ML20052G819
| ML20052G819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F635 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8205190024 | |
| Download: ML20052G819 (75) | |
Text
.
=
o NUCLEAR REGULATOR! COMMISSION Tg
\\{f F
~
U) JU, h-e l
COMMISSION MEETING t
~~
')
In the Mutt: tar cif:
PUBLIC MEETING
'y l
BRIEFING ON REVISED VALUE-IMPACT PROCEDURES
=
AND GUIDELINES RE EXECUTIVE ORDER'lb291 j
~
i.
s
_ _I M.ay 10, 1982 93ggg, 71
~
~ ^
- ~ A* : ' ~ ~
Washington, D. C.
x 1
1 N
/
s mud
.1/M%T'- N l
j 400 Vi_Tda Ave., S.W. W=*h* *gt.=n, D. C. 20 0 2 4 Talaph== : (202) 554-2345 8205190024 820510 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
1 2/81 Ip p
TPJ.NSkITTAL TOs i
Document Control Desk, I$
016 Phillips
~
p
'p F
ADVANCED COPY TO:
O The Public Document ~4oom
',h DATE:
8
/-?
c - OPS Fi1 From: SECY OPS Branch b
('
./
C&R'(Natali.e-)
3:2 Ettached are. copies of a dommission meeting
?
transcript /s/ and related meeting document /h/.
They h
are being forwarded for ent.".f on the Daily Accession
- lip List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No
':liP other distribution is requested or required.
Er.isting
?
DOS identification numbers are_ listed o_n the indiv.idual' h
documents wherever kr.own. -
p 1
Heeting
Title:
L e,,
A cp ex/
N
,0,,ua,4
- M k/x 4 do m 9J 6 pen d
. 6 G DATE:
d3 A
Closed DOS COPIES:
/
/
Coples (1 of each Checked)
ITD'. DESCRIPTION:
Advanced May p
/
- Document Dup
- Cooy* M To PDR:
Original be Duplicate S 1.(,r n o n s s s n k l
L/
f/
/
9
- 5=
2.-
sscq ta-/s?
.2 I
%m w
S,,:=
eg 3.
d
~
4.
e 5.
<=
U h
- gLC A
of each SECY paper.)
r=
1L_-_ $07dWd$dTdTdWN6W6'NENINNN'NA'#NM*NN
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR RZGULATORY COMMISSI0a 3
PUBLIC MEETI3G 4
BRIEFING ON REVISED VALUE-IMPACT PROCEDURES g
AND GUIDELINES RE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291 5
. =*_~ 2.. ::
- =.= =.. -.
r ;~ ~ :.. --. r; ; : ~.--._- = _ ;
6 Room 1130.
7 Euclear Regula~ tory Comalssion 1717 H Street, N.W.
- ~~'
8 Washington, D.C.
~ 9 Honday, May 10, 1982
~
~
~
~
~-
10 The Consission met, pursuant to notice, at 11 2:32 p.m.
._..._.. _. 12_ _
._B E F O R E a 13 NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner..__
14 JOHN AREARNE, Commissioner THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner
^
15 STAFF MAKING PRESENTATION AT NEETING 16 HR. L. BICKWIT 17 MR. SANUEL J. CHILK MR. FORREST REMICK l
18 MR. DONNIE GRIMSLEY l
MR. VIC STELLO 19 20 21 22 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V1AGINIA AVE, S W. WASwiNG70N O C 20029 (202) N
/
DISCLAIMER
~
This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on 10 May 1982 in the, Comission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wasnington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript e has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies..
The transcript is intended solely for general infonnational pureoses.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the forinal or'infonnal i
record of decision of the matters discussed.
Fxpressions of opinion:in
.this. transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or
- yjbeliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with -the Commission.in.
any proceeding as the ra.sult of or addressed to any statement or argument r-contained herein, except as. the Comission may auth'orize.
9 O
b n
2 1
2E2CEERIEEE 2
CHAIBHAN PA1LADINO:
The meeting vill please 3 come to order.
4 The purpose of this meeting toda y is to brief 5 the Commission on the results of the ED0's Task Group 6 study of existing value-impact guidelines and its 7 recommendation for improving the quality and use of the 8 'i d'idelines.
This activity addresses both.the..agengy's.;,:..,,-
~~
2
=
9, ef_f ort to comply with the spirit of Executive Order --- -
I :.:
~
~
to'- h291 on Federal Regulstions and its hun ihi7 iativesi a~si
- ~~~~~
~~
t 11 - 5e~t forth in our policy and planning guidance;to ::-- --
2
~
~
--..3, 1
- '12 - evaluate requirements on a cost-benefit: basis.:E
~ 13 Among the questions the Task Grcup was :toi.
- i
. :. i--
2,- - -
-3 i4 address was whether a value-im pact ana-ly, sis. would be 3.
2.
15 applied only to major rules or to all " substantive" 16 culess what other Commission action should be subject to 17 value-impact analysis; how to ensure that th e 18 value-impact analysis is performed early in the 19 decision-making process; and wha t staff and financial 20 resources are needed to implement value-impact 21 analysis.
22 Unless the Commissioners have some other 23 opening comments, I will turn the meeting over to Mr.
24 Stello.
25 MR. STE1LO Well, let me very quickly review ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, G METAT1G MIL 91.t1 MtN@ TEN. @.@. Fr&rld (FSFa 523-f6KD
3 I
how we got here.
In September 1981, you responded to 2 Vice President Bush's letter asking for voluntary 3 compliance with Sections 2 and 3 of that order, that is, 4 Executive Order No. 12291.
In your response you 5 indicated that we vould study what it was-that the NRC 6 was doing under the responsibilities set forth.in the
'7 Atomic Energy Act and to look at what we needed to do_ to. - - ::
8 bring our procedures and practices in line with. Sections -. :
_r
-9 2 and 3 of the order.
10 -
Mr. Dircks appointed a task force to examine _-..
=
11 these questions in December 1981.
They have been doing- - ;:
12 their work since.
The results of it are presented-in -._. -
13 the Commission psper which we are going to brief you on-14-this afternoon.
5
- 15 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYa How big vas the-task.
16 force?
17 MR. STELLO:
I will ask Donnie to introduce 18 the members.
I assume at least some of them are here.
19 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYa Just to give se an 20 ides, roughly.
21 HR. GRIMSLEYa They are representatives of the 22 four program offices, AEOD, Admin and ELD.
Seven plus 23 myself.
24 HR. STELL0s Well, without my trying to go 25 through the briefing in advance, I will just turn it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
4 1
over and ask Donnie to go through and brief you on what 2 they found and what it is that we propose to adopt as 3 the --
4 CONHISS10NER AHEARNE:
Donnie, whereabouts 5 specifically are you located?
What division branch?-
8 HR. GRINSLEYs Admin.
~ ~~'
7 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE Which part of"that?
2 --
' 8' HR. GRIMSLETs I serve as Pat Knorie's-
+:
9 assistant.
~ -
+
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Whose assistant?
10 -
11' NR. GRIHSLEY:
Mrs. Knorie, the Director --:
~12 MR. STELLO:
The Acting Director of
^:
r
~
~
13 - Administration.
14 ER. GRIBSLEY:
Do you want me to start? : ~
'15 NR. STELLO:
Why don't you go ahead.
~ ~~
18
[S11 del
~
NR. GRIMSLEYs The first Vu-graph that I will
- '~_.
17 18 be getting on the screen in just a second talks about-19 the objectives that the Task Group set in its first 20 meeting based on the experience that the members had 21 with respect to the goal that the EDO had.given us.
-2 22 -
The first thing that we were concerned about 23 was that the guidelines that currently existed were 24 quite lengthy, had a lot of illustrative illustrations 25 in them, and we felt it would be more attractive to the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
5 1
Staff to have very concise and direct guidelines.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Which guidelines are 3 you talking about, now?
4 HR. GRIHSLEY:
Sir?
The existing value-impact 5 guidelines.
6 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY Which ante-dated the
. 7' letter which we received?
8 HR. GRIBSLEY:
That's correct.
9 CONHISSIONER GILINSKYs The NRC's own to guidelines?
11 HR. GRIBSLEYa The NRC's own guidalines that -
12 were adopted in 1978.
13 So one of our goals was to see whather the 14 document that we came out with could be quite brief so 15 that the Staff would in fact read them and understand 16 them clearly.
17 The second goal was to assure that the revised 18 guidelines were consistent with the apirit of Executive 1g Order 12291.
20 The third was to assure that_the guidelines 21 could be used or will be used as a basis for preparing a 22 thorough analysis of all generic requirements in 23 addition to those covered by criteria in the executive 24 order.
I 25 The fourth was to incorporate the analysis of 1
l l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1
6 1 generic raquiranants, those avsluations specifically 2 required by the Paperwork Reduction.Act and the 3 Regulatory Flexibility Act.
4 Fifth, we wanted to provide adequate 5 flexibility to assure that the effort expended.to
~
~
6 analyze the requirement is in f act in proportion to the' 7 likely impact of the requirement.
Some of o.ur. - :
~ ~
8 experience indicated that there was, in fact, a lot of
~~: '::
9 effort being spent on doing detailed analyses of things
~:7~
10 that did not have a lot of impact and maybe not enough 11 oi others.
- .~
12 CORNISSIONER GILINSKYs Let's see.
None of-
~
~
13 the objectives seems to deal with finding.out how the
- 14 guidelines were being followed.
~ 15 HR. GRIHSLEYs Yes.
This is the next- -
16 Vu-graph, sir.
If you will put up Yu-graph 2,-ve vill.
17 talk about the judgment of the Task Force with respect ~ -
18 to the type of areas we felt could be improved by the 1g guidelines.
20 (Slide) 21 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Did you somewhere 22 along the way assess how the guidelines were being 23 followed?
24 ER. GRIESLEY Other than the experience of 25 the Task Group members and their talking with their own ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
7 1 office staffs about areas that they felt needed to be 2 improved, we did not do a systematic survey of the 3 Staff.
4 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa Did you take any sort 5 of look?
6 HR. GRIHSLEY:
At the actual guidelines?
7 CONNISSIONEB GILINSKY Yes.
Vas the agency -
8 performing analyses of these sorts for proposed e-actions?
10- '
NR. GHIMSLEYa Vell, the agency. was in fact -
11 having a value-impact statement attached to. rules and 12: ' proposed rules and other matters that were coming up ~~
i3 through the EDO.
What we did do is to try to, based on-14 the experience of the Staff that was involved _vith-the
=
15 Task Forca -- most of these people have some type of 16 -central review f unction in their of fice -- to trT to 17 identif y those areas that we felt could in fact be' i
l 18 improved.
19 Our first area of improvement we felt --
20 CONNISSIONER AHEABNE:
Donnie, could I 21 interrupt you a minute?
Could you give me just a very 22 short capsule summary of what you believe is the purpose 23 to be accomplished by doing this kind of a statement, 24 this valua-impact sta tem en t?
