ML20054C632

Suggestion of Mootness of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Contentions.Chairman Palladino Statement Confirms Commission Policy That Probabilistic Risk Assessment Analysis Has No Place in Licensing Hearings.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054C632
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/19/1982
From:	Conner T, Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8204210449
Download: ML20054C632 (8)

Text

. . .- . ~ . . - - - _ - - - _ . . . -. _ . __- . - . - - _ __

f gy-=

r l

T2 i? 19 TH $0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  !

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 -

3 (Limerick Generating Station, ) .

4 Units 1 and 2) ) g to A j  ?- q I LICENSEE'S SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS TO [ ,;On#AD ~

LICENSING BOARD BASED UPON THE RECtNT -9 STATEMENT OF COMMISSION POLICY ON SE vg 3 0198F 1 ,

OF PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT! \ 7  !

\ -s %, ggwas ;7mn tw3 a <C 4 I*

i

\ \

On April 5, 1982, Dr. Nunzio J. Palladino'k Chairmag, @

l I 1 rW Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission")

j addressed the Executive Conference, American Nuclear Society, on the topic of " Methods for Probabilistic Risk i

Assessment." -1/ The Chairman outlined the Commission's

! objectives in the use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment l

("PRA") in conjunction with its proposed policy statement on safety goals for nuclear power plants.

I Analogously to the practice in federal courts by which l

l parties advise the court of recent developments after the submission of a matter for decision, Philadelphia Electric J/ A copy of the text of the Chairman's address is attached.

s

! / /

B204210449 820419 l PDR ADOCK 050003S2 G PDR

- - - - - . e v- ._-,,o, .,n-,_,---,.---,e -

-e-m-em--,-w-,,e-.,e.-e-,-s., m wm.,,-w-,- ~

-,p- --m- -,v,,,,m-,,. -. .,~,w

Company (" Licensee") wishes to bring to the attention of the

Licensing Board, which is now considering PRA contentions

! submitted by certain petitioners in this proceeding, the a statement of Commission policy, attached hereto, with regard I

to the use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment in developing j NRC reactor safety requirements.

The statement made by the Chairman confirms that the f

policy of the Commission is that PRA analysis, while useful l,

as a tool within the NRC in reevaluating its safety 1

objectives from the viewpoint of its overall regulatory responsibilities, has no place in licensing proceedings, at ,

, least at present. Thus, the Chairman stated that the proposed NRC policy statement on safety goals for nuclear power plants would involve "a step-by-step action plan on i how to use the goals and numerical guidance, in conjunction I

with PRA, within the regulatory process," 2/ i.e., not the

" licensing process." He explained that the Commission's t

i policy on safety goals, including PRA, would be used "on a l trial basis in an effort to stabilize the regulatory process." -_/ 3 1

J/ Press Release at p. 2 (emphasis added).

l

-3/ Id. (emphasis added). The Chairman indicated that PRA Mas a place" in a variety of research and regulatory areas, but no particular use for PRA in the hearing i process at this time was identified. The Chairman made l it clear that such long range " expectations" for the l use of PRA in other areas would, in any event, be i strictly limited to those areas in which "the data base warrants such use." Id.

l i

\

i r

The Chairman expressly distinguished between safety goals developed by PRA and other forms of analysis and regulatory requirements under 10 C.F.R. Part 50. The Chairman stated:

We have explicitly charged the NRC Staff in the policy statement on safety goals to use the goals and guidelines in conjunction with probabilistic risk I

assessment. But we emphasize that they l are not a substitute for our regulations and that individual licensing decisions will continue to be based principally on compliance with those regulations. 4/

As the Licensee has pointed out, neither the Limerick PRA nor WASH-1400 include all of the elements which must be considered for the licensing of a nuclear power plant. They are only mechanistic, partial models. Until such time as the Commissioners determine that,a PRA model has reached the state of the art to provide a comprehensive answer to evaluating operating license applications, the Commissioners recognize PRA should not be used for that purpose. Applied to Limerick, even if the Board were to litigate the PRA model (whether comparing it to WASH-1400 or not) , it would still be required to evaluate the Limerick plant as built by the existing licensing standards for all plants.

The evident danger in treating PRA analysis as a I

licensing tool was aptly described by the Chairman in stating:

4/ Id. at 3 (emphasis added).

1 e ,

[I]t is extremely important to bear in

. mind that PRA is an emerging method-ology, that substantial uncertainties are inherent in che technique. Some of these may be eliminated as the state-of-i the-art advances, but I think it will

, always be important to treat the pro-ducts of PRA with great care and caution. . . . PRA will never substitute for regulatory judgment . . . . 5/

This important distinction was further emphasized by the

Chairman when he concluded that the PRA methodology had reached some level of sophistication, but "[niow we must decide how far we will go and how soon to apply these i methods to commercial nuclear power plants. That decision

.1 should be made this year." 6/ -

It is therefore clear that the Commission did not intend licensing boards generally to consider PRA models in deciding reactor cases. The Commission has quite plainly reserved this decision to itself and has made it abundantly clear that licensing boards should not explore safety goal 1

methodologies in individual proceedings without express

authorization by the Commission.

i Accordingly, Licensee respectfully submits that the PRA contentions in this proceeding should be denied. If the i

i 5/ Id.

