[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57975-57977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20041]


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

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: The NRC is soliciting comments from members of the public, 
licensees, and interest groups related to the implementation of the 
Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). An electronic version of the survey 
questions may be obtained from http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/rop2007survey.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 7, 2007. 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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Office of Administration (Mail Stop T-
6D59), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 
If you choose to send your response using email, please include 
appropriate contact information so the NRC can follow-up on the 
comments. Comments may also be hand-delivered to Mr. Lesar at 11545 
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. Bart Fu, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 11A11), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555-0001. Mr. Fu can also be reached by telephone at 
301-415-2467 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.
     Inspect and enforce licensee activities to ensure 
compliance with these requirements and the law.
    Although 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 Federal Register Notices 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 calendar year 2007 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.

[[Page 57976]]

    This solicitation of public comments has been issued each year 
since the ROP was implemented in 2000. In the last few years, there 
were between 15 to 20 responses received each year from the industry, 
organizations, public citizens and other government entities. The 
ratings of each question did not provide meaningful statistical value 
due to the very limited number of responses. Starting from this survey, 
only written comments are requested for each of the survey questions.

Questions

    In responding to these questions, please describe your experiences 
of the NRC oversight process. If additional space is needed, please 
attach to the back of the survey.
    If there are experiences or opinions that you would like to express 
that cannot be directly captured by the questions, document them 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?
    Comments:

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

    (2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance 
Indicator Program and the Inspection Program to provide for a 
comprehensive indication of licensee performance?
    Comments:

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

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

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

    (4) Can the Performance Indicator Program effectively identify 
declining performance based on risk-informed, objective, and 
predictable indicators?
    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

    (7) Does the Significance Determination Process result in an 
objective and understandable regulatory response to performance issues?
    Comments:

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

    (8) Does the NRC take appropriate actions to address performance 
issues for those plants with identified performance deficiencies?
    Comments:

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

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

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

Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall ROP

    (As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions 
for improvement.)
    (10) 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 judgment)?
    Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 57977]]

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Comments:

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

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

    Comments:

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

    (19) Does the ROP result in unintended consequences?

    Comments:

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

Questions Related to the Safety Culture Aspects of the ROP

    (20a) Do the ROP inspection and assessment safety culture 
enhancements help to focus licensee and NRC attention on performance 
issues associated with aspects of safety culture?
    Comments:

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

    (20b) Do the baseline Identification and Resolution of Problems 
inspection procedure (71152) and the special inspection procedures 
(93800 and 93812 respectively) provide an appropriate level of guidance 
on safety culture aspects and on the consideration of causal factors 
related to safety culture?
    Comments:

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

    (20c) Do the supplemental inspection procedures (Inspection for One 
or Two White Inputs in a Strategic Performance Area (95001), Inspection 
for One Degraded Cornerstone or any Three White Inputs in a Strategic 
Performance Area (95002)) respectively provide an appropriate level of 
guidance to evaluate whether safety culture components have been 
adequately considered as part of the licensees' root cause, extent of 
condition, and extent of cause evaluations and to independently 
determine if safety culture components caused or significantly 
contributed to the risk significant performance issues?
    Comments:

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

    (20d) Does the procedure for a Supplemental Inspection for 
Repetitive Degraded Cornerstones, Multiple Degraded Cornerstones, 
Multiple Yellow Inputs, or One Red Input (95003) provide an appropriate 
level of guidance to independently assess the licensees' safety culture 
and evaluate the licensees' assessment of their safety culture?
    Comments:

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

    (20e) Do the ROP inspection reports clearly describe inspection 
finding cross-cutting aspects?
    Comments:

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

    (20f) Do the Operating Reactor Assessment Program (0305) cross-
cutting components and cross-cutting aspects provide an adequate 
coverage of the cross-cutting areas?
    Comments:

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

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

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


    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of October, 2007.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stuart A. Richards,
Deputy Director, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-20041 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P