25 HR. GRIMSLEY:
Okay.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
8 1
COHHISSIONER AHEARNEa I recognize -- one 2 thing that I was I guess kind of surprised about, or 3 perhaps it is latent in your objectives, there is 4 nothing that says -- to. enable the -- to produce a 5 document that does this, that accc_plishes some. purpose.
6 What is the purpose that you see it
~~
7 accomplishing?
I recognize some documents are done S because there are requirements laid down by law that you 9 have to do it.
What is the purpose you see of these?
10 -
HR. GRIMSLEYa We felt that the purpose, I
~
2.
11' think as stated in the guidlines in the purpose 12 statement is to provide the agency decision-makers with.
13 an adequate and sufficient analysis upon which they can 14 base their decision with the full knowledge of the 15 implications of that decision and the basis of it.
16 CONHISSIONER AHEARNE:
An analysis of what?
17 HR. GRIHSLEYs The analysis would include the 18 costs and benefits of the proposed action and, you know, 19 as compared to the existing situation and any 20 alternatives that might 21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs So it is to be focused 22 upon a document that will enable the person making the 23 decision to see as best he or she can what are the costs 24 of the action and what are the benefits of the action?
25 MB. GRIMSLEY:
That is correct, sir.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE So then areas of 2 improvement, I suppose, will then focus on --
3 MR. GRIMSLEY:
The specific --
4 COMNISSIONER AHEARNEa
-- how well that is 5 done?
8 NR. GRIMSLEYa Right.
7 HR. STE".10s Let me try to answer _Coamiss_1.oner 8 Gilinsky's question in terms of the judgment.of what: I.,
9 have seen, in terms of wha t has been used in. the past.
10:
The value-impact statements of most documents 11 that come forward, whether it is a reg guide or a rule, 12 have a section that is entitled such, but the quality or 13 the ability to get the kind of information to really get 14 some true impact and value out of it is poor If.you 15 are looking f or a judgment as to --
18 COMMISSIONER AREARNE:
Would you disagree with 17 the statement that the value-impact statements so far 18 really are boiler plate at the end?
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN04 Are what?
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Boiler plate.
21 MR. STELL0s I guess I would be pretty c1cse i
22 to reaching that kind of a conclusion with some l
23 exceptions; but if it is a generalization of most of I
l 24 them, yes.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
. _ ~.
..m net
10 1
ER. STELLO:
I mean, you have specific 2 analyses for the specific action, but they nra not done 3 in depth.
4' COHNISSIONER AHEARNEa Donn ie, the reason I 5 asked the question is my impression was that by.and 6 large the way they looked to me was they are there
-- 7--because there is some kind of requirement that they be 8 there, as opposed to being something that-is.really -
9 'there for the person making the decis' ion to use to help
- -10 'make the decision.
11 HR. GRIHSlEYa I think that is the perception 12 that comes through a lot as you look at them.
. A n d -I - -
13 think that is one of the things we were trying to focus 14 on, was the type of things that were not in_the analysis l
15 that one would really want to have accented if you were 16 in fact developing the document for decision-making.
17 CONNISSIONER AHEARNE:
One last question along 18 that line, then.
Should I view what you have done, 19 then -- was it really one of your major objectives to 20 aske it a document that would be used?
21 HR. GRIHSLEY:
That is correct.
That is one 22 of the reasons we wanted to make it brief.
That is one 23 of the reasons we have actually titled some of the 24 headings in that way to focus on the issues that we 25 thought were most important to do an analysis.
For ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
11 1
instance, rather than talking about the need for a 2 requirement, we felt like the first issue was the 3 probles, defining the problem.
4 So we have actually tried to develop some 5 strategy in terms of setting up the document.that would.
~6 help the Staff focus on what were the real issues when
-- 7 You do an analysis to support a decision. - That. is why,.
- - 8 number one in area of improvement was to assurec that the. :.
9 problem giving rise to.the document was well-articulated 4
10 and well documented.
We did not think that had.been
~ ~ 11 ' done consistently in the guidelines.
7 12 The other ones, the one we felt:in.looking.at 13 ~ the value-impact statements, was that alternatives. tend 14-to focus on very minor variations of each other rather. -
15 than looking at real alternative regulatory approaches..
16 The third, we felt like the cost of - -
17 - im plementing the requirement should be presented in 18 detail in the analysis.
19 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY Is that possible?
I 20 thought what Yic said was that -- I can't remember your 21 words, but I thought you were saying that one wasn 't 22 able to get the kind of information that you needed to 23 really present a comparison of this sort.
24 HR. STELL0s I meant that with respect to 25 those analyses that have been done to date, if you look ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, mm -smyugmurwnvrt _ _
13 1
at them, you can't really get the kind of information 2 that is being identified here as being needed.
If you 3 review --
4 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYs Oh, I see.
I thought 5 you meant the people who were making them were not able 8 to put together that sort of cost information..
-7 HR. STELL0s No, I think that auch more can be..:.
8 done than has been done.
I thought you were searching.
.4:
9 for a judgment on those that have been done to date.
'to COMMISSIONER GILINSKY I was.
11 HR. STELLO:
My judgment is, those. vere. not.
12 done very v' ell.
They can be done a lot better, and I
=13 think that this is a policy that allows them, and it is, 4 of course, going to take considerable management:.-
1 15 intention to make people do it.
The,re is.a reluctance 1s to want to do it.
It is the kind of thing that --
17 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY H ell, i t 's. - -
18 understandable.
I mean, you are beginning to-treat NRR 19 the way they treat licensees.
20
[Iaughter. ]
21 HR. STELL0s Well, but clearly the intent is 22 to try to start out with understanding what probles you 23 are trying to solve and then truly trying to decide on 24 what is the solution or solutions to the problem, if 25 there are any.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
13 i
1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can you give ne an 2 example of a poorly done statement or a typical 1
3 statement?
4 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE4 I think it would be i
5 easier to find an example -- it would be harder to find 6 an example of a well done statement.
Just take any-ones 7 ~. that come up in any of our papers as an example of a 8 ~poorly done statement.
e
's MR. STELLO:
Well, on that --
10 CONHISSIONER ROBERTS:
For example, what, 11 John?
12 CONHISSIONER AHEARNE:
Any of the papers-that._
13 come up to us have examples of poorly done statements.
14 CORHISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is another-side
~ 15 ~ to this, which is that the decision-makers have-not 16 really looked for this sort of information, and as long 17 as they do not and do not really use it, then the 18 statements are going to be boiler plate statements.
is CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But in our PPG ve 20 reemphasize the fact that we wanted some true 21 cost / benefit evaluations on some of the actions we 22 take -- on the actions we take; and that was also 23 consistent with the Executive Order.
And I think that 24 ve have been giving too little attention to that issue.
25 HR. STELL0s Well, let me give you an ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, i
14 i
1 example.
The one that came to aind that I have spent a 2 great deal of time with is the cost impact analysis 3 associated with identifying deviations from the Standard 4 Heview Plan.
How much would that really cost?
What l
5 really was the impact?
How big of a job was it?
And 6 there was an analysis done originally where cost numbers
--7 vere fairly lov.
And we looked harder and' harder at 8 it.
+
9 And more information was finally obtained, 10 although the spread was kind of large at the final
- .:7 :
11 analysis, but in just searching and asking and reviewing 12 that information with a real understanding of trying to 13 -understand, I think we got a much better -understanding 14: -of the impact in searching very hard for the value.
~5 I came out on one side of that issue that was 1
16 different, but nevertheless it is trying to.really.get 17 the information to help the decision-maker.
I think the 18 bottom line, no matter what we put on paper, is that it 1.
is really going to take management intention to continue 20 to cause people to really get used to wor _ king this way.
21 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
It is interesting that in 22 Your earlier paper, SECY 81-647, you said it wasn 't 23 going to take any more resources.
Now you say it is 24 going to take resources.
Are you going to cover what 25 has changed between then and now?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
75 i
NR. STELLO4 I assume you are prepared --
2 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Resources to do what?
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOa What?
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY Resources to do wha;?
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
To ccery on this 6 improvement program.
7 Well, 2o ahead.
8 BR. GRIMSLEY:
I will get to that at the end 9 of the meeting.
10 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
All right.
11 NR. GRIMSLEY The f o urth i te s that we felt 12 needed attention was the impact on related requirements, 13 which I think we can confidently say had not been 14 reflected in most value-impact analyses, that they 15 really did not try to look at the impacts on other NRC
~
16 programs and activities.
17 The fifth one is that we felt that some type 18 of implementation analysis should be a part of any
[
19 document going up to the decision-makers, especially to l
20 schedule the conditions necessary for implementing the 21 proposed action.
22 l
24 25 1
l l
l ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
16 1
The guidelines cover, as we reflected on how 2 to set up the guidelines, if you will turn to Yu-graph 3 3 --
4 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
It seems to se one 5 should also strive for a f airly simple sort of process.
6 Is that part of your objective?
7 NR. GRIESLEY:
Yes.
The guidelines are only 8 : ~five pages.
We hope that therm is a -- we have tried to, i
9 he as brief and concise and direct as possible.
10 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Because'the object
- 11. ought not to be to entangle the process of developing 12 these sorts of proposals to a degree that nothing can go 13 forward.
The point is really to lay out the facts so_
14 that people can judge them better.
t 15 ER. GRIESLEY:
That is what we hope vill.
16 result from these guidelines.
17 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY Good.
Good.
18 (Slide) 19 ER. GRIMSLEY:
In looking at the coverage of 20 what the guidelines should cover, it was not exactly 21 clear when you read through the other guidelines at what 22 specific items were through the existing value-impact 23 guidelines, but the general view that I came out with as 24 I looked through the guidelines was that they basically 25 were to apply to some general generic requirements.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
17 l
1 In developing our coverage, we wanted to make i
2 sure that we vera consistent with the executive order in 3 teras of the basic coverage, but also to permit the 4 Executive Director for Operations to use the guidelines 5 to assure that any other generic requirement'also 6 receive a thorough analysis following a similar format ~.
7 So the guidelines themselves reflect 8 essentially the criteria in the Executive Order-in terms 9 of coverage of the implementing directive.
The EDO vill.
10~ call forth the Staff to perform a similar analysis of 11 all other generic requirements that come up for review 12 to the committee that reviewed generic requirements ~ for
- 13 a decision of Mr. Dircks or of the Consissioners..
14 CCHNISSIONER AHEARNEs Do you see that by -
15 looking at the right-hand set, it almost looks to me 16 like the only case that you would expect normally to-be 17 set would be C.
18 HR. GRINSLEY:
I think that is 19 probably -- well, there are several that I an aware of 20 that --
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, for example, I
~
22 doubt whether we would be proposing a rule if it will 23 likely have a "significant adverse impact."
24 HR. CRIESLEY:
That is true.
I agree on 25 that.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
i
\\
18 1
COMMISSIONEE AREARNE:
I would think that in 2 addition to ssking for a cost / benefit analysis, there 3 ought to be some other analysis done.
