ML20148D389
| ML20148D389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/29/1978 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148D293 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-78-485, NUDOCS 7811020316 | |
| Download: ML20148D389 (119) | |
Text
.- - - -- . . . _-_
- ,.4
. August 29,1978- umrso svares SECY-78-485 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.POLICYL SESSION ITEM l For: The Commissioners -
From: Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear teactor Regulation . i Thru: Executive Director for Operations Q ,
Subject:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ON GENERAL POLICY FOR RULEMAKING TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING A
Cattaory: This paper covers a major policy issue.
Issue: On October 28, 1977 following Policy Session 77-48' the Com- i mission requested that the staff prepare a paper defir.ing the issues and the scope of the proposal to makt increased use of rulemaking proceedings. The staff has developed criteria and procedures for identifying and providing a preliminary evalua-tion of likely topics for rulemaking and has assembled candi-dates suitable for further consideration. The purpose of j this paper is to seek Comission approval or guidance on:
e A general policy statement as described in. Enclosure A .
concerning the intent of the Commission to seek improve-ment of the overall licensing process through rulemaking proceedings regarding a scope of. issues tentatively ,
identified in this enclosure; and e The' publication of this statement as proposed in Enclo-sure B to inform interested parties as a means of soliciting their comments in' order to assist the. staff in its further development of recommendations to the Commission regarding specific plans and schedules for individual rulemaking actions. j Thus, the basic issue to be addressed by the Commission is:
Whether to proceed with the publication of the preliminary statement on general policy for rulemaking as proposed by the staff pursuant to Step 5, Recommendation.10, SECY-77-480.
Contact:
Miller B. Spangler, DSE 492-7305 7 8 1 2.0 3 0 3 t Q i
The Commissioners Decision Criteria: The following criteria are used to evaluate the desirability of the proposed course of action:
- 1. Does the proposed policy statement (Enclosure A) provide an adequate basis for public industry to comment on the proposed ' generic rulemaking plans and to provide substan-tive suggestions?
- 2. Is a request for public and industry comment on the policy statement likely to yield useful input for further development of rulemaking plans and, at the same time, not limit the Commission's flexibility for subsequent modification of the plans?
- 3. Will the policy statement and the request for comments provide useful public visibility and increased public understanoing of NRC objectives in improving the licens-ing process through Generic rulemaking?
Alternatives: 1. Publish the preliminary statement on general policy for rulemaking inviting pub.ic and industry comment as recommended by the staff in Enclosures A and 8.
- 2. Proceed without publishing a statement on general policy inviting public and industry comment.
Discussion: Background On April 20, 1977, the Commission-requested a staff study of the lessons learned in nuclear power plant licensing since the NRC was created. A Study Group was formed and the ,
results of the study were published in June as NUREG-0292, '
" Nuclear Power Plant Licensing: Opportunities for Improve-ment." The Commission reviewed the report and was briefed by the Study Group on the report's 11 recommendations on Jun'e 9, 1977.
Recommendation No. 10 of this study is directed at the increased use of rulemaking for nuclear reactor licensing.
This recommendation states:
"The Study Group recommends that rulemaking should be considered to resolve, or to assist in the resolution of, major issues, which are routinely litigated in
,. +.
The Commissioners . individual licensing proceedings. A system should be <
' established for the continuing identification of major issues that are frequently raised in individual-licensing cases, and for which, considering all relevant. circum-stances, the initiation of rulemaking would improve the overall licensing process."
On June 29,.1977,. the Commission directed the staff to prepare action plans to implement the Study Group's recommenda-tions, including Recommendation No.10 on rulemaking. On September 8, 1977, the staff presented to the Commission in
.SECY-77-480 a paper on'" Action Plans to Implement' Study Group Recommendations on Improving Nuclear Power Plant Licensing." The staff action plan on the rulemaking. initiative is stated in this. paper as follows:
" Recommendation 110 - consider the desirability of'in-
~
creased use of rulemaking to streamline the 1icensing process and' address two specific activities. The first is the effort needed to determine the truly appropriate candidates in the safety and environmental. reviews for rulemaking and to' prepare the necessary recommendations for Commission consideration. ' Secondly,'the procedures developed for the initial task would be used, in the form of a ' standing committee,' to periodically review the technical aspects of the ongoing licensing processes to recommend further candidates for rulemaking. This periodic review would'be semiannual and would provide a.
continuing assessment of the rulemaking needs of the licensing process.
Implementation of the initial activity under this recommendation will be complete by July 1978, with systematic rulemaking activity, as approved by the Commission,. going forward from that date."
In'a memorandum to Lee V. Gossick, Executive Director.for Operations, from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, October 28,.1977, the-Commission identified a staff require-ment'for rulemaking action which simply states:
"10. Increase Use of Rulemaking.
The Commission. requested preparation.of a paper defin-ing the' issues and the. scope of the proposal to make increased use of rulemaking proceedings."
.....)
The Comissione'rs )
}
This paper responds to that Comission request and' completes-y Steps .1.through '4 of < Recomendation No. - 10, SECY-77-480 (Enclosure 1, pp. 33-36). Additional background informatien pertinent to the recommended action is found in:
Enclosure C - Procedures for Identifying and Scoping Candidate-Issues .for Rulemaking. This enclosure discusses how the 10- I candidate issues were identified and lists the other 17-
, issues identified by the staff but not included in-this paper as recomeended candidate issues.
Enclosure 0 - A Preliminary Scoping and Value-Impact Assess-ment of Candidate Issues Identified for Rulecking. This enclosure provides more detail on each of the 10 candidate issues to facilitate understanding the issue, the likely:
scope of rulemaking, the value-impact of rulemaking, and any policy matters that should be considered.
Analysis of Alternatives '
Alternative 1:
This~ alternative is the recommendation to publish a Prelimi-nary Statement of ~ General Policy on Rulemaking to Improve-Nuclear Power Plant Licensing as set.forth in Enclosure A. 4 It includes public notification and procedures'for public comment on the desirable scope of rulemaking issues for.
further action as set forth in Enclosure B. The recomended policy statement and procedure for public' input are designed as a multi-step process. First, it: announces the views of the staff as to an appropriate preliminary scoping of candidate issues for further consideration in rulemaking action. Following Commission approval, the next step involves ,
publishing the tentative scope of the candidate rulemaking ,
issues for comment. The next step is to evaluate the comments thus received and prepare a revised list of issues, assigning priorities and developing schedules for further action. It '
is anticipated that public comment may also be useful in the ,
development of an effective formulation of specific proposed ;
rules. On the more complex issues, followup generic staff studies and workshops or conferences involving outside expertise with some measure of public participation as appropriate may be conducted. ;
Regarding the first decision criterion, the staff feels that
, the general policy statement in Enclosure A provides a ,
i useful- preliminary scoping of candidate rulemaking issues. i The scopes are formulated to stimulate constructive inputs
The Commissioners ,
-by the public and industry. The candidate issues all appear to meet the criteria established for.the identification of issues amenable to rulemaking. The staff believes a' greater expenditure of staff time prior;to publication of the-state- J ment would not be cost-effective and most likely would not :
affect substantially the enclosed list'of candidate issues. .-
Regarding the second decision criterion, the policy statement is not overly rigid or detailed, but does communicate sufficiently the general nature of the rulemaking that might subsequently be proposed. Thus, the proposed statement achieves an important degree of flexibility on the part of NRC in its responsiveness to comments, providing an incentive for comment which would be lacking if it appeared that everything has been thought out and decided upon by the NRC with only public approval being sought.
As for the third decision criterion, the staff believes that the publication of the proposed general policy statement would provide useful public-visibility and understanding of NRC practices, problems, and objectives of improving the .
licensing process through generic rulemaking initiatives.
It seems likely that publishing a preliminary statement on 1 general policy for rulemaking involving the variety of licensing issues.aould stimulate dialogue with a number of State Governments that are disposed to exercise a more vigorous, independent role in.the review of certain of-these issuer (e.g., need for facility, alternative energy sources, alternative sites, uranium availability, etc.). The Federal-State cooperation thus promoted in treating generic. licensing issues could be expected to reduce, in some instances, divergencies of methodologies and decision criteria and thus- i enhance public understanding of NRC objectives and review {
practices.
Alternative 2:
Regarding the first decision criterion, for the staff to proceed at this time without the publication of a preliminary statement on general policy for rulemaking could imply that more work needs-to be done to identify potential issues. .
While more staff analysis could be performed to scope out !
the details more thoroughly and to provide a less subjective cost-effectiveness analysis, such detailed staff work would likely not affect the enclosed identification of issues.
l Regarding the second decision criterion, unless the proposed-policy statement, or'some revision thereof, is published,
The Commissioners - 6.-
-there is no sure way of knowing what the specific responses of. the public and. industry will .be to this general formulation of rulemaking policy that would serve to guide its further development'along productive channels. While the staff believes it'now has reasonably good insights into subjects most suitable for rulemaking, the staff nevertheless expects -
the proposed policy statement will elicit meritorious.
suggestions for additional subjects and refinements in the scope of those set forth. There is also a risk that publica-tion could be construed by some as a firm NRC decision regarding each candidate issue. However, the proposed policy statement is sufficiently clear and specific on this matter so~as to largely avoid this risk.
^
Regarding the third decision criterion, if there is no' publication of a preliminary statement of general policy on 1
' rulemaking, there will be no improvement in understanding NRC practices, problems, and objectives of improving the licensing process through rulemaking actions. -Rulemaking ,
action holds promise of providing valuable assistance'to :
Federal-State cooperation in the licensing of nuclear plants l with or without the passage of legislation providing options for an expanded State role. Thus, a decision not to publish !
a preliminary policy statement would void a useful opportunity .
for induced Federal-State dialogues leading, in.some instances, 1 to an earlier harmonization of NRC-State' methodologies and decision criteria in.the review of licensing issues that are suited to generic treatment.
Recommendation: That the Commission approve the publication of the Interim Statement of General Policy for Rulemaking to Improve Nuclear Power Plant Licensing as proposed in Enclosure A and in the manner of publication as proposed in Enclosure ,B. The proposed action to publish the interim policy statement and review comments received will not require.any additional Commission resources. A preliminary value-impact summary ls pr'sented e in Enclosure D which provides highly tentative estimates of the costs of rulemaking effort as well as the anticipated benefits (i.e., cost savings per case to NRC and the industry) achievable through generic rulemaking. Further refinement of this value-impact assessment will be made after receipt of public and industry comment and establishment of recommended priorities and schedules. Provided that only several of the more complex issues proposed for rulemaking are scheduled for staff effort.in any given year, it does not appear that additional Commission resources will be ,
required to complete rulemaking action on the proposed l issues.
l l
The Commissioners Coordination: The recommendation is concurred in by NRR, 050, NMSS, and I&E. OELD has no legal objections. 0GC and OPE comments are responded to in Enclosure E.
Suggested word changes and deletions by OGC and OPE have been adopted by the staff. Comments concerning a possible third alternative for Commission consideration plus the suggestion that a NUREG publication with additional informa-tion might be desirable are discussed in Enclosure E.
Scheduling:
This paper is tentatively scheduled for discussion at an Open Meeting during the Week'of. September 18, 1978. Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission . Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
l hk Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
A. Interim Statement of General Policy and Plans for Rule-making to Improve Nuclear DISTRIBUTION Power Plant Licensing Commissioners B. Federal Register Notice invit- Commission Staff Offices ing public comment on the Exec Dir for Operations policy statement and action Regional Offices plan Secretariat C. Procedures for Identifying ;
and Scoping Candidate Issues I for Rulemaking I D. A Preliminary Scoping and l Value-Impact Assessment of Candidate Issues Identified for Rt.lemaking i E. Staff Response to OGC and OPE Comments l l
l l
1
a e
4 9
ENCLOSURE A 1
l l
Enclosure A INTERIM STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY AND PLANS FOR RULEMAKING TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING A. Statement of Purpose On April 20, 1977, the Commission directed that recently completed licensing actions be. reviewed-by the staff for the purpose of identify-ing ways to improve the effectiveness of NRC nuclear power plant licens-ing activities. The Study Group's report, Nuclear Power Plant Licensing:
Opportunities for Improvement (NUREG-0292, June 1977) presented eleven recommended measures for improving licensing effectiveness. Recommenda-tion No.10 of this study (Increased Use of Rulemaking) provided the following statement suggesting certain basic purposes of rulemaking:
"The Study Group recommends that rulemaking should be considered to resolve, or to assist in the resolution of, major issues, which are routinely litigated in individual licensing proceedings. A system should be established for the continuing identification of major issues that are frequently raised in individual licensing cases, and for which, considering all relevant circumstances,'the initiation of rulemaking would improve the overall licensing process."
The Commission, on October 28, 1977, requested the staff to prepare a paper defining the. issues and the scope of the proposal to make increased use of rulemaking proceedings. Pursuant to this request, a Steering Com-mittee on Reactor Licensing Rulemaking was established with the initial Enclosure A
function of developing definitive criteria for identifying issues amenable to rulemaking and to recommend issues that should be considered further for rulemaking.
The Commission recognizes that there are potential advantages to the handling of certain safety and environmental issues by rulemaking, which depend on the specific issue being considered. These advantages are:
(a) enhance stability and predictability of the licensing process by providing regulatory criteria and requirements in discrete generic areas on matters which are significant in the review and approval of license applications; (b) enhance public understanding and confidence in the integrity of the licensing process by bringing out for public participation important generic issues which are of concern to the agency and to the public; (c) enhance administrative efficiency in licensing by removing, in whole or in part, generic issues from staff review and adjudicatory resolution in individual licensing proceedings and/or by establishing the importance (or lack of importance) of various safety and environmental issues to the decision process; (d) assist the Commission in resolving complex methodology and policy issues involved in recurring issues in the review and approval of individual licensing applications; and (e) yield an overall savings in the utilization of resources in the licensing process by the utility industry, those of the public whose interest may be affected by the rulemaking, the NRC, and other Federal, State, and Enclosure A
a . , . .
local governments With an expected improvement in the quality of the decision process.
Accordingly, rulemaking is perceived as an instrument for improving the effectiveness of the licensing process. Rulemaking would appear to serve the societal purposes reflected in the above advantages whenever this procedure would lead to a dispositive generic treatment of certain safety and environmental issues in a more cost-effective manner than the current approach which treats these issues repetitively for each individual licensing action.
B. Criteria for Rulemaking Issues Certain preliminary criteria were developed by the Steering Committee and utilized by the staff in identifying candidate environmental and safety issues and evaluating their suitability for rulemaking procedures.
Each candidate issue will remain under consideration for rulemaking if l it reasonably meets each of the following mandatory criteria:
- 1. The issue must be generic. This means that the topic must arise frequently in case review and/or at licensing hearings (not necessarily all hearings), with little added to the state-of-the-art and no significant differences in outcome in ,
each instance. In other words, repetitive administrative litigation of the subject appears unproductive. Such issues Enclosure A
7 p .. .
might involve broad policy matters which are really not'most' efficiently addressed in specific plant licensing procedures, or might' involve'the establishment of criteria with which to measure the; acceptability of an analytical or forecasting procedure or the importance of an issue in specific plant-4 licensing procedures.
I
- 2. There must be a likelihood of a useful, definitive rule. This ]
'l means that the final rule should reasonably be expected to do !
