Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, 57975-57977 [E7-20041]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Notices
Criterion 2: The proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
No new or different accidents result
from utilizing the proposed change. The
proposed change permits physical
alteration of the plant involving removal
of the CAD system. The CAD system is
not an accident precursor, nor does its
existence or elimination have any
adverse impact on the pre-accident state
of the reactor core or post accident
confinement of radionuclides within the
containment building from any design
basis event. The changes to the TS do
not alter assumptions made in the safety
analysis, but reflect changes to the
design requirements allowed under the
revised 10 CFR 50.44. The proposed
change is consistent with the revised
safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does
not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
Criterion 3: The proposed change
does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The Commission has determined that
the DBA LOCA hydrogen release is not
risk significant, therefore is not required
to be analyzed in a facility accident
analysis. The proposed change reflects
this new position and, due to remaining
plant equipment, instrumentation,
procedures, and programs that provide
effective mitigation of and recovery
from reactor accidents, including
postulated beyond design basis events,
does not result in a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed change does
not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Based on the above, the NRC
concludes that the proposed change
presents no significant hazards
consideration under the standards set
forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), and,
accordingly, a finding of ‘‘no significant
hazards consideration’’ is justified.
[FR Doc. E7–20084 Filed 10–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Solicitation of Public Comments on the
Implementation of the Reactor
Oversight Process
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NRC is soliciting
comments from members of the public,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Oct 10, 2007
Jkt 214001
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 selfassessment 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.
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 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: 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
ZBF@NRC.GOV.
ADDRESSES:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57975
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.
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
57976
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Notices
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
(4) Can the Performance Indicator
Program effectively identify declining
performance based on risk-informed,
objective, and predictable indicators?
Comments:
Questions Related to the Efficacy of the
Overall ROP
(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:
(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:
(7) Does the Significance
Determination Process result in an
objective and understandable regulatory
response to performance issues?
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:
(8) Does the NRC take appropriate
actions to address performance issues
for those plants with identified
performance deficiencies?
Comments:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
(3) Does NEI 99–02, ‘‘Regulatory
Assessment Performance Indicator
Guideline’’ provide clear guidance
regarding Performance Indicators?
Comments:
(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:
(9) Is the information contained in
assessment reports relevant, useful, and
written in plain English?
Comments:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Oct 10, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 196 / Thursday, October 11, 2007 / Notices
(14) Is the ROP effective, efficient,
realistic, and timely?
Comments:
Questions Related to the Safety Culture
Aspects of the ROP
(15) Does the ROP ensure openness in
the regulatory process?
Comments:
(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:
57977
(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:
(16) Has the public been afforded
adequate opportunity to participate in
the ROP and to provide inputs and
comments?
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:
(20f) Do the Operating Reactor
Assessment Program (0305) crosscutting components and cross-cutting
aspects provide an adequate coverage of
the cross-cutting areas?
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?
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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:
(19) Does the ROP result in
unintended consequences?
Comments:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:09 Oct 10, 2007
(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
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11OCN1.SGM
11OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 196 (Thursday, October 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57975-57977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
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 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: 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 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.
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
