99-1486. Public Comment on Recommended Improvements to the Oversight Processes for Nuclear Power Reactors  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 1999)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 3576-3578]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-1486]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    
    Public Comment on Recommended Improvements to the Oversight 
    Processes for Nuclear Power Reactors
    
    AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Request for public comment.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing 
    significant revisions to its processes for overseeing the safety 
    performance of commercial nuclear power plants that include integrating 
    the processes. As part of its proposal, the NRC staff established a new 
    regulatory oversight framework with a set of performance indicators and 
    associated thresholds, developed a new baseline inspection program that 
    supplements and verifies the performance indicators, and created a 
    continuous assessment process that includes a methodology for grading 
    the regulatory response to performance on the basis of information 
    derived from the performance indicators and inspection findings. The 
    changes are the result of continuing work following public comment and 
    workshops held on a previously noticed concept, the integrated review 
    of the assessment process (IRAP) [``Public Comment on the Integrated 
    Review of the Assessment Process for Commercial Nuclear Power 
    Reactors,'' August 7, 1998; 63 FR 152, 42439]. Public comments are 
    requested on the proposed regulatory framework, baseline inspection 
    program, assessment process, and associated assessment tools. The NRC 
    is soliciting comments from interested public interest groups, the 
    regulated industry, States, and concerned citizens. The NRC staff will 
    consider comments it receives in developing a final proposal for 
    implementing the new processes.
    
    DATES: The comment period expires February 22, 1999. Comments received 
    after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the 
    Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received 
    on or before this date.
    
    ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives 
    Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, 
    Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
    20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
    Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies 
    of comments received may be examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
    2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
        Copies of SECY-99-007 and its attachments may be obtained from the 
    NRC's Public Document Room at 2120 L St., N.W., Washington, DC 20003-
    1527, telephone 202-634-3273. Copies also may be obtained from the 
    NRC's Internet web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SECYS/
    index.html#1999.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy J. Frye, Mail Stop: O-5 H4, 
    Inspection Program Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 
    301-415-1287.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        Over the years, the NRC has developed and implemented different 
    licensee performance assessment processes to address the specific 
    assessment needs of the agency at the time. The systematic assessment 
    of licensee performance (SALP) process was implemented in 1980 
    following the accident at Three Mile Island to allow for the 
    systematic, long-term, integrated evaluation of overall licensee 
    performance. The senior management meeting (SMM) process was 
    implemented in 1986, following the loss-of-feedwater event at Davis-
    Besse, to bring to the attention of the highest levels of NRC 
    management to plan a coordinated agency course of action for those 
    plants the performance of which was of most concern to the agency. The 
    plant performance review (PPR) process was implemented in 1990 to 
    periodically adjust NRC's inspection
    
    [[Page 3577]]
    
    focus in response to changes in licensee performance and emerging plant 
    issues.
    
    Integrated Review of the Assessment Process
    
        In September 1997, the NRC began an integrated review of the 
    processes used for assessing performance by commercial nuclear power 
    plant licensees. The NRC staff presented to the Commission a conceptual 
    design for a new integrated assessment process in Commission paper 
    SECY-98-045, dated March 9, 1998, and briefed the Commission on the 
    concept at a public meeting on April 2, 1998. SECY-98-045 requested the 
    Commission's approval to solicit public input on the proposed concepts. 
    On June 30, 1998, the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum 
    (SRM) in response to SECY-98-045 that approved the staff's request to 
    solicit public comment on the concepts presented in the Commission 
    paper [63 FR 152].
    
    Industry Proposal
    
        In parallel with the staff's work on the IRAP and the development 
    of other assessment tools, the nuclear power industry independently 
    developed a proposal for a new assessment and regulatory oversight 
    process. This proposal took a risk-informed and performance-based 
    approach to the inspection, assessment, and enforcement of licensee 
    activities on the basis of the results of a set of performance 
    indicators. This proposal was developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute 
    (NEI) and is further described in ``Minutes of the July 28, 1998, 
    Meeting With the Nuclear Energy Institute to Discuss Performance 
    Indicators and Performance Assessment,'' dated July 30, 1998.
    