6/ Id. at 4 (emphasis added).

~

Licensing Board herein should otherwise determine, it is respectfully requested that the issue be immediately certified to the Commission for a prompt resolution of the matter.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Troy . onner, Jr.

)

Mark J. Wetterhahn <

Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 202/833-3500 Counsel for the Applicant April 19, 1982 i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's suggestion of Mootness to Licensing Board Based Upon the Recent Statement of Commission Policy on Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment," in the captioned matter have been served upon '

the following by deposit in the United States mail this 19th day of April, 1982.

Judge Lawrence Brenner Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Judge Richard F. Cole Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff Judge Peter A. Morris Office of the Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia Electric Company Board Panel ATIN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Vice President &

Commission General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Frank R. Romano 61 Forest Avenue Robert W. Adler, Esq.

Ambler, PA 19002 Assistant Counsel Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Mr. Charles B. Taylor DER 24 West Tenth Avenue 505 Executive House Collegeville, PA 19426 P.O. Box 2357 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Mr. Robert L. Anthony 103 Vernon Lane Thomas Gerusky, Director Moylan, PA 19065 Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Resources 6504 Bradford Terrace 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Philadelphia, PA 19149 Third and Locust Streets ,

Harrisburg, PA 17120 Samuel & Clarissa B. Cooper P.O. Box 16 Director Colora, Maryland 21917 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Judith A. Dorsey, Esq. Basement, Transportation and 1315 Walnut Street Safety Building Suite 1632 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Philadelphia, PA 19107 John Shniper, Esq.

Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Hy Mayerson, P.C.

123 N. 5th Street Meeting House Law Bldg. and Suite 101 Gallery Allentown, PA 18102 Mennonite Church Road Schuylkill Road Mr. William Lochstet Spring City, PA 19475 119 E. Aaron Drive State College, PA 16804 Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

Community Legal Services, Inc.

Mr. Alan J. Nogee Law Center North Central 3700 Chestnut Street Beury Building Philadelphia, PA 19104 3701 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19140 Mr. Steven Levin

11 Beard Circle James M. Neill, Esq.

! Phoenixville, PA 19460 Box 511

( Dublin, PA 18917

. D Donald S. Bronstein, Esq. Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

1425 Walnut Street Sugarman & Denworth Philadelphia, PA 19102 Suite 510, North American Bldg.

121 South Broad Street Mr. Joseph H. White, III Philadelphia, PA 19107 11 South Merion Avenue Bryn Mawr, PA 19010 W. Wilson Goode Managing Director Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud City of Philade.lphia

! Co-Director, ECNP Philadelphia, PA l 433 Orlando Avenue l

State College, PA 16801 Elaine I. Chan, Esq.

Counsel for NRC Staff Walter W. Cohen, Esq. Office of the Executive Consumer Advocate Legal Director Office of Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1425 Strawberry Square Commission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Washington, D.C. 20555 O

N l24%

~

Troy Q.nner, Jr. (/

Counsel for the Applicant i

l l

l l

_ . - . _ . _ ~ _ ..- .-._.-_,,,_. . -, _ ,-, .,m -,.n., , . - - - _ - , . . . _ ,, ,----,r-

I ss s, U N ).-sc D S s AT c e.,

.e.  :

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(.['g/j}.

i., *. c..a .

O m. ..ce or Pu. h.c e Ar.. .rairs

.- Wash.ington, D.C. 40c_c_o._

-u No. 5-5-82 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel . 301/092-7715 Remarks by Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn at the American Nuclear Society Executive Conference METHODS FOR PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT Arlington, Virginia April 5, 1982

! s '

It is a cleasure to be with you and to have the opportunity to address you this evening.

l This sucject under discussion in your conference -- all day today and

! :nrough the next two days -- is an endlessly interes ting and even a caradcxical tocic. The paradox lies in the fact that risk assessment is simultaneously one of the most universai ; reoccupations of mankind and yet is one of tne =cs soecialized crecision tocls for making specific cecisions.

Certainly all of the de. liberations that go into diolomatic and economic decision-making all over the woric are basically risk assessments. The same can be said for individual career choices, oroposals of matrimony or wagers on four-legged animals. I have no exact data on the matter, but I believe a very high percentage cf all the human judgments made everywnere every day are risk assessments. For all we know, it may be the need to make sucn judgments, and make them correctly, that underlies the evolution of tne human brain. We seem Oc be a soecies always willing to take some chances, but only under certain conditions. It is those conditions that are the real object of tne analyses undertaken in l orobabilistic risk assessment, to which I will refer as FRA curing the rest of my talk.

In reality, of course, tnere is no ning more serious than the judgments I we must make in assuring puolic health and safety. The Ccmmission has

. e s -

J 9

2 recently publishec for pu lic ccmment a propcsed Oclicy statement en safety goals for nuclear cower plants. The cccument represents a first

, definitive attem;t to provide safety goals, and guidance in identifying

them, to the nuclear industry and all other concerned parties. I hope tnat you will give the statement close study and let us nave the benefit of your comments.

