[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 152 (Friday, August 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42439-42459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21168]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Public Comment on the Integrated Review of the Assessment Process
for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is performing an
integrated review of the assessment process (IRAP) to develop a new
method for assessing licensee performance at
[[Page 42440]]
commercial nuclear power plants. In parallel with this effort, the
staff is developing several new assessment tools that can be used in an
integrated process. These additional assessment tools include risk-
informed assessment guidance, trending methodology, and financial
indicators. Public comments are requested on the development of a new
assessment process and these 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 received in developing a final proposal for a new
assessment process.
DATES: The comment period expires October 6, 1998. 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-6D-59, 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 Public Document Room,
2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy J. Frye, Mail Stop: O-5H-4,
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 allow those plants whose performance was of most concern to be
brought to the attention of the highest levels of NRC management in
order to plan a coordinated agency course of action. The plant
performance review (PPR) process was implemented in 1990 to allow for
periodic adjustments in NRC inspection focus in response to changes in
licensee performance and emerging plant issues.
Each of these assessment processes serves a useful purpose and has
evolved individually over time through separate reviews and
improvements. However, overlaps between these processes now exist such
that they (1) have multiple structures for data analysis and different
assessment criteria, (2) have different outputs which can send mixed
messages on licensee performance, and (3) place significant
administrative burdens on the NRC staff. Although each of the current
assessment processes has been individually successful at meeting its
particular purpose, an integrated review of these processes has not
been performed.
Integrated Review of the Assessment Process
In September 1997, the NRC began an integrated review of the
assessment processes used for commercial nuclear power plant licensees.
A cross-disciplinary team of NRC staff members was assembled to
identify and evaluate potential improvements to how licensee
performance is assessed by the NRC. A process re-engineering approach
was taken by the team to identify the desired objectives of a new
assessment process, the attributes it should possess, and criteria to
measure improvement over the existing assessment processes.
The team developed a conceptual design for a new integrated
assessment process and presented it to the NRC Commissioners in
Commission paper SECY-98-045, dated March 9, 1998. This Commission
paper requested the Commission's approval to solicit public input on
the proposed concepts. On April 2, 1998, the staff briefed the
Commission on the concepts for a new assessment process as discussed in
the paper.
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. The SRM, the Commission voting record, and the
comments of the Commissioners regarding SECY-98-045 are attached. Upon
completion of the public comment period, the NRC will develop a final
recommendation to the Commission for changes to the assessment process.
Risk-Informed Assessment Guidance
The NRC issued a policy statement on the use of probabilistic risk
assessment (PRA) methods in nuclear regulatory activities in SECY-95-
126, dated May 18, 1995. The statement presents the policy that the use
of PRA technology in NRC regulatory activities should be increased 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.
Consistent with that policy, the staff has developed guidance, based on
risk insights, for assessing the findings and issues contained in the
Plant Issues Matrix. This guidance is entitled ``Guidance for Assessing
the Risk Inherent in Plant Performance'' and is available as Appendix B
to the report ``Concepts Developed by the Integrated Review of
Assessment Process for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated July
29, 1998. The guidance is intended to help NRC staff develop a risk-
informed perspective on plant performance so that that perspective will
be part of the NRC's process for reviewing licensee performance.
Indicators
In an SRM dated June 28, 1996, the Commission directed the staff to
assess the SMM process and evaluate the development of indicators that
can provide a basis for judging whether a plant should be placed on or
deleted from the NRC Watch List. In response to this request, the staff
developed several new assessment tools, such as trending methodologies
and economic indicators.
Studies were undertaken to develop trending methodologies that
provide more objective and scrutable information on plant performance.
The trend model is recommended as a tool for quantitatively identifying
candidate plants for further discussion by senior NRC managers during
the licensee performance review process. The trend methodology is based
on the trend model suggested by the Arthur Andersen Company in its
original review of the SMM process (Arthur Andersen, ``Recommendations
to Improve the Senior Management Meeting Process,'' December 30, 1996.)
The regression model is recommended as a quality control measure for
the trend model, as well as possibly identifying additional plants that
warrant further discussion. The regression model estimates the
probability that a plant's current performance should be further
discussed during the SMM, based on the experience with plants that were
discussed during previous SMMs.
A set of site-related financial variables was developed for use in
the licensee performance review process. Comparison of the trends of
these
[[Page 42441]]
financial variables to earlier single-unit and multi-unit median trends
in the nuclear industry pointed to financial trends and patterns that
had often preceded decisions to discuss a plant at past SMMs. However,
no financial model is recommended for use alone in determining those
plants that warrant further discussion during the SMM.
These methodologies were originally developed for use by the SMM
process, but are equally applicable in an integrated assessment
process. The use of the trending methodologies can be one part of a
larger integrated assessment process that may consider both
quantitative and qualitative information during the licensee
performance review process. The trending methodologies and financial
indicators are not intended to be the precise definitive identifying
elements. Rather, they are designed to help identify candidate plants
for further discussion by senior NRC managers and rely on the remaining
elements of an integrated assessment process to complete the
identification process.
