[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58529-58530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29132]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Solicitation of Public Comments on the Second Year of 
Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Nearly 2 years have elapsed since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) implemented its revised Reactor Oversight Process 
(ROP). The NRC is currently soliciting comments from members of the 
public, licensees, and interest groups related to the implementation of 
the ROP. This is a followup to the FRN issued in January 2001, which 
requested feedback on the first year of implementation.

DATES: The comment period expires on December 28, 2001. The NRC will 
consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so, 
but is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or 
before this date.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be e-mailed to [email protected] or sent to 
Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Office of 
Administration (Mail Stop T6-D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may also be hand-delivered to Mr. 
Lesar at 11554 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
    Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, 
are available electronically through the NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 
From this site, the public can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image 
files of the NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the 
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 301-415-4737 or 
800-397-4209, or by e-mail at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael J. Maley, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop OWFN 7A15), U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Mr. Maley can also be 
reached by telephone at 301-415-2919 or by e-mail at [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 health and safety of the 
public and the environment, and to promote the common defense and 
security by preventing the proliferation of nuclear material. This 
mission is accomplished through the following activities:
     License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and 
disposal of nuclear materials.
     Develop and implement requirements governing licensed 
activities.
     Inspect and enforce of licensee activities to ensure 
compliance with these requirements and the law.
    While the NRC's responsibility is to monitor and regulate 
licensees' performance, the primary responsibility for safe operation 
and handling of nuclear materials rests with each licensee.
    As the nuclear industry in the United States has matured for more 
than 25 years, the NRC and its licensees have learned much about how to 
safely operate nuclear facilities and handle nuclear materials. In 
April 2000, the NRC began to implement more effective and efficient 
inspection, assessment, and enforcement approaches, which apply 
insights from these 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 that contribute most to safe operation 
at nuclear facilities.
    After conducting a 6-month pilot program in 1999, assessing the 
results, and incorporating the lessons learned, the NRC began 
implementing 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 ensures 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.

[[Page 58530]]

    (3) Improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and realism of the 
oversight process by implementing a process of continuous improvement.
    (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 that 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 FRNs 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 web site 
containing easily accessible information about the new program and 
licensee performance.

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 regarding the second year of implementation of the 
ROP. In particular, the NRC is seeking responses to the questions 
listed below, which will provide important information that the NRC can 
use in ongoing program improvement. A summary of the feedback obtained 
will be provided to the Commission and included in the annual ROP self-
assessment report.

Questions

Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall Reactor Oversight 
Process (ROP)

    (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions 
for improvement.)
    (1) Are the ROP oversight activities predictable (i.e., controlled 
by the process) and objective (i.e., based on supported facts, rather 
than relying on subjecting judgement)?
    (2) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions are 
graduated on the basis of increased significance?
    (3) Is the ROP understandable and are the procedures and output 
products clear and written in plain English?
    (4) Does the ROP provide adequate assurance that plants are being 
operated and maintained safely?
    (5) Does the ROP improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and realism 
of the regulatory process?
    (6) Does the ROP enhance public confidence?
    (7) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to 
participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments?
    (8) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on 
the ROP?
    (9) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program 
documents?
    (10) Does the ROP reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on 
licensees?
    (11) Does the ROP result in unintended consequences?

Questions Related to Specific ROP Program Areas

    (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions 
for improvement.)
    (12) Does the ROP take appropriate actions to address performance 
issues for those licensees that fall outside of the Licensee Response 
Column of the Action Matrix?
    (13) Is the information contained in assessment reports relevant, 
useful, and written in plain language?
    (14) Is the information in the inspection reports useful to you?
    (15) Does the Performance Indicator Program minimize the potential 
for licensees to take actions that adversely impact plant safety?
    (16) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance 
Indicator Program and the Inspection Program?
    (17) Do reporting conflicts exist, or is there unnecessary overlap 
between reporting requirements of the ROP and those associated with the 
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, the World Association of Nuclear 
Operations, or the Maintenance Rule?
    (18) Does NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator 
Guideline'' provide clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators?
    (19) Does the Significance Determination Process yield equivalent 
results for issues of similar significance in all ROP cornerstones?
    (20) Please provide any additional information or comments on other 
program areas related to the Reactor Oversight Process. Other areas of 
interest may include 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 15th day of November 2001.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson,
Inspection Program Branch, Division of Inspection Program Management, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-29132 Filed 11-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P