ML20235U260
| ML20235U260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-52FR34223, RULE-PR-50 PR-870904, NUDOCS 8710130428 | |
| Download: ML20235U260 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- 7 .f SS/ DOCKET NUMBER ,,g r'R0 POSED RULE [759o_o1j (5;f FL N.2 >]8 DOCKETED -{ { MJCLEAR REGAA'KRY 0%MISSICN 10 Cm Part 50 '87 SEP -9 A8 :24 REVISICN OF EPCKFITTING M(LtdS RJR POER REACTORS v:c ACBEY: Nuclear Regulatory Conmission. ACfKN: Proposed rule. StMMRY: The Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission is.considering amendnents.to its rule fcr backfitting of. nuclear power plants. This' action is necessary in order to bring the backfit-rule into unambiguous conformance with the August 4,1987 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Coltnbla Circuit in Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission. This action is intended to clari'fy when economic costs nay be considered in backfitting nuclear power plants. DATES: Cmment period expires 00T 131987 Canments received af ter this date will be considered if it is practicable to do so, but assurance of consideration can be given only for i cmments filed on or before this date. AEE ESSES: Interested persons are invited-to send written cements or suggestions to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission, Washington, D.C. 20555, ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch. Conments may also be delivered to: Room 1121,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., between - Iyt$g y.'jo y;jr ji
- -6+M a.m. and stee p.m. weekdays. Copies of any cmments received may be 1
dg lg examined at the MC Public Doctment Rocm,1717 H Street, N.W., A p [ J Washington, D.C. 8710130428 870904 PDR PR 0 50 52FR34225 PDR Q ]g)B/0sku buhK n W, 9-I o 1
0002.0.0 (7590-01] RDR FWDER ltRHATICN CCNTACT: Steven F. Crockett, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, D.C. Telephone (202) 634-1465. SUPPLB&NTARY INRJRATIOl: 01 Septenber 20,1985 (50 FR 38097), af ter an extensive rulemaking proceeding which included sequential opportunities for public ccnment on an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (48 FR 44217, Septenber 28,1983) and a notice of proposed rulermking (49 FR 47034, November 30, 1984), the Ccnmission adopted final amendrents to its rules in 10 CFR 550.109 for backfitting of nuclear power plants. Backfitting is defined in scme detail in the rule. but for purposes of discussion here it means measures which are directed by the Ccnmission or by f40 staff in order to irrprove the safety of nuclear power reactors, and which reflect a change in a prior Ccnmission or staff position on the safety matter in question. Backfits rray be inposed either to ensure the adeouate protection of ptblic health and safety, or to provide additional safety requirements beyond the level of adeqJate protection. Judicial review of the amended backfit rule and a related internal P4C manual chapter which partially implemented it was sought and, on August 4, 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rendered its decision vacating both the rule and Manual chapter, Union of Concerned Scientists, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccnmission, D.C. Cir. Nos. 85-1757 and 86-1219 (August 4, 1987). he Court concitried that the rule, vhen considered along with certain statements in the rule premble published in the Federal Register, did not speak unambiguously in terms that constrained the Ccnmission frcm considering econcmic costs in establishing stardards to ensure adequate I )
1 0003.000 [7590-01] l l protection of the public health and safety as dictated by section 182 of the ff. At the same time, Atanic Energy Act of 1954 as atended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 the Court agreed with the Carmission that once an adequate level of safety protection had been achieved under section 182, the Carmission was fully i authorized under section 1611 of the Atanic Energy Act to consider and take f The econanic costs into account in ordering further safety irrprovements. Court therefore rejected the position of petitioners in the case, lhlon of Concerned Scientists, et al., that econcmic costs rnay never be a factor in safety decisions under the Atomic Energy Act. Because the Cour't's opinion regarding the circumstances in which costs may be considered in making safety decisions on ruclear power plants is empletely in accord with the way in which the Carmission has always
- Instead, interpreted this ru!e, the Cmmission will not appeal the decision.
the Cmmission has decided to amend both the rule and the related manual chapter (01 apter 0514) so that they conform unantiguously to the Court's opinion. By this rulemaking the Conmission intends to apply the following safety The Atanic Energy Act cmmands principle in all of its backfitting decisions. the Conmission to ensure that nuclear pour plant operation provides adequate In defining, redefining or protection to the health and safety of the public. enforcing this statutory standard of adequate protection, the Conmission will not consider economic costs. Hoe ver, adequate protection is not absolute protection or zero risk. Hence safety inprovments beyond the minintm needed for adequate protection are possible. The Conmission is errpowered under section 1611 of the At to inpose additional safety requirements that go beyond adequate protection and to consider economic costs in do'ng so.
