[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