ML20027D804
| ML20027D804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1981 |
| From: | Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Aggarwal S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A669 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-426, TASK-4.G.2, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8211100100 | |
| Download: ML20027D804 (2) | |
Text
n.. -
- i V
i.h T m.%
R
- o UNITED STATES
.j g
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
r, WASHING TON, D, C. 20555 j;
4 pciv/
.!}
SEP 3 0 198)
+
9 o;
MEMORANDUM FOR: Satish K. Aggarwal 4
Task Leader, Equipment Qualification Electrical Engineering Branch vil Division of Engineering Technology
_}
Office of Nuclear Regulatory ~Research 4
FROM:
J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records d
Office of Administration 1
- j
SUBJECT:
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY STATB4ENT IN
- [
. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF 41 ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS PROPOSED RULE i
~
The proposed rule captioned above contains a Regulatory Flexibility Statement (page 5) which indicates that this proposal will not have a substantial economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The statement indicates that the requirement being imposed by the rule falls directly upon utilities which are outside the scope of Regulatory Flexibility Act and presumably any trickle down impact on small entites will be beneficial in nature.
1.
However, Section 1.3.3 lndustry of the Value-Impact staterrent accompanying this rule has been revised to read:
If the final rule is published as 4
now proposed, the cule will not have significant impact on industry because of backfit." This statement contrasts sharply with that appearing 4
in the Value-Impact statement accompanying the June 17, 1981 draft of the proposal which read:
"..., the rule would have considerable impact on the industry because of backfit." During earlier discussions with my staff concerning this impact, which admittedly could be measured in various ways, the impact of this rule was described as conceivably being in excess of one billion dollars.
The Commission in a letter to Vice President Bush dated Septmber 21, 1981, has committed [tself to comply with certain provisions of Executive Order " Federal Regulation" 12291 (February 17, 1981).
In so doing the Commission has committed to the preparation of Regulatory Impact Analyses 4
for each major rule, defined in Sec.1.(b)(1) as one having "an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more."
Furthermore, the Analys's With Respect to Periodic and Systematic Review of Regulations (TMI Action Plan Task IV.G.2.) at item 2. indicates that "the direct and indirect effects of the' regulations have been adequately 8211100100 821014' PDR FOIA
,(_
.d
. CURRAN 82-426 PDR
3
~.. _.. -..
r s
)
4 SEP 3 0 1981 i
s considered." To show NRC. compliance with the requirement to analyze the effects, the value impact statement says "There will not be any significant cost impact on the industry because of backfi t. " Again, there is no analysis to support this finding.
Because this ruhe has,an extensive and presumably costly impact upon licensees, and because Commission policy requires a good faith analysis of the economic impact of a rule in advance of its issuance as a proposed rule, the Division of Rules and Records, ADM is unable to concur in this 1
paper be'cause it does not fully coinply with requirements for an economic analysis imposed under Task IV.G.2.' of the TMI Action Plan.,
./' y'~ W
.j*,g_ 'y' s
/*>jjj'
.c%
}
r j/
2 r
' [J..
ton, Director I
Division of Rules and Records.
[
[
Office of Administration
~
c'c : Robert Bernero, Director i
Division of Risk Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research r
Guy Cunningham, Director & Chief Counsel Division of Regulations Office of Executive Legal Director I
9 h
e k
T i
s I
5
\\
4 i
--A-
-.,