1 one or more of the following: -]
'l
- a. Arrive at a dispositive finding regarding the generic issue so that the issue would not be addressed at all or in a simplified way in subsequent individual licensing-cases where threshold or other generic criteria established by rulemaking are met. )
1
- b. Establish generic acceptance criteria which can then be applied to the issue in subsequent individual. licensing Cases.
- c. Establish the relative importance of the generic issue to the decisional process for subsequent individual licensing cases; i.e., criteria to determine the relative signifi-cance of the issue.
- d. Establish analytical criteria or methodology to be utilized in subsequent individual licensing cases. While many Enclosure A
l
.,,. 4 1 l
criteria and methodologies are already in Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans, in some instances it might be useful to incorporate these in NRC's rules in a more specific form.
If culmination of rulemaking would likely result in one or more of the above, then this would reduce subsequent controversy, strengthen the bases for NRC licensing decisions, and improve
-the quality and efficiency of staff review.
- 3. There must be a likelihood of a stable rule. This means that the information base and analytical or forecasting procedures should be sufficient to reach a reasonable generic conclusion and should be expected to remain relatively unchanged for some reasonable period of time after implementation of the rule.
Those candidates for rulemaking which meet the above criteria shall have thefollowingvalue-impactcriteriaappliedintheirevaluation.M Their beneficial values, on balance, should outweigh the additional impacts cr costs of the licensing process in order to be considered further for rulemaking.
E nI NRC usage, the meaning of " values" and " impacts" includes external and intangible effects.as well as internal and quantifiable ones.
Enclosure A
Near-term priorities for the scheduling of action for the accepted candidates for rulemaking will be made principally in accordance with the degree of favorability of benefits over costs and the level and availability of NRC resources including contractual services.
Value Criteria
- a. Achievement of more effective public input and improved public understanding of NRC's analytical procedures and decision criteria in treating potential environmental and safety issues in the licensing process for nuclear power plants. !
- b. Improvement of the stacility and predictability of the licensing process, including the provision of orderly and clear procedures for State-Federal cooperation in treating generic licensing issues.
- c. Accomplishment of an overall savings of manpower and financial re-sources of the NRC, the public, the utility industry, and other local, State, and Federal agencies involved in the nuclear licensing process.
Impact Criteria
- a. The short-term-increase in dollar costs of the various participants in the rulemaking action, including contractual support,
- b. The additional impacts (i.e., opportunity costs) of diverting man-power and other resources to the rulemaking process and away from other productive uses for a temporary period.
Enclosure A
C. Plan for the Development of Rulemaking on Specific Issues The plan for the development and implementation of rulemaking on specific generic issues involves the following steps: 1
- 1. Identification and description by the NRC staff of candidate issues for generic rulemaking. Brief descriptions of candidate issues for rulemaking as proposed by the staff are set forth i
in the Appendix.
- 2. Invitation and receipt of comments by the utility industry, the public, and other governmental agencies on staff proposed rulemaking issues, including additional suggestions for rule-making as well as information useful in assessing the scope, benefits, and costs of specifi: rulemaking issues.
- 3. Formalization of rulemaking plans upon receipt of comments and further development of imp'.ementation strategies and schedules.
- 4. Preparation of specific proposed rulemaking on the selected issues in accordance with the formalized plan.
Preliminary Approaches for Treating Rulemaking Difficulties There would appear to be three basic problems in achieving an effective implementation of rulemaking on generic issues: (i) achieving effective input from public and industry sources; (ii) schedule conflicts with other NRC staff assignments; and (iii) developing rules for treating a number of the generic issues that will improve, rather than hinder, Enclosure A 4
l l
cooperative relations with those State agencies performing parallel functions.
I In achieving effective input to rulemaking from public and industry l sources, particularly on complex issues about which there are a diversity- l of views, the normal Federal. Register Notice procedure of proposed rulemaking will be appropriately supplemented by the use of workshops or I conferences. The preparation of staff papers be Bre and after such workshops could serve as a useful basis for structuring the assimilation of comments and expertise in the development of generic methodological j procedures and decision criteria. l 1
In minimizing schedule conflicts with other staff assignments, it is contemplated that only a few of the more complex and difficult rulemaking actions would be scheduled in a given calendar year. The use of consultants ,
1 to aid in the preparation of background studies for rulemaking would also be of assistance in easing schedule conflicts with staff efforts.
I l
l One of the greatest difficulties, however, is developing rules for j treating a number of the generic issues that will improve, rather than hinder, cooperative relations with those State agencies performing parallel functions. Some States have been quite active in assessing the need for and siting of nuclear power plants, while other~ States are just beginning to get deeply involved. In addition to varying levels of l Enclosure A l l
I
-g-experience among State agencies are problems arising from differences between States in the form of legal authorities, administrative structures, l and policies and procedures affecting the treatment of licensing issues.
These do not appear to be insurmountable difficulties, however, and the NRC has already begun to develop cooperative agreements in review and hearing efforts with several States in the areas of water-related impacts and need-for-baseluaa facility methodology. Rules and guidelines can be developed that provide an appropriate blend of flexibility and specific procedural requirements. State officials can be involved in workshops and conferences to aid in formulating the rules. Indeed, this rulemaking i l
process conducted at an early date could have a substantial impact on those States which are just beginning to formulate licensing review I programs, thus making State-Federal cooperation easier to accomplish and more effective.
Enclosure A
- '.*.* O APPENDIX DESCRIPTION OF CANDIDATE ISSUES FOR GENERIC RULEMAKING NRC staff efforts have produced the following preliminary identification of candicate-issues for generic rulemaking upon which public' comment is
. invited:1/
e Future' availability and price of uranium - Forecasting the avail-ability and. price of uranium is an important and controversial _as-pect of comparing the costs and benefits of proposed nuclear power-plants with. alternative energy sources. The subject is highly generic since.the future outlook in the availability and price of uranium is basically national and international in analytical con-tent with insignificant variations for case-by-case treatment. The l 1
interrelated causal factors are complex requiring multidisciplinary analysis more effectively integrated in generic rulemaking than in individual, repetitive case treatments. The dominant source of information.is outside the NRC. The principal output of rulemaking would be to: (i) develop an authoritative record regarding forecasting ;
1/ Th e Commission has not arrived at any final position as to the. nature of any subsequent proposed rule (s)'or even as to whether, after receipt I of public comment and further staff development,-any of the proposed. I candidates will be pursued further.
i Enclosure A 1
.,m. =
methodologies and supporting information; (ii) prescribe guidelines for acceptable treatment of forecasting methodologies and criteria for their assimilation in licensing decisions; and (iii) develop criteria for possible review of the rule at a later time to update the analyses and decisional factors, o Alternative energy sources to the nuclear option - Alternatives for central station electric power generation dealt with in hearings include coal, oil, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, biomass, and municipal waste. Although the factors entering into the cost-effectiveness for these alternatives differ appreciably for various regions, their administrative litigation in the nuclear licensing process involves a generic methodology with repetitive outcomes making these suitable candidates for rulemaking. Their analysis involves many causal factors affecting forecasts of their future cost and range of uncertainty over technological performance and market acceptance. The DOE, NRC, EPRI and other institutions have prepared sutdies with additional research underwcy on alternative energy sources which collectively provide an adequate basis for generic rulemaking. The rulemaking would seek to establish: (i) what alternative energy sources, if any, would be required to be analyzed for various regions of the United States on an individual licensing basis; (ii) what criteria would be applicable in integrating the analysis of alternatives in either a dispositive generic treatment Enclosure A
3-or case-related licensing decision; and (iii) the criteria for a possible review of the rule at a'later time to accommodate an updating of the analysis of any energy alternative because.of new technological, market, and political developments that would sub-stantially improve its attractiveness relative to the nuclear power option.
e Need for adding baseload generating capacity - Power systems planning by utilities, including intra pool sales, involves analysis of numerous factors to determine the optimal mix by fuel type and size as well as th'e timing of baseload generating additions to system capacity. A wide variety of' demand forecasting methodologies'are employed whose accuracy'is impracticable to demonstrate. A legion of conservation, co generation, and energy substitution options 1 l
exist that are often highly speculative as to timing of implementa- I tion and their contributive importance. Experience has demonstrated j that economic advantages and benefits of improved fuel mix, in some instances, can be even more persuasive criteria for justifying q l
additional baseload capacity than need for power analysis which I i
matches demand growth projections and planned unit additions and. l 2
retirements against system reliability requirements. The possible asymmetry of cost penalties due to overforecasting or underforecasting demand appears a fruitful line of research being sponsored by.the NRC that would aid in developing generic decision criteria and Enclosure A
., , .c , ,, , - , - -
procedures for dealing with need for baseload facility analysis.
Rulemaking would seek to establish: (i) criteria by which the applicant's demonstration of need can be judged including criteria regarding demand forecasting methodologies, optimal fuel mix, and system economics; (ii) generic decision criteria regarding the extent to which the applicant's evaluation of'need must agree with the NRC's evaluation of need, which inherently considers forecasting error and the asymmetry of cost penalties; (iii) the criteria, if any, which would determine the issues to be brought to NRC hearings relative to the adequacy of need for baseload addition analyses; and (iv) the degree to which the NRC could utilize previous reviews of State or Federal agencies.
e Alternative siting metodology and information requirements -
Considerations important to the analysis of nuclear power plant siting alternatives vary between regions and even between certain site options within a region. Moreover, there are a variety of site screening and assessment methodologies in use among utilities l
which differ in their fundamental approach, the types of factors
- comsidered, and the level of information supplied to support the l
analyses. The cost of avjitional information for the siting analyses must be weighed against expected benefits. That is to say, a j judgment needs to be made as to whether the cost of uhe extra information would likely be compensated for by its social value in Enclosure A
significantly reducing the probability that a superior site will .
? .
not have been identified.in.the screening process'or ultimately' ,
rejected in the comparative analysis because of inadequate or.
inaccurate appraisal of a'd verse'or beneficial impacts. The chief output'of rulemaking would: ~(i)~ clarify'the ru'les regarding the concept of '!obviously. superior" as set forth by the Commission in-the Seabrook case;1! (ii)' prescribe rules for establishing criteria regarding the implementation of the "obviously superior" concept and the kinds and extent of .information required so as to achieve. ;
an appropriate blend of flexibility and specificity which'would be cost-effective for different types of lice'nsing/ siting situations; and (iii) develop a record regarding variations and the relative inerits of different. site screening and evaluation methodologies and !
l their associated costs,-benefits, and uncertainties focusing on a~' i spectrum of historical-cases wherein controversial issues-arose. .l o Criteria for assessment of nuclear plant impacts and mitigative measures - Early Site Review (ESR) procedures have increased atten-1 tion to~ site suitability. concepts involving the acceptability of i environmental and socioeconomic impacts of nuclear power plants.
Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans developed by the NRC- .i l
1 M Memorandum and Order of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook j Station, Units 1 and 21, Docket Nos. 50-443 and 50-444, March 31, 1977. I Enclosure A u_---- _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _- - - ,
as they now exNc are often too general in form to establish appro-priate specific procedures and decision criteria to make a clear determination that a plant design / siting alternative is acceptable j in regard to certain types of environmental and socio-economic impacts without additional mitigative measures, or that certain minor or major mitigative modifications are of reasonable cost when compared to the averted or reduced impacts. In the exploration of these concepts rulemaking would: (i) provide a review of the types of issues encountered in the licensing process involving acceptability of impacts with and without mitigative measures in relation to their importance to the overall licensing decision process; (ii) develop acceptance criteria for various kinds of impacts in the construction and operation of nuclear power plants; and (iii) establish the acceptability of costs of mitigative measures to meet these or related criteria.
e Generic procedural criteria to define more concretely NRC responsi-bility in assessments and decisions regarding certain water-related impacts in relation to the statutory authorities of EPA and permitting States - NRC responsibility in assessments and decisions regarding water quality and resultant ecological impacts of nuclear power plant construction and operation derives principally from the NEPA of 1969 (PL 91-190) as modified by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act Enclosure A
of 1977 (PL'95-217). The 1975 agreement between EPA and NRC entitled "Second Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Implementation of Certain Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency Responsibilities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" serves to provide mechanisms for coordinating the respective responsibilities of the two agencies. Despite these efforts, substantial diversity in interpretation of these respective roles has been demonstrated among a number of EPA Regions and among NRC licensing boards in their initial decisions affecting certain wc^er-related issues.
While NRC has no authority to establish in specific terms the reles of the EPA or permitting States in these cooperative licensing revd ew efforts on certain water-related impacts, a greater I specificity of NRC's procedures could lead to a substantial improve- j 1
ment in the efi tiveness of nuclear power plant licensing actions.
1 The output of rulemaking would: (i) develop dispositive rules on procedural criteria for the NRC role in assessments and decisionmaking involving certain water-related impacts of nuclear power plants; and (ii) provide a record through a review of licensing problems in multi-agency coordination in dealing with water-related impact issues to establish clearer NRC responsi.;:lities and insights useful to other cooperating agencies to improve the effectiveness of their own regulatory procedures. NRC would need to maintain close coordination with the EPA in the development of any proposed rule.
Enclosurn A
1
.... ,. )
i 1
l e NEPA decision criteria for operating license (0L) reviews - Current i NRC regulation's regarding OL licensing review procedures (10 CFR 51.23-e) declare that "a draft environmental impact statement !
prepared in connection with the issuance of an ope, rating license wil1~ cover only matters which differ from or which reflect new information in addition to those matters discussed in the final .
environmental impact statement prepared in connection with the issuance of the construction permit." This instruction makes no differentiation in the relevance of individual cost-benefit considerations to licensing decisions at the OL versus the Construc-tion Permit (CP) stage. For example, the staff believes the need for constructing new baseload generating capacity considered in a CP decision normally is no longer a germane issue to an OL decision.
In order to be forward-looking, the OL decision should ignore investment costs. Demand growth forecasts are no longer a germane issue at the OL stage since the controlling cost-benefit criterion is whether the operation of a nuclear plant once constructed is a less expensive option for society in terms of incremental system 1
and environmental costs than the use of any equivalent baseload i capacity available within the system or the purchase of energy from other utilities in the power pool. Likewise, alternative energy sources and alternative sites as well as external and irretrievable impacts on the environment or community-level, socioeconomic effects found acceptable at the time of the CP decision do not appear to be ,
1 1
Enclosure A I
(.
