[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