[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77530-77531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31872]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Draft Regulatory Guide and Associated Standard Review Plan; 
Issuance, Availability, Workshop

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for public 
comment a draft of a regulatory guide (and its associated Standard 
Review Plan). Regulatory Guides are developed to describe and make 
available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the 
NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, 
techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or 
postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff in its review of 
applications for permits and licenses.
    The draft guide is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-
1122, which should be mentioned in all correspondence concerning this 
draft guide. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1122, ``An Approach for 
Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
Results for Risk-Informed Activities,'' is being developed to provide 
guidance to licensees in determining the technical adequacy of a PRA 
used in a risk-informed integrated decision making process, and to 
endorse standards and industry guidance. Guidance is provided in four 
areas:
    (1) A minimal set of functional requirements of a technically 
acceptable PRA.
    (2) NRC position on consensus PRA standards and industry PRA 
program documents.
    (3) Demonstration that the PRA (in toto or specific parts) used in 
regulatory applications is of sufficient technical adequacy.
    (4) Documentation that the PRA (in toto or specific parts) used in 
regulatory applications is of sufficient technical adequacy.
    DG-1122 proposes to endorse, with certain clarifications and 
substitutions, ASME Standard RA-S-2002, ``Standard for Probabilistic 
Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,'' and Revision A3 
of NEI-00-02, ``Probabilistic Risk (PRA) Peer Review Process 
Guidance,'' with its August 16, 2002 supplemental guidance on industry 
self-assessment.
    Chapter 19.1 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP), ``Determining the 
Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-
Informed Activities,'' is being developed to provide guidance to the 
NRC staff on how to determine that the PRA that provides the results 
being used in a decision is technically adequate.
    This draft guide and draft standard review plan chapter have not 
received complete staff approval and do not represent an official NRC 
staff position.
    It is the NRC's intent to update this RG when a new or revised PRA 
standard or industry program is published. If a new standard or program 
is published, an additional appendix will be added to set forth the 
staff position. If a revision of a current standard or program would 
impact the staff position, the appropriate appendix would be revised.
    The NRC intends to conduct a workshop on January 9, 2003, to be 
held in the auditorium at NRC headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, (the agenda will be announced in a future public 
notice), to discuss and explain the material contained in DG 1122 and 
SRP Chapter 19.1, and to answer questions and receive comments and 
feedback on the proposed documents. The purpose of the workshop is to 
facilitate the comment process. In the workshop, the staff will 
describe each document and its basis and solicit comment and feedback 
on their completeness, correctness, and usefulness. Since these 
documents cover a wide range of technical areas, many topics will be 
discussed. Listed below are particular topics (not limited to) on which 
discussion and feedback are sought at the workshop:
    (1) Is the relationship of this regulatory guide to other 
regulatory guides (e.g., RG 1.174, RG 1.177) clear? Is it clear how 
this guide is to be used to support risk-informed applications? If more 
discussion is needed, what level of detail is needed?
    (2) Is the associated SRP the appropriate place for the staff 
review guidance, or should the guidance be included in the application 
specific SRPs?
    (3) Is the level of detail in the proposed guidance clear and 
sufficient to demonstrate the technical adequacy of the PRA to support 
a regulatory application? Or is more detailed guidance necessary? What 
level of detail is needed?
    (4) Is the level of detail in the proposed guidance clear and 
sufficient in regard to the scope, level of detail and technical 
adequacy of the PRA? Or is more detailed guidance necessary? What level 
of detail is needed?
    (5) Is the staff regulatory position on consensus PRA standards and 
industry PRA programs clear and sufficient? Or is more detailed 
guidance necessary? What level of detail is needed?
    (6) Is the level of detail in the proposed guidance clear and 
sufficient in regard to documentation and submittal? Or is more 
detailed guidance necessary? What level of detail is needed?
    (7) Is the staff position in the appendices of the proposed 
regulatory guide clear? Or is more discussion necessary? What level of 
detail is needed?
    (8) In Appendix A, is the discussion provided on the ``issue'' 
helpful or necessary in providing the bases for the staff position? If 
not, should this column be removed? Is more discussion needed and what 
would be the appropriate level of detail?
    (9) In Appendix A, the staff has provided ``clarifications'' to the 
definition regarding ``dominant,'' ``significant,'' and ``important.'' 
Clarification of these terms is provided because in places, these terms 
are used interchangeably (to have the same meaning) and in other 
places, they may be used to convey different meanings. In the context 
of a PRA, these terms generally are indicating that the entity under 
question is a major factor to the outcome under consideration. In this 
general sense, these terms can be used interchangeably (e.g., an 
important sequence, a significant sequence, a dominant sequence). 
However, if these terms are used to distinguish whether a requirement 
is imposed, a common and

