[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 241 (Thursday, December 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78215-78217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31876]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Request for Public Comment on the First Year of Initial 
Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is approaching 
completion of the first year of initial implementation of the Reactor 
Oversight Process (ROP). In response to the Commission's Staff 
Requirements Memorandum (SRM-00-0049), dated May 17, 2000, the NRC is 
preparing a report summarizing the lessons learned during the first 
year of initial implementation of the ROP. The NRC is requesting 
comments/information from members of the public, licensees, and 
interest groups related to the initial implementation of the ROP which 
began at the 103 commercial nuclear power plant sites (except D.C. Cook 
which is being phased into the ROP) on April 2, 2000.
    The NRC is specifically requesting comments on the questions listed 
at the end of this notice. The NRC is also conducting a public 
workshop, tentatively scheduled for late March

[[Page 78216]]

2001, to discuss lessons learned. In support of this workshop, the NRC 
is seeking public feedback on key issues that should be considered 
during the workshop.

DATES: (1) Submit potential topic areas for consideration during the 
public ROP workshop by February 23, 2001. (2) Submit comments on the 
ROP's first year of initial implementation by April 13, 2001. Comments 
received after these dates will be considered if it is practical to do 
so, but the Commission is able to only ensure consideration for 
comments received on or before these dates.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to David Meyer, Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail Stop T6D59, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001or 
electronically to e-mail: [email protected]
    Deliver comments to: 11554 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 
between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
    Certain documents related to this notice, including comments 
received, may be examined and/or copied for a fee at the NRC Public 
Document Room, One White Flint North, Room O1-F15, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, 
are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's 
Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. For more 
information, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: August K. Spector, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-2140, e-mail: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Program Overview

    The mission of the NRC is to regulate the civilian uses of nuclear 
materials in the United States to protect the public health and safety, 
protect the environment, and promote the common defense and security by 
preventing the proliferation of nuclear material. This mission is 
accomplished through:
     Licensing nuclear facilities and the possession, use and 
disposal of nuclear materials;
     Developing and implementing requirements governing 
licensed activities; and
     Inspection and enforcement of licensee activities to 
assure compliance with these requirements and the law.
    While the responsibility of the NRC is to monitor and regulate the 
performance of the licensee, primary responsibility for safe operation 
and handling of nuclear materials rests with the licensee.
    During the past 25 years, the nuclear industry in the United States 
has matured to one where licensees and the NRC have learned much about 
how to safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. 
Recently, the NRC has begun to implement more effective and efficient 
inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches which apply insights 
from years of regulatory oversight and nuclear facility operation. The 
NRC has also incorporated risk-informed principles and techniques into 
its oversight activities. A risk-informed approach to oversight enables 
the NRC to more appropriately apply its resources to oversight of 
operational areas which contribute most to safe operation at nuclear 
facilities.
    After conducting a six-month pilot program in 1999, assessing the 
results, and incorporating the lessons learned, the NRC began 
implementation of the revised reactor oversight process (ROP) at all 
103 nuclear facilities (except D. C. Cook) on April 2, 2000. Inherent 
in the ROP are the following key NRC performance goals:
    1. Maintain safety by establishing and implementing a regulatory 
oversight process that assures that plants are operated safely;
    2. Enhance public confidence by increasing the predictability, 
consistency, and objectivity of the oversight process, providing timely 
and understandable information, and providing opportunities for 
meaningful involvement by the public;
    3. Improve effectiveness, efficiency, and realism of the oversight 
process by implementing a process of continuous improvement; and
    4. Reduce unnecessary regulatory burden through the consistent 
application of the process and incorporation of lessons learned.
    Key elements of the ROP include revised NRC inspection procedures, 
plant performance indicators, a significance determination process and 
an assessment program which incorporates various risk-informed 
thresholds to help determine the level of NRC oversight and 
enforcement. Since process development began in 1998, the NRC has 
frequently communicated with the public by various means. These have 
included conducting public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed 
commercial nuclear power plant, issuing Federal Register Notices 
soliciting feedback on the process, publishing press releases about the 
new process, conducting multiple public workshops, placing pertinent 
background information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and 
establishing an NRC website containing easily accessible information 
about the new program and licensee performance. Information about 
specific aspects of the reactor oversight process may be obtained 
electronically from the following source:

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html.