    Public Workshop
    
        The staff set out to develop a single set of recommendations for 
    making improvements to the regulatory oversight processes in response 
    to NEI's proposal, the Commission's comments on the IRAP proposal, and 
    comments made at a Commission meeting on July 17, 1998, with public and 
    industry stakeholders and the hearing before the Senate on July 31, 
    1998.
        The IRAP public comment period, which ended on October 6, 1998, and 
    a series of public meetings were used to facilitate internal and 
    external input into the development of these recommendations. As part 
    of the public comment period, the staff sponsored a 4-day public 
    workshop from September 28 through October 1, 1998, to allow 
    participation by the industry and the public in improving the 
    regulatory oversight processes. During the workshop, the participants 
    reached a consensus on the overall philosophy for regulatory oversight 
    and generally agreed on the defining principles for the oversight 
    processes.
    
    Task Groups
    
        Following the public workshop, the NRC staff formed three task 
    groups to complete the work begun at the workshop and to develop the 
    recommendations for the integrated oversight processes: a technical 
    framework task group, an inspection task group, and an assessment 
    process task group. The technical framework task group was responsible 
    for completing the assessment framework, which included defining the 
    strategic areas and cornerstones of licensee performance that need to 
    be measured to ensure that unacceptable risks are not imposed on the 
    public as a result of the operation of nuclear power reactors, and for 
    identifying the performance indicators (PIs) and appropriate thresholds 
    that could be used to measure performance. The inspection task group 
    was responsible for developing the scope, the depth, and the frequency 
    of a risk-informed baseline inspection program that would be used to 
    supplement and verify the PIs. The assessment process task group 
    developed methods for integrating PI data and inspection data, 
    determining NRC action on the basis of assessment results, and 
    communicating results to licensees and the public. Other staff 
    activities to improve the enforcement process were coordinated with 
    these three task groups to ensure that changes to the enforcement 
    process were properly evaluated in the framework structure and that 
    changes to the inspection and assessment programs were integrated with 
    the changes to the enforcement program. The task groups completed their 
    work between October and December 1998, and developed recommendations 
    to be presented to the Commission.
    
    Scope of the Public Comment Period
    
        The NRC staff's recommendations for an integrated oversight process 
    are presented in SECY-99-007, ``Recommendation for Reactor Oversight 
    Process Improvements,'' dated January 8, 1999, and its attachments. The 
    SECY paper also includes the staff's evaluation of public comments 
    received on IRAP. This public comment period will focus on obtaining 
    industry and public views on how the NRC should implement the processes 
    for overseeing and assessing licensee performance.
        The NRC seeks public comment and feedback on the specific topics 
    highlighted in the questions below. Commenters are not limited to and 
    are not obligated to address every issue discussed in the questions. In 
    providing comments, please key your response to the number of the 
    applicable question (e.g., ``Response to A.1.''). Comments should be as 
    specific as possible. The use of examples is encouraged.
        Comments are requested on the following issues.
    
    A. Regulatory Oversight Framework, Performance Indicators, and 
    Thresholds
    
    1. Framework Structure
        The oversight framework includes cornerstones of safety that (1) 
    limit the frequency of initiating events; (2) ensure the availability, 
    reliability, and capability of mitigating systems; (3) ensure the 
    integrity of the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and 
    containment boundaries; (4) ensure the adequacy of the emergency 
    preparedness functions; (5) protect the public from exposure to 
    radioactive material releases; (6) protect nuclear plant workers from 
    exposure to radiation; and (7) provide assurance that the physical 
    protection system can protect against the design-basis threat of 
    radiological sabotage. Are there any other significant areas that need 
    to be addressed in order for the NRC to meet its mission of ensuring 
    that commercial nuclear power plants are operated in a manner that 
    provides adequate protection of public health and safety and the 
    environment and protects against radiological sabotage and the theft or 
    diversion of special nuclear materials?
    2. Performance Bands
        The oversight framework includes thresholds for determining 
    licensee performance within four performance bands: a licensee response 
    band, an increased regulatory response band, a required regulatory 
    response band, and an unacceptable performance band. The thresholds 
    between the bands were selected to identify significant deviations from 
    nominal industry performance and to differentiate between levels of 
    risk significance, as indicated by PIs or inspection findings. Are 
    there alternative means of setting thresholds between the bands that 
    should be considered?
    3. Performance Indicators
        The NRC staff developed a set of 20 indicators to measure important 
    attributes of the seven areas listed in question 1 above. The PIs, 
    together with
    
    [[Page 3578]]
    
    findings from associated baseline inspections in attributes not fully 
    measured or not measured at all by the indicators, should provide a 
    broad sample of data on which to assess licensee performance in those 
    important attributes. One reason these specific indicators were 
    proposed is because they are readily available and can be implemented 
    in a short period of time. Other indicators will be developed and 
    included in the oversight process as their ability to measure licensee 
    performance is determined.
        Will these PIs, along with inspection findings, be effective in 
    determining varying levels of licensee performance?
    4. Other Comments
        Are there any other comments related to the oversight framework, 
    PIs, or thresholds?
    