-g-relevant to an 0L~ decision. Rulemaking would improve licensing effectiveness at the OL stage through: (i) establishing a clear differentiation between impact issues admissable for review at the CP and OL stages of . licensing decision; and (ii) the development of acceptance criteria as to whether new information on impacts germane to an OL decision are sufficiently significant to societal intere3ts to require re-review at the OL stage. ,
Currently, there is under review a petition for rulemaking in this area (PRM-51-4). While the staff believes that rulemaking in this general area would be productive, this Interim Policy Statement should not be considered as' impacting the Commission's decision -
relative to the-legal and technical merits of the petition.
e Occupational radiation exposure control - Analysis of occupational radiation exposure data has identified activated corrosion products (crud) as the principal source of worker exposures at nuclear power plants. Man-rem exposure, plant down-time, and operating and !
maintenance costs may be substantially increased without appropriate ,
exposure control of these depositional processes. The industry has been exploring methods of reducing. occupational radiation. exposures due to these sources. At such time in the future as information <
becomes sufficient to justify specific regulatory requirements in
-this area, rulemaking could achieve a specific annual radiation Enclosure A
exposure design objective for control of occupational radiation exposures from crud buildup, analogous to 50.34a for effluent control. More immediately, it would appear desirable to conduct rulemaking surroundir.g the development of additional design criteria in Appendix A of Part 5' involving two separate considerations: (i) crud formation, solution, and deposition, including design criteria for the primary coolant system for decontamination of crud; and (ii) aspects of plant layout and design to reduce occupational Fadiation exposure from this source in keeping with ALARA criteria in Regulatory Guide 8.8.
e Generic radiological impact for normal LWP. radionuclide ' releases -
Radiological impact estimates are currently prepared through an engineering evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment system i that produces an inventory of radionuclides released to the envi-ronment, a calculation of the available atmospheric and hydrologic dilution, and a calculation of the dose to individual receptors in the immediate site environs and to the population within 50 miles of the site and the total United States. A generic treatment of these radiological impacts would be appropriate because: (1) there is a regulatory requirement that radioactive effluents result in calculated doses within 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, design objective values, and (2) technical specifications are imposed on nuclear plants which hold them to or below these values. This results in Enclosure A
operating criteria that always limit the impact to a value below a specified value. The proposed rulemaking would be based, in part, on a survey of the calculated imphets in environmental statements to determine appropriate. ranges of doses for categorizing radiological impacts from radionuclide releases. The upper end of this range of doses would be the Appendix I design objective values. An empirical study of the relation between observed and calculated impacts would establish a more reliable lower bound for radiological impacts than that presently calculated and would obviate the need for calculating radiological impacts of normal radionuciide releases for each individual licensing case.
e Threshold limits for generic dispositon of cooling tower effects -
The potential environmental and socioeconomic effects of cooling ,
1 tower operation have raised contentions at a substantial number o ' l case hearings. These issues include weather modification (increased rain, snow, fog, tornadoes and floods), deposition, interactions of l cooling tower operation with other plant effluents (radiological and chemical), noise, and aesthetics. In a sizeable fraction of these cases a detailed examination of these issues in supplemental testimonies supports the conclusion that the impacts are of negligible societal importance. Accordingly, a useful objective of rulemaking would be to seek to establish threshold limits for each potential effect of cooling tower cperation for a wide variety of designs and Enclosure.A
site-specific conditions which, if not exceeded, would be deemed to be_. inconsequential to societal interests. If these threshold limits were exceeded, then more detailed assessment would be required for the individual licensing action in lieu of generic disposition.
1 l
l 4
1 I
Enclosure A
i 4
ik i
s l
1 s
I l
l l
l 4
\
d 4
ENCLOSURE B f(
! l l
l l
l l
l l
1 l
+
f t
l l
i i
l Enclosure B ;
l l
i Proposed Federal Register Notice '
1 I
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INTERIM POLICY STATEMENT GENERIC RULEMAKING TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Interim Policy Statement
SUMMARY
- An interim policy is presented to govern the consideration of preliminary proposals and plans by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to pursue rulemaking on generic licensing issues as one of several initiatives to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of licensing of nuclear power plants. Although planning for expanded rulemaking of this nature was initiated with an NRC study group recommendation of June 1977, the present interim statement fully supports Executive Oraer 12044 of March 23, 1978,. requesting improvement of existing and future government regulations so as to be as simple and clear as possible and avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on'the economy, on individuals, on public and private organizations, or on State and local governments. Comments received by (60 days), 1978, will be considered before adopting and implementing the final policy and. plan for such expanded rulemaking. .
Enclosure B
DATE: Comments due on or before (60 days), 1978.
ADDRESS: Written comments or suggestions for consideration in connection l
with the proposed Interim Statement on Rulemaking Policy should be submitted to the Secretary of-the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miller B. Spangler, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555, telephone 301-492-7305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing this interim policy statement as a means of receiving public and industry comment on the interim policy and plans for expanded rulemaking to improve and simplify the licensing process for nuclear power plants.
Ten individual proposals for rulemaking are selected for presentation to illustrate the kinds of generic licensing issues the Commission feels might be treated more effectively by rulemaking. The purpose of announcing this interim policy is to obtain comments that will: help the Commission decide which, if any, of these ten issues should be considered further for rulemaking; identify other issues suitable for rulemaking; develop a better perspective as to the likely scope or nature of any proposed rulemaking on any of the identified issues; and assist in the development of an overall plan for proceeding with generic rulemakings.
Enclosure B
The NRC recognizes that, in many ins'.nces, flexibility is required in the licensing process to accommodate changes in-technology and analytical techniques as well as differences in specific design and site characteristics.
However, the NRC also foresees a gain in licensing efficiency and simplifi-cation by placing, as appropriate, more of its analysis techniques and decision criteria into rules rather than Regulatory Guides and Standard Review Plans and relying on case-by-case analysis and litigation. By treating licensing issues generically, Federal, State, public, and appli-cant resources could be more effectively focused on site-specific and design-specific issues of importance and the NRC's licensing process would be more effective and better understood.
The brief description of the ten potential candidates for rulemaking appended to the following Interim Policy Statement provides only the general character of the intent of the proposed rule. The NRC has no prejudgment and precommitment to the exact nature of any subsequent prcposed rule and invites creative contributive inputs by parties with a desire to aid in' improving the licensing process through rulemaking. To aid its decisions on which issues to take to rulemaking and the establish-ment of schedule priorities, the NRC invites quantitative estimatts on cost savings (manpower and financial resources) anticipated to result from generic rulemaking rather than individual case treatment of the Enclosure B
4 issue using examples, as appropriate, from licensing experience to pro-i vide hard data on avoidable costs.
INTERIM STATEMENT OF GENERAL POLICY AND PLANS FOR RULEMAKING TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR POWER. PLANT LICENSING (Enclosure A to the Staff Paper would be repeated at this point)
Dated at Washington, DC, , 1978 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
l l
Samuel J. Chilk, l Secretary of the Commission l l
l Enclosure B l l
l
e 3 6 a
ENCLOSURE C i
i l
l l
l l
Enclosure C l
PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCOPING CANDIDATE ISSUES FOR RULEMAKING l
1 1
In response to'a request by the Commissien on October 28, 1977 for the I staff to prepare a paper defining and scoping rulemaking_ issues, Edson Case, in a memorandum dated December 5,1977, established the Steering Committee on Reactor Licensing Rulemaking. This Committee is charged' with the responsibility for ensuring that the Commission's desires be effectively implemented and that proper coordination be maintained be-tween NRR, ELD, SD, and other interested Gffices. Malcolm Ernst was appointed to chair the Committee whose initial function is to develop definitive criteria for identifying issues amenable to rulemaking and to recommend issues that should be considered further for rulemaking.
The results of these initial deliberations are reflected in the Interim Statement of General Policy for Rulemaking.(Enclosure A).
During the preparation of the " lessons learned" Study Group report (NUREG-0292), comments made by several staff members indicated that some previous rulemaking experiences have resulted in situations where the technical staff has lost licensing flexibility. -Examples were stated for safety issues both where analyses were required in a speci-fied manner, or where unnecessarily conservative conclusions were
. required. In both cases staff members indicated concerns over exces-sive rigidity resulting from rulemaking where either technical advances, Enclosure C
4 1
different. technical approaches, or reasonable but less conservative site or design-specific conclusions could be precluded. The Steering Committee concluded that the major thrust should be on identifying.
rulemaking issues that will reduce repetitive staff hearing efforts, increase public understanding, eliminate consideration.of unproductive issues, and promote predictability.of decisionmaking while avoiding procedure changes that would inflexibly deter technical advances in.
-analysis or equipment design. .
One method of identifying issues most amenable to rulemaking considered by the Committee was to review all contentions and hearing issues and make judgments as.to the frequency of occurrence of an issue, the effort expended on various issues, and the degree to which each satisfies the.
criteria established by the Committee. The Committee felt, however, that this would be excessively time consuming and likely would not be any more effective in identifying issues than the chosen alternative.
The course of action decided upon by the Committee as being most cost- [
effective was to poll the staff members closest to the review and hear-ing processes and rely primarily on their collective judgments as to the issues most amenable to rulemaking.
Enclosure C
- 3'-
The first task of the Steering Committee was to develop criteria useful for the identification of safety and environmental issues that might be amenable to rulemaking. Draft criteria developed by the Committee are attached as Appendix.1, together with the attributes for taking any issue to rulemaking. Comments of the staff were invited on the draft criteria for consideration by the Committee.
The next step in the implementatio,n of the Committee's charge was to identify those issues most amenable to rulemaking. To accomplish this a package was sent to each NRR Branch Chief and ELD Assistant Chief Hearing. Counsel requesting that they, their Section Leaders (if any),
and at least two of their most experienced staff members identify and evaluate potential candidates for rulemaking. Instructions to the staff plus the tabular format for identifying and evaluating candidate issues for rulemaking are presented in Appendix 2.
As a result of this poll there were approximately 55 responses which identified a total of 27 areas for potential-rulemaking. The Committee reviewed these proposed issues, ha.d discussions with many of the respon-dents, and reduced the list of viable candidates to a total of ten. These ten issues are discussed individually in Enclosure D of this paper and are summarized in the proposed Interim Policy Statement (Enclosure A).
Enclosure C
The 17 issues that had been identified in the poll but were deleted from further consideration in this staff paper are identified below, together with a brief rationale for their deletion.
Issue Rationale for Deletion at This Time a
- 1. Extension of ALARA to Currently under review by staff b Occupational Exposures
- 2. Population Dose Assess- Currently under review by staff b ments for Siting
- 3. Environmental and Cost Currently under review by staff b Impacts of Decommissioning (NUREG-0436)
- 4. Water Use at Nuclear Criteria not sufficiently well Power Plants developed for rulemaking
- 5. Protection Against Currently under review by staff b Turbine Missiles
- 6. Extension of Codes and Currently under review by staff b Standards Rule
- 7. Applicability of Appendix.B Not a priority subject for rulemaking to 10 CFR 50 to Pretendering Work
- 8. Better Definition of Appen- Not a priority subject for rulemaking dix B to 10 CFR 50 l
a lt is noted that the above list represents only those issues identified l to the Committee as a result of the poll and should not be considered i to be complete. There are many'other procedural and technical issues currently being considered for rulemaking (such as ATWS) which were not identified to the Committee, since most respondents accurately felt that the poll was aimed at new issues rather than at issues currently programmed as possible or likely for rulemaking.
b Not a new item and will possibly be proposed for rulemaking at a later time.
Enclosure C
- 5.-
a
' Issue Rational for Deletion at This Time b
9 .~ Delete par.'II.D. of Appen- -Currently under review.by staff dix I to 10 CFR 50-b-
- 10. Health Effects of Routine -Currently under review by staff Radiological Releases
- 11. Ad Hoc Seismic Review Panels Available now as a management option without rulemaking
- 12. Revision of Appendix A to Currently under review by staff b 10 CFR'100
- 13. Seismic Design Values by Currently under review by staff b Region b
- 14. Changes to 10 CFR 50.47 Currently under review by staff and Appendix K to 10 CFR 50
- 15. Treatment of Accidents, Currently under review by staff b Including Class 9 b
- 16. Impacts of Radon-222 Currently under_ review;by staff b
- 17. Coal vs.' Nuclear, Health Currently under review by staff and Environmental Impacts alt is noted that the above list represents only those issues identified to the Committee as a result of the poll and should not be considered to be complete. There are many other procedural and technical. issues currently being considered for rulemaking (such as ATWS) which were not identified to the Committee, since most respondents accurately felt that '
the poll was aimed at new issues rather than at issues currently programmed as possible or likely for rulemaking. ,
bNot~a new item and will possibly be proposed for rulemaking at a later time.
Enclosure C
l APPENDIX 1 DRAFT CRITERIA FOR RULEMAKING ISSUES 1
1 There are distinct advantages to the handling of technical issues by rulemaking which can far outweigh the disadvantages, depending on the specific issue being considered. These advantages are: (a) enhance public understanding and/or predictability of the licensing process by providing regulatory criteria and requirements in discrete generic areas on matters which are significant in the review and approval of license applications; (b) enhance public trust and confidence in the integrity of the licensing process by bringing out for public participation impor-tant generic issues which are of concern to the agency and to the public; '
(c) enhance administrative efl.ciency in licensing by removing, in whole or in part, significant generic issues from staff review and adjudicatory
-resolution in individual licensing proceedings and/or by establishing the importance (or lack of importance) of various technical issues to the decisional process; and (d) assist the Commission in resolving complex factual and policy . issues involved in recurring issues in the review and approval of individual licensing applications.
While these advantages are realizable, the magnitude of benefits to be achieved are clearly dependent on the type of the issue being considered for rulemaking. In this regard, certain criteria have been developed to assist in the identification of issues (both safety and environmental) that might be most useful to propose for rulemaking. The criteria drafted Enclosure C
and used by the Steering Committee on Reactor Licensing Rulemaking are as follows:
- 1. The issue must be generic. This means that the topic must arise frequently in case review and/or at licensing hearings (not neces-sarilyall, hearings),withlittleaddedtothestate-of-the-art and no significant differences in outcome in each instance. In other words', repetitive litigation of the subject appears unpro-ductive or perhaps even counterproductive. Such issues might involve broad national or generic policy matters which are really not most efficiently addressed in specific plant licensing proce-dures, or might involve the establishment of generic criteria with which to measure the acceptability of an analytical or forecasting procedure or the importance of an issue in specific plant licensing procedures.
- 2. There must be a likelihood of a useful, definitive rule. This means that the final rule should reasonably be expected to do one or more of the following:
- a. Arrive at a dispositive finding regarding the generic issue so that the issue would not be addressed at all or in a minor way in subsequent individual licensing cases where threshold or other generic criteria established by rulemaking are met.
Enclosure C
1 l
- b. Establish generic acceptance criteria which can then be applied I to the issue in subsequent individual licensing cases.
- c. Establish the relative importance of the gene.ic issue to the decisional process for subsequent individual licensing cases; i.e., criteria to determine the relative safety or enviroii-mental significance of the issue.
- d. Establish analytical critte methodology to be utilized in subsequent individual licensing cases. While many criteria and methodologies are already in Regulatory Guides, in some instances it might be useful to incorporate these in NRC's rules.
If culmination of rulemaking would likely result in one or more of the above, then this would reduce subsequent controversy, strengthen the bases for NRC licensing decisions, and improve the quality'and efficiency of staff review.
- 3. There must be a likelihood of a stable rule. This means that the information base and analytical or forecasting procedures should be sufficient to reacit a reasonable generic conclusion and should be.
expected to remain relatively unchanged sufficiently long so that the resulting rule will not be subject to significant meritorious challenge for some reasonable period of time after implementation of the rule.
Enclosure C
- 4. It should achieve more effective public input. While not a manda-tory criterion, this is clearly a useful result--though very difficult to evaluate. A related benefit is to improve public understanding of NRC's analytical procedures and decision criteria in treating impact issues.
- 5. The rulemaking should be cost-effective regarding use of NRC resources.
This is not a mandatory criterion, since the following points should-be considered:
- a. If only minimal NRC resources (manpower and contractual) are required for rulemaking, it could still be wise to implement.
rulemaking even if it would not result in an overall savings 1
of NRC resources; i.e., other criteria (see above) might be persuasive in these instances.
