ML20137R809
| ML20137R809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1999 |
| From: | Shelton B NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9905280095 | |
| Download: ML20137R809 (10) | |
Text
,-
(
.s
[7590-01 P]'
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment request AGENCY:
U, S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1 e
q i
ACTION:
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and solicitation cf public comment.
i
SUMMARY
- The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for the review and approval of I
'information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
l i
information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
l 1.
The title of the infemiation collection: Voluntary Reporting of Performance Indicators O
f-2.
Current OMB approval number: New Collection 3.
How often the collection is required: One-time collection and quart 6rly V'
/(f thereafter W
9905280095 990520 P?
T h '[2 CF SUBJ O
BAF-4A CF K
t c -\\
s 2
4.
Who is required or asked to report: Power reactor licensees 5.
The number of annual respondents: 66 reactor sites 6.
The number of hours needed annually to compl6te the requirement or request: 13,860 hours0.00995 days <br />0.239 hours <br />0.00142 weeks <br />3.2723e-4 months <br /> (210 hours0.00243 days <br />0.0583 hours <br />3.472222e-4 weeks <br />7.9905e-5 months <br /> per site), a:.d a one-time start up effort of 13,200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> 7.
Abstract: As part of a joint industry NRC initiative, the NRC plans to receive information submitted voluntarily by power reactor licensees regarding selected performance attributes known as performanon indicators (Pls). Pts provide objective measures of the performance of licensees' systems or programs. The NRC is revis!ng its reactor oversight process to use Pi information, along with the results of selected audits and inspections, as the basis for NRC conclusions regarding plant performance and necessary regulatory response. Pts will be transmitted electronically to reduce burden on licensees and the NRC as part of the NRC's revised oversight process which is scheduled for implementation beginning in January 2000.
Submit, by (insert date 60 days after publication in the Federal Reaister), comments that address ther following questions:
I
___-_--_.._--a
s-l 3
1.
Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2, is the burden estimate accurato?
3.
Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4.
How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW (lower level), Washington, DC. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC World Wide Web site (http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/PUBLiC/OMB/index.html).
The document will be available on ths NRC Home Page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the information co!!ection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-6 E6, l
_z
\\
s c
4 Washington, DC 20555 0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Intemet electronic mail at BJSi@NRC. GOV.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this oJ' 4 day of au
- 1999, hV For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/,uak Brenda Jo, SbsitonMC Clearance Officer
~
Office of the Chief Information Officer i
- - - ~ * - - -
~~3s r;na0KksjmO%
v e
1.-
_ DRAFT OMB SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR VOLUNTARY REPORTING OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS NEW COLLECTION Description of the Information Collection.
- In mid 1998, the nuclear industry offered to voluntarily send selected performance attrit'utes known as performance indicators (Pis) to the NRC as part of a larger effort to improve the NRC's oversight process. Pts provide objective measures of the performance of licensees'
- systems or programs. The NRC is revising its reactor oversight process to use Pi information, along with the results of selected audits and inspections, to previde the basis for NRC conclusions regarding plant performance and necessary regulatory response. Pls will be
- transmitted electronically to reduce burden on licensees and the NRC as part of the NRC's revised oversight process which is scheduled for implementation beginning in January 2000, imprcvements to the oversight process are being developed through a joint effort with public stakeholders,-Industry representatives, and the Nuclear Energy institute (NEI)'. NEl issued a guidance document for reporting Pi information (Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline), which is expected to be endorsed by the NRC for use. Under the revised oversight process, licensees will need to conduct a one-time review of past records to identify information needed to calculate Pls for the initial reporting in January 2000; and there will be a one time burden to develop and implement procedures for collecting and reporting PI data. Licensees already collect most of the Pls and report some of them to various industry groups. There is widespread industry support for the revised ovsrsight process (see attached letter from NEI) and NEl has determined that all reactor licensees plan to voluntarily submit Pls.
A.-
JUSTIFICATION 1_
Ngggl For and Practical Utility of the Collection of information.
In response to concems expressed by congressional committees, the nuclear industry, public interest groups, as well as the NRC's own intamal reviews, the NRC is revising its inspection and oversight process for commercial nuclear power plants. The new process uses Pts as a means of measuring the performance of key attributes The use -
of Pls allows the new process to be more objective and allows for a reduction in the
. amount of _NRC inspections. For those attributes for which Pls could not be identified or were not sufficiently comprehensive, the NRC developed baseline inspection activities to obtain necessary information. The NRC also developed additionalinspection activities to verify the accuracy and completeness of the reported Pl data. The use of Pl
- information is a basic tenet of the revised oversight program and is expected to result in significant reduction of overall NRC burden on reactor licensees.
