[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 121 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36124-36125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-15321]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2010-0230]
Construction Reactor Oversight Process Request for Public Comment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is
reconsidering the Construction Reactor Oversight Process (cROP),
including the construction assessment process, as presented in IMC
2505, ``Periodic Assessment of Construction Inspection Program
Results,'' in order to propose policy options to the Commission to
revise the oversight process. The staff proposal will include program
oversight currently included as part of the Inspections, Tests,
Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) monitoring and closure
processes, and evaluate the inclusion of objective performance
monitoring elements such as construction program Performance Indicators
(PIs) and a Significance Determination Process (SDP) analogous to those
used in the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) for the current operating
reactor fleet.
DATES: The comment period expires August 9, 2010. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the
Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received
on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include Docket ID NRC-2010-0230 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be
posted on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site
Regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any
identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2010-0230. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
[email protected].
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Chief, Rules, Announcements and
Directives Branch (RADB), Division of Administrative Services, Office
of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to RADB at (301) 492-
3446.
You can access publicly available documents related to this notice
using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine and have
copied for a fee publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public
File Area O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS):
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Mattern, Division of
Construction Inspection and Operational Programs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852-2738. Telephone: (301) 415-6622 or (301) 415-1395;
Fax (301) 415-5400; E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC staff are currently developing options
and a recommendation to the Commission for a revised oversight process
for new reactor construction with the objective of developing a risk-
informed and performance based process, resulting in a more objective,
predictable, and transparent process for licensees and members of the
general public. To meet these objectives, the NRC staff is undertaking
a comprehensive effort to develop a Construction Reactor Oversight
Process using risk-informed and performance based tools. The NRC
staff's efforts will be consistent with the recent Commission guidance
in this area, notably the guidance provided in the Staff Requirements
Memoranda (M081022) dated December 5, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML083400193).
In SECY-09-0113, ``Update on the Development of Construction
Assessment Process Policy Options and the Construction Inspection
Program Information Management System,'' dated August 14, 2009
(Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No.
ML091970152), the NRC staff updated the Commission on the development
of construction assessment process policy options.
Following the issuance of SECY-09-0113, the staff formed a cROP
team in December 2009 with representatives from each regional office,
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear
Security and Incident Response, and the Office of New Reactors. Team
members offer a cross section of experience including personnel with
extensive experience in developing and implementing the ROP. Through
public workshops and stakeholder interactions, the cROP team is
developing options for a cROP with elements similar to those used in
the ROP. Specifically, the team is identifying the objectives,
attributes, and activities that a construction oversight process would
need to adequately and objectively assess licensee performance, as well
as the sources of information necessary to support the assessment.
These attributes include the application of thresholds to determine the
significance of findings, a viable means to ensure appropriate NRC
response to degrading licensee performance, and the assessment of
licensee safety culture.
In SECY-10-0038, ``Update Status on the Development of Construction
Reactor Oversight Process Options,'' dated April 2, 2010 (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML100550490), the
NRC staff provided the Commission with an additional update on staff's
progress toward the development of construction oversight process
options for Commission consideration.
In order to ensure all stakeholder input is considered during
development
[[Page 36125]]
of options for revising the cROP, NRC staff is seeking public comment
and feedback on the specific topics highlighted in the questions below.
In providing comments, each commenter's response should reference the
number of the applicable question. Comments should be as specific as
possible and should indicate why a commenter supports or does not
support an aspect of this plan. The use of examples is encouraged.
(1) The staff has developed a draft of a new cROP regulatory
framework, including cornerstone objectives, attributes and areas to
measure (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML101050249; ML101050247). Are there
important aspects of new reactor construction licensee performance that
are not captured by the draft cROP regulatory framework?
(2) Is there a role for construction performance indicators as an
input into the assessment of licensee construction activities? If so,
what aspects of licensee activities during construction could be
objectively measured by a PI? What should be considered in determining
performance indicators and their thresholds?
(3) In the ROP, inspection findings are evaluated and given a color
designation based on their safety significance using a risk-informed
approach (the Significance Determination Process). What processes could
be used to effectively and efficiently evaluate the safety significance
of construction inspection findings?
(4) For the cROP, the staff intends to use a Construction Action
Matrix similar to the ROP to assess licensee performance. Is there a
more effective and efficient alternative approach that could be taken?
If not, what inputs should be considered in the Construction Action
Matrix?
(5) In the ROP, the NRC currently assigns safety culture component
aspects to findings when appropriate. Substantive cross-cutting issues
are identified when certain thresholds are crossed. Should the NRC
treat findings in a similar manner in the construction environment?
(6) When is the appropriate time to transition from the cROP to the
ROP? What is the basis for this proposed transition point?
(7) In addition to the previously mentioned issues, commenters are
invited to give any other views on the NRC assessment process that
could assist the NRC in improving its effectiveness.
End of Questions
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems
accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 16th day of June 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohammed Shuaibi,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of Construction Inspection &
Operational Programs, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2010-15321 Filed 6-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P