- b. If a large amount of'short-term NRC resources are required, it may not be reasonable to implement rulemaking even if the long-term results are likely to be an overall sayings of NRC resources; i.e., there could be an overriding short-term constraint on the availability of suitable NRC resources.
f In analyzing NRC resource requirements, one must consider both NRC manpower and contractual dollars. The resources expended should Enclosure C
include the effort required not only to analyze the issue on a case-specific basis, but also to defend the position at hearings on specific cases. It is clear that troublesome issues that receive extended analysis and prolonged hearing treatment would be prime candidates. In many instances, however, the issue may still need to be treated to some degree on a case-by-case basis, even if some aspects of the issue are treated in the rules. Therefore, it is the long-term change in resource requirements (case-by-case) that needs to be balanced against the short-term resources required to develop a useful rule.
- 6. The rulemaking should be cost-effective from an overall standpoint.
This is also not a mandatory requirement, for the same reasons as given under Criterion No. 5, above. The only difference is that this cost-effectiveness criterion includes an estimate of the resources of the applicant, as well as the NRC (short-tenn expen-ditures vs. long-term savings). It is clear that this is an important l
criterion, since it is reflective of the total impact on the public; i.e., applicant resources obviously indirectly come from public coffers (rate-payers and taxpayers), as do Federal expenditures.
l l
l Enclosure C l
APPENDIX 2 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AMENABLE TO RULEMAKING Based on my experience as a:
/ / Technical reviewer
/ / Project Manager
/ / Case lawyer
/ / Branch Chief, NRR
/ / Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
/ / Other I believe that the attached issues would be amenable to rulemaking; i.e.,
they would most likely satisfy the attributes and criteria identified in Appendix 1. For each possible rulemaking issue I have rated each criterion on a scale of 1 to 10 to provide some subjective judgment as to the degree of usefulness that I perceive for that individual issue. I have also iden-tified the basic purpose of the rulemakin of the typical NRC dollars (in thousands)g andand have that man-days made a crude could estimate be saved by rulemaking (i.e., dollars and manpower that is currently typically ex-pended in the review and hearing process for each identified issue minus the dollars and manpower per case that would still likely be required sub-sequent to successful rulemaking).. I have also identified the dollars (in thousands) and man-days that would likely be saved by the applicant (per case) to support each issue, the time in days that would typically be saved per case in hearings on each issue, and the total resources (NRC, applicant, and hearing time) likely to be spent on a rulemaking to resolve or better focus the issue generically. Under the REMARKS section, I have identified the required information that should be developed for the rulemaking, elab-orated as necessary on the expected output of the rulemaking, and described any difficulties that might be encountered either in pursuit of rulemaking or in the subsequent use of the rule.
One sheet has been filled out and attached for each issue that I feel would be cost effective and useful for rulemaking. In this regard, I have identified individual issues for further consideration by the Steering Committee. 1 (Signed)
Enclosure C
Subject of Rulemaking Issue:
Rating for Each Criteria (Scale of 1 to 10): ~
- 1. Issue Reasonable Generic 4. More Effective Public Input -
- 2. Likelihood of Definitive Rule S. Cost-Effective, NRC
- 3. Likelihood of Stable Rule 6. Cost-Effective, Overall Basic Purpose of Rulemaking (Check one or more):
/ / Dispositive treatment of generic issue / / Establish relative importance to decisional process
/ / Establish acceptance criteria / / Develop analytical methodology and/or criteria Resources that could Typically be Saved, per Case (CP plus OL)l-NRC & Contractors $'s, in Thous. Man-Days Applicant & Contractors $'s, in Thous. Man-Days -
Technical Review Evaluation Hearing Hearing fusticipated Resources for Rulemaking : l NRC & Contractors $'s, in Thous. Man-Days Applicant & Contractors $'s, in Thous. Man-Days Technical Review Evaluation Rulemaking 2 Rulemaking 2 Length of Hearing, days l -
Remarks Regarding Required Information, Expected Rule, any Anticipated Difficulties:
E o
8
'i
- 10se best judgment, based on personal experience.
9 Assume no hearing. Also assume (for purpose of estimates) that rule can be promulgated based on public notice and evaluation of public comment.
6 9 9 l
ENCLOSURE D l
. m. .
Enclosure D A PRELIMINARY SCOPING AND VALUE-IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF CANDIDATE ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR RULEMAKING Based on the results of a poll of experienced NRR and ELD staff members and a subsequent evaluation of base results by the Steering Committee on' Reactor Rulemaking, the fol .g ten proposals have been identified as new potential candidates for rulemaking for further consideration by the public, the NRC staff, and the Commission. The NRR' Branch or other organization basically responsible for identifying the issue is pro-vided in parentheses.
- 1. Future availability and price of uranium (Environmental Technology, DSE).
- 2. Alternative energy sources to the nuclear eption'(Cost-Benefit AnalysisBranch,DSE).
- 3. .Need for adding baseload generating capacity (Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch,DSE).
- 4. Alternative siting methodology'and information requirements (Environmentai Technology, DSE).
- 5. Establish criteria for' assessment of nuclear plant impacts and mitigative measures (Environmental Specialists Branch, DSE).
- 6. Generic procedural criteria to define more concretely the.NRC role in a sessments and decisions regarding certain water-related impacts Enclosure D j l
in relation to the statutory authorities of EPA and permitting ;
States (EnvironmentalSpecialistsBranch,DSE).
Branch,DSE).
- 8. Occupational radiation exposure control (Radiological Assessment- .
Branch,DSE).
- 9. Generic radiological impact for normal LWR radionuclide releases (Radiological Assessment Branch, DSE).
- 10. Threshold limits for generic disposition of cooling tower effects (Hydrology-MeteorologyBranch,DSE).
Descriptions of these candidate rulemaking actions are appended. All of them are believed to meet both the mandatory gating criteria and the cost-benefit criteria as set forth in the Interim Policy Statement (Enclosure A). Revisions in the scope and nature of these rulemaking proposals will likely result from receipt of public and industry comments following pub-lication of the proposed Commission Policy Statement and from the detailed staff work required to prepare subsequent Commission Papers proposing explicit rules on any of the issues. Recommendations regarding assignment of priorities and the development of implementation schedules will also be made following receipt of public comment.
Enclosure D
i Value-Impact Assosment Sumary i i
'Although the Commission..is not being asked at this time to' approve a specific program for generic rulemaking along with a scheduling of' ~!
resource.comitments;to each of. the 10 candidate issues for rulemaking. .
nevertheless it is useful to provide preliminary estimates regarding a value-impact assessment for each of the 10 issues. This offers the advantage of providing advance insight as to the anticipated costs of P
rulemaking relative to the potential benefits of generic rulemaking through cost savings in avoiding repetitive and unproductive reanalysis of; certain issues on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, providing a preliminary value-impact assessment at an earlier date will facilitate' revision. ,
.b of the value and impact assessments through (1). the receipt of industry and public inputs for each proposed rulemaking. action, and (2) further staff effort following publication of the Interim Policy Statement in restructuring the rulemaking proposals and formulating specific ,
schedules and priorities for Commission approval.
The preliminary quantitative estimates of values and impicts for each of l the 10 proposed rulemaking issues are s'et forth in Tables 1 and 2. In Column 1 of Table 1 (line item B) is shown the range of estimated savings i of man-days for the NRC staff per licensing case that is believed achievable through generic l rulemaking for each rulemaking issue. The basis for these and other estimates in the table is judgmental and could Enclosure D ,
1 i
____:_ ._____.m______ _ _.. ._ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ __ ____ _
,.. . ,. o 4-TABLE 1 VALUF-IMPACT
SUMMARY
OF BENEFITS (COST SAVINGS PER CASE) AND RULEMAKING COSTS FOR NRC AND INDUSTRY FOR TEN GENERIC RULEMAKING PR000 SALSA (PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES)
INDU5TRY SRLAK-LVLN FOINI BENEFIT NRC BUDGET EFFECTS EFFECTS (No. of Cases)
.RULEMAKING OR 7taff Contractors NRC TotalE d
ISSUE COSTb Man-days Thd. $'s Thd. $'s Thd. 3's NRC NRC+Ind.'
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
- 1. Uranium avail- B 10-50 5-10 8-25 15 3.3 4.1 ability and C 100 50 80 50 price
- 2. Alternative B 25-50 10-20 18-35 50 2.7 1.7 energy C 100 50 80 50 sources
- 3. Need for B 25-50 10-20 18-35 10 5.3 5.8 added gener- C 200 50 110 100 ating capa-city
- 4. Alternative B 50-300 10-30 25-120 50 3.4 2.8 siting pro- C 600 50 240 100 ,
cedures
- 6. NRC/ EPA / State B 10-20 5-10 8-16 10 6.7 2.5 procedures C 100 0 30 25 for water impacts
- 8. Occupational B 15-25 0 5-8 40 5.0 1.7 radiation ex- C 100 0 30 50 Posure con-trol
- 9. Normal radio- B 20-30 0 6-9 5 4.0 6.4 nuclide C 100 0 30 50
. releases
- 10. Cooling tower B 10-50 10-50 13-65 50 5.0 1.7 effects C 150 50 100 50 aEstimates do not include consumer benefits associated with reducing costs of licensing delay valued at $8 to $12 million per month of delay saved through generic rulemaking, bBenefits are' estimated on a per case basis for CP's, OL's, and ESR's and represent savings anticipated through generic rulemakingt cost estim6tes for rulemaking assume no generic EIS or hearing. Estimated dollars for benefits and costs are based on
$70,000 per man-year (225 days).
CTotals for Column (3) are the sums of Columns (1) and (2) using the conversion factors of $70,000 per man-year of 225 days for Column (1),
dThe break-even point for' NRC was comouted using the data for 8 and C in Column (1).
'The break-even ooint for the total of NRC and industry resources was comouted using the data for B and C in Columns (3) and (4).
4 Enclosure 0
, .. . ,. -5 TABLE 2 ANNUAL NEW STARTS AND CUMULATIVE TOTALS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING ACTIONS FOR DIFFERENT TIMING ASSUMPTIONS OF RULE IMPLEMENTATIONS AS AN AID TO VALUE-IMPACT ASSESSMENTS, FY 1979-84a Cumulative Total
.f r Assumptions :
Type of Licensing Fiscal New Cases Action Year in Year A B C A. Construction Permit 1979 6 6 -- --
1980 1 7 1 --
1981 2 9 3 2
- 1982- 3 12 6 5 1983 4 16 10 9 1984 5 21 15 14 B. Early Site Review 1979 10 10 -- --
1980 3 13 3 --
1981 3 16 6 3 1982 3 19 9 6 1983 4 23 13 10 1984 4 27 17 14 C. Operating License 1979 16 16 -- --
1980 6 22 6 --
1981 9 31 15 9 1982 9 40 24 18 1983 8 48 32 26 1984 4 52 36 30 ,
a Assumptions for determining cumulative total cases for a given year:
A - Assumes rule implemented by July 1,1979 to gain benefit of cost savings of hearing stage for individual cases for FY 1979 and full benefits thereafter.
B - Assumes rule implemented by October 1,1979 to gain full benefits of cost savings for cases starting in FY 1980.
C - Assumes rule implemented by October 1,1980 to gain full benefits of cost savings for cases starting in FY 1981.
Enclosure D
___-__--x__--.
)
be improved, but only at the cost of substantial staff effort. Line item B in Column 2 presents the estimated savings of NRC contractor costs per case through generic rulemaking. The total budgetary (dollar) benefits for NRC are shown in Column 3 as derived from Columns 1 and 2.
Similar estimates of benefits (cost savings per case) are crudely estimated in Column 4 for industry. The latter includes principally licensing applicants whose costs are largely borne by consumers' of electricity. Accordingly, th;.se benefits are somewhat understated, since potential savings to State and local government and citizen participants in licensing actions would, in some instances, also be significarit. These estimates of benefits are to be regarded as con-servatively stated in that they do not include a potential reduction in delay costs of licensing resulting from improvements achievable through generic rulemaking in the predictability of the licensing process.
Line Item C of Table 1 shows preliminary estimates of the cost of rulemaking for NRC and industry for each rulemaking issue. For those rulemaking issues which have a fairly high order of complexity and divergency of methodologies and views, the dollar costs in Column 2 include $50,000 to $250,000 to accommodate rulemaking workshops to receive public and industry inputs and possible additional supporting contract studies beyond those already in progress or proposed for Enclosure D
funding. The costs 'of rulemaking to public (non-industry) participants have not been included in Column 4 and to this extent these costs are .
understated as well as the benefits as noted above.
Break-even points for proposed rulemaking issues are shown in Columns 5 and 6 of Table 1. The estimated break-even point for NRC staff resources in Column 5 reflect the numaer of cases which when multiplied by the estimated man-day savings per case in line Item B of Column 1 would just equal the estimated generic rulen:aking costs in line Item C of Column 1.
Break-even points were also computed for the total efforts of NRC and industry (Column 6) based on the estimates of Columns 3 and 4. While the break-even point of Column 6 is the more meaningful value-impact assessment in reflecting societal interests, computing the break-even point for NRC effort independently is of value in setting schedule priorities for the conduct of rulemaking actions such as may be approved by the Connission at a later time following publication of the Interim Policy Statement. For example, rulemaking issue No. 7 on OL Review Criteria has a very favorable break-even point for NRC effort and, hence, if it is decided to approve and schedule early this rulemaking
! effort, the considerable savings in staff effort implicit in the estimated values of Column 1 could subsequently be applied, in part, to the conduct of rulemaking actions scheduled at a later time.
Enclosure D
In order to provide some notion of the estimated time required to -
attain the break-even points reflected in Table 1, the projected number of licensing cases for Fiscal Years 1979-84 are shown in Table 2. To convert these projections as a useful aid to value-impact assessment it was essential to make several hypothetical assumptions as to the. timing of rulemaking decision and implementa-tion as shown in Columns A, B, and C and the accompanying footnotes.
The projections of Column A show that if the rule is implemented on or before July 1,1979, the break-even point will approximately be attained for some of the rulemaking issues by the end of FY 79, since six Cp cases are projected for that year alone and most of the cost savings for some of the rulemaking issues relate to avoidance of treatment in individual Cp hearings scheduled for late FY 79. The cumulative totals for Column A show that, by the end of FY 80, seven CP cases will have been concluded plus thirteen ESR's and twenty-two 0L's.
An examination of the cumulative case totals for the rule implementation assumptions in Columns B and C reflect substantial variations in compari-son with each other and Column A with respect to a given elapsed period -
following rule implementation. This illustrates the importance to a Enclosure D j
_g_
value-impact assessment of implementation dates for rulemaking on the various issues and the scheduling and prioritizing of staff effort on rulemaking. Because of uncertainties relative to case slippages, there is a need to update the case projections of Table 2 when the planning for rulemaking is being finalized.
It should be noted that the time to reach the break-even point would be somewhat underestimated using this procedure since discounted cash flow computations are not made to place benefits and cost on a common reference year basis. In view of the short period of time to reach the break-even point for each of the 10 issues (generally less than one to three years) the importance of the underestimate of the break-even point is relatively minor and well within the range of accuracy of the value-impact estimates of Table 1.
