[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6399-6401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2929]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Public Comment on the Allegations Program Under the New 
Regulatory Oversight Program

AGENCY:  Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:  Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY:  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed 
significant revisions to its process for overseeing the safety 
performance of commercial nuclear power plants that include the 
inspection, assessment, and enforcement program. As part of its 
proposal, the NRC staff established a new regulatory oversight 
framework with a set of performance indicators and associated 
thresholds, developed a new baseline inspection program that 
supplements and verifies the performance indicators, and created a 
continuous assessment process that includes a method for consistently 
determining the appropriate regulatory actions in response to varying 
levels of safety performance. The NRC also has a long established 
allegation program to provide a mechanism for individuals to identify 
safety and regulatory issues directly to the NRC. The NRC is soliciting 
comments from interested public interest groups, the regulated 
industry, States, and concerned citizens as to the functioning of the 
allegation process under the new reactor regulatory oversight program. 
The NRC staff will consider comments it receives in determining how the 
agency will pursue structuring the allegation program under the new 
reactor oversight process. At the conclusion of

[[Page 6400]]

the public comment period, the NRC will schedule a public meeting to be 
held at the NRC Headquarters at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, to discuss the comments and options for revising the 
allegation program.

DATES:  The comment period expires April 10, 2000. 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:  Comments may be submitted either electronically or via U.S. 
mail. Submit written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, 
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mail 
Stop: T-6 D59, 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's Public Document Room, 
2120 L Street, N.W. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. 20555. Electronic 
comments may be submitted via email to: [email protected]
    Copies of the Commission Paper dated November 23, 1999, entitled, 
``Impact of Changes to the Inspection Program for Reactors on 
Implementing the Allegation Program'' (SECY-99-273) may be obtained at 
the following web site: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SECYS/index.html. The Commission's direction to the staff may be obtained at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SRM/index.html. Information on the 
revised reactor oversight process may be obtained at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html.
    Additional information on the inspection pilot program may be 
obtained from the NRC's Public Document Room at 2120 L St., NW, 
Washington, DC 20003-1527, telephone 202-634-3272.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Edward Baker, Agency Allegation 
Advisor, or Carl Mohrwinkel, Assistant Agency Allegation Advisor, Mail 
Stop: O-5 E7, Office of the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone Mr. Baker at 301-415-8529, or Mr.Mohrwinkel at 301-415-
1293.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    To encourage individuals to identify safety concerns, the 
allegation program includes provisions to protect the identity of the 
individual, to provide timely resolution of the issue(s), and to 
communicate the staff's understanding of the issue(s), status of the 
staff's review, and ultimate resolution of the issue(s) in a timely 
manner. For individuals who do not want the licensee or employer to 
know they raised an issue to the NRC, the agency's policy is to take 
all reasonable measures to protect the identity of the individual. 
Under the current program, an allegation is defined as ``A declaration, 
statement, or assertion of impropriety or inadequacy associated with 
NRC-regulated activities, the validity of which has not been 
established.'' Historically, the staff has interpreted this definition 
very broadly and not set a threshold for placing issues in the 
allegation program, as long as the issues involve an area regulated by 
the NRC, were not already known by the staff to be true or valid, and 
were not covered by another process, e.g., petitions processed under 
Section 2.206 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2.206 
petitions).
    In developing the revised reactor oversight process, the staff 
integrated the use of performance indicators and inspections. Using a 
risk-informed approach, the staff was able to focus the baseline 
inspection program on inspecting risk-significant areas that are not 
adequately covered by performance indicators. The overall objective of 
the program is to assure licensee performance meets the objectives for 
each of the associated cornerstones of safety. Within the baseline 
inspection program there are three basic types of inspection. 
Inspections are (1) used to verify performance in areas that are not 
measured by a performance indicator, (2) augment the information 
provided by performance indicators that do not sufficiently measure 
performance in a cornerstone area, and (3) verify the accuracy and 
completeness of the data used as the basis for performance indicators 
used to fully measure performance of a cornerstone area. The end result 
is that the scope of activities being inspected is more clearly defined 
and risk informed. There is also less flexibility within the baseline 
inspection program to inspect issues that emerge from allegations if 
they do not relate to a stated inspectable area objective.
    Conducting an inspection or an evaluation to quickly resolve a 
safety significant allegation is consistent with the risk informed 
approach of the revised reactor oversight process. However, the 
allegation program's emphasis on timely resolution places a similar, 
and only slightly lesser, burden on the staff for timely resolution of 
issues with less safety or risk significance. For these issues, staff 
resolution is driven by the timeliness goal, which was established to 
be responsive to the alleger, rather than being risk-informed. For 
those allegations requiring inspection, this often results in revising 
inspection schedules or scheduling additional inspections to meet the 
timeliness goal, when the safety or risk significance associated with 
the issue doesn't warrant that kind of response, even if the issue is 
assumed to be valid. For those allegations that are referred to other 
agencies or to licensees for evaluation and response back to the NRC, 
this may result in redirecting resources from work activities involving 
higher safety or risk significance in order to meet NRC's requested 
response date.
    Another consequence of implementing the baseline inspection program 
is that there is a greater potential the reactor licensees will know 
when an inspection is allegation-related. For allegations that involve 
issues outside the inspectable areas or are reviewed during inspections 
that were not on the inspection schedule, it is likely that the 
licensee or employer will question why the staff is conducting the 
inspection, unless there has been an event that warrants a reactive 
inspection. While the staff intends to continue its policy of not 
informing the licensee when inspections are allegation-related, it is 
likely the licensee or employer will be able to determine when that is 
the case. This may increase the potential that a licensee or employer 
will be able to identify who submitted an allegation to the NRC, based 
on the area being inspected and its similarity to issues previously 
raised within the licensee's organization. As a result, individuals may 
be less inclined to provide safety or regulatory issues to the NRC or 
they may provide issues to the NRC without first raising the issue 
internally. Neither of these outcomes is desirable.

Scope of the Public Comment Period and Questions

    This public comment period will focus on obtaining industry and 
public views on the allegation program as it may exist under the new 
oversight process. To assist respondents the following questions are 
included as a guide. Comments should be as specific as possible and the 
use of examples is encouraged.
     Which of the four Options contained in the Commission 
paper will strike the best balance between the

[[Page 6401]]

efficient use of agency resources and the need for allegers to feel the 
NRC will address their issue(s) and protect their identity, if they so 
desire?
     Does one of the Options for implementing the allegation 
program provide more adequate assurance that the NRC can be more 
certain that through information provided by allegers, plants are being 
operated safely?
     Does one of the Options for implementing the allegation 
program under the new oversight process enhance public confidence by 
increasing the predictability, consistency, clarity and objectivity of 
the NRC's allegation process?
     Does one of the Options for implementing the allegations 
program under the new oversight process improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the regulatory process focusing agency resources on 
those issues with the most safety significance?
     Does one of the Options for implementing the allegation 
program under the new oversight process reduce unnecessary regulatory 
burden on licensees?
     What Options, beyond those stated in the Commission paper, 
should be considered?
     Should the Commission implement any changes in the 
allegation program for all reactor licensees or should any changes be 
implemented in a pilot program before being implemented at all reactor 
facilities?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Edward T. Baker III,
Agency Allegations Advisor, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-2929 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P