Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, 49043-49046 [E9-23214]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices
Subcommittee regarding items
proposed for consideration by the
full Committee during future ACRS
meetings, and matters related to the
conduct of ACRS business,
including anticipated workload and
member assignments.
[Note: A portion of this session may be
closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6)
to discuss organizational and personnel
matters that relate solely to internal
personnel rules and practices of ACRS, and
information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.]
1 p.m.–1:15 p.m.: Reconciliation of
ACRS Comments and
Recommendations (Open)—The
Committee will discuss the
responses from the NRC Executive
Director for Operations to
comments and recommendations
included in recent ACRS reports
and letters.
1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m.: Draft ACRS Report
on the NRC Safety Research
Program (Open)—The Committee
will discuss a draft ACRS report on
the NRC Safety Research Program.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Conference Room T8–A1, Two White
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland
3:45 p.m.–7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS
Reports (Open)—The Committee
will discuss proposed ACRS reports
on matters discussed during this
meeting.
Saturday, October 10, 2009, Conference
Room T8–A1 Two White Flint North,
Rockville, Maryland
8:30 a.m.–1:30 p.m.: Preparation of
ACRS Reports (Open)—The
Committee will continue its
discussion of proposed ACRS
reports.
1:30 p.m.–2 p.m.: Miscellaneous
(Open)—The Committee will
continue its discussion related to
the conduct of Committee activities
and specific issues that were not
completed during previous
meetings.
Procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2008, (73 FR 58268–58269).
In accordance with those procedures,
oral or written views may be presented
by members of the public, including
representatives of the nuclear industry.
Thirty-five hard copies of each
presentation or handout should be
provided to the Designated Federal
Official 30 minutes before the meeting.
In addition, one electronic copy of each
presentation should be emailed to the
Designated Federal Official one day
before meeting. If an electronic copy
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:52 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
cannot be provided within this
timeframe, presenters should provide
the Designated Federal Official with a
CD containing each presentation at least
30 minutes before the meeting.
Electronic recordings will be permitted
only during the open portions of the
meeting. Persons desiring to make oral
statements should notify the Cognizant
ACRS staff named below five days
before the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made
to allow necessary time during the
meeting for such statements. Use of still,
motion picture, and television cameras
during the meeting may be limited to
selected portions of the meeting as
determined by the Chairman.
Information regarding the time to be set
aside for this purpose may be obtained
by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff
prior to the meeting. In view of the
possibility that the schedule for ACRS
meetings may be adjusted by the
Chairman as necessary to facilitate the
conduct of the meeting, persons
planning to attend should check with
the Cognizant ACRS staff if such
rescheduling would result in major
inconvenience.
In accordance with Subsection 10(d)
Public Law 92–463, I have determined
that it may be necessary to close a
portion of this meeting noted above to
discuss organizational and personnel
matters that relate solely to internal
personnel rules and practices of ACRS,
and information the release of which
constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6).
Further information regarding topics
to be discussed, whether the meeting
has been canceled or rescheduled, as
well as the Chairman’s ruling on
requests for the opportunity to present
oral statements and the time allotted
therefor can be obtained by contacting
Girija Shukla, Cognizant ACRS staff
(301–415–6855), between 7:15 a.m. and
5 p.m. (ET). ACRS meeting agenda,
meeting transcripts, and letter reports
are available through the NRC Public
Document Room at
pdr.resource@nrc.gov, or by calling the
PDR at 1–800–397–4209, or from the
Publicly Available Records System
(PARS) component of NRC’s document
system (ADAMS) which is accessible
from the NRC Web site at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/ACRS/.
Video teleconferencing service is
available for observing open sessions of
ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use
this service for observing ACRS
meetings should contact Mr. Theron
Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49043
(301–415–8066), between 7:30 a.m. and
3:45 p.m., (ET), at least 10 days before
the meeting to ensure the availability of
this service. Individuals or
organizations requesting this service
will be responsible for telephone line
charges and for providing the
equipment and facilities that they use to
establish the video teleconferencing
link. The availability of video
teleconferencing services is not
guaranteed.
