ML18016A064

VR-SECY-91-172: Regulatory Impact Survey Report - Final - Commissioner Curtiss

ML18016A064
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/29/1991
From:	Commissioners, Curtiss NRC/OCM
To:	NRC/SECY
Bavol, Rochelle
References
SECY-91-172
Download: ML18016A064 (3)

Text

.-k,.;.t . . -~-

RELEASED TO THE PDR

• :. ~

NOTATION YOI E: , /1 s/9;;.. .1nd,Ji

. cL_ :*

• date RESPONSE SHEEI **************G******~~-

TO: SAMIJEL J. CHILK, SECRETARY OF THI Cott1ISS10N FR<lt: CCIIIISSIONER CURTISS

SUBJECT:

SECY-91-172 - REGULATORY IMPACT SURVEY REPORT - FINAL X

APPROVED w/comments DISAPPROVED AIST~IN NoT PARTICIPATING RICIJEST DISCUSSION CCNENTS:

See attached comments.

RELEASE VOTE Hovember 29, 1\191 I "'-' DATE WIT11HOLD VOTI l-/

ENTEHD ON "AS" Yu_!_ No_

lB!~li.llA::.. . ~;., ,*

commissioner curtiss' comments on SECY-91-172:

I ugree with the coura* of action outlined by the staff 'n SECV-91-172, subject to the following additional comm*ntsi l) I concur with the ACRS' g*neral observation on the need for feedback to the Colllliasion concerning the impl***ntation and eff*ctiven*** of th*** initiatives.

Accordingly, I would propose that we direct the staff to update th* Coaaiaaion annually on the status of implementation of e~ch of th* initiatives daacribed in Encloaurea 1 through 5 of th* subject SECY paper.

2) In view of recent commentary on the issue of averted on*site costs(... EPRI/NSAC Report NSAC-143, transmitt&d to the co1111isaion on March 27, 1991), I believe that the Commiasion should revisit this isBUG and, after a thorough a*****ment of the arguments for how averted on-site cost* should be treated in backfit analyaea and the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, determine whether the com.mission's earlier action in this r*1ard resolved thi* issue in an appropriate manner, Accordingly, I would propose that we direct the staff, in the context of their ongoing effort to modify the Regulatory Analy*i* Guidelines, to &valuate the various arguments for how averted on-aite costs should be treated in coat-benefit analyaea, including the arguaenta **t forth in EPRI/HSAC Report NSAC-143.

The propoaed reviaiona to the Regulatory Analyaia Guideline*, including a thorough diacuaaion of the isaue of averted on-*ite coats, should then be submitted to the commiaaion for review and approval.

3) I believe that further attention on the isaue of generic communications is in order, Specifically, I believe two steps are warranted:

Ci) When the staff issues a generic communication in which a new applicable regulatory staff poaition ia articulated (aa opposed to aimply diaaeminating knowledge gained from operational experience), the commission should be apprised of such generic communication* prior to their iaauance (9.&.5la. via an information paper), unlema the issue is of such urgency that the generic comaunication muat be issued iffl!Dediately. In advising the commission of 1 In a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 15, 1990, the commisaion addressed the issue of averted on*site coats in the contex*t of addreaaing the safety goal implementation plan, but because the issue of averted on*site costo was not central to the issues addressed in SECY*09-102, I do not believe that the matter received the careful attention that it deserved.

I I the action to be taken, ataff should aununarize the aafety iaaue to be addrea&ad, th* ba*i* for th*

new applicable regulatory ataff poaition, and the rationale for addr***ing the iamua via a generic latter rather than through a rul***king or individual ordera.

(ii) In view of the fact that generic coaaunications, unlike notice and co..ant ruleaaking, do not normally provide a torr.sal opportunity tor public ao11J1ent, I believe that greater effort* ahould be undertaken to aolicit the views of interested aaabara of the public during the davelopmant of tho** generic co1111unication* that articulate a new applicable regulatory staff poaition.

Where this baa bean don* in th* past, th* result has been an improved tinal product (.a.a.st.., th* generic l*tter on Individual Plant Evaluations). Accordingly, I would propoae that th* ataff bu directed to *ubmit to the coamiaaion a paper outlining th* atepa that could ba taken to enhance the degree of public input in the preparation of generic coJlllUnications that articulate new applicable regulatory poaitiona.

4) I beli*va that further evaluation of the issue of region-to-region variation in th* SALP proc*** ia warranted. Thia aatter vaa highlighted in SECY-90-080, "Draft Regulatory Iapact survey Report", a* a prevailing licenaee concern, but vaw not addr***ed in either that paper or thft aubject SECY papar.

Accordingly, I would propoae that the staff b* directed to undertake an ***e****nt ot the SALP proc*** from region to region, focusing on the con*i*tency of the standard* **ployed for assigning grad** in each of th*

functional areas,** well aa Qn the grad** th****lvea, and report back to the co..iaaion on -- (i) th* extent of variability in SALP grad** froa region t~ region, and (ii) whether any such vatiablity 1* due to a lack of uniforaity aaong the Regions in iapleaenting the SALP proceaa, or aiaply the teault of difference* ih the level* of perforaance froa plant to plant and region ta region.

Finally, I would like to review th* Policy Statement on Integrated Schedules, befor* it ia published in final form.