What we seek in developing and promulgating the statement on safety goals is to enable both the industry and the NRC to determine what level of additional risk which might be imposed on the public as a result of 4

accicents is acceptable. I sneuld note that we are talking here only t

about the results of accidents. Let me stress that the implied premise behind the safety goal is nct that injuries or deaths from nuclear accidents are accectable, but that some additional risk from the cossi-bility of nuclear accidents is inescapable. From that premise se are trying to derive a clear conce:: of how much additional risk is accest-able and to define in usable terms how the level of risk can be determined.

It's a tall order. We will need your help and cccoeration bcth on what the safety goal risk level ought to be and on how to implement the use of the sa fety goal .

i While the proposed policy statement is out for comment, the Commission has directed the NRC staff :: precare a step-by-stec action plan on how to use the goals and numerical guidance, in conjunction with PRA, within the regulatory process. We excect to evaluate both the public comments on the proposed policy and the staff's implementation plan by early summer, so that we can refine both the policy and the action clan.

, Thus, we will proceed with the use of this approach on a trial basis in an effort te stabilize the regulatory process. We will be applying the apercacn to an evaluation of both proposed anc existing NRC reactor safety recuirements, so you can readily see how important it is that all

, those with an interest in nuclear cower generatien study ne document j anc rescend to tne Commission on it.

I make mention of the policy statement on safety goals because pRA was sucn a preminent consideration in its formulation. Not only has PRA neloed us to develop our safety goals, it also has provided a means for specifying their implications for licensees and for confirming or vali-dating the attainment of the goals.

We have other expectatiens as well for the use of PRA in regulatory decision-making. We on :ne Commission have directed that special attention be civen by the staff to using these technicues in a variety of acclications, provided tnat the data base warrants such use. We believe it has a place in licensing reviews, in adcressing generic safety issues, in formulating new regulatory requirements, in evaluating new designs, in setting priorities for reactor reseerch, and in allocating insoection resources.

V It is clear that the pRA methodoiogy can be emoloyed in two essentially different ways: as a means of an absciute level tf risk and as a measure of a relative level of risk. It is important in each case to understand wnich kind of application is intended and to understand the limitations of cotn. In using PRA to identify both absolute and relative measures of risk one has to be careful to take uncertainties i

into account. Despite uncertainties, newever the analyses involved are wortnwnile, even vital, for making important policy decisions wisely.

Another imoortant attribute of probabilistic risk assessment is the disciplined thought process that it involves. This process is valuable despite uncertainties in tne probability numbers used in making quanti-tative assessments of risk. For example, PRA can be used to identify tne cominant accident scenarios, olaces wnere safety attention should be focusec. It also can be used to evaluate plant operation and maintenance crocedures and to identify areas needing close attention.

Of course the sword can cut two ways. Just as PRA can identify previously unrecogni:ed safety problems, it also can identify previously over-estimated safety issues -- places where unneeded requirements have been

! imposed. The value of PRA as a quality assurance check lies to a great extent in its essential difference and departure from the conventional safety review approach. It can give us a cerspective on safety issues from an entirely different angle, sometimes revealing unseen dimensions.

Nevertheless, it is extremely important to bear in inind that PRA is an 4

emerging methodology, that substantial uncertainties are inherent in the techni cue. Some of these may be eliminated as the state-of-the-art

! advances, but I tnink it will always be important to treat the products of PRA with great care and caution. After all, it is a technique or set of tecnnicues. As any musician can tell you, technique is crucial, but it is no substitute for intercretation. It simoly makes a broader and more refined interpretation possible. PRA will never substitute for regulatory judgment, any more than comouters can ever substitute for the judge and jury in a court or voters in a polling place.

So we recogni:e that we are dealing with a developing area. We have explicitly charged the NRC staff in the policy statement on safety goals to use the goals and guidelines in conjunction with probabilistic risk assessment. But we emphasized that they are not a substitute for our regulations, and that individual licensing decisions will continue to be based principally on compliance with those regulations.

In all aoplications of the goals and guidelines, the PRA calculations are to be documented, along witn associated assumptions and uncertainties, and are to be considered as one factor among otners in :ne regulatory decision-making process. The nature and extent of :ne considerations given to numerical guidelines will depend on the issue in question, tne

l . . .

quality of the data base, and the scope and limits of the analyses involved in the PRA calculations. The results of the process are, as I have indicated, to be treated strictly as aids to professional judgment.

This conference marks tne culmination of a broad-based process by which the Government and industry have worked together through the tecnnical societies to develop an authoritative reference for crocedures. From what I see and hear, this effort has been a success. Now we must decide how far we will go and how soon to apply these methods to commercial nuclear power plants. That decision should be made this year. With the cooperation and contributions of all concerned, I am confident that the decision will be one that will enhance the safety of nuclear power generation in the United States for many years to come.

9 J

__