[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