Another source of possible aberration is that the break-even points in Columns 5 and 6 were computed by taking the arithmetic averages of the range of benefits of Columns 1 and 3. If more detailed information -ere readily available, it is believed that this would s&,ow an asymetrical or skewed distribution of. co:ts savings per case. That is to say, for many of the rulemaking issues the number of cases closer to the upper range of estimated savings would probably be fewer than the number Enclosure D
closer.to.the lower. estimates. Because of the relatively high cost of obtaining additional information to ascertain the skewness of the estimates and since the break-even points for the various issues are reached in only a short period, such a refinement in the estimates is not felt to be justifiable.
Another aspect of the break-even analysis deserving mention is that, for some issues, the potential cost savings may apply to more than one type of licensing action. For example, Rulemaking Issue No. 4 dealing with generic criteria and procedures for alternative site analysis would prob-ably yield important benefits for both the Construction Permit and Early Site Review cases projected in Table 2. Regarding Issue No. 3 on need for added generating capacity, rulemaking would yield benefits for both Construction Pennit and Operating License stages; but if rulemaking on Issue No. 7 dealing with OL review criteria were also conducted, then care must be taken to avoid double-counting of benefits of this kind in performing a value-impact assessment for Issue No. 3.
A revised value-impact assessment at a later stage of progress in rulemaking activity should desirably provide savings estimates for each type of licensing action pertinent to each issue. ,
t Enclosure D
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON A GENERIC TREATMENT OF OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE TRENDS IN THE AVAILABILITY AND PRICE OF URANIUM I. Discussion of the Issue The sharply rising price of uranium over the past four years and the difficulty faced by utilities in negotiating long-term contracts for the supply of yellowcake have contributed to the emergence of the future price and availability of uranium as a hearing issue for a number of CP applications. Moreover, the growth of installation of nuclear power units in other countries that desire to reduce depen-dency on imported oil along with constraints on exports by certain uranium producing countries provide an international dimension of analysis. The collective impact on uranium requirements by the unsettled outlook for uranium enrichment facilities, uranium and plutonium reprocessing, and the development and tim 1'ig of commercial breeder technology domestically and internationally all complicate the analysis as well as interfuel substitution which makes the price outlook of major fuels such as oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy a matter of . interlocking analyses of supply and demand for these fuels. The subject of fuel performance for the proposed reactor has frequently been introduced as a hearing issue related to uranium availability.
t These issues are particularly amenable to rulemaking because of their basically generic nature Because of the relatively small cost of Enclosure D (Issue No.1)
transporting uranium throughout the remainder of the fuel-cycle once uranium ore has been converted to yellowcaLa in the near vicinity of where it is mined, the issue of the future price and availability of uranium is basically a national and international matter with negligible significance for regional differences involv-ing nuclear power plant siting in the United States.* Thus, it is was % ful of resources of expertise to review this highly complex matter on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, the kinds of expertise required to deal with these issues are mainly posited with other Federal agencies rather than the-NRC. It would be more cost-effective to muster these resources for rulemaking than for treat-ing the relevant analyses as case-related hearing issues.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking The basic expectation is that the likely scope of rulemaking on the future availability and price of uranium would:
- a. Develop a record regarding forecasting methodologies for both availability and price,
- b. Prescribe guidelines to establish acceptable forecasting methodologies, identifying major sources to be used in
- Estimates of known reserves and potential resource discoveries in forecast-ing. fuel availability have little meaning in a decision context without the companion consideration of price.
1 Enclosure D (Issue No.1)
1 the future for quantifying certain key parameters, as well as -
decision procedures for treating scenario assumptions.
- c. Provide a well-structured basis for the staff to develop a.
generic analysis of the treatment of these issues in Environ-mental Impact Statements, summarizing a more indepth analysis
-in a (NUREG) generic study of the' pertinent causal factors affecting' future availability and price of uran'ium relative to forecasted requirements for uranium as fuel, including the appropriateness of different analytical and forecasting method-ologies, the establishment of acceptance criteria, and the relative importance of factors of uncertainty to the decisional- i process.
- d. Establish criteria for a possible review of the rule at a later-date to accommodate an updating of the analyses and decisional [
factors because of new technological, market, and political developments affecting the supply and demand for uranium fuel, f
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings The estimates of NRC staff resources expended in case reviews and hearings on the family of issues related to uranium availability and price outlook vary widely in accordance with the variability of
- personal experience :in dealing with them. The range of estimates is t from 10 to' 50 man-days per case, the higher figure representing cases Enclosure D (Issue No. 1)
, 1 j
l
'l 1
where extensive hearing-participation was. involved in issues related
.I to fuel performance (three to eight NRC witnesses per hearing and seven to ten days per witness participation, and review of legal i
findings). Moreover, in numerous instances, testimony has been ,
provided on the availability and cost of uranium resources, the outlook for the expansion of uranium enrichment _ capacity, etc., by the Department of Energy. Estimated dollar cost savings per case range from $8,000 to $25,000 for:the NRC and its contractors and ,
roughly $15,000 for the applicant.
1 IV. Information Required for Rulemaking A considerable portion of the information required for rulemaking on the various issues related to the future availability and price of uranium is already available from the supplemental testimonies presented at case-related hearings. A somewhat more thorough researching of issues and updating of information would appear desirable in preparing for rulemaking. A great deal of the type of infonnation- needed for this purpose is made available at the annual uranium industry conferences sponsored by the DOE /ERDA over the past several years and other studies are available in the. liter-ature or from Staff reviews of the related subjects. Coordination is highly desirable between ONRR and NMSS in the NRC as well as DOE representatives in the development of an updated generic study -
, 4 Enclosure D (IssueNo.1) r
oriented to the specific licensing needs of NRC for rulemaking.
Because of the considerable uncertainty of the numerous causal factors effecting the future availability and price of uranium including interfuel substitution and international developments, as well as their dynamic nature, it would be desirable to have I an updated generic study prepared by the NRC (with collaborative participation of DOE) on a periodic basis. Possibly every two years would suffice for this purpose. An alternative approach would be to develop trigger points for certain key decision cri-teria at which an updated generic study would be desirable.
Staff estimates for NRC professional resources required for -
rulemaking are roughly 100 man-days. A generic study in support of rulemaking in addition to NRC staff effort, would perhaps require 20 man-days of effort by DOE representatives. Much useable effort by the DOE in analyzing and forecasting relevant trends is already available from their published reports and testimonies. The cost of generic rulemaking on this issue would be around $80,000 for NRC staff effort and contractor costs. It would appear that any updating of a generic study of this kind might involve only one-l third to one-half as much staff effort as the first of its kind.
The estimated cost of industry and public participation in rule-making on this issue is around $50,000.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 1)
V. Major Policy Considerations l Policy considerations would appear to stem from several major sources:
- a. Assumptions made in the analyses of availability and price have significant policy implications at the national and international level'.
- b. The future policy and investment decisions which will affect this outlook are largely outside the control of the ElRC and only partially within the control of utility applicants and various governmental agencies including Federal and State Governments,
- c. The analysis required in a generic treatment by the NRC that would lend appropriate support for rulemaking involves exper-tise on the NRC staff but with an important contribution of expertise and information provided by other Federal agencies, especially the Department of Energy. This makes coordination of inter-agency inputs and technical review an important aspect.of rulemaking,
- d. A growing number of State governments are becoming actively involved in a review of the outlook for the availability and price of uranium. Guidelines shall be prepared relating to methodology and decision criteria on these issues that would tend to reduce incompatible analyses and conclusions by the NRC staff and State governments.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 1)
l It is anticipated that these difficulties would not stand as major barriers to effective rulemaking action. Indeed, the e same diffi-culties would'have to be faced in the absence of rulemaking and most probably with an overall loss of cost-effectiveness both in terms of the utilization of NRC resources, those of other Federal agencies, State governments, and the applicants.
i Enclosure D (IssueNo.1)
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES TO THE NUCLEAR OPTION I. Discussion of the Issue NEPA requires the consideration of alternatives to a proposed action.
When the action under consideration is that of authorizing construc-tion and operation of a nuclear power plant, alternative means of power generation are described in the EIS. These typically include conventional fuels such as high and low sulfur coal and oil, as well as energy sources undergoing technological development such as geothennal, central station direct solar, wind, tidal, biomass, and
. municipal waste. Intervenors frequently contend that one or another of these alternative means should be substituted for the proposed plant. Nevertheless, no evidence has been presented on which a licensing board has ever found an alternative energy source pre-ferable to the proposed nuclear plant.
Unlike nuclear fuel which involves principally national and interna-tional analysis, there are regional variations in the attractiveness of conventional fossil fuels for large-scale generation of electricity as well as (to some extent) for unconventional energy sources. However, it is felt that almost all aspects of alternative energy sources are amenable to generic treatment and the development of generic decision criteria. For example, issues of controversy that appear amenable to generic treatment are the developmental state of unconventional sources and their future environmental and economic costs and technological performance, the fact that the use of oil for baseload generation of Enclosure D (Issue No. 2)
electricity conflicts with national policy to reduce dependency on foreign oil, the environmental impacts of the coal fuel cycle and the cost and technological performance of sulfur-removal
' technologies, and coal mining and transportation costs.
In all cases that the staff has considered, the above issues regarding energy alternatives to the proposed nuclear plant have been dealt wii.h in ways that are essentially generic. Because the litigation of alternative energy sources tends to be both generic in approach and repetitive in outcome, their treatment in rulemaking would appear advantageous.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking In arriving at a decision on alternative energy sources, case-by-case litigation now goes through the following sequence of steps either implicitly or explicitly:
- 1. A list of conventional and non-conventional energy sources is identified for analysis;
- 2. Decision criteria such as technological feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental acceptability, resource availability, and national and State level resource policies are identified and appropriately discussed; Enclosure D (Issue No. 2)
- 3. The conclusion-is invariably reached that only nuclear and coal fuels are qualified at this time as " reasonable alternatives" for further more detailed comparison;
- 4. Upon this detailed examination it is concluded that coal is not an obviously superior alternative to nuclear based on a comparison of economic, environmental, safety, and health considerations involving the fuel cycles of the two energy sources.
To the extent that these steps can be included in a regulation, the licensing process could be shortened and simplified. This would suggest that any combination of the following could be the elements of a new regulation:
- 1. Definition of a term such as " reasonable" alternative and limitation of further consideration to such alternatives.
- 2. A dispositive statement as to which specific alternatives are
" reason ~able";
- 3. Definition of a term such as "obviously superior" alternative; and/or
- 4. A dispositive treatment of the circumstances under which one or more " reasonable" alternatives would be considered "obviously superior" alternatives.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 2)
I The staff believes that all of the above elements likely could be )
addressed in rulemaking and that these elements should have a tenure of several years, since technological and/or economic criteria could likely be developed that would provide for a rule of reasonable stability.
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings Estimates of NRC staff resources saved per case through generic rulemaking range from about 25 to 50 man-days. Dollar savings are valued at about $18,000 to $35,000 for the NRC including contractor costs. Cost savings through generic rulemaking for the applicant are estimated at about $50,000. These estimates are intended to account for initial evaluation by the applicant, staff review, and staff and applicant participation in hearings. In general, more realistic alternatives require a greater expenditure of resources in analysis and litigation. Thus the comparison between nuclear and conventional coal tends to be most consumptive of resources.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking Consideration of alternative energy sources is actually done on a generic basis now, since many aspects of analysis for individual licensing actions are largely repetitive and site-independent.
These same generic considerations can be applied in support of a Enclosure D (Issue No. 2)
, rulemaking action. To supplement these considerations, the NRC has recently funded a study of energy sources other than nuclear and conventional coal, and we expect to fund a study of the environ-mental and health effects of the coal fuel cycle in FY 1978. The '
Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch has an in-house project to compare the economic costs of nuclear and coal-fired plants on a regional basis. If that project were to be satisfactorily completed, it might be possible to also address generically the economic aspects of coal and nuclear plants in a direct and dispositive manner, if that was considered necessary or desirable. The estimated effort for NRC to engage in rulemaking for this issue is 100 man-days at a cost of $80,000 including a rulemaking workshop and background contractor studies. For industry input, the estimated cost of rulemaking is about $50,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations Were NRC to undertake a rulemaking action for alternative energy sources, it would have to accommodate the following policy interests of other government agencies:
- 1. It is the stated policy of the President and the governments of several States to encourage the development and use of renewable energy sources. A thorny problem in this regard Enclosure D (IssueNo.2)
1 is relating estimates.of potential developments to the rate at which they will actually be realized. Given present information on these developments, the analysis is highly speculative.
- 2. A number of coal-producing States have a special interest in the use of coal for generating electricity; and, unless pro- ,
perly structured, the rulemaking might be construed by some as promotional regarding nuclear energy.
However, it would seem that any new regulation that is consistent with NEPA,'would of necessity, be consistent with these policy objectives.
Enclosure 0 (Issue No. 2)
,.c.. i ,
e
- PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON NRC DECISIONMAKING REGARDING NEED FOR ADDING.BASEL0AD' GENERATING CAPACITY !
I. . Discussion of the: Issue The questions of accuracy of forecasting has been of prime import-ance since the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 hearings in 1973-74. ! Licensing Boar'ds now recognize the generic problem of. accuracy in forecasting; r and Appeal Boards have noted in the' cases of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, i Catawba, and Seabrook that substantial timing differences in year of need between the applicant's and staff's projections are not a basts of Board rejection. Also, in some important cases, notably Seabrook, Boards _have accepted the view that reducing system costs'is an<
adequate justification for new nuclear capacity. In the case of-Jamesport, the Board gave major weight in the need decision to-i benefits of fuel diversification as protection against the tragedy of loss of oil supply since the applicant's system is now heavily dependent on baseload oil generating plants.- ,
i It is the responsibility of the utility to meet the capacity and energy needs of its customers in a reliable and economic manner -
today, next year, 5 and 10 years from now. The actual process of ,
planning to meet this responsibility is extremely complex and ;
- I involves transmission and distribution system planning as well as generation planning. This discussion basically concerns generation ;
mnclosure D (Issue No. 3) t e
{
P i
planning in context with the existing system and.the procedures used to determine the right amount of generation at the right time taking into consideration environmental and economic impacts.
The three major aspects of generation planning are:
- 1. Establishment of generation needs, which requires forecasting future loads, developing reserve criteria, and detennining when and how much capacity will be needed.
- 2. Selection of generating unit, which involves determining the type, mix, size and schedule for unit additions. This aspect requires economic evaluations to be made of various alternatives.
- 3. Selection of site, which requires the consideration of many factors, such as design constraints, construction requirements, environmental matters and socioeconomic factors.
In the final analysis, generation planning is a series of evaluations of alternatives that results in the final selection of the alternative that best meets the utility's responsibility. Inasmuch as nuclear baseload power appears to have an economic advantage in most regions of.the United States, the total system costs will determine when and how much cost penalty may be incurred if the actual date of Enclosure D (Issue No. 3)
.i.. ,.
need is sooner or later than initially projected at the start of construction.
