ML20151C868
| ML20151C868 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/09/1987 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151C834 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-714 NUDOCS 8804130239 | |
| Download: ML20151C868 (11) | |
Text
s PREPARED TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION TO SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS COMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES i
CONCERNING BACKFIT l
PRESENTED BY LANDO W. ZECH, JR.
CHAIMAN l
i j
SUBMITTEO: OCTOBER 9, 1987 I
8804130239 880405 y0$ssOSN14 PDR j
1
~
GENTLEMEN:
I AM PLEASED FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY ON THE TOPIC OF BACKFITTING. BACKFITTING IN THE MOST GENERAL SENSE IS CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS A LICENSEE MUST MEET IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CR MAINTAIN A LICENSE TO OPERATE A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, AFTER THE LICENSEE HAS MET OR IS TRYING TO MEET REQUIREMENTS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BY THE NRC.
OUR PREDECESSOR, THE AEC, RECOGNIZED THE IMPORTANCE OF PANAGING CHANGES IN REQUIREMENTS LONG AGO WHEN THE FIRST BACKFIT RULE,10 CFR 50.109, WAS ISSUED IN MARCH 1970. SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE SEEN THE EVOLLTION OF NUCLEAR PLANT DESIGNS AND THE FATURATION OF AN INDUSTRY.
THUS, ALTHOUGH THE CURRENT REGULATORY EMPHASIS IS ON OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE, THE NEED FOR STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY IN THE REGULATORY PROCESS CONTINUES UN;;MINISHED.
BACKFIT MANAGEMENT IS A KEY ELEMENT IN THIS STABILITY AND PREC:CTABILITY.
AS PLANT SIZE AND POWER OUTPUT ADVANCED RAPIDLY IN THE 1960s AND 1970s FROM 100 Ne TO 1000 We, MANY CHANGES WERE NECESSARY AS TH3SE DESIGNS, THE EXPERTISE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE THEM, AND THE APPROPRIATE REGULATORY GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA EVOLVED TOGETHER.
30LLOWING THE TMI-2 ACCIDENT, A LARGE NUMBER OF DESIGN AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS WERE IMPOSED BY THE NRC ON THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY.
THESE THEN-NEW TMI REQUIREMENTS WERE IN ADDITION TO OTHERS THAT HAD BEEN ISSUED BY THE COMMISS:0N.
THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS DEMANDED ADDED LICENSEE RESOURCES AND TEh:ED TO REDIRECT LICENSEE RESOURCES FROM NECESSARY ONGOING ROUTINE SAFE 7-RELATED TASKS.
l i
-g.
IN EARLY 1981, THE NRC CONDUCTED A SURVEY AT 12 MAJOR UTILITIES OVER THE COUNTRY TO DIRECTLY DETERMINE THE PERSPECTIVE OF LICENSEES ON WHETHER THERE A DECREASE IN SAFETY RESULTING FROM IMPOSING LARGE NUMBERS OF SIGNIFICANT NEW REQUIREMENTS OVER A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD.
IN THE RESULTING REPORT, NUREG 0839 ISSUED IN AUGUST 1981, THE NRC STAFF FOUND THAT "...NOT WITHSTANDING THE COMPETENCE AND GOOD INTENTIONS OF THE STAFF, THAT THE PACE AND NATURE OF REGULATORY ACTIONS HAVE CREATED A POTENTIAL SAFETY PROBLEM OF UNKNOWN DIMENSIONS."
ONE OF THE RECOPHENDATIONS FROM THIS WORK WAS THAT NRC SHOULD TAKE PROMPT ACTION TO BRING THE ISSUANCE OF REQUIREMENTS UNDER CONTROL, AND THAT AN INTERNAL REVIEV GROUP SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR PROPOSED NEW GENERIC RE MENTS TO BE IMPOSED ON THE INDUSTRY.
BY NOVEMBER 1981, CHAIRMAN PALLADINO HAD ESTABLISHED THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS.
THIS COMMITTEE, CALLED CRGR, WAS DIRECTED TO REVIEW ALL PROPOSALS BY THE STAFF FOR NEW REQUIRE-MENTS, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE EDO CONCERNING THEIR DISPOSITION.