Details of the development efforts for the various trending
methodologies and financial indicators are described in three draft
reports that are contained in Appendices A and E of the report
``Concepts Developed by the Integrated Review of Assessment Process for
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated July 29, 1998. Specifically,
details of a trend model are contained in ``Draft Report--Development
and Findings of the Performance Trending Methodology,'' dated February
27, 1998. Details of a regression model are contained in ``A Modeling
Approach for Identifying Plants for Senior Management Discussion Using
Performance Indicator Data,'' dated March 1998. Details of a set of
financial trend variables are contained in ``Draft Special Study--
Methodology for Identifying Financial Variables for Trend Analysis,''
dated May 1998.
Industry Proposal
In parallel with staff work on the IRAP and the development of
other assessment tools, the industry has independently developed a
proposal for a new assessment and regulatory oversight process. This
proposal would take a risk-informed and performance-based approach to
the inspection, assessment, and enforcement of licensee activities
based on the results of a set of performance indicators. This proposal
is being developed by the Nuclear Energy Institute 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.
Scope of the Public Comment Period
The NRC staff has developed a concept for an integrated assessment
process as presented in SECY-98-045. Additional information on the
integrated assessment process is described in the report ``Concepts
Developed by the Integrated Review of Assessment Process for Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated July 29, 1998. This report provides
additional draft details of an integrated assessment process and
describes how new assessment tools such as the trending methodology and
risk-informed assessment guidance could be factored into the process.
The Commission has provided its views on this concept, along with
its general views on licensee performance assessment in the attached
SRM, the Commission voting record, and the comments of the
Commissioners. This public comment period will focus on obtaining
industry and public comments on how the NRC should assess licensee
performance and other potential changes to the regulatory oversight
process.
As part of the public comment period, two public workshops are
tentatively scheduled to be held in September 1998. One is currently
planned to be held at the NRC Headquarters office with the other one
held in the vicinity of the Region III office. Additional details on
the dates, locations, and scope of these workshops will be provided at
a later date, as they become available.
The NRC seeks specific public comment and feedback on the topics
highlighted in the questions below. Commenters are not limited to, or
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.a.''). Comments should be
as specific as possible. The use of examples is encouraged.
Comments are requested on the following issues:
A. Regulatory Oversight Approach
1. The NRC currently has a low threshold for initiating increased
interaction with licensees above the core inspection program. For
example, procedure adherence errors or program implementation
weaknesses with low actual safety consequence may result in increased
inspection activity in these areas. Alternatively, if these regulatory
oversight thresholds were raised, the NRC would wait until actual
safety significant events occurred (such as those measured by
performance indicators) before increasing interaction with licensees.
a. At what threshold should the NRC take action to assure the
adequate protection of public health and safety?
b. What is the basis for this threshold?
2. What range and specific types of NRC actions should be taken if
licensees exceed the regulatory thresholds discussed in Question A.1?
3. The current regulatory oversight process focuses discretionary
inspection resources on a selective sample of all aspects of licensee
performance, such as human performance, procedure quality, and program
implementation.
a. Could an enhanced use of high level performance indicators (e.g.
operational transients and safety system availability) reduce the need
for discretionary inspection if particular levels of licensee
performance are achieved?
b. Would this approach result in a regulatory oversight process
which is timely and comprehensive enough to assure the adequate
protection of the public health and safety?
4. What should the role of licensee audits, inspections, and self-
assessments be in the regulatory oversight process?
5. Would an enhanced use by the NRC of licensee audits,
inspections, and self-assessments (and a corresponding reduction in NRC
discretionary inspection) result in a regulatory oversight process that
was sufficiently independent?
B. Integrated Assessment Process
1. Objectives and Attributes
a. The objectives developed by the staff for an integrated
assessment process include the following: (1) Provide early warning of
declining licensee performance and promote prompt, timely corrective
action; (2) provide checks and balances with other processes; (3) allow
for the integration of inspection findings and other relevant
information; (4) focus NRC's attention on those plants with declining
or poor performance; (5) effectively communicate assessment results to
the licensees and the public; and (6) allow for effective resource
allocation. What changes could be made to these objectives and why?
b. The new integrated assessment process would not formally
recognize superior licensee performance, nor would it include a Watch
List. Should the NRC recognize superior licensee performance?
c. The integrated assessment process would not provide a measure of
how
[[Page 42442]]
good licensee performance was. This was due in part to the significant
resources involved and the lack of clear guidance against which good
performance can be measured. Therefore, performance issues involving
solely good or neutral licensee performance would not be included in
the evaluation. To what extent and how should positive inspection
findings be factored into an assessment process?
d. The integrated assessment process would include an assessment
report for each licensee and a public meeting with the licensee to
review this assessment. How should the NRC's assessment results be
communicated to the licensees and to the public?
e. The integrated assessment process would provide several
opportunities for the licensee and the public to be made aware of the
issues being considered and to provide feedback and input on these
issues and assessment results. What are the most desirable ways to
include licensee and public input and feedback during the
implementation of the assessment process?