Why are we
- 4. proposing a rule to have a significant adverse impact?
5 HR. GRIMSLEY:
I agree that D is hopefully not 6 relevant to our agency.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am not even sure why 8 it is there.
'9 MR. GRIMSLEY:
Well, we were trying to 10 establish a consistency with the Executive Orde,r.
- 11 COREISSIONER GILINSKYs I assume it,vould mean 12 in addition to f avorable impacts it will have adverse 13 impacts.
It is some of the excessive self-flaggelation 14 that we have around here.
15 HR. GRIESLEY:
This is miso a criteria in the 16 pending regulatory reform legislation.
We were 17 attempting to show --
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Their orientation is a 19 little different.
20 HR. STELLO:
I think A, if I recall, there are 21 at least a number of guidelines that probably came up 22 close to that $100 million number.
23 HR. GRIMSLEYs The decommissioning rule, I 24 think; the Part 20, radiation exposure.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This is an annual ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
19 1
effect.
2 HR. GRIMSLEYs Right.
3 COHHISSIONER AHEARNEa This is an annual 4 effect of $100 million.
It doesn't say a one-time 5 effect.
6 HR. GRIESLEY:
That is correct.
7 HR. STELL0s So if you proposed 'a rule that -
~~~:'
8 just required a plant to be out of service, each plant-9 for, you know, just a few days, a day or two bore, you 10 immediately run into that kind of number, that kind of- '
11 number.
~
12 CONHISSIONER AHEARNEs Harbe I an aisreading
~
13 this.
" Annual" to me means that it must repeat-every 14 year.
15 HR. GRIESLEY:
That is correct.
' ~
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs So I as reading-that as-17 sayinc tha t the rule must have an effect which every 18 year costs $100 million.
It is not one time.
19 HR. GRIMSLEYa Our interpretation was that if 20 in any single year it reached $100 million, it would be 21 an annual effect, but I guess that 22 COEHISSIONER GILINSKYa Run that by se again?
23
[ Laughter.]
24 HR. BICKWITs You are looking at me, but I 25 assume it is a syntar question, not a legal question.
I ALDERSOPi REPORTING COMPANY, INC, a
20 1
an as quizzical as you are.
2
[ Laughter.]
3 COHNISSIONER AHEARNEs Gee, I really don't 4 think that is what " annual" means.
I think " annual" 5 seans it has to be repeated every year.
8 HR. STELL0s That is why I gave you the 7 example I did.
If you just add to the refueling outage
-8 a couple of days, and some of the things we have adde _d; 9 in teras of conglomerate additional inspections have to added considerably more than that, and that is 11 recurring.
That is every year.
12.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE All right.
That is a-13 good example.
If you have that many plans for 14 refueling 15 NR. STELL0s A typical bulletin that would 18 require people to go in and inspect certain components-17 every year or every outage, then that would add, time to 18 it.
The refueling outages are getting very, very long.
19 In fact, if you look at most of the impact of the 20 outages, they ara,as a result of our requirements and 21 they are annualized.
l 22 HR. GRIESLEYa Go ahead, sir.
23 COMEISSIONER AHEARNE:
The annualized effect, 24 the refueling one is a good example.
I tnink that if 25 you intend to have that include a one-tino cost, you ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
l 21 1 really need different language.
2 HB. GRIMSLEY I think that our --
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
You are quoting here the 4 Executive Order.
5 NR. GRIMSLEY That is correct, sir.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s It is not necessarily 7' wh'at we in the Commission might want.
We might' vant 8 something different.
~
~
~
9 CONHISSIONER AHEAPNEs Well, but since th'is is -
10 something I thought we were doing because we want to d'o
~
~
11 it, we have to decide.
We certainly ought to.underst'and 12 'what it means.
~
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
There are two points.
~
14 There is the Executive Order, which uses the words
~ ' ~
15 " annual effect." I don't know what that means. But we
~
16 also said in the PPG ve want to make better use of 17 cost / benefit analysis.
Those are not necessari1y the
~
~
18 same.
19 MR. STELL0s The first effort is to measure it 20 against the Executive Order, but the letter that is in
~
21 the package goes beyond these requirements in terms of l
22 when to do the analysis, which I think clearly is the 23 issue.
That is such more consistent with the PPG and 24 goes f ar beyond what the Executive Order would require.
25 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I think Forrest Remick ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
22 1 had a consent.
I 2
HR. REHICKa If I may address the question of 3 adverse, we had a question on that also.
I wonder if it 4 would not be better to drop the word " adverse."
If you 5 look at the Senate-proposed version, they do have 6 adverse environmental., but the House doesn 't.
They use
~
7-different language, will have " substantial" impact on.
8 the health, safety or the environment.
Not ? adverse,".- --'
9 but "significant."
If.you drop the " adverse" and make' 10 it "significant" effect, it would be at least comparable -
11 to the House wording.
12 I agree with Commissioner Ahearne that I don't 13 think it would apply to this agency if it was an adverse.
14 impact.
So we would suggest dropping the word "ndverse."-
15 HR. STELLO:
I don't think there would be any-16 problem with that, because as I have already indicated, 1'7 what we have included and broadened here, clearly that l
l 18 would take into account.
19 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO That word " adverse"?
20 That is so short for a long sentence that includes such 21 things as competition, employment, investment, et 22 ce tera.
So it is a lot of -- at least in the Executive 23 Order when they use " adverse" they talk about a lot of 24 things other than this.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Does this also apply ALDERSON REPORTING COM*ANY, INC,
23 1
to economic regulation?
Is this taken out of an 2 order --
3 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0a Yes.
i 4
CORHISSIONER GILINSKIa I see.
Was that your 5 point earlier, John, that those others might have an 6 adverse effect on health and safety?
m 7-COHHISSIONER AHEARNEa I was really more just 8 trying to understand what it was, what.vas going.to fit 9 in our bin, and that didn't'look like something that -.
-10 it just did not seem to make sense that we ought.to be 11 talking about a rule if it is going to have an adverse 12 impact on health and safety, a signif5 cant adverse 13 impact, much less --
14 - -
ER. BICKWITs The point that
)..
m ad e,: -I 15 think, if I understood it, is apropos.
That is, you' t
16 could conceivably have a rule that had an overall I'7 beneficial effect on the environment but together with 18 those beneficial effects in one area caused an adverse 19 effect in another area, even a significant one.
I 20 cannot give you an example, but it would be sensible for 21 as to do it.
22 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs You might require 23 inspection of equipment that involves a certain amount 24 of --
25 COHHISSIONER AHEARNEa Hadiation exposure.
l ALOERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, r
E
- e, m
3-
-veamie--+is 3e-geW
24 1
CON 5ISSIONER GILINSKY:
Radiation dose for 2 workers.
3 HR. STELL0s I can think of many that would 4 fit this in other than -- areas other than our 5 responsibilitys opening large coal lands to coal 6 mining, strip sining, opening off-shore drilling, where
- 7 there could clearly be a significant environmental 8 effect, but yet the overall benefit of the action is 9 clearly favorable but nevertheless it is a significant 10 effect on the environment.
11 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Actually, as I read the 12 Executive Order it doesn't really have anything to do 13 with the impacts on health, safety or environmental 14 areas.
15 ER. GRIMSLEYs I as trying to make the 16 judgment -- we were dealing with the Executive Order, we l'7 vere dealing with legislation coming down the pike, and 18 right on the heels of publishing this, and I guess it is 19 really our judgment as to what was important for this 20 agency, and we vill accept the recommendations as to the 21 expansion and limit of the coverage.
22 NR. STELLO:
I might point out that if you 23 look at the intent of what we were going to use it for, 24 the standard is such further reduced than you would 25 deduce from reading this broad language.
I do think it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
~
25 1 is important that whatever we adopt, to the extent the 2 Cosaission. has indicated it would voluntarily comply, 3 that the structure ought to show that compliance in 4 addition to the other things that I believe we ought to 5 do as well.
6 HR. GRIMSLEY:
Did you have any'further 7 questions on coverage?
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Let me ask you 9 so me thing.
These cost / benefit statements, if 10 interpreted broadly enough, will encompass every. thing.
11 In other words, you quantify the safety benefits and all 12 the costs.
Did you take that broad a view of it or did 13 you regard this as a supplementary statement which tries 1-4 to list the monetary. costs or the quantifiable costs as 15 vell as they can be listed?
16 ER. GRINSLEY:
I would like to make two points l'7 on that.
Yes, we think that any cost / benefit analysis l
18 should be in addition to monetary --
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Should be what?
20 HR. GRIHSLEIa Should be not only monetary 21 cost's and benefits but also the costs of safety-related 22 costs and benefits associa ted with the rule.
The second 23 point is we wrestled quite a long time with the probles 24 of how much is enough.
25 C05MISSIONER GILINSKY4
' Jell, before you get l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
26
'I to that, that is a staterent for how you compare costs 2 and benefits, but what you are saying, then, is the NRR 3 people or whoever ought to be sitting down and I
4 quantifyin the benefits of the various new regulations 5 in terms of dollars, ultimately.
Now, I think it is not l
6 doable in most cases, to tell you the truth,'except in a i
7 very mechanical way, assuming that certain models apply, 8 about which there is a great deal of uncertainty.
9 HR. STELL0s
'I recognize that there is a great to deal of judgment involved, but you already are doing 11 it.
If I as going' to pass or promulgate a new 12 regulatory guide on snubbers, I can make the judgment 13 -that if I-issue that guide, a not benefit to the plant 14 ' would be a higher q uality snubber, would require less 15 maintenance, less downtime, and have a not cost savings -
18 to. the utility which could be very, very significant. In 17. f act, that was included in the analysis that we just 18 looked at on that reg guide for snubbers where they made 19 the judgment that'there is the potential for a 20 significant cost savings to licensees by doing this job 21 better than it had been done in the past.
22 So admittedly there is an awful lot of 23 judgment, but 24 COEHISSIONER GILINSKY Have you included in 25 that the safety improvements?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
27 1
- 58. STELL0a Absolutely.
2 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYa In other words, the 3 reduced risk of a meltdown ultimately is what we are 4 talking about.
5 HR. STELL0s The increased reliability of 6 snubber performance, the not benefit.
7 C0HNISSIONER GILINSKYa How do you put a.
8 dollar figure on that, a dollar value?
9 HR. STELL0s Well, net I guess you get more in
- ~
~
10 terms of the safety benefit from it in terms of reduced 11 ri sk.
12 CdHNISSIONER GILINSKYm How do you quantify
- 13. that ?
14 -
HR. STELLO:
I don't know that we know how.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you have to quantify 16 that?
Yic, do you see --
i 17 COBBISSIONER GILINSKYa I don ' t' 'know.-
I an 18 trying to understand this process.
19 CHAIRMAN PALLADINoa They do say area for 20' improvement, cost of implementing the requirements 21 should be presented in detail and analyses with sources 22 of cost data identified, methodologies for deriving 23 estimates of costs and benefits described.