NRC Reactor Oversight Public Workshop

    In late March 2001, the NRC is planning a public workshop intended 
to bring together all interested stakeholders to discuss key issues 
that have emerged during the first year of initial implementation of 
the ROP. The NRC is soliciting feedback from its public stakeholders on 
what topic areas should be considered during this workshop. The NRC 
will consider this feedback along with its own insights gained during 
initial implementation to develop the agenda for the workshop. Some of 
the areas currently under consideration include selected performance 
indicators, approaches to inspecting and assessing problem 
identification and resolution activities, inspection report thresholds, 
and the efficacy of certain elements of the significance determination 
process.

NRC Public Stakeholder Comments

    The NRC continues to be interested in receiving feedback from 
members of the public, various public stakeholders and industry groups 
on their insights on the first year of initial implementation of the 
reactor oversight process. The NRC is specifically seeking responses to 
the questions listed below, which will provide the NRC with vital 
information regarding the initial implementation of the reactor 
oversight process, which can be used in continuing program improvement. 
A summary of responses and how the responses were considered will be 
included in the report submitted to the Commission on the 
implementation of the ROP, currently planned for June 2001.

Questions

    I. Questions related to the efficacy of the overall process (As 
appropriate,

[[Page 78217]]

please provide specific examples and suggestions for improvement.):
    1. Does the ROP provide adequate assurance that plants are being 
operated safely?
    2. Does the ROP provide sufficient regulatory attention to 
utilities with performance problems?
    3. Does the ROP reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees?
    4. Does the ROP improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and realism 
of the regulatory process, focusing NRC resources on those issues with 
the most safety significance?
    5. Has the public information associated with the ROP been 
appropriate to keep the public informed, in a timely and understandable 
fashion, of NRC activities related to plant safety?
    (Examples: NRC plant performance web page, Plant Performance 
Indicators, NRC Inspection Reports, Assessment Letters, ROP guidance 
documents and implementation procedures, the NRC ROP website, press 
releases)
    6. Does the ROP increase the predictability, consistency, clarity 
and objectivity of the NRC's oversight activities?
    7. Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to provide 
input/comments and involvement in the ROP development process?
    8. Has NRC been responsive to input/comments provided by the public 
regarding the ROP development process?
    9. Please provide any additional (brief) information or issues 
related to the reactor oversight process.
    II. Questions related to specific ROP program areas (As 
appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for 
improvement.):
    1. Do the performance indicators or other aspects of the ROP create 
unintended consequences? (Please comment on the potential of unintended 
consequences associated with the counting of manual scrams in the 
Initiating Event Cornerstone Performance Indicators.)
    2. Do any aspects of the ROP inappropriately increase regulatory 
burden? (Please comment on any unnecessary overlap between ROP 
reporting requirements with those associated with INPO, WANO, or the 
Maintenance Rule.)
    3. Is the Significance Determination Process (SDP) usable and does 
it produce consistent and accurate results?
    4. Are there areas of unnecessary overlap between the inspection 
program and the performance indicators?
    5. Does the ROP assessment program provide timely, consistent, and 
relevant assessment information?
    6. Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program documents?
    7. Please provide any additional (brief) information or comments on 
other program areas related to the reactor oversight process. Other 
areas of interest may be: the treatment of cross-cutting issues in the 
ROP, the risk-based evaluation process associated with determining 
event response, and the reduced subjectivity and elevated threshold for 
documenting issues in inspection reports.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of December 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William M. Dean,
Chief, Inspection Program Branch, Division of Inspection Program 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-31876 Filed 12-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P