2. Assessment Criteria
a. In the integrated assessment process, a plant performance matrix
is used to categorize performance findings into assessment areas in
order to provide better structure for the information and to better
communicate assessment results. What additional or alternate
information should be used and how should it be integrated?
b. Under the integrated assessment process, individual performance
issues were numerically graded on the basis of safety and regulatory
significance. As stated in the SRM for SECY-98-045 dated June 30, 1998,
the Commission did not approve of this approach. Are there alternate
methods by which the NRC could provide a quantitative input into the
assessment process so that the significance of issues can be assigned
in a scrutable way?
c. In developing a new assessment process, it was essential that
the results of the assessment could be clearly communicated to the
licensees and the public. The staff chose color category ratings for
each assessment area for the integrated assessment process. As stated
in the SRM for SECY-98-045 dated June 30, 1998, the Commission did not
approve of this approach. What alternate presentations could be used to
clearly convey the results of licensee performance assessments?
3. Decision Model
The staff developed a decision model to provide for a structured
and predictable application of NRC actions in response to assessment
results. Are there additional or better ways to optimize the
scrutability and predictability of the NRC outcomes of the assessment
process?
4. Assessment Periodicity
The staff recommended that an annual performance assessment be
performed for each plant to allow for a periodic assessment report and
a public meeting to discuss the assessment results. Is there a more
appropriate periodicity for accurately assessing changes in licensee
performance?
5. Success Criteria
a. The integrated assessment process was designed to produce NRC
assessments that are more scrutable and predictable. For comparison,
how scrutable, predictable, and objective are the current assessment
processes?
b. The integrated assessment process was intended to be less
resource intensive for both the NRC and the licensee. How do the
estimated licensee costs compare with the costs of the existing
assessment processes?
C. Risk-Informed Assessment Guidance
1. Effective risk management is necessary to ensure the safe
operation of nuclear power plants. How should indications of risk-
management performance be considered in the assessment of plant safety?
2. One aspect of a risk-informed regulatory process is that plant
performance measures are considered commensurate with their impact on
plant safety and risk. Are the questions presented in ``Guidance for
Assessing the Risk Inherent in Plant Performance'' sufficient to ensure
that inspection findings are interpreted in a risk-informed manner?
3. Regulatory Guide 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic
Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to
the Current Licensing Basis,'' presents a framework, principles, and
staff expectations relative to regulatory decisionmaking.
a. What role, if any, should such guidance play in risk-informed
assessments of plant performance?
b. What role should PRA techniques and risk metrics play in the
assessment of plant performance?
4. How should patterns of degrading human performance, equipment
performance, and risk management at a nuclear power plant be factored
into the plant performance assessment process?
5. Are the questions raised in ``Guidance for Assessing the Risk
Inherent in Plant Performance'' sufficient to provide a risk-informed
assessment of plant safety that addresses the influence of human
performance and equipment performance on plant safety?
D. Indicators
1. General
The trending methodologies can be used as part of an integrated
assessment process that uses both quantitative and qualitative
information. The trending methodologies are not intended to be used in
isolation as the only definitive identifying element in plant
performance assessment.
a. How should the NRC use quantitative measures of performance?
b. What methodologies and/or performance measures would be useful
to quantitatively monitor plant performance trends?
2. Trending Methodology
a. The staff considered more than 20 variables during the
development of both the trend and the regression models.
1. Are there other variables that should be considered?
2. Are the data for the suggested variables publicly available?
3. Are the data for the suggested variables reported to the NRC?
4. How frequently are the data for the suggested variables
available (e.g., daily, weekly, quarterly, annually, etc.)?
b. The staff considered a variety of time periods for monitoring
plant performance during the development of the trend model. The
proposed trend model uses a four-quarter moving average. Should a
different time period be used?
c. The proposed trend model uses a ``hit'' threshold that is based
on a fixed 2-year average of one standard deviation beyond the
quarterly industry mean for the period from July 1995 through June
1997. Should a different threshold be used?
d. The proposed trend model uses a discussion candidate threshold
value of two hits. Should a different threshold be used?
3. Financial Indicators
a. Financial indicators can be used to gain insight into licensee
performance in conjunction with other assessment measures. They would
not be relied upon solely to draw conclusions on licensee performance
in an integrated assessment process. How should financial indicators be
used in the assessment of licensee performance?
b. Are there other financial methodology processes that will
provide a more useful set of financial variables?
[[Page 42443]]
c. The financial variables are based on publicly available data.
Are there other financial data that could be made available that would
be more useful?
E. Additional Comments
In addition to the previously mentioned issues, commenters are
invited to provide any other views on the NRC assessment process that
could assist the NRC in improving its effectiveness.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 3rd day of August 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson,
Acting Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Division of Inspection &
Support Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[[Page 42444]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.000
[[Page 42445]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.001
[[Page 42446]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.002
[[Page 42447]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.003
[[Page 42448]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.004
[[Page 42449]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.005
[[Page 42450]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.006
[[Page 42451]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.007
[[Page 42452]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.008
[[Page 42453]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.009
[[Page 42454]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.010
[[Page 42455]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.011
[[Page 42456]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.012
[[Page 42457]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.013
[[Page 42458]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.014
[[Page 42459]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN07AU98.015
[FR Doc. 98-21168 Filed 8-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-C