24 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY:
I do think that where 25 va understand things and can quantify them, like ALDERSON REPORT:NG COMPANY, INC,
28 1
probabilistic risk assessment, whatever it is called, 2 yes, let's use the numbers.
But if you force a 3 quantative process on the decision-making process, which 4 really cannot support it, what ir going to happen in the 5 bureaucracy is people vill indeed write everything out 6 in the terms that you want them to and they will;put
[7 numbers in and the whole thing vill not mean anything. -
8 HR. STELLO Oh, no.
The drift of_your,..
9_ question seems to be we ought to suggest the bottom line 10 vill be we vill reduce everything to dollars.
11 CONHISSIONER GILINSKY4 That is what I thought 12 I was asking.
That is what I thought I got as an answer.
13 NR. STELlo No, no, no.
But to the extent 14 that you can as a result of looking at a benefit get the 15 safety benefit / risk reduction, you can also get a cost 16 reduction, that this may in fact be cheaper, less 17 - expensive f or a licensee to do it the new-proposed var 18 than the way he has in the past.
I think that is an 19 important piece of informa tion to the decision-maker to 20 know that that is in fact the answer, to do this 21 particular activity.
Snubbers cost millions of dollars 22 to qualify them to do these kinds of things, but if I 23 can avoid a prolonged outage of even a few days because 24 I did it this var and continue to do it this way in the 25 future, the net result may be a significant savings even O
Al.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
29 1 in dollars in addition to risk.
2 I think that will at least weight heavily in a 3 dacision-makers aind as to vanting to agree that this is 4 a proper course of action.
But I do not.think that 5 there is any way that I see of reducing everything to a 6 single dollar cost and say, see, the dollars are plus or 7 minus.
No, I don't think we are anywhere near 8 sophisticated enough, now or in the near future, to 9 reduce everything we do to that kind of thinking.
10 CONHI'SSIONEB GILINSKYa Well, that makes; ne 11 feel a little better, but my hope is as.ve go along you 12 vill give some indication as to just how far-you: think 13 one can go.
14-HR. GHIMSLEYa Yes, I do address that-in: the 15 guidelines.
16 I would like to move on, if there are no l'7 further questions, to the actual contents 'of the 18 regulatory analysis on Vu-graph 5.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
30 1
(Slide.)
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINOs I do want to come back to 3 questions on this, because there are a number of 4 questions implied in what you say here.
You say 5 alternatives to the proposed action.
It is not clear 6 wh'at the level.of action is.
But I will come-back to 7 th a t.
8 HB. GRIBSLEYs We were trying to set up 9 basically what the contents of the analysis would be..
- : 10 We start out with essentially a statement of the 11 problem, which we feel should be well articulated, and.
12 whatever studies or analysis that have identified the 13 problem should be identified.'
-14 We also feel that at that point you should 15 indicate what would be the significance of not 16 addressing the problem.
He basically also feel that l'7 once you have identified the problem, you should 18 basically state your specific objectives.
These are 19 basically, hopefuly, a logical way of looking at the 20 problem.
21 Once the objectives have been identified, the 22 guidelines call for you to identify your siternatives.
23 We have spent a lot of time discussing -- this is 24 getting to.your essential question, you know, to what 25 extent should alternatives be considered?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, n -
~
- /x -mm m
mm m
31 1
Our basic feeling is that alternatives should 2 be considered if you have a reasonable alternative that 3 you know about that has a reasonable potential for 4 meeting your objectives.
5 The next -- Once we get the consequences, when 6 the big questions come in, to what extent do we assess
~
7 cost and benefits, to what extent should they be 8 quantified.
And you know, you cannot get away from the
~
9 fact that you have got to leave a lot of these questions 10 to the judgment of the responsible program director and 11 the professional Staff.
12 At a miniaua, we feel that as we talk about 13 costs and benefits, that if you can quantify, you should 16 quantify.
If you can transfer, if you can get a 15 monetary cost on it, you should.
But we recognize that 16 some benefits just have to be described in a qualitative 17 fashion.
18 CORNISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you say you can 19 and should, I share Commissioner Gilinsky's concerna if 20 rou tell someone that if they can get some quantitative 21 descriptions, they should, there are people who will 12 then give you quantitative descriptions that might not 23 be worth very much, but you will get a quantitative 24 description.
25 There has to be pretty good judgment placed on ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
.., _. - _...-_ __-._._-__..,.. _ -._-._ ~ _ _ _.-_-_.
32 1 vhat you can quantity and what you cannot and how 2 confident and reasonable are you in coming up with 3 that.
4 HR. GRIESLEYs There is further effort being 5 devoted to these steps.
6 MB. STELL0s The Commission bed asked in its 7 comments on the charter for CRGR to look at
-8 consolidating that particular activity.
The-EDO has 9 - asked NRR to look into this issue, and that.is where 10 those resources come from that you raised earlier on 11 contractor people, to become much more systemized about 12 trying to look into that question so that there vill be-13 an island of expertise that will become acquainted with 14 the reach of such questions and not try to go beyond 15 where one reasonably ought to.
16 I think what the NRR is going to come back I'7 with, I believe about June 1st.with some answers, but l
l 18 that is where I would look to getting the kind of 19 standardized responses and reasonableness in dealing i
20 with the issues.
21 You are right, if you let everyone in the 22 agency be responsible for trying to deal with the dollar 23 issue, I think you are going to get an awful lot of 24 answers that will not be very useful.
But I think if it 25 is coordinated into a particular group, you have a much ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
33 1 higher probability of being successful in getting useful 2 information.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE At least you have a 4 smaller number of people that you have to tell to stop 5 doing that.
6.
MR. STELL0s I think experience vill help a 7 great deal.
8.
CORNISSIONER GILINSKY Who are these decision makers we are talking about?
10 HR. STELL0s Well, I would start with the 11 Commission.
12
( Laught er. )
13.
H.R. STELLO:
The Qommission itself, in 1<4 deciding to promulgate new requirements, rules, 15 regulations, whatever, and then continuing to go on 16 th rough the Staff, the EDO.
17 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs What level do you 18 expect this stuff to get used up?
i 19 HR. STELL0s Proposals that leave program 20 offices that go through the decision-making process 21 beyond the program offices, as a minimum.
I would think 22 if the decision is made by program offices to even 23 condition themselves into this thinking wo uld be 24 helpful.
25 CCHNISSIONER GILINSKY What would be the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
34 1 procedure for doing this process?
Is that the $100 2 million and all that?
3 HR. STELL0s The letter that is in the 4 Commission paper basically says all of these kinds of 5 things which would be subject to CRGR review would have 6 at least a shot at doing this kind of work, recognizing 7 reasonablaness coming into play with them.
-But it is a
- 8.. definition for the kind of requirements that involve
~:-.
9 coming up f roi the.. CRGR - review.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINot Well, Vic, we have a lot'
~
11 of different means by which we communicate requirements 12 to licensees.
Will all'of these, such as: reg guides, 13 letters, and the like --
- ~._
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa I though t that was one 15 of the requirements.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s No.
In the 17 implementation letter it says we are going to do 18 everything, is the way I read it.
And I am not clear 19 that you are.
Is that the intent?
20 HR. STELL0s In CRGB they are specifically 21 culled out as issues by CHGR bef. ore they would be 22 issued.
23 CHAIHMAN PALLADIN0s So all the vehicles that 24 we now are using for proposing requirements on licensees 25 will go through value impact analysis?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
35 1
HR. STELL0s I an always afraid to answer any 2 question that starts with "all."
Essentially --
3 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO I am willing to modify 4 "all" to a point where you can answer it.
5 HR. STELL0s You recognize that there are 6 interpretations that are made by project managers and l
7 reviewers that need to be controlled by other 8-processes.
Putting those aside, then all of.the pieces-9 of paper that are issued by.the agency that will 10 prom ulgate requirements outlined in CRGR generic, those -
11 vill.
But if it is case by case, which is the exception 12 to "all," we are on a particular case that there is a 13 single isolated decision being made, those vould not be 14 required by CRGR.
15 Now the EDO or an office director could ask 16 for it.
But if it were individual decisions on l'7 individual cases, they would not be covered.
That is 18 the one exception to the "all" that I can think of.
19 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO2 An individual case that 20 calls out a NUREG7 21 NR. STELlos The NUREG vould have been 22 subjected to the review.
There vill be no more NUREGs 23 with requirements.
But let us assume it is a reg 24 guide --
25 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO:
Well, but what happens is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, m __, _.__,.. _. _.
36 1 a NUREG gets issued and then there is a letter written 2 that tells them, "Use it."
3 MR. STELL0s That. vould come bef ore CRGR.
1 4
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That would?
5 MR. STELL0a Yes.
6 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
And would there be a 7 cost-benefit or a value ' impact analysis made-then?.
8-NR. STELL0s Yes.
It is intending. -that-it 9 vill be.
But.you recognize there are many, many 10 activities that are ongoing and have been ongoing -
11 through the process in which this kind of analyses may 12 not be available.
We vill grow into it eventually, but 13 I would not propose to all of a sudden make.this a 14 mandatory requirement and say that every action that was.
- 15. pending ought to come to a screeching halt but rather to 16 grow into it in time.
I'7 CONNISSIONER GILINSKY In effect,.you are 18 saying you are going to require an environmental impact 19 statement for every proposed requirement, sort of an 20 internal environmental impact statement. _ Well,. I mean 21 the core of an environmental 1-upact statement is a
~~
22 cost-benefit analysis.
In the review of alternatives, 23 that is not the basic idea.
24 HR. STELLO:
Well, environmental impact is --
25 rou say it is the basic idea, but the connotation of an ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
I 37 1 environmental impact statement is auch broader in its 2 context than we are discussing here.
It is much more 3 formal.
It has much more formality in the review of the 4 comment.
5 CONHISSIONEB GILINSKY That is why I said an 6 internal one.
7 MR. STELL0s An internal limited.
8-CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa When we have been 9 required to do these thinga,.we.have regarded-this as 10 fairly onerous, something that takes a lot of' time, 11 holds us up, et cetera, et cetera.
I hope that the 12 intent in this process is not to develop an overly 13 elaborate process.
14 CHAIRNAN PALLADIN0s That is why I as trying--
15 to understand, and I think you are, too, this draft, the 16 enclosure calls it a draf t implementation letter,. but it 17 happens to be dated and signed.
But let me read from 18 the middla paragraph on the first page.
19 "The evaluation shall accompany all rulemaking 20 actions which do not meet the threshold criteria for 21 performing the regulatory analysis and other generic 22 requirements that are submitted for review to the 23 committee to review generic requirements or to the 24 deputy executive director for operations or for decision 25 by the executive director for operations or the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
, ~.. _
38 1 Commission."
2 It says -- that seems to cover everything that 3 anybody makes a decision on at these levels.
4 MR. STELLO:
That are generic in nature.
But 5 you notice it does not include case-specific decisions:
6 that are made.