    B. Risk-Informed Baseline Inspections
    
    1. Inspectable Areas
        The proposed baseline inspection program is based on a set of 
    inspectable areas that, in conjunction with the PIs, provides enough 
    information to determine whether the objectives of each cornerstone of 
    safety are being met. Are there any other areas not encompassed by the 
    inspectable areas that need to be reviewed to achieve the same goal?
    2. Other Comments
        Are there any other comments related to the proposed baseline 
    inspection program?
    
    C. Assessment Process
    
    1. Frequency of Assessments
        The proposed assessment process provides four levels of review of 
    licensee performance: continuous, quarterly, semiannual, and annual. 
    Each successive level is performed at a higher organizational level 
    within the NRC. The semiannual and annual periods would coincide with 
    an annual inspection planning process and the NRC's budgeting process. 
    Are the proposed assessment periods sufficient to maintain a current 
    understanding of licensee performance?
    2. Action Decision Model
        An action matrix was developed to provide guidance for consistently 
    considering those actions that the NRC needs to take in response to the 
    assessed performance of licensees. The actions are categorized into 
    four areas (management meeting, licensee action, NRC inspection, and 
    regulatory action) and are graded across five ranges of licensee 
    performance. The decision to take an action would be determined 
    directly from the threshold assessments of PIs and inspection areas. As 
    changes in performance become more significant, more significant 
    actions would be considered.
        The action matrix is not intended to be absolute. It establishes 
    expectations for NRC-licensee interactions, licensee actions, and NRC 
    actions and does not preclude taking less action or additional action, 
    when justified.
        Will the use of the action matrix and underlying decision logic 
    reasonably result in timely and effective action?
    3. Communicating Assessment Results
        The proposed assessment process includes several methods for 
    communicating information to licensees and the public. First, the 
    information being assessed (PIs and inspection results) will be made 
    public as the information becomes available. Second, the NRC will send 
    each licensee a letter every 6 months that describes any changes in the 
    NRC's planned inspections for the upcoming 6 months on the basis of 
    licensee performance. Third, each licensee will receive an annual 
    report that includes the NRC's assessment of the licensee's performance 
    and any associated actions taken because of that performance. In 
    addition to issuing the annual assessment report, the NRC will hold an 
    annual public meeting with each licensee to discuss its performance. 
    Finally, a public meeting with the Commission will be held annually to 
    discuss the performance at all plants. Do these reports and meetings 
    provide sufficient opportunity for licensees and the general public to 
    gain an understanding of performance and to interact with the NRC?
    4. Other Comments
        Are there any other comments related to the proposed assessment 
    process?
    
    E. Implementation
    
    1. Transition Plan
        The Commission paper includes a transition plan that identifies 
    important activities needed to complete and implement the proposed 
    processes. Are there other major activities not identified on the plan 
    that if not accomplished could prevent successful implementation of the 
    proposed processes?
    2. Other Comments
        Are there any other comments related to implementing the new 
    processes?
    
    F. Additional Comments
    
        In addition to the previously mentioned issues, commenters are 
    invited to give any other views on the NRC assessment process that 
    could assist the NRC in improving its effectiveness.
    
    Correction
    
        One of the performance indicators is incorrectly stated in two 
    places in the attachments to SECY-99-007. On page 3 of attachment 1 and 
    page 11 of attachment 2, the indicator for Occupational Radiation 
    Safety reads ``* * * personnel exposures exceeding 10% of the 
    stochastic or 2% of the nonstochastic limits.'' It should read ``* * * 
    personnel exposures exceeding 2% of the stochastic or 10% of the 
    nonstochastic limits.''
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of January 1999.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Frank P. Gillespie,
    Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Division of Inspection & Support 
    Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 99-1486 Filed 1-21-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
01/22/1999
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Request for public comment.
Document Number:
99-1486
Dates:
The comment period expires February 22, 1999. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Pages:
3576-3578 (3 pages)
PDF File:
99-1486.pdf