To sel,ect the generation expansion plan that is the most economical (i.e.,resultsintheleastrisko'fpenalty)requiresacomprehensive evaluation program. For each type of generating unit on the system, including the propcsed nuclear baseload unit, input data is needed on investment, operation and maintenance cost, fuel, expected reliability, and size. In addition, data about conditions in the future must be defined such as load and energy estimates, fuel cost and escalation rates, changing investment cost, maintenance sched-ules, new interconnections, possible constraints on resource use, technological developments relative to unit size or type, new generation resources and changing patterns of consumptions. The results of such an evaluation provide a schedule of unit additions that will fit into the present generation mix and that will provide the capacity to meet the peak load and the energy requirements of the system, at the minimum overall cost.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking The rule will establish a time range over which the initial comer-cial operation date of a baseload nuclear power plant is acceptable.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 3) i
The time range will consider (as appropriate) various factors, such as (1) results of studies now underway which estimate costs to the utility, and ultimately the consumer, of various rates of growth in demand and various construction schedules, (2) a determination of the degree of uncertainty in load growth which is acceptable, (3) a judgment as to the weight to be given to "need" decisions made by appropriate State agencies, (4) a determination of the weight to be given to fuel substitution (i.e., reducing U.S. and utility reliance on oil imports), and (5) economic and environmental impacts of decisional errors resulting in too much generating capacitv compared to decisional errors resulting in too little gerer.. y capacity. -
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings It is estimated that NRC would save 25 to 50 professional man-days of staff effort per application. The total cost-saving to NRC through generic rulemaking is estimated at $18,000 to $35,000 per case including contractor costs.
The applicant's cost savings are difficult to estimate because, as part of the cost of doing business, the utility is constantly i evaluating their system, and revising forecasts of energy needs for Enclosure D (IssueNo.3)
, **e ,*
generation, transmission and distribution expansion. His overall ,
l cost for this planning activity is probably 10 to 20 times as l l
large as NRC's cost. Rulemaking on this topic is not expected to 1
altee appreciably this initial analytic cost but it could reduce j substantially the costs necessary.to provide information to.NRC, answer questions, participate in meetings, comment on DES's, and prepare and present testimony during NRC's adjudicatory process on l l
individual cases. Thus, it is anticipated that generic rulemaking would save for the applicant about $10,000 per case.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking EPRI has published a document (EPRI EM-285 " Synthetic Electric Utility Systems for Evaluating Advanced Technologies") that describes six scenario systems utilizing " typical" data representing charac-teristics of various utility systems throughout the United States.
Using NRC funding, ORNL is in the process of developing basic data for these scenario systems (i.e. , type of fuel, fuel cost, maintenance schedules, 0&M cost, heat rates, baseload/ peaking capability, availability, expansion schedule, loading order, etc.) for input to computer programs such as the Automatic System Planning Package (WASP) code. The collection of input data will be completed about May of 1978 and computer runs can commence. The capital cost of Enclosure 0 (IssueNo.3)
l
- e. . ,.
1 l
l new units and 0&M costs will be developed using the CONCEPT code and OMCST code. These analyses will be performed whether or not rulemaking is. conducted in this area.
It is felt that in most circumstances a sufficiently close fit can be made between an applicant's system and one of the six EPRI scenario systems so that results can be va.asferable in a con-servative manner to a specific system. Thus, there would likely be a case-by-case application of the generic rulemaking.
The estimated cost to NRC of generic rulemaking on this issue is about 200 man-days of effort and $100,000 total cost including the i cost of a rulemaking workshop and additional centract studies. The cost of rulemaking for industrial inputs is estimated at roughly
$100,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations Rulemaking action for forecasting peak load and energy requirements should consider the following:
- a. The Bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (" Nuclear SitingandLicensingActof1978").
Enclosure D (Issue No. 3)
- s. The impact on, State agencies with the responsibility for regu-lating and planning for future energy needs,
- c. ~ Regional planning groups that have a planning responsibility for future energy requirements such as the river basin com-missions and the electric reliability councils,
- d. Other Federal agencies such as DOE regulatory commission, and EPA may have an interest-in the subject'and should have a review input to any rulemaking.
1 l
l I
Enclosure D (Issue No. 3)
\
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FORR 'ESOLVING
. METHODOLOGICAL AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS IN THE ANALYSIS OF. ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
- 1. . Discussion of the Issues Policy issues;concerning the adequacy of alternative siting method-ology have arisen at a number of proposed nuclear power plants including Bailly, St. Lucie 2, Seabrook 1 and 2, and Pilgrim-2. 4
-Analys'is of these cases'has raised a number of interrelated policy questions which have been examined by the Commission in the_Seabrook case and dealt with preliminarily in a series of staff papers addressed to the Commission.I Whether or not the Commission were to adopt the policy statement on alternative site evaluations along the ,
general outline of the referenced.SECY paper, there wohid be certain i advantages in the: conduct of a rulemaking action on cecisional and-procedural criteria for resolving methodological and information requirements in alternative siting analysis:.
t
- 1. Extension of the logic inherert in the proposed or any modi- 7 fied decision criterion and its implementation are desirable to increase the understanding and effectiveness of any adopted-policy, since such policy statements are normally expressed in ,
general terms that must still be interpreted for various siting ,
situations or circumstances. ,
~
I See SECY-78-163, " Revision of SECY-77-433, Policy Statement on Alternative Site Evaluations-Under NEPA for Nuclear Generating Stations," March 20, 1978.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 4)- .
- 2. .Rulemaking procedures. involving the use of workshops and con-ferences, as well as the invitation of public comment on pro-posed rules,-could tap a wide body of expertise in further'-
delimitations of siting policy, thus resulting in greater effectiveness and public acceptance of the resulting rules j governing the procedures for policy implementation.
3.- A' definitive rulemaking on this subject resulting in clearly identified " trigger" criteria for reopening the alternative site i question could result in a substantial increase in the utiliza-tion of the Early Site Review. procedure since the groundrules .
for reopening the siting issue would be better understood by i utilities, the NRC, the States, other Federal agencies, and ;
the public.
j II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking It is anticipated that the likely scope of rulemaking on procedural criteria for resolving methodological and information requirements in ;
the analysis of siting alternatives would:
l Enclosure D '
(Issue No. 4)
l
, .. ' .s ,.
3- ]
l l'
-a. Develop a. record regarding. variations in siting methodologies as well as a' reasonable spectrum of r,iting situations that.have l
given rise to controversial issues over the appropriateness of siting methodologies and the adequacy of the information base. .j i
to: perform an equitable and effective analysis and siting j decision. !
l
- b. Identify.in more explicit terms the type and level of imr2 cts at- ;
'he proposed site that would trigger the "obviously superior" ascisional criteria, if those impacts or cther offs.etting_ impacts do not exist at a reasonably available alternative site.
1 l
- c. Prescribe rules and guidelines for siting methodology and the required kinds and levels of information so as to achieve-an l appropriate blend of flexibility and specificity 'which would be !
J j cost-effective for different types of' licensing situations. l 1
i
.d. Develop procedural and cost-benefi:t criteria that would govern .
s 'eassessment of site alternatives whenever new information becomes available both prior to and subsequent to the issuance: ,
of a CP and establish criteria under.which the preferred site would be. abandoned or costly mitigative measures required in' ;
Enclosure D (Issue No. 4) 3
.t ,
lieu of site abandonment. Determine impact of such policies toward Early Site Reviews and LWA's.
L
- e. Make a determination as to whether NRC should be' involved and, if so, what should be the basis for NRC involvement in decisions regarding the sequential order of utilization of those sites whose impact attributes are deemed acceptable (with or without mitiga-tive measures) that would qualify them as among the several best sites for utilization'in the foreseeabit future.
- f. Develop policies and criteria for: (i) cost-risk
- tradeoffs in the kind'and accuracy of siting information required; (ii) the treatment of plant / site combinations for conventional and non-conventional t -hnologies; and (iii) the development of differentiated c*iteria for siting methodology for dealing with pristine vs existing plant sites, sites within and outside the utility's ser'vice area, and the presence or absence of certain site attributes of extra-normal significance to siting decisions.
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings NRC resources expended in case reviews and hearings on issues ,
- In this context, " risk" is interpreted as the probability that one of the better sites or a superior site will have been overlooked or undervalued.
Enclosure D
~
~
(Issue No. 4) ,
.5-related to siting alternatives vary greatly from case to case. In-those cases involving limited controversy over siting issues, savings of around 50 man-days per case are estimated for generic rulemaking; whereas in the highly controversial cases staff effort may range as hisn as .300 man-days. The elapsed calendar time covering the staff treatment of hearing issues in troublesome cases has spanned many months. Dollar cost savings per case to the NRC are estimated at $25,000 to $120,000. The costs to the applicants are far greater running into the millions of dollars per case for the original siting alternative studies and hundreds of thousands of dollars for hearings and troublesome siting issues, not counting the more serious costs of delay also borne by ratepayers. Cost savings to the applicant through generic rulemaking on alternative siting methodology are estimated at roughly $50,000.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking Much of the. information required for rulemaking in this area of -
policy development is already available from ER's, EIS's, hearing testimonies, Commission statements, and the literature at large.
Because of the diversity of siting issues and methodologies, considerable analytical effort will be required to select and focus the salient information that will best serve the objectives of rulema' king in clarifying and delimiting procedural criteria regarding Enclosure D.
(Issue No. 4)
l siting methodologies and information requirements best suited to different kinds of siting situations.
I l
Estimates for NRC staff resources required for rulemaking are about 600 man-days and a total cost of $240,000 including rule-making workshops and supporting contract studies. Industry and public participation in workshops or conferences related to this scope of rulemaking and reviewing preliminary staff statements and supporting studies would require an estimated $100,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations A major difficulty in formulating policy on the NEPA treatment of siting alternatives is the controversiality arising from the wide variety of site screening and evaluation methodologies employed and the high cost of detailed information which makes it impracticable to demonstrate in a highly scientific manner that any one site is absolutely superior to all other potential sites with zero risk of r error. Thus, a major policy consideration is not only the challenge of deciding on appropriate methodologies or criteria that would govern the kind, depth, and accuracy of infonnation, but also the defensibility of decisions regarding the acceptability of these procedures.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 4)
Another closely related major po1%y consideration involves the resolution of potential conf 1; cts over these matters with States and other Federal agencies. In this regard -it is to be noted that this problem exists independently of whether NRC proceeds with rulemaking or not and that rulemaking would appear to hold certain advantages in coping with such problems over other approaches.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 4)
PROPOSED RULEMAKING TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NUCLEAR PLANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES l 1
l I. Discussion of the Issue l
Current licensing practice requires that an applicant conduct site surveys, select a preferred site, and conduct detailed investigations at the preferred site prior to official contact with NRC staff. The new "Early Site Review" concept provides a mechanism to review specific issues (at the applicant's option) at an early date, before detailed plant design considerations are established. The rule pro-posed herein would go a step further and establish criteria by which to classify the various site-related. issues frequently encountered in the NRC licensing proc,ess. The criteria would define a hierarchy of three categories of site-related subjects which would recognize the different types of decision inherent in a licensing process. As presently conceived, the categories would be:
Category A - The impacts that fall within this category are those which have the potential of rendering a site unsuitable.
This involves impacts which are normally not acceptable and are non-mitigable or mitigable only at prohibitive cost). The number of environmental criteria which could cause rejection of a site The staff feels that, in most is not anticipated to be large.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 5)
, ** :e ,
2-cases,-it would be unlikely that one environmental criterion would be relied upon by itself to cause site rejection. In most cases where rejection would be warranted on environmental-grounds the root cause would be that a nuclear plant at that-1 site would result in obvious and severe conflicts with present or certain projected land and water uses, or substantial impairment of aquatic resources with unreasonable costs of mitigation. These conflicts would often be.of such a nature :
as to involve pre-emption of recognized resources uses which would impose undue penalties in the general region of the site. J Category B - Impacts such as thermal plume size, construction dewatering, beach erosion, agricultral production, induced l regional growth, stresses of construction worker in-migration and chemical or biological aspects of power plant operation-for which specific numerical " gating" criteria may_be estab-lished which delineates the point at which impacts become j large enough to be significant in the cost-benefit balance and/or mitigation measures should start being considered. If r these " gating" criteria are not tripped then the impact would !
! 1 be deemed to be insignificant to the decisional process. - .
I Enclosure D i (Issue No. 5)-
i
. - - . . ,n, , , , ,,, -
- - - - - - - - , - -0
--- _ 'm
.s
-Categor.y C - Impacts which are significant but not' unacceptable and which may be mitigable at acceptable cost, with the magni-tude of impact and the nature of mitigation normally determined
~
-during the course of evaluating detailed design and site information on a case-by-case basis. The limiting criteria for this category of impacts are those of. Categories A and B.
Generic rulemaking as described in this issue ic not intended to deal with this category of impacts.
The establishment of criteria for Categories A and B would permit a potential applicant to focus attention at an early stage on all issues which the NRC believes could potentially. render the site unacceptable and to save effort on detailed analysis of impacts of insufficient severity to require consideration of mitigative measures. Such a rule would also provide a mechanism for respond-ing to the objective described in 10 CFR 52.605 of avoiding the commitment of substantial resources which may prejudice the later consideration of alternatives.
There exists a characteristic difference in data requirements for l
the above categories.which enhances the value and the credibility of a rulemaking. The principal Category A site suitability impacts can generally be identified and factored into the decision process Enclosure D (Issue'No. 5)
= -
bytheapplicationofreconnaissance-level *siteinformation.(with appropriately conservative design assumptions), thus providing a mechanism to avoid the. collection and review of detailed and costly site-specific information until'the fundamental site suitability matters are satisfactorily treated. The Category C criteria, on the other liar.d. generally relate to impacts which must be evaluated with detailed site-specific information; yet might lend themselves to mitigation at reasonable cost by considering alternative des'gns i or operating characteristics. The Category B conditions, if met, would require only a commitment by the applicant to meet the stipulated conditions. If the criteria could not be met, the subject would automatically be re-classified as a Category C issue, with its associated detailed information needs.
Regarding Category B criteria, a number of chemical, biological, and social aspects of nuclear power plant operation are believed to be well enough understood that the staff can establish stipulated conditions.which, if met, would permit the staff to treat the impacts as relatively insignificant to the decisional process
- The term reconnaissance-level data is information that may be obtained from published reports, public records, public and private agencies, site visits, and individuals knowledgeable about the potential site locality. It is generally data that already exists, although in some cases the applicant may conduct limited, on-the-spot investigations. !
Enclosure D (Issue No. 5)
and thus require no further review. Any plant construction or operating impact that could not meet the numerical values of the listed criteria would become matters requiring detailed assessment and staff review.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking The rulemaking exercise would take the form of a review of the types of issues which have been encountered in the power plant licensing process, and a classification of them into one of the three described categories. Most of the site suitability issues are discussed in Regulatory Guide 4.7. Subjects falling into Categories B and C are generally described in Regulatory Guide 4.2 and in the Environmental Standard Review Plans.
Each of the Category A criteria would be reviewed in terms of the feasibility of resolution by means of readily available (reconnaissance- i 1
level)information,takingintoaccountconceptualdesignassumptions that would be necessary in order to approve a site for a given issue in the absence of detailed plant design information.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 5)
The rule would also review the available literature and establish specific numerical values or gating criteria for those subjects which the staff believes are well enough understood to fall within the Category B. Any considerations that do not fall within the Category A or B would be classified as Category C and would constitute the principal issues for NRC's CP-Stage NEPA review.
The numerical gating criteria are particularly appropriate for certain chemical releases which are routinely evaluated for each case. Con-ditions can be established which would assure the absence of sig-nificant impact. In a similar manner, conditions can be defined which woulo result in a determination of acceptable impacts of cer-tain groups of aquatic biota. Applicant design and site choices which would meet these criteria would remove the particular issues from further staff review.