The revised oversight process was issued for public comment several times during its
- development. Comments ree.oived indicate that industry supports the approach, and in an effort to advance the develcpment and implementation of the new program, nine NEl is a utility group whose mission is to " foster and encourage the continued safe utilization and developtrent of nuclear energy in order to meet the nation's energy, environmental, and econorr.;c goals."
m6
+-.-wne see _ __
-m-a.
mn nw,--
-++~ ~
<w-,o.-.e--<n w w- ; m m e.,.~-
n m
A
2 reactor sites have volunteered'to submit Pls as part of a pilot process beginning in June 1999. Lessons loamed from the pilot effort may result in incremental adjustments to the identified Pls.. The NRC and NEl are continuing to develop an additional Pi in each of the following areas: shutdown operations, fire protection, and the unreliability of systems listed in paragraph "b" below.
Fullimplementation of the revised oversight process will bagin January 2000. Licensees who report Pls, would do so quarterly and retain records as long as necessary to calculate specific indicators, but in no case longer than 3 years.
The specific Pi information is listed below:
a.
The number of:
unplanned scrams per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical operation scrams with loss of the normal heat removal in the precsding 36 months l
unplanned transleats per 7,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of critical operation safety system functional failures in the preceding 12 months non-conformances with 10 CFR Part 20 requimments for high or very high radiation areas, or unintended personnel exposures in the preceding 36 months occurrences of radiological effluent releases that exceed values derived from the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS) or provisions in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), if applicable, in the preceding 36 months reportable failures of the security program to screen personnelin the preceding 12 months reportable failures of the security program for personnel reliability in the l
preceding 12 months b.
The unavailability (the percentage of time the system was unavailable for operation in the preceding 36 months) of the following systems:
h gh-pressure injection high-pressure heat removal residual heat removal emergency AC power c.
The percentage of:
reactor coolant activity (as a percent of the Technical Specification limit) reactor coolant leakage (as a percent of the Technical Specification limit) containmmt leakage (as a percent of the Technical Specification limit) successful (accurate and timely) classifications, notifications, and protective action recommendations (as a percent of all such actions) by the Emergency Response Organization (ERC) during drills, exercises, and actual events in the preceding 24 months key ERO members who participated in emergency drills, exercises, or actual events in the o'v.eding 24 months sirens that ope %d reliably in the preceding 12 months l
_ - ~ - - -. - _ - - - - -
s.
3 guard duty required to compensate for the unavailability of protected area security equipment (as a percent of total time) in the preceding 12 months l
d.
A point of contact for Pl data, including a name, e-mail address, and phone l
- number, i
2.
Aaency Use of Information.
The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) will use Pis, along with the results of l
audits and inepections, as a basis for determining if specific performance thresholds (as described in the oversight program guidance) have been exceeded. The oversight process relies, in part, on performance insights gained from Pi data to trigger regulatory i
actions and to aid in the assessment of plant performance. Pis, along with the results of j
inspection, will be made, publically available on the intemet shortly after the end of each j
quarter.
I 1
3.
Reduction of Burden Throuoh Infortnation Techacloov.
l All PI data will be transmitted electronically to reduce burden on both industry and the i
NRC. The NRC is in the process of selecting the best process to receive P1information i
and store it in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System. One approach being considered is the use of electronic information exchange capability being developed by OClO. The NRC is continuing to work with industry while i
developing its capability to receive electronic information.
4.
Effort To identify Duplication and Use Similar Information.
The Pls were selected to maximize usefulness,- and consequently, they track specific performance over predetermined periods. Although licensees report similar information for 6 of the 19 indicators, this information is not always reported in sufficient detail to properly characterize issues to meet the requirements of the revised oversight program.
The industry expressed a strong preference to report Pls separately from other reporting requirements (even if there is some overlap with required reports) to expedite the development and implementation of the revised oversight process. Licensees report similar information for three of the six Pls under the general reporting requirements in 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. As a separate action, both of these requirements are being reviewed to identify changes to reduce the reporting burden (reduce scope and lengthen response time) on licensees and to better align the reporting requirement with the NRC's current reporting needs.
5.
Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden.
This information collection does not impact small business as all respondents are nuclear power plant licensees.
.rw e~.,
..w-r.
m
---w
. -. = - - -
4 6.
Consecuences to Federal Proa, ram or Policy Activities if the Collection is Not Conducted or is Conducted Less Freauentiv.