ALSO IN LATE 1981, THE COMMISSION RESPONDED TO PRESIDENT REAGAN'S EXECUTIVE ORDER 122910F FEBRUARY 17, 1981 CONCERNING IMPA0VEMENT OF FEDERAL RFGULATION.
THE COMMIS$10N'S RESPONSE REFLECTED THE RESULTS OF A NEW STUDY TO IDENTIFY CHANGES IN NRC PROCEDURES AND PRACTICES TO ACHIEVE GREATER CONSISTENCY WITH ORDER.
THIS EFFORT HAS LED TO IMPROVED GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES TO ENSURE WELL-REASONED PEGULATIONS, AND IN PARTICULAR TO ASSURE THAT BOTH BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NEW REGULATIONS FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND AN ADEQUATE LEVEL O l
SAFETY WERE UNDERSTOOD PRIOR TO IMPOSITION.
~
j BY LATE 1984,THE NRC'S CRGR WAS OPERATING WELL WITH GENERALLY FAVORABLE REVIEWS FROM BOTH THE NRC-STAFF-AND INDUSTRY.. - ABOUT;T_HE. SAME-TIME, THE NRC PROPOSEO A REVISE 0 BACKFIT RULE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT EMBODIED AND CODIFIED MUCH OF WHAT THE CRGR WAS ALREADY 00 LNG, AND THAT PROVIDE 0 THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE STAFF WAS TO MANAGE PLANT-SPECIFIC BACKFITS NOT REVIEWED BY CRGR.THIS REVISED BACKFIT RULE BECAME EFFECTIVE ON OCTOBER 21, 1985.
SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE ARTICULATED THE BACKFIT MANAGEMENT PROCESS TO THE NRC STAFF THROUGH COMPREHENSIVE SEMINARS IN ALL MAJOR OFFICES.
WE HAVE ALSO INFORMED THE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE REVISED RULE THROUGH PUBLIC POLICY STATEMENTS AND DAY-LONG WORKSHOPS IN EACH OF THE FIVE NRC REGIONAL AREAS.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF THE BACKFIT RULE IS THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE THE BACKFITTING OF A FACILITY ONLY WHEN IT DETERMINES, BASED ON A SYSTEMATIC AND DOCUHENTED ANALYSIS, THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE OVERALL PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE COMMON DEFENS AND SECURITY TO BE DERIVED FROM THE BACKFIT AND THAT THE DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THAT FACILITY ARE JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THIS INCREASED PROTECTION.
THE SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS REQUIRED BY THE RULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS THAT G0 BEYONO AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SAFETY IS DESCRIBE 0 IN TE OF NINE SPECIFIC "FACTORS" THAT SHOULO BE CONSIDERED IN REACHING A DETERMINATION ON ANY PROPOSED CHANGE WHICH IS INTENDED I0 BE IMPOSED BY THE COMMISSION. THESE NINE FACTORS ARE DELINEATED EXPLICITLY IN SECTION (C) 0F THE RULE ITSELF.
THE RULE ALSO DEFINES WAT BACKFITTING IS AND DESCRIBES TWO CONDITIONS FOR IMPOSING A BACKFIT WITHOUT THE PREREQUISIT! ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF N l
1 4
THESE TWO CONDITIONS ARE (1) WHEN A MODIFICATION IS NECESSARY TO BRING A FACILITY INTO CCHPLIANCE WITH EXISTING RULES OR ORDERS OF THE COMISSION OR WRITTEN COMMITMENTS BY THE LICENSEE, AND (2) WHEN A REGULATORY ACTION IS NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT THE FACILITY POSES NO UNDUE RISK TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THE NRC'S APPROACH TO THE CONSIDERATION OF COSTS IN BACKFITTING WAS AFFIRMED RECENTLY BY A UNANIMOUS PANEL OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.
WRITING FOR THE COURT, JUDGE ABNER MIKVA SPECIFICALLY REJECTED THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 FORBIDS THE NRC FROM EVER CONSIDERING ECONOMIC COSTS IN THE BACKFITTING PROCESS.