A number of ongoing contractual studies will directly support this rulemaking effort. PNL is preparing a technical report which will form the basis for a staff position paper establishing the applica-bility of reconnaissance-level information in the NRC licensing Enclosure D (Issued No. 5)
1
~l l
process. This study is focused primarily on the data requirements 1
for Early Site Reviews and Alternative Site Evaluations. A separate i study (soon to commence) will provide the basis for a staff position on the need for NRC evaluation of certain categories of aquatic organisms (phytoplankton and zooplankton). These studies will provide direct input to the proposed rule.
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended In Case Reviews and Hearings The establishment of Category B criteria for'certain issues likely could eliminate these issues from NRC review in individual cases and from a hearing. One can assume that staff effort for a given subject (e.g. , sulfate, boron, zooplankton, displaced farming) would require 1 man-month for preparation, site visit, and hearing; plus the additional applicant effort in submitting the information.
Thus, benefits would accrue based on the number of Category B items that could be established and the number of times that the i
established " gating" criteria were not tripped. We believe that a fair number of Category B subjects could be identified for incorpora-tion into the initial rule. The establishment of the rule would provide a basis for adding more items as our understanding of the impacts improved.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 5)
The NRC effort expended on Category A items is difficult to estimate.
However, it is clear that a more explicit definition of the type or level of impact that would be classified as Category A would reduce the manpower spent on evaluating marginal sites and place more emphasis on alternative sites at an early stage of review. Altogether, generic ~ rulemaking on Category A and B criteria could ultimately provide an estimated savings to NRC of 50-200 man-days of staff effort per case with dollar savings estimated at $90,000 to
$210,000 per case including rulemaking workshops and supporting studies. Savings to applicants would be even greater and are estimated at $250,000 per case.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking Information contained in NRC Regulatory Guides 4.2, 4.7, 4.8, and NUREG-0180 provide much of the basis for identifying specific criteria. Two ongoing contracts are designed to provide technical data that support the above guides. An additional contractual effort would be required to further develop a broader technical basis for each criterion.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 5)
i 9_
NRC effort would consist of task group from DSE which would estab- j lish the scope of a case review contract, develop the bid package, 1
monitor the contract, and prepare a final rulemaking package.
l The contract would require a review of case histories to establish a formal data base for specified criteria and recommend numerical values. Preliminary NRC manpower estimates for generic rulemaking on this issue are about 1000 man-days with a dollar cost estimate of about $560,000 including the cost of rulemaking workshops and supporting contract studies. Industry inputs to rulemaking are estimated at roughly $500,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations The proposed rulemaking would place considerable reliance on the Early Site Review Regulations that were issued on April 29, 1977 and supporting guides. It would also be affected by the outcome cf the currently proposed License Reform legislation, particularly as that legislation affects NRC's interactions with the States on NEPA
~
matters. In a similar vein, many States have power plant siting l
l 1egislation in force or under consideration, which would be relevant l
l to the final product.
Enclosure D (IssueNo.5)
GENERIC PROCEDURAL CRITERIA TO DEFINE MORE CONCRETELY NRC RESPONSIBILITY IN ASSESSMENTS AND DECISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN WATER-RELATED IMPACTS IN RELATION TO THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OF EPA AND PERMITTING STATES ,
Discussion of the Issue Prior to the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217), the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) had regulatory authorit;' pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of'1969 (NEPA),inconsiderationoftheenvironmentalimpactofthedischarge of pollutants and other factors, to impose limitations on the dis-charge of pollutants from nuclear power plants and other facilities or activities requiring an AEC license or permit, as a condition of such license or permit. The FWPCA now requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish effluent limitations for all pollutants for use in permits for the discharge of pollutants to -
navigable waters of the United States from point sources as defined. l 1
in the FWPCA, such as nuclear power plants. !
l l
In December 1975. EPA and NRC entered into an agreement titled "Second Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Implementation of Certain Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Environmental Protection Agency Responsibilities'under the Federal Water Pollution Control Enclosure D (Issue No. 6)
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" for the purpose of clarifying their roles in the decision-making processes concerning nuclear power plants and other facilities requiring an NRC license or permit. This agreement provided for coordination of scheduling of respective responsibilities and provided for the preparation of a joint EIS for "new sources" which would have required that EPA prepare an EIS under Section 102(2) (c) of.NEPA.
PL 92-500 Section, 511 (c) (2), essentially precludes NRC from im-posing as a license condition, any effluent limitation other than limitations established under that act. In August 1977, NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation provided the Commission with a policy paper (SECY 77-450) describing the " Treatment of License Conditions in Environmental Technical Conditions in Environmental Technical Specifications," and indicating how NRC satisfies Section 511 (c) (2) while fulfilling its NEPA responsibilities.
There still remain questions for which both EPA and NRC have respon-sibility and which are not adequately resolved by the second memorandum or the policy paper. ASLB and Commission decisions on individual licensing actions are contributing further to the evolution of policy.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 6)
In the Seabrook Memorandum and Order of January 6,1978, the Commission concluded in that case it was proper to use " EPA's determination of the magnitude of the marine environmental impacts from the cooling system in striking an overall cost-benefit balance
' for the facility."- In. reaching this conclusion great weight'.was given to the fact that a finding of environmental acceptability was made by EPA after environmentally sensitive hearings on an' issue <
which Congress specifically entrusted to it. Even greater weight was given to the avoidance of protracted relitigation of the same T factual issues.
In the partial initial decision, February 3,1978, Yellow Creek ,
Nuclear Plant, the ASLB ruled that conditions imposed in the' license by NRC will be-limited to those which are not within the jurisdic-tiot) of EPA. They noted in effect that in the Yellow Creek case i
NRC should wor'; through EPA to obtain any necessary monitoring and future action for the protection of aquatic resources. The' staff.
filed an exception to the Board ruling out'of concern-that-this approach might impair their ability to obtain information for. future needs. Action on the staff appeal is pending..
Enclosure D LIssue No. 6)
The Yellow Creek decision followed by some months the Three Mile Island (TMI)Boarddecision. There the Board has added aquatic monitoring requirements which went beyond staff recommendations.
There were major differences between the TMI and the Yellow Creek reviews.in the extent of involvement of EPA in the NRC review and in the conditions which were included in the NPDES Permits.
As conditions of the Construction Permit at Comanche Peak, the ASLB required certain aquatic monitoring to be perfonned and reported in the OL stage Environmental Report. In defense of his failure to provide the required information, the applicant has argued that PL 92-500 has effectively superceded the Board ruling. NRC has not yet formulated a policy on treatment of conditions imposed prior to PL 92-500.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking The primary objective of rulemaking here is to clarify exactly what water related information NRC will consider in its licensing review.
Rulemaking has the advantage of providing a forum for careful exami-nation and debate of the proper role of NRC in the areas of water quality and aquatic impacts, compared to the role of EPA and the Enclosure D (Issue No. 6)
'l permitting states. The. scope of rulemaking would address separately the treatment of aquatic resource impacts in the steps of the regu-latory process as outlined below:
- 1. 'Early Site Review, t
- 2. Alternative sites.
- 3. Need for mitigative action, NPDES permits, and Environmental Technical Specifications.
- 4. Post-licensing follow-up of aquatic impacts.
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings .
Review of aquatic impacts represents a significant portion of the NEPA effort. Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories, under con-tract to NRC, are currently preparing sections of the EIS related to aquatic and terrestrial resources, need for power, socio-economic impact and cost / benefit analysis. They are responsible for presen-tation and defense of the technical analysis at hearings. The esti-L mate of the cost of the lab participation in CP reviews was placed at
$319,000 per case as of August 1977, of which upwards of 30% is attributable to water quality and aquatic impacts. Additionally, there are several man-months per case of NRC staff time devoted to a
these areas.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 6) .
In some of the more extensively contested proceedings (e.g.,
Brunswick, Seabrook, and Indian Point) there was duplication of effort between NRC and EPA in the review and defense of the need for mitigative actions to protect aquatic resources. ,
Cost savings per case through generic treatment of this issue are estimated at 10-20 man-days for the NRC staff and a total budgetary savings of $8,000 to $16,000 including contractor costs. For the _-_
industry, cost savings per case are estimated at roughly $10,000.
No estimates of savings due to rulemaking are given for the staffs ,
of the EPA, permitting States, and River Basin Commissions, although those could prove to be significant.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking This rulemaking would primarily be concerned with legal and policy ,
matters. A comprehensive comparison of the level of review and adjudication that typically is realized in the processing of EPA permits and EPA's enforcement experience with those of NRC may be of value in determining the proper role of NRC in meeting the intent of NEPA. Close coordination would need to be maintained with EPA in the development of any proposed rule. The cost of generic rulemaking is estimated at roughly 100 man-days for NRC Enclosure D (Issue No. 6)
- 1 and its contractors, valued at $30,000. For industry the costs of rulemaking are estimated at about $25,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations There would be some potential for conflict with EPA if a study is made of the relative review, adjudication, and enforcement practices of EPA compared to NRC. This conflict would be minimized through close coordination with EPA.
l I
i I
e I
al Enclosure D (IssueNo.6)
l NEPA DECISION CRITERIA FOR OL REVIEWS 1
I. Discussion of the Issue NRC currently reviews the environmental impact of operation of a nuclear steam electric generating station in conjunction with the review of an application for a CP. A second review is performed at .
the time of the OL application. The current regulations do not l
l clearly distinguish between the information which will be reviewed at l
the OL stage and the information which will be reviewed at the CP stage. The regulations do address additional information require-ments at the OL stage (10 CFR 51.21 says the applicants OL stage ER shall address the same material as the CP stage ER "but only to the extent that they differ from those discussed or reflected new infor-mation in addition to that discussed in the final environmental im-pact statement prepared by the Commission in connection with the constructionpermit.") The regulations further provide (10 CFR 51.23 l
l (e)) that "a draft environmental impact statement prepared in connac-tion with the issuance of an operating license will cover only matters ,
which differ from or which reflect new information in addition to those matters discussed in the final environmental ic:,:t statement prepared in connection with the issuance of the construction permit."
~
While this guidance in some cases substantially eases the OL stage review process it has one major deficiency; i.e., some issues are Enclosure 0 (Issue No. 7)
_.._.--.._-_......_m. _--.
~ .
-2_
very relevant at the CP stage but at the OL stage are largely inappropriato or likely could not tilt the cost-benefit balance in a reasonable analysis regardless of new information. For example, issues in this category might be:
(a) need for power /need for facility (b) alternative fuels (c) alternative sites (d) impacts of construction -
(c) physical layout and design of facility, including impact mitigating devices.
A second opportunity for review and litigation of any issues that i have little relevance of substance and could not reasonably impact the previous decision is not cost-effective nor in the public interest.
l t
At the time of an OL review there has been a substantial co~ ,
of resources in constructing the approved design at the appro
! site. Therefore, most alternatives that were available at the l
stage have logically been precluded by the time an OL decision is -
Enclosure (IssueNo.7)
I
required. The issues at the OL review stage should logically focus on whether new information warrants specifically identifiable changes in mitigative structures or operating characteristics.
The CP stage environmental review addresses environmental impact of station operation as well as impact of construction. With sev-eral hundred reactor-years of operating experienct behind us, it is possible to resolve most, if not all, operating impact issues at the CP review stage. .It is, therefore, proposed that the scope of OL review be better defined by rulemaking.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking Rulemaking wot *dentify those issues which should be subject to revi, ,taga and should also identify those issues which shc . . c. subject to review at the OL stago. Such rulemaking would serve to require CP stage resolution of those issues which are determined to be appropriate only to the CP decision and would discourage the deferral of decisions which would be biased at the OL stage by a large construction investment.
Enclosure D (Issue :;o. 7)
Rulemaking should have as a second objective the exposition of criteria for determining where re-review of an issue-is appropriate and permissible at the OL stage.
The rulemaking process should methodically consider each and every issue or type of issue covered in the NEPA review. This should include, as a minimum, the following: ;
- 1. need for power /need for facility
- 2. alternative energy sources ,
- 3. alternative sites
- 4. alternative impact mitigating structures:
- a. intake structure
- b. condenser cooling system
- c. discharge structure
- 5. alternative operating procedures
- 6. housekeeping practices (e.g., construction cleanup l transmission line right of way maintenance). l
- 7. monitoring and surveillance programs i
Enclosure D !
l (Issue No. 7) i l
l
~. ..
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings _
The cost of the OL stage environmental review is great in proportion to benefits. An accurate up-to-date cost estimate is not available, but it is estimated at about half to two-thirds of a CP review. The estimate of the cost of the lab participation in CP reviews was placed at $319,000 as of August 1977. This cost included hearings.
The OL review often does not include an environmental hearing.
1 To the lab cost must be added the NRC staff cost. A November 1976 estimate of time expended by two branches (Environmental Specialists and Cost-Benefit Analysis) was about six man-months. The Hydrology /
Meteorology, Radiation Assessment, and Accident Analysis Branches also provide substantial input to the OL review, as does the Environ-mental Projects Branch. The total NRC staff cost is estimated as roughly equal to the cost of lab participation, or about $200,000 for the OL review.
The applicant's cost for the environmental review at the OL stage is estimated to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 million dollars.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 7)
The estimated savings in NRC staff effort per case through rule-making is about 100 to 200 man-days with a total budgetary savings to NRC of about.$100,000 to $210,000 per case. The estimated savings to the applicant is about $500,000 per case.
i IV. Information Required for Rulemaking F
C Both a legal review and a technical review will be necessary. The legal review should provide recommended procedures to assure com-pliance with NEPA. The technical review would consider case histories where both CP and OL statements have been prepared.- The technical review would identify those areas where OL stage review'is essential and cannot be avoided by more thorough treatment at the CP stage.
The technical review would also provide the basis for an environmental impact appraisal or statement of the proposed rulemaking, if required.
The NRC staff effort for this rulemaking is estimated to be roughly 400 man-days at a total cost of $320,000 including rulemaking workshops. The industry cost of rulemaking is estimated at-t' roughly $500,000.
l V. Major Policy Considerations l
As a matter of policy, NRC has the primary responsibility to assure that the nuclear power industry adhere to environmentally sound Enclosure D (IssueNo.7)
1 I
)
I practices. Modifications to our OL review process should be made only if they do not weaken our assurances that our NEPA responsibil- ]i ity will be reasonably discharged. However, any changes in this area are likely to be controversial as to whether we will still be pro- l viding reasonable assurances. There will be serious potential chal- l 1enges regarding the legal requirements on NEPA. In tnis regard, a clear exposition of the relative accomplishments of reviews at the ;
CP and OL stages is likely to support the argument for the " Rule of ;
Reason." ,
Currently there is under review a petition for rulemaking in this area (PRM-51-4) . While the staff believes that rulemaking in this general area would be productive, this Interim Policy Statement should not be considered as impacting the Commission's decision relative to the legal and technical merits of the petition.
Enclosure D (IssueNo.7)
.n ;
- _, q.
OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION EXPOSURE CONTROL 1
7 'I . E Discussion of the' Issue Collection and.. analysis-of. occupational rad 1ation exposure data- 1 l
~
have identified activated corrosion products (crud) as the principal l so'urce of worker exposures at nuclur power plants. CorrosionandL q wear occur.within the primsry coolant system; the'resulting debris -
is transported'in dissolved or suspended form by the primary coolant .
l water, throughout the primary system. . Some of these materials are deposited in the core ' region, and are then subjected to.high neutron flux densities, becoming intensely radioactive as a result. Subse . 'l quent movement of these highly radioactive materials results in- 1 l
deposition throughout the system, particularly in regions where flow j is constrained, velocity is changed, and mechanical trapping can occur--e.g., filters, pipe bends, and valves. Wherever these mate-rials accumulate, intense radiation sources are formed, frequently; ,
l resulting in high radiation fields in areas which must occasionally .
be occupied by plant workers. l 1
i When high radiation levels are encountered.in areas occupied by plant workers, the jobs to be done become more complex and more time-consuming.. Worker time, plant down-time, and. total costs may be substantially increased under'such circumstances. q i
Enclosure D (Issue No. 8) l i
- -m , ~ , + + - . - , + ,a v -n-J +,-n.--
~ . .
- 3. ,
As.a . result,,the industry has been addressing the question of how to reduce the occupational radiation exposures due to deposited radioactive corrosion products. Among the principal areas being explored in the search for ways to reduce these exposures are:
(a) control of cobalt content in the primary coolant system; (b) control of system chemistry to reduce formation, solution, .
displacement and deposition; and (c) decontamination of primary system components.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking At such time in the future as the information becomes available to justify specific requirements in this area, it may be feasible to develop a specific m.ual collective radiation' exposure design objec-tive value for control of occupational radiation exposures from radioactive crud deposits, analogous to 550.34a for effluent control.
i In the meantime, it might also be desirable to proceed with the development of additional design criteria in Appendix A of Pait 50, Orc would require general consideration of crud formation, solution, Enclosure 0 (Issue No. 8)
and deposition, as well as decontamination of systems and components in the design of the primary coolant system.
A second would require consideration in all aspects of plant layout and design of means to maintain unnecessary occupational radiation exposure ALARA, referencing Regulatory Guide 8.8.
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings Staff estimates of NRC staff resources saved per case through rulemaking range from about 15 to 25 man-days, valued at $5,000 to
$8,000. For designers, review against specific design criteria could be significantly less time-consuming than component-by-component review of systems to requirements of Regulatory 8.8.
Accordingly, cost savings per case to industry is estimated at
$40,000.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking l
As mentioned above, experimental studies are proceeding along a number of fronts on means of rei.cing occupational radiation exposures due to crud. When available definitive infonnation permits specification of cobalt content in system components, and I
Enclosure D (Issue No. 8)
appropriate water chemistry for various operational modes, as well as acceptable system and component decontamination processes, the radiation protection review may be substantially simplified. The cost to NRC of rulemaking is estimated at 100 man-days valued at
$30,000 with rulemaking costs for industry estimated 'at roughly
$50,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations ,
None.
t l
Enclosure 0 (Issue No. 8)
l l
l GENERIC RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FOR NORMAL LWR RADIONUCLIDE RELEASES I. Discussion of the Issue At both the construction permit and operating license stage, an environmental impact statement is prepared that contains, in part, an estimation of the environmental impact associated with the rou-tine release of radionuclides to the atmosphere and hydrosphere.
The radiological impact estimates are the re: ult of an engineering evaluation of the . radioactive waste treatment system that produces an inventory of radionuclides to be released to the environment, calculations 'of the available dilution (atmospheric and hydrologic),
and a calculation of the dose to individual receptors in the imme-diate site environs and to the population within 50 miles of the site and in the total United States.
The calculated doses to individuals in the immediate site environs are compared to the individual dose design objectives of Appendix I 1
l to 10 CFR Part 50. If these calculated doses are within the design objectives, then the doses are used to represent environmental impact in the EIS. If the doses exceed the design objectives, then l
additional radwaste system components must be added and/or calcula-tions must be reconsidered until all the doses are within the Enclosure D (IssueNo.9)
- 2'-
design _ objectives. .The cost-benefit requirement of Appendix I is not discussed here simpir because_it has not resulted in any rad-waste system augment.
A generic treatment of these' radiological impacts would be appro-priate because: (1) there is a regulatory requirement that radio-active effluents result in calculated doses within 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I design objective values and (2) technical specifications are imposed on nuclear plants which hold:them to or below these values.
This results in operating criteria that always limit the impact to a value below a_specified value. Accordingly, it is desirable to prepare a generic radiological environmental impact section that would be expressed in a manner similar to the existing Section 5.4 environmental statement text for presentation to a rulemaking board. ,
In fact, a statement is presently included in all environmental statements that a facility may be operated in a manner such that doses close to the design objectives will be experienced instead of the doses that have been calculated based on the site-specific, plant-specific analysis.
A summary of generic radiological impacts would then replace section 5.4 of the EIS. <
Enclosure D (Issue No. 9)
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking Applicants for LWR licenses currently design the radiological waste management systems, using state-of-the-art equipment, to achieve radioactive effluent releases that will meet the Appendix I dose design objectives and, hence, ALARA requirements.. The rulemaking proceeding would identify the range of individual and collective dose impacts that are achievable using this equipment, based on the observable and foreseeable range of site-specific meteorological, hydrological, and radiological parameters. The upper end of this range of individual doses would be the Appendix I design objective values. A study of the relationship between calculated impacts using methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.109 and actual measured effluent source tenns, and those using measurements taken from the environmental radiological monitoring program would also be necessary to establish a more reliable lower bound than is presently calcu-lated in the licensing stage. The generic treatment of this issue in rulemaking would, if successful, obviate the need for calculat-ing radiological impacts of nonnal radionuclide releases for each individual licensing case.
Enclosure D (Issue No 9) l l
l i
l
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings Savings of NRC staff effort in the preparation of draft and final environmental statement text, responses. to agency comments, and hearing testimony through rulemaking are estimated at 20-30 man-days for each licensing case valued at-$6,000 to $9,000. Savings to the applicant through generic rulemaking which would eliminate an essentially redundant review and analysis is estimated at about
$5,000.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking All information is presently available, much of which is obtainable from the Appendix I hearings. Collecting and analyzing the data in a consistent manner remains to be accomplished. The estimated cost of rulemaking to the NRC is about 100 man-days of staff effort valued at $30,000. The cost of rulemaking to the industry is estimated at roughly $50,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations None.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 9)
THRESHOLD LIMITS FOR GENERIC DISPOSITION OF COOLING TOWER EFFECTS I. Discussion of the Issue ;
The adverse effects of cooling tower operation has been a controver-sial subject at a number of case hearings. At issue have been sub-jects such as weather modification (enhanced rain, snow, fog, tornadoes, floods, etc.), deposition, interactions of cooling tower operation with other plant effluents (radiological and chemical),_
noise and aesthetics. What is proposed is a rule which establishes a threshold level for each anticipated effect, based upon operating i experiences and theoretical considerations, beyond which determination of adverse impacts may require detailed evaluation. For proposed cooling towers of any type whose anticipated impacts do not exceed threshold limits, the rule would-provide the basis for a dispositive finding of no significant adverse impact.
II. Likely Scope of Rulemaking Could be limited to those areas for which dispositive findings were likely, or_ expanded to consider all impacts to establish the basis for subsequent evaluations. The recommendation at this time is to
~
Enclosure D i
(Issue No. 10)
undertake a study and decide the scope of rulemaking upon its conclusion.
III. NRC and Other Resources Expended in Case Reviews and Hearings A substantial number of cases involve cooling towers, but not all of the identified issues are raised on each case. Cost savings per case through generic rulemaking are estimated at 10 to 50 man-days for the NRC staff at a total cost of $13,000 to $65,000 including contractor costs. Cost savings to industry are estimated at roughly $50,000 per case.
IV. Information Required for Rulemaking Design experience and analysis of operating data will be required to .
establish a generic basis for a general rule applicable to each sub-ject area. Experience with different types of cooling towers (natural draft, mechanical, saltwater, etc.) will have to be assessed for not only nuclear power plants, but also for other industrial applications. Methods of analysis will be established on a generic basis to allow comparisons to be made for individual sites and for different types of towers. Specific information on precipitation, fog, deposition and deposition chemistry will be collected and assessed.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 10)
- ,o 1
It is anticipated that a background study on the subject would be published as the technical basis for proceeding to rulemaking.
Public input would be sought on the scope and kinds of impacts to be considered at the formulative stages of the study. A preliminary list of the impacts to be considered for different tower types include:
- a. weather modification (rain, fog, snow, floods, tornadoes, etc.)
- 1. local
- 2. regional
- b. drift
- c. saltwater tower deposition
- d. non-saltwater tower deposition
- e. interaction with other effluents
- 1. onsite
- 2. offsite
- f. noise
- g. aesthetics -
The cost of rulemaking on this set of issues is estimated at about 150 man-days of NRC staff effort and a total budgetary cost of
$100,000 including,rulemaking workshops and supporting studies.
Enclosure D (Issue No.10)
aA ,
_4_
For industry the estimated rulemaking costs are.about $50,000.
V. Major Policy Considerations None, except for potential interfaces with EPA on air pollution ,
subjects.
Enclosure D (Issue No. 10)
6 e
1 5
i ENCLOSURE E .
a
j
- g. .
> Enclosure E
~ STAFF RESPONSE T0.0GC AND OPE COMMENTS The. staff has adopted the word' changes'and deletions suggested by the. ;
-0GC and OPE in.the Commission paper and Enclosures A and B. The suggested.
restatement of the three decision criteria in the Commission paper;as proposed by OPE have been accepte'd by the staff.and 0GC.
i In addition, OPE suggested that:
(1) The staff may wish to consider whether' publication of a NUREG t
document.with further information would be desirable; and (2)- The two alternatives amount tol' publish.the statement" and " don't ,
publish'the statement." There are intermediates, e.'g., "publishLa ,
policy statement but don't include a list of candidate. issues." l Regarding this suggestion, OPE presumes that the staff believes i that any intermediate' course of. action is likely to be of dubious.
value to the Commission. If:this presumption is correct,.then it might be appropriate to say.so. .
1 In response to these' suggestions, the staff feels that either making the full-Commission paper available to the interested public or providing a q Enclosure E
l l
NUREG publication for Enclosure D of the Commission paper is acceptable. j 1
However, if the intent of the OPE suggestion is to expand on the ten candidate issues to an extent greater than already accomplished in Enclosure D, such a course is deemed undesirable at this time for several reasons:
(1) The time and effort required for preparing and obtaining multiple division concurrences for such a document would be counterproductive to a desirable time schedule for proceeding with rulemaking activities as a potentially significant approach in improving the effectiveness of nuclear licensing procedures.
(2) Providing additional detail regarding the proposed ten rulemaking issues than is presented in Enclosure D would, in essence, require the NRC to begin taking proposed positions regarding the specific f'.m of rules for each of the ten issues. This would change the nature of the proposed Federal Register notice from one of requesting early thoughts on the nature and general scope of useful rulemaking to improve the licensing process to one of requesting more detailed comments on likely proposed rules. The staff has carefully stayed away from prejudging what the content of various rules might be.
Such prejudgment would, in effect, convert this one Commission paper into ten Commission papers.
Enclosure E
)
- 3~ ,
1 As for OPE's suggestion of adding a third and intermediate alternative for Commission consideration, the staff agrees with OPE s presumption that this is likely to be of dubious value to the Commission. Publishing !
the policy statement on ge'1eric rulemaking as proposed in Enclosure A i without the specific examples provided in the ten issues would: (i) make the Statement undesirably vague; (ii) weaken the image of staff r leadership in developing an action plan for generic rulemaking; and (iii) fail to provide useful illustrations of rulecaking which would substantially reduce public understanding and the resultant value of public comments. Moreover, the Policy Statement makes clear the tentative nature of the staff's proposed areas for rulemaking and invites additional .
suggestions. Therefore, it is clear that the inclusion of the ten issues poses no commitment on the part of the staff or the' Commission to proceed with any of the issues. For these reasons, the staff felt, and still believes, that this intermediate alternative would not be sufficiently useful to warrant Commission consideration.
Enclosure E
. . -. _ . _ _ = ,_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
e
. = v' t, 6a Afg$i
'g UNITED STATES
['E h ,, gj g.
3,'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S55 Q;./}
h..... . ,'; August 18, 1978 NOTE FOR:- Thomas Rehm, Assistant to the EDO, g s tn IIhal Counsel
SUBJECT:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ON GE'ERAL N POLICY'FOR RULEMAKING OGC has reviewed the staff paper on the Preliminary State-ment. I think that it is a very good effort and 000 concurs in it. However, I do have a few comments which I want to pass along:
- 1. I agree with the points made in OPE's memo on this subject.
- 2. I have ' attached a markup of the Commission paper and, .
l Enclosures A and B which contains my comments on specific items and also my' suggestions for making the documents less wordy and clearer.
l
Attachment:
. Markup !
l I
1 l
I I
i
. l
.J p ara e A UNITED STATES
. ,' ys ,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g .k[ j WASHINGTON,0. c. 203 5
- 'rg .) -e
- 4) ' 8
- ,o '
August 18,~1978
. 1, f
MEMORANDUM FOR:- Tom Rehm FROM: Ken Pede en\ *
\,
SUBJECT:
PRELIM Y STATEMENT ON GENERAL POLICY FOR RULEMAKING.
TO IMPROVE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSING T I have no basic problems'with the proposed action and, indeed, find the document to be a very solid piece of work. The initial list of candidate generic issues is reasonable and supported by a careful value-impact.
analysis.
In view of the brevity of the discussion of the candidate issues in the proposed public statement, 'you may wish to consider whether publication of a NUREG document with further information would be desirable.
Some of the material could stand editing, i.e., pruning out excess words, phrases and clauses. I found it particularly difficult to understand the
" Decision Criteria" presented on page' 2 of the staf f paper. Is the foJ- -
lowing a legitimate " translation"? (If so, I suggest you. revise the present text.)
- 1. Does the proposed policy statement (Enclosure A) provide an adequate basis for the public and industry to comment on the proposed generic rulemaking plans and to provide substantive suggestions?
- 2. Is a request for public and industry comment on the policy statement likely to yield useful input'for further development of rulemaking plans and, at the same time, not limit the Commission's flexibility for subsequent modification of the plans?
I
- 3. Will the policy statement and the request for comments provide useful public visibility and increased public understanding of NRC objectives i in improving the licensing process through generic rulemaking?
The two alternatives amount to " publish the statement" and " don't publish the statement." There are intermediates, e.g., " publish a policy state-ment but don't include a list of candidate issues." However, I presume .
the staff believes that any intermediate course of action is likely to be .i of dubious value to the Commission. If this presumption is correct, then l it might be appropriate to say so. l l
l CONTACT:
- Jim Beckerley (OPE) 634-3295
[ 4,", 04 Tom Rehm r; In the discuss'ib'n (pages 2 and 3 of Enclosure A) of the advantages and
~
disadvantages 'f generic rulemaking, the last item, (e), should be modified by adding'"and those of. the public whose interest may be affected tar the-rulemaking" (or equivalent language) to the list of those whose resources may be saved.- The point is, that by settling an issue once, the resources expended by any one of the parties may be less than it' would expend in .
case-by-case settlements.
OGC has reviewed the paper and agrees with the above comments. Jim Fitzgerald has some specific-suggestions for improving the text which he will send separately.
cc: James Kelley l
1 l
l 1
l l
l l
1 l
ENCL 0SURE E .