ML19345C129
| ML19345C129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/27/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS (OPA) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345C127 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR71023 45FR71023, PR-80-194, NUDOCS 8012030921 | |
| Download: ML19345C129 (3) | |
Text
_
. M,, "g, f'
In.i UNITED STATES
'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. 20555 No.80-194 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel.
301/492-7715 (Monday, October 27, 1980)
NRC ISSUES PLAN FOR DEVELOPING SAFETY GOAL 7he Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a plan for developing a safety goal to be used in defining more clearly the level of protection for the public health and safety that'it believes is adequate.
The effort to develop a safety goal deals primarily with the licensing of nuclear power plants.
The plan was developed at the Commission's request by the NRC Office of Policy Evaluation and the Office of the General Counsel.
In addition to the development of a plan to more clearly define NRC safety objectives, the Commission had directed the Office of Policy Evaluation to submit by December 29, 1980, a preliminary policy paper on safety goals for Commission consideration and public comment.
Results of work currently being done by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and the NRC's Offices of Regulatory Research and Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation will be used in this effort, as well as inputs from groups outside the Commission such as the general public, the nuclear industry, and the public interest organizations.
The Commission previously stated its intent to develop a safety policy statement in its 1982-86 Policy, Planning, and Program Guidance and in correspondence with Dr. Frank Press, Director of the President's Office of Science and Technology, concerning the report of the President's Commis-sion on the Accident at Three Mile Island.
The basic principle of a safety goal is to establish a general degree of safety under which regulations are made and licensing actions are taken.
The plan notes that, in practice, there are a number of complications in developing a safety goal -- gaps in knowledge as to what the risks are; different philosophical perspectivc ; as to what criteria should be used to define when a risk is " acceptable"; and issues involving economic and equity considerations and techniques to make interpretations where there is uncertainty.
8Hbl e 00 0 'f21
.80-194 In the plan, the NRC sets out an initial list of ques-
~
tions it would like to have the-staff and others address for initial planning purposes and for use in later modifications.
They are:
What estimated risks flow from available licensing-a.
policy options?
(1) What uncertainties surround those estimates?
b.
What known risk levels are acceptable?
(1) What -uncertainties are acceptable?
(2) To what extent is there increased aversion to risk of high consequences even at low probability?
c.
What constrains safety requirenants that.NRC should impose?
(1) What is the role of safety-cost tradeoffs?
(2) To what extent should benefits of nuclear power -- absolute and relative to alterna-tives -- enter safety-requirement decisions?
(3) To what extent is'it appropriate for require-ments for new and previously approved plants to differ?
(4) How should stringency of safety goals compa.re with risks accepted from other (non-nuclear) electrical energy sources and with risks arising-in various other contexts?
(5) To what extent should equities of distribution of benefits and adverse impacts influence requirements?
(6) Should safety goals be applied directly to cases in order to attain.a similar degree of safety from case to case (even though that may result in specific design and operation requirements differing according to circumstances)?
Or should goals be applied generically and have requirements, rather than estimated degree-of-safety results, be uniform?
. 80-194-(7) To what extent should goals. reflect protection of individuals regardless of numbers of per-
~
sons affected, and to what extent should they reflect total, integrated population or societal effects?~
4 d.
What policies are appropriate in the face of gaps in knowledge as to what the risks are and the need T
larity of licensing requirements?
(1) Should there be an overall top-level safety-goal policy that would control' lower-order specific decision classes, with toleration of uncertainties in interpretation of overall
~
policy in terms of specific regulations?
Or should goals be defined in operationally
~ useful form for narrower areas, thereby achieving better predictability of require-ments, though at the cost of losing some overall philosophical consistency and conceitual completeness?
(2) What is the proper balance between stability.
of requirements and flexibility for modi-fication as knowledge develops and insights change?
In view of inherent uncertainties, how should pro-e.
bability estimates and consequences predictions be verified?
f.
Under uncertainty as-to goals or imprecision of-goals or doubts as to their interpretation, how should judgments be made in:
(1) Establi=hing generic requirements?
1 (2) Cases?
Copies of the "?lan-for Developing a Safety Goal",
(NUREG-0735) may be purchased from the NRC-GPO Sales Program, Attention:
Sales Agent, Division of Technical Information and. Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555; and the National Tech-nical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.-
Persons wishing to offer suggestions to be used in devel-oping the preliminary policy paper should submit their comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
-D.C.
20555, Attention:
Edward J.
Hanrahan,-Director, Office of Policy Evaluation, preferably by November 19, 1980.
Comments received'too late'for consideration in preparing the preliminary policy paper will be considered in sub-sequent stages of the program.