The NRC would not be able to implement the revised oversight process as it is currently structured if Pi information were limited or not available. The insights gained from Pls are a critical element of the new oversight program. The Pls establish an objective basis for the assessment of licensee performance and for allocating NRC inspection i
resources. The NRC would be forced to rely on inspections to obtain assessment information to the extent that PI information is not available.
7.
Circumstances which Justifv Variation form OMB Guidelines.
This information collection does not vary froin OMB guidelines.
8.
Consultations Outside the NRC.
i The NRC has worked closely with industry and public stakeholders in revising the reactor oversight program, including the collection of Pl data. NRC and industry representatives have met frequently (more than 10 times in 1998 and biweekly in 1999),
and the NRC has held a number of public meetings (a 4-dQ public workshop on September 28-October 1,1998, and public Commission briefings on April 2,1998, November 2,1998, January 20,1999, and March 26,1999) to provide information and to solicit comments on the new process.
NRC and industry representatives have discussed Pls, including the availability of data, the frequency of collection, the clarity of each indicator, and the reporting format. On January 22,1999, the NRC issued a FederaIRegisternotice (64 FR 3576) soliciting public comments on the scope and content of the revised oversight process, including Pts. Comments overwhelmingly support the new oversight process, including the collection of Pls. Additional workshops on the revised oversight process, including Pls, were open to the public and conducted on April 12-15 and May 17 20,1999.
9.
Payment or Gift to Respondents.
. Not applicable.
10.
Confidentiality of the Information.
No information normally considered confidential is requested. The NRC intends to place l
PI information on its Web site for public viewing.
I 11.
Justification for Sensitive Ouestions.
' Not applicable.
12.
Estimate of industry Burden and Burden Hour Cost.
The following table reflects licensee burden to provide Piinformation and is based on information from industry (see attached letter from NEI) and staff's best estimate. The
S
- estimates include only additional hours needed above those already expended by licensees to report indicators to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations or to comply with other regulatory requirements (e.g., the maintenance rule,10 CFR 50.73 reporting, etc.). The NRC anticipates that the reporting of Pls under the revised oversight process will result in an overall reduction in the amount of time licensees must expend supporting NRC inspection activities. This information collection imposes a minimal recordkeeping burden due to efficiencies inherent with electronic storage and transmission of data.
The following table assumes there will bc one response per reactor site on a quarterly basis (4 X 66 = 264 annual responses) and that licensees will occasionally need to update the Pls and related procedures based en experience.
ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN No. Annual Burden per Total Annual Annual Responses
Response
Burden Hours Cost at
$141/hr PI Reporting 264 50 13,200
$1,861,200 ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING BURDEN No. of reactor Burden per Total Annual Annual Siites reactor site Burden Hours Cost at
$141/hr Recordkeeping 66 10 660
$93,060 ONE TIME BURDEN Licensees will need to review historical records to collect and report eight quarters of Pl data for the initial, one time, report.
Review of Historical No. of reactor Burden per Total Burden One time Records sites reactor site Hours Cost at
$141/hr 66
-100 6,600
$930,600 Licensees will need to develop and implement site-specific procedures tc collect and report Pl data.
Develop and No. of reactor Burden per Total Burden One-time implement Pl sites reactor site Hours -
Cost at Procedures
$141/hr 66 100 6,600
$930,600 m
f
~
'M
- Combining these one time activities and converting to an annual burden spread over the three-year period of this clearance request yields a burden of 4,400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> (13,200/3) at a cost of
$620,400.~- Total burden equals 18,260 {4,400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> plus 13,200 plus 660 annual burden hours) for the first 3 years. After '.he first 3 years the estimated annual burden will be 13,860 hours0.00995 days <br />0.239 hours <br />0.00142 weeks <br />3.2723e-4 months <br />.
13, -
Estimate of Other Additional Costs.
None.
' 14.'
Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Govemment.
The overall cost to the Govemment should decrease because the reduction in costs related to NRC oversight will more than offset any increased costs associated with reviewing Pl data. The review of Pi data will involve minimal incremental cost to the Govemment as most of the information contained in these indicators is reviewed as part of the routine inspection and assessment process. This cost is fully recovered through fee assessments to NRC licensees pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 170 and/or 171.
15.
Reasons f<r Chance in Burden or Cost.
This will create a new burden for licensees to implement and maintain a voluntary Pi program. The burden is expected to be offset by a reduction in the amount of time licensees must devota to respor; ding to NRC inspections.
16.
Publication for Stetistical Use.
This information will not be published for statistical use.
17.
R.agton_fpr Not Disolavina the Expiration Data, i
The expiration date will be displayed.
it.
Exceotions to the Certification Statement.
There are no exceptions.
B.
COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS Not applicable.
]..
.