Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, 61318-61320 [E5-5796]

Download as PDF 61318 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices Corporation (the licensee) to withdraw its August 26, 2004, application for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License No. DPR–38, DPR–47, and DPR–55, for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in Seneca County, SC. The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specification 3.3.29 and its associated Bases to accommodate new circuitry that isolates nonsafety portions of the low pressure service water system piping inside containment that supplies the reactor building auxiliary coolers. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57983). However, by letter dated September 29, 2005, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated August 26, 2004, and the licensee’s letter dated September 29, 2005, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1–800– 397–4209, or 301–415–4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of October 2005. Leonard N. Olshan, Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5–5798 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Fifth International MACCS Users’ Group Meeting Nuclear Regulatory Commission. AGENCY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:13 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 ACTION: 5th International MACCS Users’ Group Meeting. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will conduct the 5th International MACCS Users’ Group (IMUG) Meeting, on March 10, 2006, at a location near the NRC’s Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. The meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m. and will be open to public observation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jocelyn Mitchell; e-mail: jam@nrc.gov; telephone: (301) 415–5289; Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Mail Stop T–9C34, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555–0001. Additional information and a registration form can be found at the NRC’s Web site: www.nrc.gov/ publicinvolve/conferences.html. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is for users of MACCS (MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System) to exchange information about the use of MACCS and about recent code developments. There will be no charge for registration for the conference, but, for planning purposes, registration is required. Anyone wishing to present information relevant to MACCS or its use in consequence estimation should contact Jocelyn Mitchell to be included in the agenda. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of October, 2005. William R. Ott, Acting Chief, Radiation Protection, Environmental Risk and Waste Management Branch, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E5–5797 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Request for public comment. AGENCY: 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/ PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 selfassessment report to the Commission. 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. DATES: Completed questionnaires and/or comments may be e-mailed to nrcrep@nrc.gov 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 handdelivered 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 pdr@nrc.gov. ADDRESSES: 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 email at SXS5@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 61319 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices • 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 selfassessment 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:13 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 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 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection Program? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (3) Does NEI 99–02, ‘‘Regulatory Assessment Performance Indicator Guideline’’ provide clear guidance regarding Performance Indicators? (6) Does the Significance Determination Process yield an appropriate and consistent regulatory response across all ROP cornerstones? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 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 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (8) Is the information contained in assessment reports relevant, useful, and written in plain English? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 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 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 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 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 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 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (11) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures and products clear and written in plain English? 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (5) Is the information contained in inspection reports relevant, useful, and written in plain English? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Frm 00076 Comments: (12) Does the ROP provide adequate regulatory assurance when combined with other NRC regulatory processes that plants are being operated and maintained safely? Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Comments: PO 00000 1 Æ 1 Æ Æ Æ Æ E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1 61320 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices Comments: OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (13) Is the ROP effective, efficient, realistic, and timely? [OMB No. 3206–0165] 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: (14) Does the ROP ensure openness in the regulatory process? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 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 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (16) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on the ROP? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (17) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program documents? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Comments: (18) Does the ROP minimize unintended consequences? 1 2 3 4 5 Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Revision of Expiring Information Collections 15:13 Oct 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for revision of expiring information collections. Depending upon the type of background investigation requested by the Federal agency, the General Request for Investigative Information (INV 40), Investigative Request for Employment Data and Supervisor Information (INV 41) (5/02), the Investigative Request for Personal Information (INV 42) (5/02), the Investigative Request for Educational Registrar and Dean of Students Record Data (INV 43) (5/02), and the Investigative Request for Law Enforcement Data (INV 44) (5/02) are forms used in the processing of background investigations to assist in determining whether an applicant is suitable for Federal employment or should be granted a security clearance. The INV 40, General Request for Investigative Information, is used to accommodate sources for which the collection formats of INV 41–44 are awkward or inappropriate. The INV 41, Investigative Request for Employment Data and Supervisor Information, is sent to past and present employers and supervisors identified on the applicant’s investigative questionnaire. The INV 42, Investigative Request for Personal Information, is sent to references listed by the subject of investigation. The INV 43, Investigative Request for Educational Registrar and Dean of Students Record Data, is sent to registrars and dean of students of the educational institutions listed by the subject of an investigation to verify enrollment and degree information, and determine whether there is any relevant adverse information. The INV 44, Investigative Request for Law Enforcement Data, is sent to law enforcement jurisdictions in which the subject has had any significant period of activity during the designated scope of investigation. The INV 44 inquires about any outstanding warrants or record of criminal activity involving the subject of investigation. PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The INV 40, INV 41, INV 42, INV 43, and INV 44 ask the recipient to respond to questions concerning the applicant’s honesty and integrity, as well as other security-related questions involving general conduct, use of intoxicants, finances and mental health. Approximately 460,000 INV 40 inquiries are sent to Federal and nonfederal agencies annually. The INV 40 takes approximately five minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 38,300 hours. Approximately 1,300,000 INV 41 inquiries are sent to past and present employers and supervisors. The INV 41 takes approximately five minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 108,300 hours. Approximately 980,000 INV 42 inquiries are sent to individuals annually. The INV 42 takes approximately five minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 81,700 hours. Approximately 261,000 INV 43 inquiries are sent to educational institutions annually. The INV 43 takes approximately five minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 21,750 hours. Approximately 1,000,000 INV 44 inquiries are sent to law enforcement agencies annually. The INV 44 takes approximately five minutes to complete. The estimated annual burden is 83,300 hours. The total number of respondents for the INV 40, INV 41, INV 42, INV 43, and INV 44 is 4,001,000 and the total estimated burden is 333,350 hours. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606– 8358, Fax (202) 418–3251 or e-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov. Please be sure to include a mailing address with your request. Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. DATES: Send or deliver comments to: Kathy Dillaman, Deputy Associate Director, Center for Federal Investigative Services, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E. Street, Room 5416, Washington, DC 20415, and Brenda Aguilar, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. ADDRESSES: FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT: Sherry Tate, Program Analyst, Standards and Evaluations Group, Center for Federal Investigative Services, Office of Personnel Management. (202) 606–0434. E:\FR\FM\21OCN1.SGM 21OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61318-61320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 
nrcrep@nrc.gov 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 pdr@nrc.gov.

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 SXS5@nrc.gov.

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