[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