ML20046A723
| ML20046A723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1993 |
| From: | Curtiss J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307290269 | |
| Download: ML20046A723 (3) | |
Text
-
8 ;6.... g..y..;.;,+e...., y gg ea e
m g a,m..y'
.-w, qsy 0 TON #0N!
dif/q{yLEAS DTO
~
V; 0TE h
- f Jp y4 X
RESPONSE SHEET I
4 M _^
.. A.n!@st r,.
~............
J TSAMUELN.CHILK,-SECRETARY /OFLTHE COMMISSION-
- TOF j
lL LFROM:-
TC0l+1ISSIONER? CURTISS -
f"
SUBJECT:
SECY-93-086L-BACKFIT CONSIDERATIONS:
h; w.
> !lg
~
X/with:
l l
' APPROVED DISAPPROVED-commentsi ABSTAIN :
i x
F NOT PARTICIPATING:
REQUEST! DISCUSSION)
. "1 COMMENTS:
1C See attached comments.
?: '
}.f V f
k
~
..i m:
- S p i j,.
r Sh f
,. +
- i. $
f 3
}._.
- ',1 m
i
?)
ji 9
I si w
_t 1'
/i y
g$
,ll 11 60083 j
( g SIGNATUREi y
lf-.f'I
~
RELEASE) VOTE:
l/ 19/d y?6,-1993
'Ej Ma d
DATEt WITHHO, LD? VOTE.= /:
'/L
?-
i d,
- lEN ERED20NV".AS',': SYESJxt No
~e gc':i
,h
' A:;- PDR ; '- CONNS ' NRCC '9307290269'~,. 930506 V' f p
3 J: &
H f a.[CORRESPONDENCESPDR{p,
_.9 g.,
n.
g...
,. x a
't
,g
- ~;
s
T w
Commissioner Curtiss' comments on SECY-93-086:
Based upon the experience that we have had with several recent rulemaking initiatives, where it has proven difficult if not impossible to move forward with what everyone considers to be reasonable rulemaking changes, I believe that there is a need to modify the Backfit Rule to allow the Commission to make such changes to NRC regulations, even though they would not otherwise meet the " substantial increase in overall protection" threshold required by the current Backfit Rule.
Accordingly, I would approve Option 2 and direct the staff ta formulate an amendment to the Backfit Rule that would delete or revise the " substantial increase" criterion for addressing rulemakinos (but not other backfits) which are worthwhile but do not otherwise meet the current standard.
As to certain of the staff's concerns about justifying and limiting the Option 2 approach --
(1)
I believe that we can confine this approach to backfits imposed by rulemaking and distinguish rulemaking from other backfits by emphasizing that rulemaking entails a disciplined review process that is not applied to other 1
methods of backfitting (i.e., preparation of a' regulatory analysis, notice and public comment, preparation of responses to comr.
.ts and modification of the proposed rule based on public comments, and detailed review and approval of proposed and final rules by the Commission itself).
With the additional procedural safeguards that attend agency rulemaking, the potential for abuse of the flexibility inherent in Option 2 is, in my view, quite minor.
(2)
I believe that we can formulate alternative criteria, as substitutes for the " substantial increase in overall protection" threshold for rulemaking backfits, that will allow the Commission to promulgate worthwhile changes to the regulations in situations in which the " substantial increase" criterion has caused difficulties in the past.
In this regard, I would propose that we consider alternative criteria along the following lines:
"For backfits imposed by rulemaking, the proposed rules need not result in a substantial increase in overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security, but, qualitatively, must 4
be shown --
1
"(a) not to present an undue risk to public health and safety and to be consistent with the common defense and security; and j
"(b) (i) overall, to be in the public interest, with minimal costs to regulated
)
parties, or i
.. "(ii) generally, to be cost beneficial for regulated parties in the long term, or
"(iii) to be designed to achieve consistency with national and international safety and/or radiation protection standards or with state-of-the-art advances in technology.
I would propose that we direct the staff to prepare a rulemaking package that implements option 2 consistent with the approaches suggested in (1) and (2) above, and submit a proposal to the Commission for approval.
f