[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13267-13269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5215]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-72]


Union of Concerned Scientists; Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and 
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by David 
Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The petition, docketed 
on December 13, 2000, has been assigned Docket No. PRM-50-72. The 
petitioner requests that the NRC revise its regulations to require 
nuclear power plant owners to submit the performance indicator 
information needed for the NRC's revised reactor oversight program.

DATES: Submit comments by May 21, 2001. Comments received after this 
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission 
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
    Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Acting 
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 
Services, Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
    You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. This site allows you to upload 
comments as files in any format, if your web browser supports the 
function. For information about the interactive rulemaking website, 
contact Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905 e-mail:[email protected].
    The petition and copies of comments received may be inspected, and 
copied for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, (first floor) 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

[[Page 13268]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Acting Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 1-800-368-5642 or e-
mail:[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Petitioner

    The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) states that it was actively 
involved in the development of the reactor oversight program. UCS 
served on the Pilot Program Evaluation Panel formally established by 
the NRC to independently assess the trial implementation of the reactor 
oversight program at eight nuclear plant sites in 1999. UCS presented 
its views on the reactor oversight process to the NRC Chairman and 
Commissioners during a public meeting. UCS presented the criticism that 
the public perceives that the NRC allows the nuclear industry to 
regulate itself through the collection and voluntary submittal of 
performance indicator information. UCS recommended that: ``the NRC must 
appear more authoritative to gain the confidence of the public. The NRC 
should obtain an irrevocable commitment from all plant owners to 
participate in the revised reactor oversight process before industry-
wide implementation.''
    The petitioner asserts that no commitment has been obtained by the 
NRC, and that despite the importance of the performance indicators in 
the reactor oversight program and the fact that the NRC's revised 
inspection program, by itself, cannot provide a complete evaluation of 
safety levels, nuclear plant owners are not required to submit the 
performance indicator information to the NRC.

Discussion

    The petitioner states that on March 28, 2000, the NRC approved the 
implementation of a revised reactor oversight program \1\ at all 
operating nuclear power plants, except DC Cook. The petitioner states 
that, according to the NRC, the revised oversight process calls for--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Staff Requirements 
Memorandum SRM-00-0049, Staff Requirements--SECY-00-0049--Results of 
the Revised Reactor Oversight Process Pilot Program (Part 1),'' 
March 28, 2000. Available on the internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/COMMISSION/SRM/2000-0049srm.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Focusing inspections on activities where the potential risks are 
greater;
    2. Applying greater regulatory attention to nuclear power plants 
with performance problems, while maintaining a normal level of 
regulatory attention on facilities that perform well;
    3. Using objective measurements of the performance of nuclear power 
plants;
    4. Giving both the public and the nuclear industry timely and 
understandable assessments of plant performance;
    5. Reducing unnecessary regulatory burden on nuclear facilities; 
and
    6. Responding to violations of regulations in a predictable and 
consistent manner that reflects the potential safety impact on the 
violations.
    According to the petitioner, these objectives are to be achieved by 
a combination of objective performance indicators and by the NRC 
inspection program. The petitioner states that according to the NRC--

    Performance indicators use objective data to monitor performance 
within each of the `cornerstone' areas. The data which make up the 
performance indicators will be generated by the utilities and 
submitted to the NRC on a quarterly basis. Each performance 
indicator is measured against established thresholds which are 
related to their effect on safety. While performance indicators can 
provide insights into plant performance for selected areas, the 
NRC's inspection program provides a greater depth and breadth of 
information for consideration by the NRC in assessing plant 
performance.

    The petitioner states that the NRC supplements the insights from 
the performance indicators with the baseline inspection program. The 
baseline inspection program covers three parts:
    (1) Inspection of areas not covered by performance indicators or 
where a performance indicator does not fully cover the inspection area;
    (2) Inspections to verify the accuracy of a licensee's reports on 
performance indicators; and
    (3) A thorough review of the utility's effectiveness in finding and 
resolving problems on its own.
    Under the new reactor oversight process, the petitioner also notes 
that the NRC revised the procedures used by its inspectors. The revised 
procedures define how often areas must be inspected, i.e. certain areas 
must be inspected four times a year while other areas need only be 
inspected once every three years. The petitioner states that the scope 
of the inspection program is directly affected by the availability of 
the performance indicators. Therefore, the petitioner asserts that the 
NRC inspection program is not a fully redundant backup to the 
performance indicators, and that both the inspection program results 
and the performance indicators must be available to get a full picture 
of nuclear plant safety levels. The petitioner states that if the 
performance indicator information is not available, the NRC cannot get 
an accurate assessment of plant safety levels.
    The petitioner further states that the performance indicators and 
the results from the baseline inspection programs are used by the NRC 
to evaluate safety levels at each nuclear plant and to identify areas 
for future inspections. The petitioner provided the following detail:
    Each calendar quarter, the resident inspectors and the staff in the 
regional office will review the performance of all nuclear power plants 
in that region, as measured by the performance indicators and by 
inspection findings. Every six months, this review will be expanded to 
include planning of inspections for the following 12-month period.
    Each year, the final quarterly review will involve a more detailed 
assessment of plant performance over the previous 12 months and 
preparation of a performance report, as well as the inspection plan for 
the following year. This review will include NRC headquarters staff 
members, the regional staff, and the resident inspectors.
    These annual performance reports will be available to the public on 
the agency's web site, and the NRC staff will hold public meetings with 
utilities to discuss the previous year's performance at each plant.

