ML20138S102
| ML20138S102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Bernthal, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511190527 | |
| Download: ML20138S102 (2) | |
Text
[*
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
%,...../
OFFICE OF THE October 22, 1985 COMMISSIONER i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Bernthal Comissioner Zech James K. Asselstine }7 -- -
s FROM:
a
/
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 20, " STANDARDS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION" (SECY-85-147)
In a memorandum to the ED0 dated August 8, 1985, I asked if the staff could certify that the above referenced rulemaking complied with the backfit rule. On October 18, 1985, the staff responded that the backfit rule does not apply to this rulemaking. Many diverse outside organizations will be watching how the Comission implements its backfit rule. One or more outside entities may from time to time challenge a rulemaking on the basis of the backfit rule.
We would require licensees to demonstrate to us how they comply with regulations that are applicable to them.
I believe we have the same obligation with respect to rules that are applicable to the Comission.
Such a demonstration by the Comission should be completed and incorporated into all rulemakings that affect Part 50 licensees lest we find ourselves in court without the required backfitting denenstration contained in the rulemaking record.
Furthermore, a demonstration of compliance with the backfit rule in each rulemaking, even if that be an explanation of why the backfit rule does not apply in a certain case, would be a useful'and relevant matter for public coment on a proposed rule so that we have a better understanding of the litigative risks associated with the rulemaking. By this, I am not sugoesting that Supplementary Information section of a rulemaking contain the entire cost-benefit analysis, but it should at least identify where the entire analysis can be found or obtained.
I propose the following:
1.
The Comission should direct OGC and OPE, with whatever assistance from staff that is required, to prepare for incorporation into each rulemaking affecting Part 50 licensees an explanation of how that rulemaking complies with the Backfit Rule, including clear citations of the necessary supporting documentation.
l
~
w
~
2-6 o,
2.
Given that there is no urgency.to publish a revision to Part 20, the explanation described in paragraph 1 should be prepared, and
. approved by the Commission prior to publishing the proposed rule.
In this regard, I believe the explanation of compliance with the backfit rule should also address the following excerpt from the-backfit rule:
"(T)here is no intent on the part of the Commission to include within the scope of the exceptions (to the backfit rule requirements) new or modified interpretations of what constitutes no undue risk to the public health and ' safety.
In such a case, the rule applies."
It seems to me to a change in allewable releases from nuclear powerplants is a change in what constitutes no undue risk.
SECY, please track responses.
[
e I
I i
,.n_._..._,..._
_,_____~.,..~.2.
.._.,t._
,