Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, 59539-59540 [E6-16641]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59539-59540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16641]



[[Page 59539]]

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

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 https://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/
rop2006survey.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, 2006. 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, 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 https://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: Mr. Bart Fu, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7H2), 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 ZBF@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.
     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 calendar year 2006 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. Although written responses are 
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) Strongly Agree (2) Agree (3) Neutral (4) Disagree (5) Strongly 
Disagree
    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 (ROP) Program Areas

(As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for 
improvement.)

    (1) The Performance Indicator Program provides useful insights to 
help ensure plant safety.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (2) Appropriate overlap exists between the Performance Indicator 
Program and the Inspection Program.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

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

[[Page 59540]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (4) The Performance Indicator Program, including the Mitigating 
Systems Performance Index, can effectively identify performance 
outliers based on risk-informed, objective, and predictable indicators.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (5) The Inspection Program adequately covers areas important to 
safety, and is effective in identifying and ensuring the prompt 
correction of any performance deficiencies.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (6) The information contained in inspection reports is relevant, 
useful, and written in plain English.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (7) The Significance Determination Process yields an appropriate 
and consistent regulatory response across all ROP cornerstones.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (8) The NRC takes appropriate actions to address performance issues 
for those plants outside of the Licensee Response Column of the Action 
Matrix.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (9) The information contained in assessment reports is relevant, 
useful, and written in plain English.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:

Questions Related to the Efficacy of the Overall ROP

(As appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for 
improvement.)

    (10) The ROP oversight activities are predictable (i.e., controlled 
by the process) and reasonably objective (i.e., based on supported 
facts, rather than relying on subjective judgement).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (11) The ROP is risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions and 
outcomes are appropriately graduated on the basis of increased 
significance.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (12) The ROP is understandable and the processes, procedures and 
products are clear and written in plain English.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (13) The ROP provides adequate regulatory assurance, when combined 
with other NRC regulatory processes, that plants are being operated and 
maintained safely.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (14) The ROP safety culture enhancements help identify licensee 
safety culture weaknesses and focus licensee and NRC attention 
appropriately.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (15) The ROP is effective, efficient, realistic, and timely.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000
    
    Comments:
    (16) The ROP ensures openness in the regulatory process.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000
    
    Comments:
    (17) The public has been afforded adequate opportunity to 
participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (18) The NRC has been responsive to public inputs and comments on 
the ROP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (19) The NRC has implemented the ROP as defined by program 
documents.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

    Comments:
    (20) The ROP minimizes unintended consequences.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000
    
    Comments:
    (21) You would support a change in frequency of the ROP external 
survey from annually to every other year, consistent with the internal 
survey, as proposed in SECY-06-0074.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN10OC06.000

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

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October, 2006.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stuart A. Richards,
Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E6-16641 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P