[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8606-8608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2746]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Risk-Based Performance Indicators: Results of Phase-1 Development

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment and notice of two public meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is announcing the 
availability of the draft document entitled: ``Risk-Based Performance 
Indicators: Results of Phase-1 Development,'' dated January 2001 for 
review and comment by external stakeholders. Interested individuals may 
obtain a copy of this document from the person identified under the 
caption: For Further Information Contact.

DATES: Submit comments by April 16, 2001. 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.
    Two public meetings will be held on February 21, 2001 from 8:30 am 
to 12:30 pm, and April 24, 2001 from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    Deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
    Two public meetings to be held at Two White Flint North, Room T-
10A1 for the first meeting, and Two White Flint North Auditorium for 
the second meeting, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The draft document and certain other documents related to this 
action, including comments received, may be examined in the NRC Public 
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hossein G. Hamzehee, Division of Risk 
Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: 
301-415-6228, e-mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) was 
recently revised to improve the NRC's regulatory oversight of licensee 
operation of commercial nuclear power plants. It is intended to better 
risk-inform agency actions and bring more objectivity to the regulatory 
process. The revised ROP is consistent with the goals of the 
Commission's PRA Policy Statement and the NRC's Strategic Plan (NUREG-
1614), which include increased use of the PRA technology in ``* * * 
regulatory matters to the extent supported by the state-of-the-art in 
PRA methods and data and in a manner that complements the NRC's 
deterministic approach and supports the NRC's traditional defense-in-
depth philosophy.'' The ROP is reflective of the NRC's efforts to 
better risk-inform its core processes.
    SECY-99-007 and 99-007A described the ROP. The ROP was implemented 
at all plants, except DC Cook, in April 2000 following a six-month 
pilot program conducted in 1999. The results of this pilot program were 
described in SECY-00-0049. A fundamental aspect of the ROP is the use 
of both performance indicators and inspection findings to determine 
whether the objectives of the ROP's cornerstones of safety are being 
met on a plant-specific basis.
    In addition to these changes at the NRC, the industry is using more 
performance-based approaches to enhance its operations, including 
gathering and analyzing both plant-specific and industry-wide data. 
Furthermore, technological advances such as the Internet and 
microcomputer use have resulted in improved capabilities to gather and 
share such data. Through such technological developments, both the 
industry and the NRC have expanded their capabilities to model and 
assess the risk-significance of plant operations.
    In light of these evolving capabilities and the movement toward 
more risk-informed and performance-based oversight, the Risk-based 
Performance Indicators were developed to (1) address specific areas in 
the current ROP that were identified in SECY-00-0049 as possible 
enhancements and (2) potentially support any future development of 
performance indicators

[[Page 8607]]