Those are what I said are the-7 exceptiond.
That is why I answered your question the 8 var I did and said tha t the "all," if I can put that 9 exception into it, on individual cases, then-the: answer 10 is yes.
That is why I suggested that this particular.
=
11 standard is a much lower threshold standard than-that 12 contained in the executive order itself.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s So we are not-going by
~14. these criteria that you gave on vuegraph 3?
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs That is regulatory 16 analysis.
That is this paragraph.
1'7 CHAIRMAN P ALLADINot What is this we are 18 talking about?
19 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is other.
20 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN0s To assess at other 21 rulemaking actions and othar ger2ric requirements are 22 also supported by thorough analysis in evaluation of the 23 action being proposed that addresses the topics set 24 forth, such as 3(b) of the guidelines, must be 25 prepared.
That is basically -- is that not our value l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
39 1 impact analysis?
2 NR. STELL0s Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE:
My point was that when 4 you are comparing it to what is in ' regulatory analysis 5 required, that is this paragraph.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN04 Well, I as not sure tha t 7 ve do not have a problem with semantics. ' Regulatory 8 analysis, as I can see it, from the executive order, is 9~ basically value impact.
10 ~
HR. STELL0s Yes.
11 NR. GRIHSLEY:
The same process is followed, 12 except there is now more flexibility intended in 13 reducing this threshold.
As I have already indicated, i
14 there are a number of issues that are going. forward:
15 which will not be able to comply with all these.
16 Clearly, the intent is not to bring this to a screeching 17 halt, the whole process.
18 COMMISSIC1ER GILINSKY:
It looks that way a 19 little bit.
20 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
When I have looked 21 at the process, the process was overwhelming.
At least 22 it seems like to me.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you, is 24 this in force?
Is this proposed to go in force?
l l
25 NB. STELLO:
It is not in force yet.
l l
I l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, i
40 1
COHHISSIONER GILINSKYa Has it been approved?
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s Is this letter a draft?
3 HR. STELLO It has not been issued.
4 HR. GRIESLEYa We have delayed implementation 5 pending this review.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0a It is confusing.
It is-7 signed, and it is dated.
8 CONHISSIONER AHEARNEa It has not been 9 issued?
10 HR. GRIHSLEYa That is correct.'
I think I 11 have to acknowledge a mistake.
I had the letter 12 draf ted.
I included it in the package, and I think. Hr..
13 Dircks, in fact, signed it.
And I was surprised.it had.
14 been signed.
It was supposed to show him what --
15 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY:
You did not expect him 16 - to have that auch f aith in you.
17 (Laughter.)
18 HR. GRIHSLEY:
Possibly.
19 COHHISSIONER AHEARNEs I was going to raise 20 the point that he had already -- we had a Chilk meno on 21 behalf of the Commission telling him not to implement it 22 until they.had briefed the Commission.
23 HR. STELL0s It has not been issued.
24 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO Why was it not stamped 25 draft at the beginning?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
~.
41 1
ER. STELLO:
It should not have been signed 2 and dated.
And that is the error Downey is talking 3 about.
It was to be included in the package as a letter 4 that would be sent.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
But it would also
- 6. help if it were stamped draft.
7 CORRISSIONER GILINSKY:
I may be taking this 8 out of order, but have these guidelines passed through'
~
9 the people who will have to apply them?
1(T HR. STELLO:
At least twice.
~~~
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Can you'tell us a 12 little bit about the reaction?
13 ER. STELLO:
They are in agreement with what 144 is here today now.
The earlier drafts went further than
-15 ve would propose to go today.
And to characterize 16 COHNISSIONEB GILINSKY:
I think it would have 17 been helpful to have some of the -- I guess the appliers 18 of this here.
19 CHAIHHAN PALLADINO:
A little bit like the 20 analysis of comments from parties.
21 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY That is right.
22 MB. STELLO:
The represen'tstives f rom each of 23 the offices are here.
Where is the task force?
24 HR. BENICK:
Most of them.
25 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY:
I certainly would like l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
42 l
1 to hear from some of them.
2 HR. STELLO:
To the extent 3
HR. GRIMSLEY:
I have analysis of those 4 comments in my briefcase as they came in.
And we 5 responded to them in about 15-16 pages.
6 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Do you remember enough of 7 it to give us a feel?
78 NB. GRIHSLEY:
The basic issues were the 0 questions you tra raising now, you knova what is the 10 extent to which we identify alternatives and whether 11 altcrnatives are really major regulatory approaches or
12 minor variations.
13 The other central issue is as to what extent-14 ve do cost-benefit and what that means.
We say three 15 ' times in the guidelines that the extent of an analysis.
16 should be in proportion to the judged impact.
You know, l'7 trying to say use common sense is a difficult task in 18 words.
But our goal, as we tried to reconcile all the 19 comments was to set up a process by which the senior 20 managers of an agency did, in f act, get a thorough 21 evaluation of the proposed actions so that they will 22 know what was involved'in the decision and the 23 implications of adopting that proposal.
l 24 Also, we wanted to make --
l l
25 CONHISSIONER GILINSKY I guess one of the l
l
%LDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
43 I things I would like to know is will they view this 2 process as so onerous, I suppose, that they will just 3 throw up their hands and not send anything forward, or 4 do they regard this.as a reasonable, common-sense 5 approach which is doable and reasonable?
6 HR. GRIHSLEY:
We had extensive conversations 7 with the senior staff within the various offices and 8 especially within NRR alast daily within the last month ~
9 trying to, you hnov, look at this in light of the 10 process and the burden and the staff resources in trying.
11 to lay out, you know, a process and a guidance that-12 would be adequate for them to implement.
13 We recognize and we felt that an office 14 director has to use a great deal of judgment any time he 15 does --
16 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY Let us go back.to your l'7 basic points about alternatives.
Sure, one wants to 18 look at the important alternatives.
Have we not been 19 doing that in considering safety requirements?
In fact, 20 I thought that we were, that we did state. requirements 21 in a general way so that there would be various possible 22 vars of meeting them.
23 HR. STELL0s I think for the most part, the l
24 answer would be no.
For the most part, it is no.
We 25 have in a number of instances, looked at alternatives, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
44 1 but I think the bulk, at least my recollection, is at 2 least the bulk of the times I think the answer is no, we 3 do it much --
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Could you give me an 5 example so I as sure we are talking about the same sort 6 of thing?
7.
MR. STELLO:
I think if I were to take one 8 sweeping thing, I would take the Task Action _ Plan-and 9 all of the requirements embodied in there, and I would 10: say that I do not think I can recall any of those.for 11 which various alternatives were stacked up.
12 CHAIRNAN PALLADIN0s How about something like 13 vater level indication where some of the vendors
-14 proposed, we are okay now; some of them proposed--one 15 thing; and others proposed another.
Are those all
-16 viable alternatives?
I'7 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where is the 18 alternative?
Would you be proposing an alternative to 19 vr.ter level indicator or alternative ways of getting 20 inventory and water level, or what?
What are we trying 21 to do?
22 HB. STELLO:
Depending upon the activity, 23 both.
An alternative, a completely alternative new way 24 to solve the problem.
I 25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask you this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
45 1 va y.
I an using it as an example.
What is that we did 2 not do that we might do under this process?
3 HR. STELL0s In considering the requirement 4 that thou shalt have a water level instrument, that is 5 basically what the Commission concluded in the Task 6 Action Plan.
To the best of my recollection, it did not 7 - include alternatives to requiring water level 8 instruments.
In the implementation of that requirement, 9 various utilities have. proposed different ways to 10 measure water level.
But when the Commission decided in i
11 the Task Action Plan, my recollection is thou shalt have 12 one.
13 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs In fact, they.do not 14 strictly level -- at least some have water level, so in 15 a sense they are alternatives.
16 HR. STELL0s Nevertheless, it was alternate l'7 vars to measure water level where the requirement was 18 vater level.
The alternates that would be considered 19 would be certainly putting it in or not putting it in or 20 is there another way to accomplish getting that kind of 21 information other than water level; inadequate core l
22 cooling.
You put in subcooled meters, we did, which was 23 part of that process.
And then we all take it back l
l 24 together, which I think we are doing now more after the 25 fact than looking at how to get there.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
~
06 1
But if you go down to Task Action Plan item, I 2 did not see, as you get in a Commission paper, typically 3 various alternatives that are being proposed for the 4 Commission's consideration.
There might be three or 5 four alternatives.
And historically in Commission 6 papers --
7 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs I thought ve:do.
~8 HR. STELL0s Some of then you do.
I am not.
9 saying you do not.
-10 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa I think we do.
11 HR. STELLO:
I was making a judgment.
The 12 judgment was that you do it more often than not.
My 13 recollection, my memory says to me that we do not do it 14: more than 50 percent of the time; we do it less than 50 15 percent of the time -- that is, consider alternatives.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEABNE:
Hy impression would be 17 -- and obviously, it is a more restricted ~ history -- is l
18 that on major issues we consider alternatives, on minor 19 ones we do not, and the area ve have done poorly on is l
20 the cost side of the cost-benefit.
But I think that on l
21 major issues --
22 CONNISSIONER GILINSKYa I think that is about 23 right.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Looking at things like 25 your checklist that goes on for several pages, you hav e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
47 1 to do this for each alternative, do I understand right, 2 for each alternative regulatory action being 3 considered?
Would I do this for NUREGs or only for 4 rules?
5 BR. GRIMSLEY:
Chairman Palladino, we felt 6 that ca-thing that the value impact statement had not 7 routinely included was looking very broadly in terms of 8 the impacts on other agencies' programs and licensee 9 operation.
And we felt that early on aarbe some 10 thinking trigger that would help the Staff sort of think 11 through what might be a related effect might be a useful 12 tool.
And that is, essentially, we think that that is 13 up to the discretion of the Staff if they feel like ther 14-are confident enough in knowing how their programs 15 affect others.
16 But we wanted to impress upon those who are 17 reading the guidelines that there were other. programs 18 wthin the the IRC that might be affected and other types l
19 of licensee operations.
It is really a discretionary 20 instrument.
21 CHAIRHAN PAL 1ADINO:
In other words, if I were 22 working at this level, I would not have to fill out this 23 checklist, I would not have to fill out a form that says 24 I considered the alternatives and here is what I got?
25 HR. GRIMSLEY:
That is strictly up to the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
48 1 Staff.
They would not have to show it unless somebody 2 asked for it, that you would have to use it.
We just, 3 felt that would be a useful tool in helping them think 4 chrough their problems.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO4 What is it that one does 6 that we do not do now or what have you added except
~7 exhorting them to do better?
-8 NR. GRINSLEY:
We actually specifically
+:
9 required that they look at the impacts on related NRC
~
10 ~ activities.
When they issue a safeguards rule, for 11 example, they should also look at.the implications on 12 thd radiological program.
If you closed the door for 13 safeguards purposes, you might have some problem with 1-4 your radiological energency plan.
