[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59025-59026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23812]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 59025]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 50

[Docket No. PRM-50-72]


Union of Concerned Scientists; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 
for rulemaking submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (PRM-50-
72). The petitioner requested that the NRC revise its regulations to 
require nuclear power plant licensees to submit the performance 
indicator (PI) information needed for the NRC's Reactor Oversight 
Process (ROP). Currently, licensees are submitting the PI information 
needed for the ROP on a voluntary basis. The current voluntary program 
meets the NRC's regulatory needs. If circumstances change in the future 
(for example, if licensees decide to stop submitting the information 
voluntarily) the NRC can reevaluate its position on whether a 
rulemaking or other regulatory action is necessary at that time. The 
rulemaking requested by the petition might enhance public confidence to 
some degree by making the NRC appear more authoritative in the view of 
some individuals. However, it would consume resources to develop a 
rulemaking to codify the current practice, even though the current 
voluntary program meets the NRC's regulatory needs. Furthermore, if the 
current practice were codified, any future changes in the definitions 
or guidance for reporting PI information might be more difficult, use 
greater resources, and consume more time, as compared with changing a 
voluntary program.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments 
received, and the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. These documents are also available electronically 
at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.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 further information contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-
4209, (301) 415-4737 or by email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis P. Allison, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-1178, e-mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    The NRC published a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking 
and request for public comments in the Federal Register on March 5, 
2001 (66 FR 13267). The comment period closed on May 21, 2001. The 
petition requested that the NRC revise its regulations to require that 
nuclear power plant licensees submit the PI information needed for the 
ROP. The petition acknowledged that licensees are now submitting this 
information on a voluntary basis. It also noted that PI information is 
an important part of the ROP. The petitioner stated that the NRC should 
require PI information in order to appear more authoritative and 
enhance public confidence. The petitioner also argued that currently, 
if one or two plants stop providing PI information, the NRC can 
compensate by performing more inspection but it is not clear that NRC 
will have the resources to compensate if many plants stop providing PI 
information in the future.

Public Comments on the Petition

    None of the three public comment letters received supported the 
petition. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) contended there is no 
indication that a problem exists necessitating the requested 
rulemaking. Further, NEI indicated that licensees are already required 
to report or collect almost all of the information used to develop the 
PIs. Finally, NEI stated that if PI information were not reported by 
licensees, no unique and undue burden would be placed on NRC inspection 
resources. Exelon Corporation submitted a letter that supported NEI's 
comments. Robert Leyse submitted a letter that did not indicate whether 
the petition should be granted or denied.

NRC Evaluation of the Petition

    The NRC has evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of the 
rulemaking requested by the petition, as follows.
    (1) Maintaining Safety: The requested rulemaking would not affect 
safety for the following reasons. Currently, licensees are submitting 
the PI information needed for the ROP on a voluntary basis. The current 
voluntary program meets the NRC's regulatory needs. If circumstances 
change in the future (for example, if licensees decide to stop 
submitting the information voluntarily) the NRC can reevaluate its 
position on whether a rulemaking or other regulatory action is 
necessary at that time. The options available would include: imposition 
of mandatory reporting requirements by rulemaking or order; request for 
information under oath or affirmation under 10 CFR 50.54(f); direct 
gathering of PI information by inspection; and/or additional inspection 
of basic cornerstone areas. If necessary, during the time it would take 
to implement one of these options, the NRC could gather sufficient 
information to continue the ROP using modest inspection resources.
    (2) Enhancing Public Confidence: The requested rulemaking might 
enhance public confidence to some degree by making the NRC appear more 
authoritative in the view of some individuals. There would be no 
change, however, in the public availability of the PI information 
because it is already being made publicly available.
    (3) Improving Efficiency and Effectiveness: The requested 
rulemaking would result in a decrease in the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the NRC's use of resources for the following reasons. 
The requested rulemaking would consume resources to develop a 
rulemaking to codify the current practice, even though the current 
voluntary program meets the NRC's regulatory needs. Furthermore, the

[[Page 59026]]

guidance and definitions used in reporting PI information are adjusted 
from time to time based on experience. In the future, changing a rule 
and/or regulatory guide might be more difficult, use greater resources, 
and consume more time than changing the voluntary program.
    (4) Reducing Unnecessary Regulatory Burden: The requested 
rulemaking would not affect the regulatory burden on licensees because 
the PI information needed for the ROP is already being provided on a 
voluntary basis by all licensees.

Reasons for Denial

    The Commission is denying the petition based on this evaluation. 
Currently, licensees are submitting the PI information needed for the 
ROP on a voluntary basis. The current voluntary program meets the NRC's 
regulatory needs. If circumstances change in the future (for example, 
if licensees decide to stop submitting the information voluntarily) the 
NRC can reevaluate its position on whether a rulemaking or other 
regulatory action is necessary at that time. The requested rulemaking 
might enhance public confidence to some degree by making the NRC appear 
more authoritative in the view of some individuals. However, it would 
consume resources to develop a rulemaking to codify the current 
practice, even though the current voluntary program meets the NRC's 
regulatory needs. Furthermore, if the current practice were codified, 
any future changes in the definitions or guidance for reporting PI 
information might be more difficult, use greater resources, and consume 
more time, as compared with changing a voluntary program.
    For these reasons, the Commission denies the petition.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of September, 2002.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 02-23812 Filed 9-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P