using improved risk analysis tools. This report discusses the technical 
feasibility of using currently available risk models and data to 
enhance the NRC's ability to monitor plant-specific safety performance 
of reactors in a risk-informed and performance-based manner. This 
development activity is designed to fit into the ROP concept for 
indicators, thresholds, and performance monitoring while continuing to 
move the NRC's programs forward in accordance with the PRA Policy 
Statement and the goals of the Strategic Plan.
    There are several key implementation issues summarized below that 
should be considered prior to any integration of the RBPIs with the 
ROP. These issues are further explained in the Phase-1 RBPI development 
report, which is attached to this document. The potential integration 
of the RBPIs into the ROP would follow the guidelines in IMC0608, 
``Performance Indicator Program.'' This would likely include a pilot 
program prior to the full implementation of any of the RBPIs.
    A white paper entitled ``Development of Risk-based Performance 
Indicators: Program Overview'' was issued for public comment in March 
2000. This white paper described the concepts for the RBPI development. 
The development of the RBPI white paper was closely coordinated with 
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Regions. On 
April 28, 2000, a public meeting with external stakeholders was held to 
discuss their comments on the overall concept and technical approach 
outlined in the RBPI development white paper. Attendees included 
representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the Institute 
of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the Union of Concerned Scientists, 
and Public Citizen. The final version of the white paper was issued as 
part of SECY-00-0146.
    The NRC staff is seeking external stakeholder comments on the draft 
Phase-1 report. Specifically, we are requesting comments regarding the 
technical adequacy of the proposed performance indicators, and the 
potential implementation issues. The white paper, ``Development of 
Risk-based Performance Indicators: Program Overview,'' and this report 
list the technical criteria for RBPI development. We are interested in 
comments regarding these key technical criteria as summarized below:
     The RBPIs are compatible with, and complementary to, the 
risk-informed inspection activities of the oversight process.
     The RBPIs cover all modes of plant operation.
     Within each mode, the RBPIs cover risk-important SSCs to 
the extent practical.
     To the extent practical, the RBPIs identify declining 
performance before performance becomes unacceptable, without 
incorrectly identifying normal variations as degradations (i.e., avoid 
false-positive indications and false-negative indications).
     The RBPIs are capable of implementation without excessive 
burdens to licensees or NRC in the areas of data collection and 
quantification.
     The RBPIs are amenable to establishment of plant-specific 
thresholds consistent with the ROP.
    In addition, we are seeking comments on the key issues that affect 
the potential implementation of the results of the RBPI development in 
the ROP. These issues evolved out of both the technical aspects of RBPI 
development as well as programmatic feedback from the ROP 
implementation. Each is discussed briefly below.
    Are any additional performance indicators needed to enhance the 
ROP? Interactions with stakeholders commenting on the White Paper 
indicated differing views on this subject. Industry representatives 
questioned whether NRC needed to have a broader coverage of risk 
measured in the ROP indicators, especially if it did not result in a 
corresponding reduction in the inspection program. Other external 
stakeholder comments favored more indicators as well as additional 
inspections. The ROP is in its first year of full implementation. The 
NRR staff will provide the Commission with its assessment of the 
process in June 2001. The RBPI development program is focused on 
demonstrating the technical feasibility of providing additional 
objective indicators that cover a broader spectrum of risk-significant 
plant performance.
    Is the number of potential new indicators appropriate?/Which of the 
proposed indicators would be most beneficial? The RBPI Phase-1 
development identified 21 potential indicators for PWRs and 16 
potential indicators for BWRs. If all of these performance indicators 
were implemented, they could potentially replace 8 (3 initiating event 
and 5 mitigating system) of 18 existing indicators in whole or in part 
bringing the total number of indicators per plant to about 30. In 
addition to the issue of the appropriate risk scope of ROP indicators 
(noted above), it will be necessary to assess whether potentially 
expanding the total number of indicators to approximately 30 per plant 
is reasonable from a logistics/process point of view. For example, the 
criteria that result in plants entering various columns of the Action 
Matrix would have to be reconsidered. If deemed appropriate, future 
RBPI development will examine the feasibility of developing indicators 
at a higher level (systems) by combining results of lower level data 
and models. The program will also examine means to use risk insights to 
develop a shorter list at the component/train level.
    Do the data sources for RBPIs exist and have sufficient quality for 
use in the ROP? A significant portion of the RBPIs require access to 
and use of data from the Equipment Performance and Information Exchange 
(EPIX) system. These data are voluntarily provided by industry in 
response to the Commission decision to forgo the Reliability Data Rule. 
Full industry participation, verification and validation of existing 
EPIX, and development of guidelines for consistent data reporting are 
important to the feasibility of many RBPIs as potential improvements to 
the ROP. In addition, certain data for shutdown and containment systems 
will need to be developed in order to have RBPIs in those areas. The 
issue of the regulatory mechanisms for certifying the accuracy of data 
used in RBPIs for the ROP will be dealt with through the ROP change 
process if a decision is made to proceed with potential implementation 
of some or all of the identified RBPIs.
    Will SPAR Revision 3i models be available for setting plant-
specific thresholds for all plants? Approximately 30 Standardized Plant 
Accident Risk (SPAR) Revision 3i models are currently available. 
Completion of all 70 SPAR Revision 3i models is scheduled for the end 
of calendar year 2002. As more models are made available for use in the 
RBPI development program, it will be possible to determine if plants 
can be grouped so that a few models can be used to set thresholds for 
all plants or individual models will be needed for each. The RBPI 
development program will continue to use the SPAR Revision 3i models as 
they are developed. External stakeholder comments on the White Paper 
indicated that peer review by licensees should be included in the 
development of these models. An additional implementation issue relates 
to whether licensees or NRC will calculate the thresholds and 
indicators as well as whether licensee models (meeting as yet to be 
developed NRC specifications) could be used instead of the SPAR models.

[[Page 8608]]

    Will LERF models be available for setting thresholds for mitigating 
and containment systems? There are a limited number of large, early 
release frequency (LERF) models available to set thresholds for 
performance of systems that impact the integrity of the containment 
barrier. In addition, currently available data are inadequate for 
establishing performance measures for the containment systems. Also, 
for some systems under the mitigating systems cornerstone, the 
thresholds associated with changes in core damage frequency (CDF) due 
to performance degradations may not be limiting compared to changes in 
LERF. To assess that condition, LERF models that reflect the impact of 
potential CDF changes are needed. The current plan for developing LERF 
models over the next several years will support only limited capability 
for identifying RBPIs or setting plant-specific LERF thresholds.
    The NRC has scheduled two public meetings on this matter. The 
purpose of the first public meeting is to brief external stakeholders 
on the results of Phase 1 of Risk-Based Performance Indicator 
development. The purpose of the second public meeting is to discuss 
external stakeholder comments on the results of Phase-1 RBPI 
development, and the technical feasibility of applying these concepts 
in the ROP.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas L. King,
Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 01-2746 Filed 1-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P