TO THE CONTRARY JUDGE MIKVA SAID THAT "WHEN THE C0l9tISS10N DETERMINES WHETHER AND TO WHAT EXTENT TO EXERCISE... " THE POWER TO ".. 0RDER POWER PLANT ALREADY SATISFYING THE STANDARD OF ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO TAKE ADDITIONAL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS...", ... IT MAY CONSIDER ECONOMIC COSTS OR ANY OTHER FACTOR." BOTH THE RULE ITSELF AND THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS ACCOMPA IT ATTEST THAT THE POLICY OUTLINED BY THE COURT IS, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, THE COMMISSION's PO' ICY IN APPLYING THE BACKFIT RULE.
HOWEVER, IT WAS THE COURT'S OPINION THAT A SINGLE SENTENCE IN THE STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS CAST SO DOUBT ON THE C0 MISSION'S POLICY.
THEREFORE, THE COMMISSION IS CURRENTLY REVISING BOTH THE RULE AND A RELATED CHAPlER OF THE NRC MANUAL TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDERS COSTS ONLY WHEN DECIDING TO BACKFIT A PLANT THAT ALREADY PROVIDES A LEVEL OF PROTECTION JUDGED TO BE ADEQUATE BY A STANDARD WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE THE CONSIDERATION OF ECONOM COSTS.
.S-hE HAVE ALWAYS EMPHASIZED TO ALL INVOLVED THAT BACKFITTING IS A NECESSARY AND PROPER ACTIVITY--THAT THE NRC CAN AND WILL BACKFIT VHEN NECESSARY OR WARRANTED--BUT THAT THE PROCESS WILL BE CAREFULLY MANAGE 0 TO ASSURE THAT THE BACKFIT IS EITHER REQUIRED FOR SAFETY OR THAT THE SAFETY BENEFITS ARE COM-MENSURATE WITH THE RESOURCE INVESTMENT, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS POLICY ENHANCES PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, IMPROVES REGULATORY STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY, AND ASSURES THE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT USE OF LICENSEE AND NRC STAFF RESOURCES.
EFFECTIVE REGULATION REQUIRES NO LESS.
I HAVE ATTACHED TO MY WRITTEN TESTIMONY RESPONSES TO THE FIVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF YOUR SEPTEMBER 23, 1987 LETTER.
ALSO, OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS MY STAFF HAS DELIVERED MANY DOCUMENTS TO YOUR COMMITTEE CONCERNING NRC OPERATI RELATED TO BACKFITTING.
THE CURRENT CRGR MEMBERS ARE HERE WITH ME TODAY.
WE WILL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE CONCERNING MY TESTIMO OR RELATED TOPICS.
ATTACHMENT:
AS STATED 4
s 1
QkJESTION 1:What effect did the backfit rule have on the NRC in its
~
regulation of nuclear power plants between September 17, 1985 and August 4, 1987?
ANSWER.
We believe that the effect of implementing the backfit rule has been, as was intended, to bring a greater degree of discipline to the process of proposing, evaluating, and approving new requirements for nuclear plants. A strengthened quality of staff review has resulted in proposed new or modified requirements.
Further, there is now a more efficient use of NRC staff and utility resources in assuring adequate protection of public health and safety from the potential hazards of nuclear power plant operation.
Of course, greater discipline was given to NRC's backfitting activities prior to adoption (in September 1985) of the backfit rule, with the creation and initial operation of the Committee for Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR) in late 1981, Adoption of the backfit rule in September 1985 reaffirmed in a highly visible way the Commission's commitment to improved control of back-fitting, and made mandatory, in both the plant-specific and generic contexts, implementation of the more disciplined backfit review and evaluation process that evolved from the improved generic requirements review procedures put into i
place when the CRGR was formed in 1981.
)
Gejdenson/AE00 l
10/5/87
{
l
,1
QUESTION 2:
Were you satisfied with the ef fects of the backfit rule on the regulation of nuclear power plants between September 17, 1985 and August 4, 1987?
ANSWER.
The Commission is satisfied that implementation of the backfit rule has brought a necessary degree of control to the process of backfitting.
Thus, undis-ciplined imposition of backfits that can cause an adverse impact on safety should be eliminated, and as a result, there should be a more efficient use of NRC and licensee resources in providing adequate protection of public health and safety.
