[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 20, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56524-56525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27363]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Public Workshop On Revising The Reactor Safety Goal Policy
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of public workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
modifying the reactor Safety Goal Policy Statement that was issued in
1986. Modifications are being considered for three reasons: (1) To
change or add to the basic policy established in the statement; (2) to
clarify the role of safety goals in the NRC's regulatory process; and
(3) to make the policy statement consistent with our current agency
practices. NRC is soliciting public comments on modifications that are
being considered.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC's Safety Goal Policy Statement was
originally published in 1986 after several years of consideration. The
Commission provided additional guidance in a Staff Requirements
Memorandum issued June 15, 1990. The current Safety Goal Policy
contains two qualitative safety goals defined as follows:
Individual members of the public should be provided a
level of protection from the consequences of nuclear power plant
operation such that individuals bear no significant additional risk to
life and health.
Societal risks to life and health from nuclear power plant
operation should be comparable to or less than the risks from
generating electricity by viable competing technologies and should not
be a significant addition to other societal risks.
Two quantitative health objectives (QHOs) associated with the
qualitative goals are also provided and are defined as:
The risk to an average individual in the vicinity of a
nuclear power plant of prompt fatalities that might result from reactor
accidents should not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1 percent) of
the sum of prompt fatality risks resulting from other accidents to
which members of the U.S. population are generally exposed.
The risk to the population in the area near a nuclear
power plant of cancer fatalities that might result from nuclear power
plant operation should not exceed one-tenth of one percent (0.1
percent) of the sum of cancer fatality risks resulting from all other
causes.
In the document SECY-98-101 dated May 4, 1998 (available from the
NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SECYS/1998-101scy),
the staff discussed several issues relevant to changing the Safety Goal
Policy Statement. The descriptions of these issues are provided below.
The NRC is soliciting feedback regarding these issues, specifically
with respect to:
Should the policy statement be revised to address these
issues?
What are the benefits of such revisions?
What are the detriments of such revisions?
What alternatives should be considered to address these
issues?
Other specific questions will be made available on the NRC web site
at (http:
//www.nrc.gov/NRC/wwwforms.html) two weeks prior to the workshop.
Changes or Additions to Basic Policy Established in the Statement
1. Core damage frequency is now considered a subsidiary objective
to the quantitative health objectives (QHOs). It may be appropriate to
elevate it to a fundamental safety goal.
2. The second qualitative goal and QHO deal with societal risk.
However, these measures of societal risk differ in two key respects
from the societal risk calculations performed in other areas:
The policy statement defines a 10-mile radius for
calculating societal impacts, while the Regulatory Analysis Guidelines
and environmental impact analyses use a 50 mile radius.
The calculational process used by the staff for comparison
with the QHO is an average-individual risk, while the Regulatory
Analysis Guidelines and environmental analyses use a summed risk (over
all individuals).
Should the Safety Goal Policy be revised to better reflect societal
risk?
3. The goals and QHOs are described in terms of health risks; no
goal has been established with respect to potential land contamination
or other environmental impacts. As evidenced by the Chernobyl accident,
this can be a major societal impact of accidents involving core damage
and containment failure. Should such a goal be added?
4. The QHOs are expressed in terms of annual average frequencies.
It may be appropriate to also provide a quantitative goal on risks
during temporary plant configurations such as during PWR mid-loop
operations, where risk can be substantially higher for a short period
of time. Should such a goal be included in the Safety Goal Policy
Statement?
Clarifications on the Role of Safety Goals in NRC's Regulatory
Process
5. In a June 15, 1990, SRM, the Commission provided guidance to the
[[Page 56525]]
staff that the safety goals were to be used to define ``how safe is
safe enough.'' (In that SRM, the Commission characterized ``how safe is
safe enough'' as ``how far [the staff] should go when proposing safety
enhancements, including those to be considered under the Backfit
Rule.'') The policy statement itself does not include this guidance.
Should it be added?
6. Recognizing recent progress in risk-informed regulatory
activities, should discussion of the relationship between the safety
goals and these activities be considered for inclusion in the policy
statement?
7. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) discussed
the potential use of safety goals to define the adequate protection
concept. Should such a definition be pursued?
8. The policy statement mentions defense-in-depth but does not
define it. Should the policy be expanded to provide more guidance on
the extent and nature of defense-in-depth?
Changes To Make the Statement Consistent With Current Practices
9. Two issues were identified in the staff's recent risk-informed
regulatory guidance development activities, and discussed as policy
issues in SECY-96-218, dated October 11, 1996, and SECY-97-287, dated
December 12, 1997:
Plant-specific application of safety goals, including a
containment performance guideline derived from the QHOs (and defined in
terms of a large early release frequency (LERF)).
Treatment of uncertainties in plant-specific, risk-
informed decisionmaking. It may be appropriate to discuss the
resolution of these issues in the Safety Goal Policy Statement.
10. The current policy statement contains a proposed general plant
performance guideline of 10-6 per reactor year for a large
release of radioactive material. In SECY-93-138 the staff documented
its conclusion that such a guideline would be significantly more
restrictive than the QHOs. The staff further recommended that work to
develop such a guideline be terminated. The Commission approved this
recommendation in a June 10, 1993, SRM. Therefore, removal of this
general plant performance guideline from the policy statement should be
considered.
Workshop Meeting Information
The Commission intends to conduct a workshop to solicit information
related to the revising the reactor safety goal. Persons other than NRC
staff and NRC contractors interested in making a presentation at the
workshop should notify Joseph Murphy, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research, MS-T10 F12, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC, 20555-0001, (301-415-5670), email: [email protected]
Date: November 9, 1999.
Agenda: Preliminary agenda is as follows (a final agenda will be
available at the workshop):
9:00 a.m. Introduction
9:30-10:15 Overview of issues
10:15-10:30 Break
10:30-12:00 Discussion of specific questions
12:00-1:00 Lunch break
1:00-2:30 Discussion of specific questions (continued)
2:30-2:45 Break
2:45-4:00 Discussion of specific questions (continued)
4:00-5:00 Wrap-up discussion
Location: Doubletree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville Maryland
20852, (301-468-1100).
Registration: No registration fee for workshop; however,
notification of attendance is requested so that adequate space, etc.,
for the workshop can be arranged. Notification of attendance should be
directed to Joseph Murphy, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, MS:
T10-F12, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-
0001, (301) 415-5670, email: [email protected]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Murphy, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research, MS: T10 F12, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, 20555-0001, (301) 415-5670, email: [email protected]
Dated this 14th day of October 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas L. King,
Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 99-27363 Filed 10-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P