~~
15 That type of a -- so it was just our general 16 impression and the judgment of the group that was 1'7 working that these things had not been thought about' 18 extensively through many of the value impact statements 19 for which we had experience and that we maybe should 20 specifically identify that as a concern in the 21 guidelines.
Some people do sometimes and some people do 22 not.
But we felt like it should be a specific issue.
23 COHNISSIONER GILINSKYs As a practical matter, 1
24 if you submit a checklist like this attached to a 25 memorandum from the executive director --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
49 1
HR. GRIBSLEY:
That would not accompany any of 2 the documents that go up.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY So where does this 4 go?
5 HR. GRIESLEYs We attached it because we felt 6 it would be a useful tool for the person actually --
7 CONHISSIONER GILINSKYa You have things here 8 like " indicate whether or not the alternative regulatory 9' ' action being considered will :have an impact on bilateral 10 or multilateral agreements between the U.S. and other 11-nations relative to nuclear trade imports or exports."
12 What does that mean?
13 BR. GRIHSLEYs Commissioner Gilinsky, our 1-4 purpose, basically was to help people think.
We felt 15 like at,least in the process of developing this there 16 were a lot of things that go on in the NRC that not all 17 of us are aware of, and we felt like if the Staff just 18 sort of had something they could just sort of read 19 thorugh, it would help the stimulate their questions 20 about whether they should be impacted if they were in 21 doubt and they think something should be impacted.
22 COHHISSIONER GILINSKYs As a practical matter, 23 someone who has a proposal on snubbers and wants to get 24 the thing through is going to go through the checklist 25 and try to perform the best possible to get the best ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
50 1
possible hearing.
They will go through all this stuff 2 and everybody is going to be churning out all this stuff 3 on interagency governmental agreements and U.S.
4 international a'greements and all kinds of other stuff 5 just like our poor licensees do to meet all kinds of 6 environmental statement requirements.
7 CHAIBRAN PALLADINO Harbe they are trying to.
.8 do it by example.
9-CONHISSIONEB GILINSKYa Yes, I guess I would 10 be inclined, my own approach would be, as I said, we 11 ought to be more sensitive to a lot of these costs and,.
12 where we have reasonable numbers, to factor them in.
By 13 example, if peple come up to your committee or elsewhere 14 and have lef t out important apsects of the analysis,-
l 15 then I am sure you will point this out to them, as you l
16 ought to, and send it back.
And I guess in time people 17 vill get the idea that, you know, we have'got to have 18 the basic elements of the decision in order to complete 19 the process.
20 But I as very leery of setting up a very 21 elaborate system or sort of a maze through which ther 22 h>.ve to pass in order to get to the decision point.
It 23 has that air about it.
It may be unfair, but I must say 24 that it comes across that way to me.
25 CHAIBRAN PALlADINO:
Let me put it a different ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
51 1
l 1 var.
Being askai to approve this, I am not sure what I 2 as approving or disapproving.
I do not know what it is 3 that is different now from what was before and whether 4 or not we get any improvement in cost or benefit 5 valuation.
Is it clevra to you?
If it is, I would 6 appreciate understanding what it is.
7-ER.'STELLO:
Well, clearly, the-issues that 8 are covered or are to be covered by it are now defined 9 rather precisely as those in the implementation letter 10 as to what they need to do, when you need to apply. it.
11 The document itself allows the people who c uould have to 12 prepare them, af ter having read the document, to at 13 least think acre completely about what it is that is to 14 he prepared.
15 But the bottom line, quite f rankly, is that 16 its management intention and the Commission's view of 1'7 the need to have these kinds of analyses prepared before 18 a decision is unde.
I think the strength of the 19 Commission's will to have that thought process completed 20 as part of making decirtons on its behalf is where I 21 think, if there is to be a significant change, it-will 1
22 he result of that Commission presence.
23 CHAIEHAN PALLADINO:
We said it in the PPG, 24 the EDO is now saying it here, and we could say, fine, 25 that is exactly what we want, except I do not know what l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
52 1 it is we are going to get.
Will this be developed as 2 you go through?
3 HR. STELLO:
You mean what we actually get in 4 terms of the value impact analysis?
I think that is 5 something that will grow with time.
6 CHAIRHAN PALLADIN04 So you are -not defining a
~
7 specific procedures you are giving some guidelines?
8 HR. STELLO:
Yes.
Just general guidelines on i
9 how it will evolve.
Time vill only tell us.
~
~
10 COHNISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would ask Forest to 11 take a look at this.
I am not sure how much time he has -
12 had to look at ite
~
13 HR. REHICKa Yes.
We had a couple of
~
14 comments.
Our assumption was that the regulatory
^
15 analysis guidelines were written to respond to the 16 executive order and proposed legislation.
And 17 therefore, under coverage, it says that a regulatory 18 analysis shall be prepared for each proposed rule and 19 final rule.
And that makes sense.
20 But the document itself, the purpose, 21 introduction, scope, and so forth, use terms like 22 proposed regulatory action, regulatory requirements, 23 which raises -- there are regulatory actions which are 24 not rules and there are regulatory requirements that are 25 not rules.
That raises a question.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
53 1
I think that what you intend is under coverage 2 proposed rule and final rule.
But elsewhere in the 3 guidelines it says assistance.
So that is one comment 4 ve have, that it leads to confusion as to whether you do 5 this just for rules or this broad.er question that has
- 6. come up that the chairman raised, the EDO by directive 7 is saying that for other things these guidelines.will 8 also be used.
9 That is fine in the general sense, but it 10 seems like the guidelines should be written to meet 11 strict --
12 HR. GRIMSLEY:
Strictly the executive order.
13 HR. REMICKa Tha t is a viewpoint that this 14 regulatory requirement confuses whether it is-rules or 15 not that you are speaking to.
16 Another point that we had is that in the 17 document you do talk about when you are comparir.g 18 alternatives that you would use constant dollars; in 19 other words, you would ignore inflation and you would 20 use a discount rate of 10 percent to bring back the 21 present value f or comparing alternatives.
That makes 22 sense.
23 CORHISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where is the 10 24 percent?
25 HR. REMICKs Page 4 Discount rate, interest ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
54 1
rate.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that for 3 inflation?
4 HR. REMICK:
It says to ignore inflation.
So 5 it would be --
6 CONHISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is going to be 7 interesting in a month or. tvo.
8
( Laughter. )
9 HR. REHICK:
At least that approach I think 10 makes sense for comparing alternatives to bring then 11 back so that you can compare them.
But not addressed is 12 the question of what do you do about the threshold of 13 $100 million, something that might not meet the 14 -threshold this year might 2 or 3 years down the road if 15 your costs that you used are inflated.
If you do not 1S address in determining whether you meet the threshold of I'7 $100,000 that you would use constant dollars or not, it 18 would seem to me that you might want to address that.
i 19 In other words, you might want to use -- if the $100 20 million is going to be constant in time, perhaps the 21 Commission would want that the costs be in 1982 22 dollars.
Otherwise --
l 23 CORMISSIONER GILINSKY:
$100 million, you I
24 sean?
25 HR. REMICKa
$100 million, yes.
Otherwise, l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
- _,.-__. n m
--. m.
55 P
1 things that would not meet the threshold now night in a 2 few years.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But since this was in the 4 executive order and the $100 million was also in the 5 executive order, would you not imply that they are 6 connected?
7 NR. RENICK The $100 million, therefore, you 8 cannot do anything with.
Maybe you can inflate it 9 Decause you are given $100 million without explanation.
10 But it seems to me if the Commission could decide in 11 implementing this when you are comparing costs, that you 12 would compare it to 1982 dollars.
As it is now, it ' is 13 not explained.
So it would have some pertinence in 1-4 looking at costs down the road in helping people to:
15 implement it.
16 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY:
I am sorry, did you l
17 have somothing further?
18 RR. RENICK:
One other minor thing.
On page 3 19 of the document you talk about the extent to which costs 20 and benefits should be assessed or alternative is to be 21 determined by the responsible progran director.
I am 22 not sure I heard office director and program director.
l 23 I am not that f amiliar whether you are using i
24 them interchangesbly.
If you are, I would have 25 suggested office director so that you would have some i
s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
56 i
1 consistency.
You probably have more program directors 2 than you do office directors.
Therefore, you might get, 3 if you had a lot of people determining how to assess the 4 alternatives, what you would get for the comments would 5 be inconsistent.
6 So it would seem that fewer people determining 7
8 HR. REHICKa Page 3 of the guidelines, I
~
- 9. believe it is.
Ihe guidelines.themselves, the-first 10 paragraph, last sentence.
11 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYs Does that. complete --
12 HR. REHICKa One other thing.
That is, I got 13 a chance to scan the executive order.
At the end it.
-14 talks about what you do in energencies.
There is no 15 mention in here.
Suppose you had an emergency.and you 16 vanted a rule to be handled.
There is no mention of the I'7 f act under the exigencies of what you would do.
18 COHHISSIONER GILINSKY:
Hake it an order.
19 HR. REHICKs The executive order says you 20 could proceed under certain circumstancos.
21 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Len has a way of doing 22 th a t.
23 I would like to make a brief comment on the 24 checlist approach.
You said the checklist was not part 25 of the process it was not attached to the document.
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, I
m m
---m
1 57 1 was just reading the May 7th letter.
At the bottom of 2 page 1 it says "A checklist approach is recommended for 3 use by the Staff for identifying the effects of 4 alternative regulatory actions and other NBC programs, 5 licensee operations and other activities.
A sample 6 checklist is enclosed with the guideline as well as a 7 list of effet.ts that illustrate consequences-that could 8 result in a cost or benefit."
9 Now, if this thing goes along with a, letter 10 from Mr. Dircks, everyone will assume that that. is what 11 they are supposed to dos fill out the checklist.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
58 1
HR. GRIHSLEY:
Well, I guess it is a matter of 2 how you perceive it.
Our goal was to try to impress 3 upon the staff that they were to think broadly about 4 impacts and to fully understand the types of things that 5 were -- they really were just trying to be illustrative l
6 of the kinds of things we are talking about, because the 7 NRC does have a lot of different staffs that work in _
8 limited areas in terms of knowledge, which we would be 9 open to racossendations as to how t'o be handling that.
10 CONHISSIONER AHEARNE:
Forrest, after having --
11 read through it, what is your conclusion if you were the 12 staff receiving it?
Would you think it would be 13 understood as to what they should do?
i 14 (Pause.)
15 ER. REMICK:
Well, yes and no.
I must admit 16 that I was confused and had to read several times what i
17 this applied to, and finally came to the conclusion, 18 especially after looking at the vuoraph, at the word 19 " major rule" and what the major rule was and so forth.
20 NY first reading of it, it seemed to se that the 21 guidelines were to apply to other than rules, but I 22 finally sorted it out, so I think in time the staff 23 would undarstand that.
24 COHNISSIONER GILINSKY:
Would they understand 25 what they had not done before and what they were ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
59 1 supposed to do in addition now?