0004.0.0 [7590-01] The anended backfit rule which was the subject of the Court's decision required, with certain exceptions (relating to backfits necessary to ensure the adequate protection of p;blic health and safety), that backfits be imposed only upon a finding that they provided a substantial increase in the overalI protection of the public health and safety or the ccmron defense and security and that the direct and indirect ets of implementation were justified in view of this increased protection. The proposed anerdnents which follow would restate the exceptions to this requirement for a finding so that the rule would clearly be in accord with the safety principle stated above. In Conments are requested on the proposed amerdrents vhich follow. addition, interested persons are welecme to ccmnent on other possible approaches to confonn the backfit rule to the Court's decision. The Ccmnission has also instructed its staff to amend its trenual chapter on plant specific backfitting to ensure consistency with the Court's opinion and to reissue it. The manual chapter will be revised and issued following adoption of a final rule. Upon cmpletion of that task copies of the revised chapter will be available for public inspection in the Cmmission's Public Doctment Roan,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. ENVIfDAENTAL IAPET: CATEGRICAL EXCllSICN The ITC has detennined that this proposed rule is the tp of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3)(i). Therefore, neither an environmental inpact statenent nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule. i 1
f 0005.0.0 (7590-01]- t PAPERHmK REIU., im ACT STATBENT T This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Papenerk Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved ty the Of fice of Management and Budget, approvai nuTber 3150-0011. REGJLATmY #MLWIS The proposed revision to 10 CFR 5 50.109 will bring it into conformance with the holding in Union of. Concerned Scientists, et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Carmission, D.C. Cir. Nos. 85-1757 and 86-1219 (August 4,1987). in The revision clarifles the backfit rule to reflect MC practice that, detemiining 4 ether to adopt a backfit requirement, economic costs will be considered only when addressing those backfits involving safety requirements beyond those needed to ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety. Such costs are not considered den establishing the adequate protection of public health and safety. This proposed amendrnent does not have a significant inpact on State and local governments and geographical regions, public health and safety, or the environment; nor does it represent This substantial costs to licensees, the MC, or other Federal agencies. constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule. REOJLATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT GRTIFICATim in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.- 605(b), the Conmission hereby certifies that this proposed rule, if prmulgated, will not have a 'significant econcmic inpact on a substantial
000600.0 [7590-01] ruber of small entitles. The affected facilities are licensed under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.21(b) and 10 CFR 50.22. The cmpanies that own these 'acilities do not fall within the scope of "small entities" as set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set forth in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. E EWKFIT NMLYSIS The FEC has detennined that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule because these amerdrents do not irrpose requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. l LIST OF SLBJECI'S 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified infomation, Fire prevention, incorporation by j I reference, Intergoverrinental relations, Nuclear power plants arrf reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting ard recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atanic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the FFC is proposing to adopt the follweing amerdnent to 10 CFR Part 50. / I 1. The authority citation for Part 50 is revised to read as follows: MJilullTY: Secs. 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as anended, sec. 234, 83 Stat.1244, as anerded (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, .J
0007.0.0 [7590-01] 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as anended, 202, 206, 88 Stat.1242, as anended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as anended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185; 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.1245 l (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued i under Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 1 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as atended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 50.103 also issued under sec.108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273), il 50.46(a) and (b), and 50.54(c) are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as anended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); ll 50.7(a), 50.10(a)-(c), 50.34(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a), (c), (d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (I), (1-1), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t), (v), and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a), 50.62(c), 50.64(b), and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as avended (42 U.S.C. 2201(l)); and 59 50.49(d), (h), and (J), 50.54(w), (z), (bb), and (cc), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b),
I 0008.0.0 [7590-01)l 50.62(d), 50.70(a), 50.71(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec.1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)). Section 50.109, is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (3) and (4) and 2. footnote 3 to read as follows: 6 50.109 Backfitting. (a) i (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4), the Cm mission shall require a systerratic and docuented analysis pursuant to paragraph (c) for backfits which it seeks to irrpose. (3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4), the Cm mission shall require the backfitting of a facility only vhen it determines, based on the analysis described in paragraph (c) of this'section, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the ptblic health and safety or the conmon defense and security to be derived from the backfit' and that the direct and indirect costs of irrplementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection. (4) 1he provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section are inapplicable and, therefore, backfit analysis is not required and the j -l standard does not apply where the Cmmission.or staf f, as appropriate, ) finds and declares, with appropriate doctmented evaluation for its finding, either: i
0009.0.0 17590-01] 1 hat a modification is necessary to bring a facility into (1) ccrrpliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Ccnmission, or into confonnance with written ccnmitments by the licensee; or (ii) That regulatory action is necessary to ensure that the facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the ccrimon defense and security; or (Ili) That the regulatory action involves defining or redefining vhat level of protection to the public health and safety or ccnmon defense ard security should be regarded as adequate. Such doctmented evaluation shall include a statement of the objectives of and reasons for the rnodification and the basis for invoking the exception. / The Ccomission shall always require the backfitting of 3 a facility if it determines that such regulatory action is necessary to ensure that the facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the ccomon defense and security. 3 If irrmediately effective regulatory action is required, then the doctmented evaluation may follow rather than precede the regulatory action. If there are two or more ways to achieve ccnpliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Ccrrmission, or with written licensee ccrrmitments, or there are two or more ways to reach a level of protection which is adequate, then ordinarily the applicant or licensee
i 0010.0.0- [7590-01J is free to choose the way vhich best suits its purposes. Should it be necessary or appropriate for the Canmission to prescribe one of these ways to cmply with its requiranents or to achieve adequate protection, then cost may be a factor in selecting the way, provided that the objective of caTpliance or adequate protection is met. Dated at Bethesda,AD this day o f ' 1987. For the Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission u YTum STS.1D, )R. Executive Directo _for Operations s 1 l 1 i ? ( 1 ( J}}