[[Page 77531]]

specific understanding (i.e., quantitative) of these terms is needed. 
Is this the appropriate quantitative definition? If not, what 
quantitative definition is appropriate?
    (10) In Appendix B, the staff review of NEI-00-02 and its 
supplemental guidance, is based on the perspective that this document 
is primarily historical in that almost all the licensee's PRAs have 
been peer reviewed using NEI-00-02, Revision A3. Consequently, the 
staff endorsement does not address future use of this document. If the 
staff has an objection to this document, the resolution would be 
addressed via a licensee's self assessment. Is this approach 
appropriate? That is, should the staff extend its review so that 
industry would have the staff position regarding this process for 
future use?
    In order to gain experience and more detailed insights into the use 
of the approach proposed in DG-1122 and the associated draft SRP 
section, during the public comment period the NRC desires to conduct a 
review of one or more pilot applications (e.g., Risk-Informed Technical 
Specifications Initiative 4b, ``Configuration Risk Management for 
Completion Times'') using this approach. The experience and insights 
gained from the practical application of the approach proposed in DG-
1122 and the associated draft SRP section will support the staff's 
risk-informed regulatory initiatives, consistent with the NRC's policy 
statement on PRA. The lessons learned from the pilot applications will 
be documented and reflected in the final regulatory guide. Since these 
pilot applications will assist the NRC in developing a regulatory 
guide, the Chief Financial Officer will waive the review fees in 
accordance with 10 CFR 170.11(b)(1). By granting this waiver for the 
pilot applications, the NRC continues its longstanding policy of 
granting fee exemptions for the review of license applications accepted 
for review as a pilot application.
    The NRC staff is soliciting comments on these proposed documents. 
Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. 
Written comments may be submitted to the Rules and Directives Branch, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at 
the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. 
Comments will be most helpful if received by February 14, 2003.
    Comments received after this date will be considered if it is 
practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only 
for comments received on or before this date.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site 
provides the ability to upload comments as files (any format) if your 
web browser supports that function. For information about the 
interactive rulemaking web site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 
415-5905; e-mail [email protected]. For information about the draft guide and 
the related standard review plan chapter, contact Ms. M.T. Drouin at 
(301) 415-6675; e-mail [email protected].
    Although a time limit is given for comments on this draft guide, 
comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in 
guides currently being developed or improvements in all published 
guides are encouraged at any time.
    Electronic copies of this draft RG are available on the NRC's Web 
site <http://www.nrc.gov in the Reference Library under 
Regulatory Guides. Electronic copies are also available in NRC's Public 
Electronic Reading Room at the same Web site; DG-1122 is under ADAMS 
Accession Number ML023360076. Regulatory guides are available for 
inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 
20555; telephone (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205; fax (301) 415-3548; 
e-mail [email protected]. Requests for single copies of draft or final guides 
(which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution 
list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions 
should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services 
Section; or by e-mail to [email protected]; or by fax to (301) 415-
2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are 
not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce 
them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a))

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scott F. Newberry,
Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 02-31872 Filed 12-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P