The Petitioner's Requested Amendment

    The petitioner requests that the NRC revise its regulations to 
require nuclear reactor licensees to submit the performance indicator 
information. In support of the requested amendment, the petitioner 
included NRC's stated objectives for its mission as follows: (1) 
Maintaining safety, (2) enhancing public confidence, (3) improving the 
effectiveness and efficiency of NRC processes, and (4) reducing 
unnecessary regulatory burden. The petitioner believes that the 
requested amendment satisfies all four objectives of the NRC's mission 
and offers the summary below to support this conclusion.
    Maintaining Safety--The petitioner states that the NRC's new 
assessment program (reactor oversight program) is substantially 
different from the previous process. It makes greater use of objective 
performance indicators. Together, the indicators and inspection 
findings

[[Page 13269]]

provide the information needed to support reviews of plant performance, 
to be conducted on a quarterly basis, with the results posted on the 
NRC's Internet site.
    The petitioner believes that performance indicators are an 
essential element of the reactor oversight program and that their 
omission would degrade the ability of the reactor oversight program to 
assess nuclear plant performance levels. According to the petitioner, 
the current NRC staff may be able to compensate for missing performance 
indicators from one or two nuclear plants by conducting additional 
inspections. Also, the petitioner states that NRC inspectors could be 
expected to revert to broader inspection procedures that they used as 
recently as last spring. However, the petitioner states that as time 
passes and familiarity with the old ways fades, that capability also 
diminishes. In addition, the petitioner asserts that it is uncertain 
that the NRC staff has, or will continue to have, sufficient inspection 
staff to compensate for the eventuality where an owner operating 
numerous reactors suddenly decides not to submit the performance 
indicator information for any plant. The petitioner believes that the 
suggested amendment would satisfy the objective of maintaining safety 
by ensuring that the NRC continues to receive the vital information 
that it needs to assess nuclear plant performance levels.
    Enhancing Public Confidence--The petitioner believes that public 
confidence only can be enhanced by requiring plant owners to submit 
information that is needed for the NRC to conduct its oversight 
program. As an analogy, the petitioner offers that, just as the 
Internal Revenue Service does not rely on the voluntary submission of 
tax returns by American taxpayers, the NRC should not rely on voluntary 
submission of vital safety information by nuclear plant owners.
    Improving the Effectiveness and Efficiency of NRC Processes--The 
petitioner indicates that the substantive changes made by the NRC 
within its reactor oversight program were predicated on the assumption 
that nuclear plant owners would submit the performance indicator 
information. For example, the NRC inspection program was scaled back to 
only confirmatory checks in areas covered by performance indicators. 
The petitioner believes that any effectiveness and efficiency gains 
realized from the reactor oversight program would be sacrificed if one 
or more plant owners opted not to submit performance indicator 
information and that NRC's effectiveness would be impaired by having to 
inspect what had been covered by the performance indicator.
    Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burden--The petitioner states that 
all nuclear plant owners in the U.S. today must consider the submission 
of the performance indicator information as a necessary regulatory 
burden; otherwise they would not have participated in the voluntary 
program that has been in place since April 2000. The petitioner 
believes that if the performance indicator information showed that 
safety levels declined, that plant owners must not have the option of 
viewing the submission as an unnecessary regulatory burden to avoid NRC 
scrutiny of the problem areas. The petitioner states that by merely 
codifying current industry practice, no unnecessary regulatory burden 
is introduced.

Conclusion

    The petitioner believes that the NRC must require performance 
indicator information from all nuclear power plant owners if the NRC is 
to meet its stated objectives of maintaining safety, enhancing public 
confidence, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of its 
processes, and reducing regulatory burden. The petitioner notes that 
the recent example of the vehicle tire safety issue emphasizes the need 
for definitive requirements for submission of safety information to 
Federal regulators. The petitioner states that Congressional hearings 
revealed that the tire company had information on potential safety 
problems that it delayed transmitting to the Federal regulator. The 
petitioner further states that the tire company was not aggressive in 
responding to requests by the Federal regulator for information. The 
petitioner concludes that the NRC must revise its regulations to 
prevent similar abuses.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of February, 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-5215 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P