 m ch
SUBJECT:
WORKING PAPER ON ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS vo The enclosed working paper is for your review and coment.
We would appreciate your coments and suggestions as soon as possible, but not later than December 5.
Your coments will be taken into account in preparation of the Preliminary Policy Paper.
Enclosure:
e.
As stated 3;
y
.". )
-s W
8 101.14 g sq g
12/1/80 MEMORANDUM FOR: File FROM:
George Sege
SUBJECT:
APPROACHES TO SAFETY GOAL FORMULATION: A WORKINu PAPER ON ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORKS PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this working paper is to outline, for preliminary discussion, a range of potentially useful alternative approaches to safety goal formu-lation.
It addresses approaches that have already been proposed that could be developed.
The paper represents an initial step in the development of a range of options for Comission consideration.
It is intended primarily for near-term use (with further elaboration and critique) in connection with the Preliminary Policy Paper that is being prepared as part of the Commission's program to develop a safety goal (NUREG-0735).
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF APPROACH (2-3 pp.)
Slovic et al. (NUREG/CR-1614) propose classification of approaches to acceptable risk into three broad methodological categories: professional judgment, bootstrapping, and formal analysis.
Professional Judgment Description; critique.
Bootstrapping (Evolution from past and current practices.)
Description; critique.
. Formal Analysis (Cost / benefit; decision analysis.)
Description; critique.
Role in quantitative approaches.
(Discussion based on Slovic)
TYPES OF QUANTITATIVE APPROACH (2-3 pp)
Approaches to acceptable risk actually proposed and detailed, both in the U.S. and abroad, have generally been quantitative.
Quantitative approaches generally rely heavily and primarily on formal analysis.
However, as discussed later, various methods based largely on professional judgment generally enter the way in which uncertainties and data gaps are handled.
The ACRS report to the Commission (NUREG-0739, Part 1) classifies quantitative risk criteria that have been proposed, in this country and abroad, into three types:
individual risk criteria, frequency-consequence approaches, and risk management approaches.
Individual Risk Criteria (Risk of death to exposed individuals; no aggregation for total populations.)
Description; critique.
Frecuency-Consecuence Approaches (Aggregated social risk.)
Description; critique.
- Risk Management Approaches (Risk tradeoffs among alternative energy sources. Allocation of resources-to risk reduction among various activities of different types and values.)
Description; critique.
(Discussion based on ACRS Part 1.)
THE ACRS PROPOSAL (about 5 pp.)
Summary description based on 10/31/80 ACRS letter.
General critique.
(This is the most detailed proposal, with the most fully developed supporting rationale.)
OTHER SPECIFIC PROPOSALS (3-5 pp.)
AIF, Starr,.Bernero: description, comparative critique (relative to ACRS).
Brief mention of Joksimovic, Zebroski.
General critique:
industry proposals less conservative than ACRS; possibility of ACRS-type proposals that are more conservative.
(Sources: AIF presentation of 7/1/80, 11/21/80 interview, and any subsequent AIF submittals; Starr ANS paper of 11/19/80; Bernero, as furnished directly; Joksimovic, Zebroski papers and interviews, other interviews.)
APPROACHES TO DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY (2-3 pp.)
Arbitration (e.g., ACRS's, " Risk Certification Panel")
Modeling (i.e., prescribed scenarios, assumptions, methods of calculation)
~
.. Restrained use of quantitative criteria (e.g., to eliminate concern with trivial risks and to reject clearly excessive risks, with judgment case-by-case in between: ref. Comar, Science, 203, p. 319 (1979).
Non-quantitative approaches (including critique of problems in abandoning quantitativeness).
APPROACHES TO BALANCING OF VALUES (2-3 pp.)
Individual and social risks.
Safety and economic values.
(Costs, benefits,$/ person-rem,valuationof life; equities of distribution. Roles in new standards, safety improvement goals, retrofit.)
(A primarily descriptive discussion; brief; little philosopy.)
,.,,,.,,,_,.-,,,__.--c.
. - - -