[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40394-40395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Public Comment on the Pilot Program for the New Regulatory
Oversight Program
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 inspection, assessment, and enforcement 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 method for consistently
determining the appropriate regulatory actions in response to varying
levels of safety performance. The changes are the result of continuing
work on concepts as described in SECY-99-007, ``Recommendations for
Reactor Oversight'' dated January 8, 1999, and SECY-99-007A,
``Recommendations for Reactor Oversight Improvements (Follow-Up to
SECY-99-007)'' dated March 22, 1999. In June 1999, the NRC began a six-
month pilot program with two sites participating from each region. The
purpose of the pilot program is to exercise the new oversight process,
identify problems, develop lessons learned, and make any necessary
changes before full implementation at all sites. 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 for further development and refinement of the new
oversight process.
DATES: The comment period expires November 30, 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: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S.
mail.
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.
Comments may be submitted electronically at the ``NRC Initiatives
1999'' web page at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/INITIATIVES/1999/
COMMENTS/2a__cmt.html
Copies of the Pilot Program Guidelines may be obtained at the
following web site: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html
Additional information on the pilot program may be obtained from
the NRC's Public Document Room at 2120 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20003-
1527, telephone 202-634-3272.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Madison, Mail Stop: O-5 H4,
Inspection Program Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone
301-415-1490.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In September 1997, the NRC began an integrated review of the
process used for assessing safety performance by commercial nuclear
power plant licensees. The NRC staff presented a conceptual design for
a new integrated assessment process to the Commission in Commission
paper SECY-98-045, dated March 9, 1998.
In parallel with the staff's work on the integrated review of the
assessment processes (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,
developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 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.
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,
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 in October 1998),
during which the NRC conducted a four day public workshop in the Fall
of 1998, was used to facilitate internal and external input into the
development of these recommendations.
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 and for identifying the
performance indicators (PIs) and appropriate thresholds that could be
used to measure safety 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
[[Page 40395]]
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.
On January 20, 1999, the staff briefed the Commission on the staff's
proposal as described in SECY-99-007, ``Recommendations for Reactor
Oversight Improvements.''
The follow-up recommendations for an integrated oversight process
are presented in SECY-99-007A, ``Recommendation for Reactor Oversight
Process Improvements (Follow-Up to SECY-99-007)'' dated March 22, 1999,
and its attachments. This paper includes further information on the
development of the Significance Determination Process (SDP) and the
revised enforcement policy.
Scope of the Public Comment Period
This public comment period will focus on obtaining industry and
public views on the new oversight process as implemented during the
Pilot Program and any additional issues that need to be addressed prior
to full implementation of the new oversight process. To assist
respondents the following questions are included as a guide. Comments
should be as specific as possible and the use of examples is
encouraged.
1. Does the new oversight process provide adequate assurance that
plants are being operated safely?
2. Does the new oversight process enhance public confidence by
increasing the predictability, consistency, clarity and objectivity of
the NRC's oversight process?
3. Does the new oversight process improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the regulatory process focusing agency resources on
those issues with the most safety significance?
4. Does the new oversight process reduce unnecessary regulatory
burden on licensees?
5. The new oversight process does not currently provide an overall
assessment of performance of an individual safety cornerstone other
than a determination that the cornerstone objectives have or have not
been met. However, it does identify regulatory actions to be taken for
degraded performance within the safety cornerstones. Is an overall
safety cornerstone assessment warranted or appropriate?
6. Licensee findings as well as NRC inspection findings are
candidates for being evaluated by the significance determination
process. Does this serve to discourage licensees from having an
aggressive problem identification process?
7. In the new oversight program, positive inspection observations
are not included in NRC inspection reports and the plant issues matrix
(PIM) due to a lack of criteria and past inconsistencies and
subjectivity in identifying such issues. Previous feedback on this
issue indicated that the vast majority of commenters believed positive
inspection findings should not be factored into the assessment process.
Does the available public information associated with the revised
reactor oversight process, including the NRC's web page which includes
information on performance indicators and inspection findings, provide
an appropriately balanced view of licensee performance? If not, should
positive inspection findings be captured and incorporated into a
process to reach an overall inspection indicator for each cornerstone?
8. The staff has established several mechanisms such as public
meetings held in the vicinity of the plants, this Federal Register
Notice, and the NRC's website to solicit public feedback on the Pilot
Program. Are there any other appropriate means by which the agency
could solicit stakeholder feedback, in a structured and consistent
manner, on the Pilot Program?
9. Are there any additional issues that the agency needs to address
prior to full implementation of the new oversight process at all sites?
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of July 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William M. Dean,
Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Division of Inspection Program
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-18983 Filed 7-23-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
