[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34946-34947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17094]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


The Role of Industry Stakeholder Meeting

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The objective of the meeting is to obtain stakeholder insights 
into potential approaches or options the NRC could implement to more 
efficiently and effectively utilize consensus standards, industry 
initiatives that would be substitutes for regulatory action, and 
improvements to the regulatory framework. Plenary and breakout sessions 
will be held. Concurrent breakout sessions will provide a forum for 
discussion and feedback on (1) Consensus Codes and Standards 
Development and Endorsement/Use, (2) Industry Initiatives as 
Substitutes for Regulatory Action, and (3) Improvements to the 
Regulatory Framework.

DATES: Pre-registration will be August 31, 1998. The stakeholder 
meeting will be held on September 1, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The stakeholder meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency 
O'Hare Hotel, 9300 West Bryn Mawr Avenue, Rosemont, Illinois, 60018. 
Telephone: (847) 696-1234, Facsimile: (847) 698-1039. (Refer to NRC 
Meeting for special conference rate.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information contact: Thomas 
N. Cerovski, USNRC, Telephone: (301) 415-8099; FAX: (301) 415-5151; 
Internet: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f5819b96b59b8796db929a83"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f3b212c0f213d2c61282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

Participation

    This conference is open to the general public; however, advance 
registration by August 1, 1998 is recommended. To register, contact: 
Thomas N. Cerovski, USNRC, Telephone: (301) 415-8099; Facsimile: (301) 
415-5151; Internet: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9beff5f8dbf5e9f8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f0b111c3f110d1c51181009">[email protected]</span></a>.

Program

    Following is the preliminary program for the meeting:

August 31, 1998

Pre-Registration 5:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

September 1, 1998

Registration--7:00 a.m.-8:00 am.
Plenary Session--Opening and Welcome--8:00 a.m.-9:00 a.m.
Morning Breakout Sessions (I, II, and III)--9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Lunch--11:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.
Afternoon Breakout Sessions (I, II, and III)--1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.
Plenary Session--Closing and Summary--4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.
* * * * *
    The agenda for each breakout session is as follows:

Breakout Session I: Codes and Standards Development and 
Endorsement/Use

    Open discussion is invited on the following topics:
    (1) Actions the NRC is taking to implement PL 104-113, ``National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995,'' March 7, 1996, (2) 
Options for NRC participation in the development of consensus codes and 
standards organizations,
    (3) Whether the NRC should make greater use of available codes and 
standards in its regulations and regulatory guides,
    (4) Options for endorsement/use of codes and standards, including 
potential changes regarding requirements for licensees to upgrade every 
120-months to the latest ASME Code edition and addenda incorporated by 
reference in Sec. 50.55a,
    (5) Options for a process to interact with standards development 
organizations to discuss potential needs for new codes, standards, and 
guides and recommendations for areas of emphasis,
    (6) Impediments to the adoption of updated codes and standards.

Breakout Session II: Industry Initiatives as Substitutes for 
Regulatory Action

    Open discussion is invited on the proposed NRC review process of 
industry initiatives as substitutes for regulatory action:
    A. Proposed process to be used by the NRC for review of industry 
initiatives:
    (1) Industry submittal: defines parameters of issue, schedule, 
resources, end products,
    (2) Acceptance review by NRC: resources, public access, fees, 
monitoring activities, enforcement policy,
    (3) Detailed technical review by NRC: maintenance of desired level 
of safety and boundary conditions relative to agency policy.
    B. Discussion of the process:
    (1) Process will be used to determine whether an industry 
initiative can be relied on as an adequate and effective substitute for 
NRC regulatory activities:
    a. Is the process workable from a conceptual perspective?
    b. Should it be refined or more clearly defined?
    (2) Are there similar processes which have been developed by public 
agencies or the governments of other countries from which the NRC could 
learn?

[[Page 34947]]

    (3) How should NRC assure that public access is maintained in the 
following areas:
    a. In the agency's review of the industry initiatives?
    b. To information related to the bases for the agency's acceptance 
of the initiative?

Breakout Session III: Improvements to Regulatory Framework

    Open discussion is invited on the following topics:
    A. Reactor event reporting requirements. 10 CFR Sec. 50.72, 
``Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power 
reactors,'' and 10 CFR Sec. 50.73, ``Licensee event report system'' are 
currently the subject of a rulemaking effort to: (a) update the current 
rules, including reducing the reporting burden associated with events 
of little or no safety significance, and (b) better align the rules 
with the NRC's current needs, including (i) obtaining information 
better related to risk and (ii) reconsidering the required reporting 
times in relation to the need for prompt NRC action.
    (1) Other reporting requirements applicable to nuclear power 
plants. Are there additional areas (outside of Sec. 50.72 and 
Sec. 50.73) where event reporting requirements can be risk-informed 
and/or simplified?
    (2) What changes should be made in those areas? For example, the 
time limit for reporting could be adjusted based on the safety 
significance of the event and the need for NRC's immediate action. The 
burden associated with reporting events or conditions with little or no 
safety or risk significance should be minimized.
    (3) What would be the change in reporting burden associated with 
such changes?
    B. Development of a systematic process and identification of 
candidate issues for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of 
rules, standards, regulatory guidance, and their application.
    (1) NRC Process Development. The staff will discuss and seek 
comments from stakeholders on the staff process of (i) candidate issue 
identification utilizing a variety of readily available sources and 
databases; (ii) the analysis of the candidate issue for generic 
applicability, risk, effectiveness and efficiency; (iii) issue 
prioritization and disposal, and (iiii) the initiative to achieve more 
performance-based regulation.
    (2) Candidate Issue Proposals. The staff welcomes the proposal of 
candidate issues for improving rules, standards, regulatory guidance, 
and their application. This will include consideration of issues that 
may improve safety, as well as issues that may reduce regulatory 
impact. Candidate issues will be most seriously addressed if they are 
provided with a discussion of (i) resource impact on the industry and 
the NRC, (ii) a quantitative or qualitative assessment of their impact 
on risk, and (iii) options of ways to address the issue.

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day of June, 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank C. Cherny,
Acting Chief, Generic Safety Issues Branch, Division of Regulatory 
Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 98-17094 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>