2 MB. REMICKa There are some words in there 3 about considering alternatives that you had in the past, 4 for exsaple, the alternative of doing nothing is one 5 that specifically now you say they should address.
Then 8 I assume that was a direction they had not had in the 7 past.
I interpreted there were several things about 8 alternatives that you would now consider that had not 9 been considered in the past.
That came out to me rather 10 strong.
11 MR. GRIMSLEY:
The existing guidelines were 12 not directive in nature.
They were sort of 13 illustrative.
14 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Isn't the alternative 15 of doing nothing always implicitly there, whether or not 18 you consider it?
17 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Not always.
18 MR. GBIMSLEYa That is what I had thought, and 19 a lot of people have commented that it wasn't, so we 20 certainly say that you should indicate the significance 21 of taking no action.
22 MR. BEMICKs Especially of benefit / cost.
The 23 alternative of not doing anything night be there, but --
i i
i 24 COMMISSIONER GILIMSKYa Don't you simply 25 remove the benefits and the costs of whatever it is you l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
. Ci3 VMCID AS 9.W W$HGT@N, @.@. FETE 4 Ei) 693 MU3 s
60 1 were going to do?
And doesn't that get you back to 2 nothing?
3 MR. REMICK:
There are benefit costs of not 4 doing anything.
5 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
In the case of the water 6 level indication, there is a proposal that says all you 7 have to do is measure pressure and temperature, and we 8 do that already.
Therefore, we give you everything you 9 vant, and there is no cost.
It is basically a no change 10 iten.
But the way we worded our instructions implied 11 that thera was some other instrumentation we wanted, but 12 one could argue that the status quo on instrumentation 13 is satisfactory.
I am not saying that it is.
I am 14~ -sa ying one could argue that.
15-NR. REMICKa Another thi,ng that was a little 16 confusing to us in trying to implement was incorporating 17 the Paper Reduction Act and the Regulatory Flexibility 18 Act.
After thinking about that, I could see, well, it 19 is wise, since those are requirements, to keep those in 20 mind when you are doing this, but I aust admit when 21 reading it through it, not only myself but several other l
l 22 people in the office, we were not quite sure where that 23 fit in, and wondered if under the purpose or something 24 that you would have some statement that you were l
25 incorporating these other requirements in the list for l
l l
ALDERSON REpoKTING COMPANY,INC, CSS VIR$1NIA AM2
@.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
61 1 consistency.
We thought just a sentence or two would 2 help-paople know why all of a sudden one sentence in the 3 aiddle of a paragraph, the paragraph itself is fine, but 4 it does cause some difficult; in understanding how this 5 thing all fits together.
6 So to go back to Commissioner Ahearne's 7 question, I think the general guidance I would answer 8 yes.
I would have some specific questions about how dc.
~
9 I enter the $100 million threshold for a cost four years -
10 down the road.
What do I compare it with?
Some things 11 like that, there are specific questions.
But all-in 12 all, I felt that after going through it a couple of.
13 times, it gave general guidance.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But as far-as:you 15 mentioned rules, one of the questions the task force was 16 to address was whether they applied to the major rule, 17 that is not defined, or to all substantive rules.
Did~
18 rou get any clarity on this point?
19 HR. BENICK:
I interpreted that major rules, 20 and I get this partially from the executive order, are 21 the ones under coverage, which are A, B, and -C.
That is 22 a major rule.
If it costs over $100 million, the impact 23 is over $100 million.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADIN0s I don't look at the 25 executive order except for guidance that might be used ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_ _. 073 NC3CID An 0.w., w@c@Tqr), o.C. g4 (a ss4-234s. _
62 1 by the task f orca in conf ng out with what they want.
l 2 One of the questions the task force was specifically 3 asked to address was, does this apply tc major rules 4 only or to all substantive rules, and I am not sure what 5 those meant, but I assume the task force must have 6 addressed them.
7 MR. GRIESLEY:
M r. Chairman, when we state -
8 that ine guidelines are consistent with the executive.
9 order, we felt we were addressing that the coverage to would be the same as major rules under the executive 11 order, because that is the coverage of the executive 12 order.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINos How do you define --
14 ER. GRIESLEY:
I did not know myself when I 15 read the guidance as to what a substantiva rule is.
16 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
I don't either, but it 17 was in the charge to the task force.
18 MR. GRIMSLEY:
What we did do is make the 19 decisions that the guidelines would apply to the same 20 rules as the executive order, and that Mr. Dircks, the 21 EDO, would further expand the guidance to the staff to 22 use those guidelines and assist them to do a generic 23 evaluation of other requirements.
24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It says specifically the 25 task group will review e xis tin g valua impset procedures ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
63 1 and draft for EDO issuance revised guidelines that are 2 concise, coherent, and useful to the staff.
The review 3 will, and then it goes down here, incorporate NBC staff 4 experience with value impact analysis and regulatory 5 flexibility analysis as well as any elements of 6 Executive Order 12-291 that would be appropriate,-
7' including consideration of whether the NBC will apply 8 value impact analysis only to " major" rules, define the.
9 order, and continue to hpply them to a wide range of-10 rulemakings, as well as to all " substantive" rules. - Did :
11 You address this question?
12 HR. GRIBSLEY:
Yes, sir.
The coverage of the 13 executive order is ma jor rules, which is essentially the -
14 'same definition that we have coverage of the 15 guidelines.
The criteria is basically the same.
In 18 looking at all other rules and generic requirements, the 17 decision was made that at least the contents guidance of 18 the guidelines would be applicable to any other generic 19 requirement, including any rule that would not meet the 20 threshold would be covered through Mr. Dircks' 21 implementing directive.
22 COMMISSIONEB AHEABNE:
Is there any difference 23 between the type of analysis that you would end up 24 expecting to be done for these that do not meet the 25 threshold and other that do?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
KGFD M7/k %X1-TsX9
60 1
MR. GRIMSLEYa We felt that the level of 2 detail and that those that met the threshold of course 3 would be fairly broad in detailed analysis and tha t 4 those underneath would be much more discretion of those 5 that were lesser.
There would be such more discretion 6 in teras of the axtent of the analysis, mainly because
- 7. one of the thresholds that judged impacts was likely to 8 vary considerably, and that auch more discretion would g have to be used at the staff level in terms of deciding
-10 what type of analysis, and the format b&sically would be 11 the same.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEAREE:
But one reads the 13 letter, the Dircks letter.
I have difficulty seeing in 14 that that there would be any real distinction between 15 the types of analysis that would be performed.
16 MR. GRIMSLEY:
The difference would be to the 17 extent of detail.
I have to admit this issue came up 18 time and time again, trying to cope with the problem of i
19 how to handle large rules, small rules, medium rules, 20 and the best judgment we could come up with was that l
l 21 there has to be a professional managerial judgment that 22 it should be in proportion to the likely impact.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Could that have been 24 said more succinctly without all this guidelining?
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs My question has just ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, cis MIMfCmo 6 RR KGF0 6
65 1 been, Vic, my ccncern was, what I see here is that you 2 have -- here is regulatory analysis.
There are three 3 criteria which we discussed earlier, and I concluded 4 that particularly because I think annual means yearly, 5 that it basically -- the criteria you end up with is e going to be a substantial increase in the cost of 7 prices, individuals, non-profit organizations,; local 8._ governments, and geographical regions, and I am not sure.
9 how one characterizes substantial increase, but.I guess
- 10. this is strictly a judgment call on that.
That.is what 11 a full regulatory analysis is going to be done for.
In 12 the next one it says, everything else.
13 I agree, it only refers to Section 3B, but
_7 14 Section 3B is the contents and format of a regulator.y 15 analysis, so I read it as though it says essentially for -
16 everything you do in regulatory analysis.
17 ER. GRINSlEY:
That was a judgment that we 18 made to split them out that way in order to try to get 19 the consistency with the executive order.
It was a 20 judgment we made.
There have been earlier drafts where 21 everything was included, and it just came down to a 22 judgment as to how you actually format to assure that 23 all things got a thorough evaluation, but yet in the 24 very large ites for which natione.1 policy reflects a 25 very brosi and in-depth analysis, how do you emphasize ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
66 1 the detail of that item?
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa Notice, by the way, 3 that we are talking about environmental statements.
You 4 do have environmental impacts, change in water quality, 5 change in air quslity, but I want to make another point, 6 if you are through, John.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEs Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
On'Page 4,
you-talk 9 about costs, benefits, and also identifying-the classes 10 of persons or organizations who receive them..These - --
11 could include licensees
- vendors, licensees' suppliers, 12 and contractors, the NRC staff, federal, state, or local 13 governments, or small business establishments and other 1ar small entities.
Any effects on geographical regions 15 should also be identified.
16 Now, what is the purpose here?
17 MR. GRIMSLEY:
Well, one of those is one of 18 the requirements in the guidelines in the executive 1g order in terms of identification of those --
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKYa They are not 21 requirements.
22 MR. GRIMSlEY:
That's true.
The guidance 23 there in the attachment to the executive order is a 24 regulatory analysis done --
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Isn't that order ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. WC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
67 1 directed primarily toward economic regulation?
I am a 1
2 little concerned when we start talking about -- you 3 know, it is one thing to say that we ought to try and
)
4 understani that when we pass a rule, it has impacts.
We 5 can't ignore that.
It isn't just how many people have 6 worked on it here.
It may cost millions, many millions 7 of dollars outside the agency.
But if we are starting' 8-to get down to kind of a fine grained analysis and 9~ worrying about whether it affects small business or does 10 not affect small business, I worry about our safet~y'~
~
~
11 engineers sitting down and doing the seismic analysis 12 and whatever, and bearing this load of whether the costs 13 will be equitably distributed around the countryk and so 14 on and so forth.
15 I think there is a lot of overkill'here, is my 16 frank view.
The idea is a good idea, and I thought we 17 vere attempting to carry it out, and if there were ways 18 we could improve it, fine, let's do that, of trying to 19 better understand the impacts of our decisions, but it 20 is an idea that can be carried too far, too, and that is 21 sy reaction.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I wonder if I could ask a 23 series of questions.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Sure.
25 CHAIBHAN PALLADINO:
As I understand this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
_ 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON._D.C. 20024__(202) 554-2345
68 1 proposal so far, we are going to make the value impact 2 on, I guess you call it regulatory actions, and we are 3 going to expand it to include everything else that goes 4 through generic requirements review committee, that we --
5 ER. STELL0s That is not the same.- What has 6 to go through the Committee versus what has to: meet the 7 full regulatory impact analysis are not the same. thing.
8 You have relatively --
9 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
They sound.the same to me.
10 HR. STELL0s Okay.
11 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
I didn ' t see the 12 difference.
Now, if I misunderstood, it is important 13 that I be corrected.
14 HR. STELLO:
I think it is pretty important 15 that the flexibility, the pattern, the analysis 16 consistent with the issue that you are looking at, if 17 you are looking at an issue which has an impact of $100 18 per plant, and that is the issue, then you clearly are 1g going to do all of these things.
