ML20140E404
| ML20140E404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/23/1984 |
| From: | Asselstine J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Palladino NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140B780 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-759 NUDOCS 8603270495 | |
| Download: ML20140E404 (1) | |
Text
j*
UNITED STATES V
o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI ON y]
g WASHIN GTON. D.C. 20555 gp
.. y f*****$
OFFICE OF THE October 23, 1984 COMMISSIONER i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino FROM:
James K. Asselstine o -
SUBJECT:
ACRS LETTER ON BACKFITTING REQUIREMENTS In the ACRS letter of October 17, 1984, regarding backfitting requirements, the Committee expresses an interest in commenting on the backfitting rule, policy and procedures
- hat are being developed.
I believe we should ask the ACRS for its comments.
cc:
Commissioner Roberts SEC'f[TQ?Q P f(},pn r'gpy Commissioner Bernthal h
Commissioner Zech ACRS SECY OPE OGC ED0
. ~..
Octcber 29, 1984 Jim:
~'
I agree to ask ACRS for its comments.
Given the stage of our deliberations on the proposed rule and the substantial time it has taken the Commission to publish a proposed rule for public comment, I prefer to seek Committee comments in parallel with public comments.
/
NP t
cc: Ccmnissicner Rcberts s
Ccunissicner Bernthal C
Ccmnissicner Zech I
ACRS SM OPE 8603270495 060214 OGC PDR FOIA s
CURRAN 85-759 PDR g
\\ DUL ? cat 56
(
'o,,
UNITED STATES E
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,
- ,4 L
March 12,1985 The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nu:,Dar Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Dr. Palladino:
SUBJECT:
ACRS COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED RULE ON BACKFITTING During its 299th meeting, March 7-9, 1985, the ACRS continued its review of Commission progress toward the issuance of a new backfit rule.
In an earlier letter, October 17, 1984, the Committee expressed concern about the apparently independent tracks being followed by the Commission in formulating a new rule and by its Staff in drafting a new Manual Chapter (0514) tc iaplement that rule.
In the interim, there has been some convergence.
We have had the benefit of NRC Staff presentations during a Subcommittee meeting on February 6, 1985 and the 298th ACRS meeting on February 7-9, 1985.
We also have your December 14, 1984 memorandum, copies of the proposed rule, and some of the public comments thereon.
Unfortunately, we received the draft Manual Chapter at the Subcommittee meeting on February 6, and the Subcommittee has not met to consider the Manual Chapter so that our comments on the Chapter are incomplete.
We see no problem with issuance of the new rule to clarify the procedures which must be followed in the imposition of a backfit.
If implemented by the NRC Staff, the rule will go a-long way toward rationalizing a currently contentious situation.
As you know, and as we have said before, there are deep problems -
involved in the regulatory use of risk assessment for decision making in the face of uncertainty. We recommend that the Commission adopt a position on this point and make it clear to the NRC Staff.
For the many issues beset with large uncertainties, neither the NRC Staff nor the licensee will be able to demonstrate unequivocally whether a proposed backfit meets the conditions required by the rule.
We recommend that the.
Comission consider whether the likelihood of large uncertainties should be acknowledged in the rule, and recognition giv3n to the fact that, in many cases, the quantitative analysis will not be decisive.
We think that defining backfitting as the imi.nsition of new, or the modi-a fication of previous, regulatory requirements is an unfortunate choice of wording.
Although seemingly simple, we think that 'he resulting attempts to h
define what is meant by regulatory requirements greatly confuse the matter, j
particularly in the draft Manual Chapter as described below. We think that the b(
g, l i
Lxnju5 p
g i
Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino March 12, 1985 J
definition of backfitting contained in the earlier version of 10 CFR 50.109, modified as proposed in several of the public coments received, would help clarify the meaning of backfitting.
We are divided as to whether a reduction in "on-site costs" should be included in assessing benefits for a benefit / cost analysis.
We assume. that the Commission does not intend that the " substantial" test in the rule will be used to compromise the level of defense-in-depth that is implicit in the nonnal regulatory philose;+y.
We concur in the effort to contral information requests to licensees by exercising control at' higher levels of NRC management.
There are, however, proper. occasions for seeking infonnation, and we assume that the proposed restraint is intended to limit requests only to such occasions.
The February 4, 1985 draft Manual Chapter version is another matter.
As mentioned above, we have not been able to provide a detailed critique; however, even a cursory reading suggests that it is not a finished product.
It contains numerous errors.
As an example, " applicable regulatory requirements" are o defined to include license conditions, technical specifications, Branch Techni-cal Positions, Regulatory Guides, etc.
Many of the items on the list are advisory and are not regulatory requirements.
We are particularly disturbed that your Staff continues to treat them as if they were.
We would like to take this opportunity to coment on an issue that has been raised both here and on other occasions -- the question of whether costs may properly be considered. While we do not claim legal expertise, there are some comments that can be made, even absent this advantage.
We think it quite clear that the Congress could not have intended that un 6
limited resources and effort should be expended in the pursuit of nuclear safety.
It vc H 9t only be unreasonable, but the Congressional handling of a the NRC budget 9.ves no indication that this was its intent.
Indeed, there is no technology that cannot be made safer by the expenditure of more effort or the imposition of more constraints, and we find no evidence that the Congress is unaware of this fact.
To believe that costs are irrelevant in the case of t nuclear safety could only lead to abdication of the responsibility to set priorities.
This could lead to a net decrease in the level of nuclear safety.
The ACRS licensing letters say, "... without undue risk to the health and j
safety of the public."
Within this constraint, we see it as the responsi-1 bility of the Commission to so order its priorities as to achieve the necessary safety available within limited resources.
This can only be accomplished by taking.into account the costs (of all forms) necessary to produce a given increment in ' safety.
-~-_.
L \\.
4
(
l
. Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino March 12, 1985 Subject to the above coments, we recommend that the Commission issue the new rule, and then ask the NRC Staff to propose a Manual Chapter that conforms to that rule.
Sincerely, I
j David A. Ward Chairman j
4 4
t t
)
I I
i I
1 4
-,.-.-w ren-
-w-r--
-m--
e-------
- - - + - - - - -. -,, - - -.
.-.-----<.v------.m-.,
--,v----
r
, - - - -r