[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61318-61320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-5796]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY:  Over 5 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. An electronic version of the survey questions may be obtained 
from http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/rop2005survey.pdf. This 
solicitation will provide insights into the self-assessment process and 
a summary of the feedback will be included in the annual ROP self-
assessment report to the Commission.

DATES:  The comment period expires on December 1, 2005. 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:  Completed questionnaires and/or comments may be e-mailed to 
[email protected] or sent to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives 
Branch, Office of Administration (Mail Stop T-6D59), 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:  Ms. Serita Sanders, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7A15), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Ms. Sanders can also be reached 
by telephone at 301-415-2956 or by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Program Overview

    The mission of the NRC is to license and regulate the Nation's 
civilian use of byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials to 
ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the 
common defense and security, and protect the environment. 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.

[[Page 61319]]

     Inspect and enforce 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, 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. Key elements of 
the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) include 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 ROP development began in 1998, the NRC has 
frequently communicated with the public by various initiatives: 
conducted public meetings in the vicinity of each licensed commercial 
nuclear power plant, issued FRNs to solicit feedback on the ROP, 
published press releases about the new process, conducted multiple 
public workshops, placed pertinent background information in the NRC's 
Public Document Room, and established an NRC Web site containing easily 
accessible information about the ROP 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 CY 2005 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.
    This solicitation of public comments has been issued each year 
since ROP implementation in 2000. In previous years, the questions had 
been free-form in nature requesting written responses. Although written 
responses are still encouraged, there are specific choices to best 
describe your experience to enable us to more objectively determine 
your level of satisfaction.

Questions

    In responding to these questions, please consider your experiences 
using the NRC oversight process.
    Shade in the circle that most applies to your experiences as 
follows: (1) Very much (2) somewhat (3) neutral (4) somewhat less than 
needed (5) far less than needed.
    If there are experiences that are rated as unsatisfactory, or if 
you have specific thoughts or concerns, please elaborate in the 
``Comments'' section that follows the question and offer your opinion 
for possible improvements. If there are experiences or opinions that 
you would like to express that cannot be directly captured by the 
questions, document that in the last question of the survey.

Questions Related to Specific Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) Program 
Areas

    (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions 
for improvement.)
    (1) Does the Performance Indicator Program provide useful insights 
to help ensure plant safety?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance 
Indicator Program and the Inspection Program?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (3) Does NEI 99-02, ``Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator 
Guideline'' provide clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (4) Does the Inspection Program adequately cover areas important to 
safety and is it effective in identifying and ensuring the prompt 
correction of performance deficiencies?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (5) Is the information contained in inspection reports relevant, 
useful, and written in plain English?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (6) Does the Significance Determination Process yield an 
appropriate and consistent regulatory response across all ROP 
cornerstones?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (7) Does the NRC take appropriate actions to address performance 
issues for those plants outside of the Licensee Response Column of the 
Action Matrix?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (8) Is the information contained in assessment reports relevant, 
useful, and written in plain English?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall ROP

    (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions 
for improvement.)
    (9) Are the ROP oversight activities predictable (i.e., controlled 
by the process) and reasonably objective (i.e., based on supported 
facts, rather than relying on subjective judgement)?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (10) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions and 
outcomes are appropriately graduated on the basis of increased 
significance?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (11) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures 
and products clear and written in plain English?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (12) Does the ROP provide adequate regulatory assurance when 
combined with other NRC regulatory processes that plants are being 
operated and maintained safely?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 


[[Page 61320]]

Comments:

    (13) Is the ROP effective, efficient, realistic, and timely?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (14) Does the ROP ensure openness in the regulatory process?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (15) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to 
participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (16) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on 
the ROP?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (17) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program 
documents?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (18) Does the ROP minimize unintended consequences?

 
      1              2              3              4              5
 
[cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]          [cir]
 

Comments:

    (19) Please provide any additional information or comments related 
to the Reactor Oversight Process.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of October, 2005.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stuart A. Richards,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Inspection Program 
Management, Inspection Program Branch.
 [FR Doc. E5-5796 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P