This does not mean, however, that we are complacent about the status quo in the safety area. We are aware of the need to strive continually to improve our capability to identify needed and cost beneficial improvements in safety.
Toward this end, a principal feature of the recent major reorgani-zation of the NRC program offices approved by the Commission was to strengthen within the NRC staff the operating experience review function, in order to better assure that the lessons that can be learned from anomalous events at operating reactors are recognized and are factored more effectively into safety improvements.
There is also a major effort by the NRC staff in progress to develop the procedural and methodological framework needed to apply the Commis-sion's general Safety Goal Policy guidance more directly in regulatory decision-making, i.e., in judging the adequacy and appropriateness of existing regula-tions and regulatory practices to provide adequate protection of public health tnd safety, and in determining the need for safety improvements.
Gejdenson/AE00 10/5/87 l
J
QdESTION 3: Were there negative ef fects of the backfit rule on the NRC's regulation of nuclear power plants between September 17, 1985 and August 4, 1987?
ANSWER.
The Commission beliews that implementation of the backfit rule has had a positive effect in bringing greater discipline to backfitting activities within NRC and in better ensuring the efficient use of NRC and licensee resources in providing an adequate level of protection of public health and safety.
Some have questioned whether application of the new criteria for justifying backfits set forth in 10 CFR 50.109 has a chilling effect on the NRC staff in proposing new safety requirements or improvements.
To address these concerns, the Office of Inspection and Audit (OIA) within NRC conducted a review of the operations of the Committee for Review of Generic Requirements (CRGR), the group established by the Comission to be the principal focus of efforts to better control backfitting. The detailed results of the OIA review have been provided to this Oversight Subcommittee in response to a specific request in Mr. Gejdenson's September 17 letter (Item No. 3).
The Commission's conclusions regarding the question of a possible chilling I
effect from implementation of the new backfit control procedures, based on 01A's findings and out own continuing assessment of the NRC staff's perform-ance, is that application of the backfit rule to date has not had an inhibiting effect with regard to the identification and proposal of safety improvements by i
the NRC staff, beyond the appropriate adjustment intended as discussed in the responses to Questions 1 and 2 preceding.
t Gejdenson/AE00 10/5/87 j
~
QUESTION 4:
Oces the proposed backfit rule of September 10, 1987 adequately l
a: dress the concern of the U.S. Court of Appeals in its de:ision in Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC?
ANSWER.
We believe that the proposed backfit rule does adequately address tne Court's concerns. The Ccurt felt compelled to vacate the backfit rule because two statements in Cosnission documents (one in the Statement of Considerations and a foot note in tre Comission's brief defending the rule) suggested that '.he Commission might apply the backfit rule's cnst-benefit standards to backfits I
deemed necessary to ensure adequate protection of health and safety.
It has never been the Comission's policy or practice to apply the rule's cost-benefit stardards in this way, and the revisions we have proposed for the rule clearly would make any suggestion of such application impossible to find in the rule.
Section (a)(4) of the proposed rule says, for instance, that the Comission will always require backfitting if such action is necessary to ensure adequate protectica to public health and safety.
The same section also says the cost-bertfit standards of the rule do not apply where the proposed
)
backfit involves defining or redefining what level of protection to the public health and safety should be regarded as adequate.
The revised Manual Chapter on plant-specific backfitting will contain similar clari'ications of this long-standing policy on applying the backfit rule.
Gejdensor,/AE00 10/5/87
- QdESTION 5:
What ef fect do you expect the proposed rule will have on the backfit process as applied by the NRC?
ANSWER.
We do not expect the proposed rule to have any significant effect on the t
backfit process as applied by the NRC.
As we said in reply to Question 4, the Commission has never applied the backfit rule's cost-benefit standards to proposed backfits which the Commission had determined were needed in order to ensure adequate protection to public health and safety.
Nor has the Commission applied the rule's cost-benefit standards to any definitions of what consti-tutes adequate protection.
The proposed rule simply states in clear language how the Commission has always applied the backfit rule.
i 1
1 i
l 1
J f
i l
I Gejdenson/AE00 I
10/5/87 l
l i
-