It is a consistency 20 between what is being required, I think, as Commissioner 21 Gilinsky pointed out, if every analysis that were done 22 had to have all of these things.
23 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
I will put my caveat in 24 there.
I will accept your point that judgment can be 25 used on a lower threshold item.
Okay.
Well, it is not ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
69 1 clear at what point in time these things will be done.
i 2 Are they going to be done before they come to the CRGR7 3 Will you direct them to do them, or will it come af ter --
4 MR. STELLO:
It will have to be assimilated 5 into the process because of all of the various 6 requirements that are already a part of the process, to
- 7. not impose that and say no more will come unless it-has 8 all of this information.
It will have to grow with the 9-process, and there is no way that I can see that you can 10 find a date to say everything beyond such-a date you 11 have to do all of this.
I think that would be imprudent.
12-CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
From my assessment up to 13 this point where you are saying we are really going to:
14-do what we already said we were going to do, with 15 perhaps the addition on the regulatory actions proposed 16 by the Vice President, why do we need additional 17 resources?
18 HR. STELLO:
Additional resources we mentioned 19 in the paper would come about for generating the cost 20 evaluating group through --
21 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Primarily for that?
22 HR. STELLO:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
It is not clear where the 24 increased resource requirements are to come f rom.
What 25 functions.
Has there been any attempt made to know what ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
70 1 functions they are going to come from?
2 HR. STELL0s ERB is doing it right now.
My 3 recollection is, some time early June they are supposed 4 to be answered.
The hope is that contractor help would 5 be used to get that kind of information rather than 6 staffing up with a lot of staff people to do. it.
7 CHAIREAN PALLADINO:
All right. - Now,.d o-X 8 conclude correctly that if I were to approve this,.I 9 would be approving basically the letter with the o.ther 10 guidelines being referred to for guidance?
11 HR. STELL0s That is correct.
12 CHAIRHAN PALLADIE0:
And would also be 13 approving reallo:stion of resources?
14 HR. STELLO:
We wouldn't approve.that yet
~ 15 because we don't know what tha t is yet.
16 CHAIRHAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Any other 17 questions?
I want to get one affirmation -point.
l 18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Not so much a 19 question.
I would send some cossents back, because I am 20 still uncomfortable with the guidelines as written, and 21 I would prefer to see some modification as to pick up 22 some of the points that were already made.
I would like 23 for us to have a few more days to provide some 24 comments.
I think the points he has made s1 ready are 25 useful, and from the perspective of doing a cost ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 P346
71 1 analysis, it is one that OPE has had for some time, so I 2 think it is important to get their comments.
3 Finally, I think I would like to comment, I as 4 reluctant to believe that NRR is the right place for a 5 cost analysis group, for two reasons.
First, there are 6 some of the major impacts that are not going to be 7 reactors.
For example, I would imagine many of the 8 major impacts we vill be looking at in the next couple 9 of years for rules will have to do with vaste.
10 f acilities, lov level vaste away f rom reretor-storage, 11 things like that.
12 Secondly, my history, my experience in doing'a 13 lot of cost analyses on weapons systems is.that the I'4 vorst people to do a cost analysis are the-advocates of
~
15 en action, if you want to get an objective cost analysis.
16 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay.
Len.
17 HR. BICKWITs I just wanted to make one 18 point.
This is not in criticism of the proposal, I 19 think.
You have made it consistent with the legislation 20 to the extent that it should be consistent with the 21 legislation, but in f act it is not completely consistent 22 with the legislation that has passed the Senate, in that 23 major rules, if that legislation becomes law, will be 24 defined to some degree by the President, and the 25 proposal sould leave the determination as to whether the i
ALDERSoN REPofmHG COMPANY,INC,
)
._400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024j202) 554 2348
72 1 criteria for major rules are met to the agency itself.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO Any other comments on 3 this subject?
4 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I would like to make a 6 comment before we adjourn.
I am going to. adjourn this 7 aceting, but I request that everybody star seated-for
~
8-another two minutes, because we want to take a short 9 notice affirmation iten up, if the Consission votes to.
- 10 do so, so I will adjourn this meeting, and convene the.
11 affirmation.
12 (Wheceupon, at 4:05 p.m.,
the Commission was 13 adjournad.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 i
22 20 24 25
{
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
UUCT.E.AR REGULATORT CD.W.ISSICN This is Oc certify that the accached proceedings 'cefere the COMMISSION MEETING in the matter of: Public Meeting - Briefing on Revised Value-Impact Procedures and Guidelines re Executive Order 12291 Cace Cf PrCCetding:
May 10, 1982 Dockee Mumber:
Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D.C.
-=
wore held as herein appears, and that this is the original. t: anse:-1:%
thereof for the file.cf the Commission.
r-
~ ' -
Jane N. Beach Official Reporter (Typed)
[
l J
. tuxA 0
icial Reporter (signature)
GW O
i t
i l
1 I
l l
i e
i i
i i
e i.
i i
u i
e-i l
.f
.i I
i 8
t l4 e-4 VUGRAPHS FOR BRIEFING ON "VALUE IMPACT GUIDELINES" MAY 10, 1982 2:30 PM 6 e 8
i e I 6
6 as a
4 4
8 e*
a h
I '
I l
!t t.
<s Is l1 i1 t !-
j;
<n 1
- \\
a e
e, a
Ie 9
Vugraph 1 OBJECTIVES l
1.
ESTABLISH CONCISE AND DIRECT GUIDELINES THAT WOULD REFLECT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN ANALYSIS.
2.
ASSURE THAT THE REVISED GUIDELINES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291, " FEDERAL REGULATION".
3.
ASSURE THAT THE GUIDELINES WILL BE USED AS A BASIS FOR PREPARING A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF GENERIC REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THOSE COVERED BY CRITERIA IN EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291.
4.
INCORPORATE INTO ANALYSES OF GENERIC REQUIREMENTS THOSE EVALUATIONS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED'BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT AND THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT.
5.
PROVIDE ADEQUATE FLEXIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT EFFORT EXPENDED TO ANALYZE A REQUIREMENT IS IN PROPORTION TO THE LIKELY IMPACT OF THE REQUIREMENT.
17
,1
' ' !I'! ! !I!L i
Vugraph 2 t,
i i
AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT 1.
THE PROBLEM GIVING RISE TO THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD BE i
BETTER ARTICULATED AND DOCUMENTED.
2.
ALTERNATIVES SHOULD REFLECT DIFFERENT REGULATORY APPROACHES RATHER THAN MINOR VARIATIONS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.'
3.
COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING A REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN DETAIL IN ANALYSES WITH SOURCES OF COST DATA IDENTIFIED AND METHODOLOGIES FOR DERIVING ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND BENEFITS DESCRIBED.
4.
IMPACTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENT ON OTHER NRC PROGRAMS AND LICENSEE OPERATIONS SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND THE COSTS AND BENEFITS RESULTING FROM THOSE IMPACTS DESCRIBED.
d'i, a
5.
THE SCHEDULE AND CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE LICENSEE TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED ; ACTION SHOULD 'BE DESCRIBE'D'.I' i
i 8
l !
8
'i t' j 1
,8 e
5 i '
l' I
l t
1 i
t
- IJ j**
I.
t
- t; l
i g, I ' ' '
i
Vugraph 3 4
ii.
4 Comperison of Coverage of Existing Value-Impact Guidelines and the Revised Guidelines - Regulatory Analysis Guidelines l
Regulatory Anlaysis Guidelines j
Value-Impact Guidelines (Existing Guidelines)
(Revised Guidelines)
.f Any proposed "non-routine," non-recurring A Regulatory Analysis, which includes a discussion of regulatory action which might impose a burden any reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, shall on the public (public defined in the broadest be prepared for each proposed rule and final rule that, sense).
in the detennination of the responsible office director or the Executive Director for Operations, will likely l
is appropriate for unique or generic licensing result in the following:
actions and other non-routine, non-recurring An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 in regulatory actions requirements.
- a.. -direct and indirect costs, or is appropriate for proposals which are re-i viewed by the Regulatory Requirements Review b.
A significant adverse impact on health, safety or Committee and during preparations of Branch the environment, or Technical Positions or Revise Regulations and Regulatory Guides.
c.
A substantial increase in the cost or prices for individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, Not routinely required for specific licensing Federal, State or local government, and geographical actions...and enforcement actions.
regions.
- 1. ; j, i 4 - -
y
,3 i
i i..
i,
i,,
i e i i.
i 6
2 t *
! {
. ii,
..os,
.n, i,
1,:..
f t:.
I !.
t
, l>
i
'1
+
! < :18: ! l ; l-i
,i
'Ml.
4 i i i 1: r, i :!
p' t : t t
lf, j
,[}
[
l l ]
'll t
6
'I s
Vugraph 4 COVERAGE OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291 AND PENDING REGULATORY REFORM LEGISLATION EXECUTIVE ORDER 12291 S. 1080 (SENATE)
H. R. 746 "Hajor rule" means any regulation Apply to major rules (includes a Apply to major rules (includes a that is likely to result in:
single rule or a group of closely single rule or a group of closely related rules):
related rules):
{
-An annual effect on the
-likely 'to have an annual effect on -likely 'to have an annual effect economy of $100 million the economy of $100,000,000 in on the economy of $100,000,000 direct or indirect enforcement or in direct and indirect compliance or more:
compliance costs; or costs; or
- A major increase in costs or
-likely to resQlt in a substantial
-will have a substantial impact prices for consumers, increase in costs or prices for on health, safety, or the indiv'idual industries, Federal, wage earners, consumers, individual environment; or State, or local government industries, nonprofit organizations, agencies, or geographic Federal, State, or local government regions; cr agencies, or geographic regions; or
-Significant adverse effects on
-likely to result in significant
-will have a potential adverse competition, employment, invest-adverse effects on competition, impact upon costs or prices for ment, productivity, innovation, employment, investment..productivityp consumers, individual industries, or on the ability of United innovation, the, environment, public Federal, State, or local govern-States-based enterprises to health 'or safety, or the ability of ment agencies, or geographic compete with foreign-based United States business enterprises regions, or upon competition, enterprises in domestic or to complete in domestic or. export employment, investment, pro-export markets.
markets; or ductivity, or innovation.
-likely to result in,other effects that would warrant 'a regulatory l
analysis.
1 4
.g.
l).
s.
t ii Vugraph 5 i ;,
i f
d
'C NTENTS r -
i.
1.
PROBLEM 2.
OBJECTIVES 4
3.
ALTERNATIVES i
2 CONSEQUENCES 1
A.
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVES B.
IMPACT ON OTHER ACTIVITIES c.
CONSTRAINTS 5.
DECISION RATIONALE I
6.
IMPLEMENTATION i
A.
SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED ACTION i
B.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPOSED OR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS l
i j
e i
t.4 n.'
i 6
r g-ii f
6 i
,,'1
.ir 6 - i' fe I
i,',,
l vi ' i, e
.l.
.t.
..