Dated: September 21, 2009.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–23194 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2009–0417]
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 and
additional information about the ROP
are available at https://www.nrc.gov/
NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/.
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.
DATES: The comment period expires on
November 6, 2009. The NRC will
consider comments received after this
date if it is practical to do so, but is able
to ensure consideration of only those
comments received on or before this
date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit completed
questionnaires and/or comments by any
one of the following methods. Please
include Docket ID NRC–2009–0417 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.
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
49044
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices
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 Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for documents filed under Docket ID
NRC–2009–0417. Address questions
about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher
301–492–3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar,
Chief, Rulemaking and Directives
Branch (RDB), Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: TWB–05–B01M, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, or by fax
to RDB 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 https://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
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Website: Public
comments and supporting materials
related to this notice can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching
on Docket ID: NRC–2009–0417.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ronald Frahm, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7G13),
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington DC 20555–0001. Mr. Frahm
can also be reached by telephone at
301–415–2986 or by e-mail at
Ronald.Frahm@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:52 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 process,
conducted multiple public workshops,
placed pertinent background
information in the NRC’s Public
Document Room, and maintained 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 2009
PO 00000
Frm 00144
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Questions
In responding to these questions,
please describe your experiences with
the NRC’s reactor 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,
please 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,
particularly when combined with the
inspection program, to help ensure
plant safety and/or security?
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?
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices
Comments:
(7) Does the Significance
Determination Process result in an
appropriate regulatory response to
performance issues?
Comments:
(4) Does the Performance Indicator
Program effectively contribute to the
identification of performance outliers
based on risk-informed, objective, and
predictable measures?
Comments:
(5) Does the Inspection Program
adequately cover areas that are
important to plant safety and/or
security, and is it effective in identifying
and ensuring the prompt correction of
performance deficiencies?
Comments:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
(6) Is the information contained in
NRC inspection reports relevant, useful,
and written in plain English?
Comments:
(8) Does the NRC take appropriate
actions to address performance issues
for those plants outside the Licensee
Response Column of the Action Matrix?
Comments:
(9) Is the information contained in
NRC assessment letters relevant, useful,
and written in plain English?
Comments:
(10) Do the ROP safety culture
enhancements help in identifying
licensee safety culture weaknesses and
focusing licensee and NRC attention
appropriately?
Comments:
(11) 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:
(12) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that
the NRC’s actions are appropriately
graduated on the basis of increased
significance?
Comments:
(13) Is the ROP understandable and
are the processes, procedures and
products clear and written in plain
English?
Comments:
(14) Does the ROP provide adequate
assurance, when combined with other
NRC regulatory processes, that plants
are being operated and maintained
safely and securely?
Comments:
Questions related to the efficacy of the
overall ROP. (As appropriate, please
provide specific examples and
suggestions for improvement.)
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:52 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49045
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
49046
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Notices
Comments:
(15) Are NRC actions related to the
ROP effective (e.g., are NRC actions of
high quality, efficient, timely, and
realistic to enable the safe use of
radioactive materials)?
Comments:
information. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and approval by OIRA
ensures that we impose appropriate
paperwork burdens.
The RRB invites comments on the
proposed collections of information to
determine (1) the practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden of the collections; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information that is the
subject of collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of collections on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Comments to RRB or OIRA must contain
the OMB control number of the ICR. For
proper consideration of your comments,
it is best if RRB and OIRA receive them
within 30 days of publication date.
(20) Does the ROP result in
unintended consequences?
Comments:
(16) Does the ROP ensure openness in
the regulatory process (e.g., does the
NRC appropriately inform stakeholders
in the regulatory process)?
Comments:
Request for Medicare Payment; OMB
3220–0131
(21) Please provide any additional
information or comments related to the
Reactor Oversight Process.
Comments:
(17) Has the public been afforded
adequate opportunity to participate in
the ROP and to provide inputs and
comments (e.g., does the NRC
appropriately involve stakeholders in
the regulatory process)?
Comments:
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day
of September, 2009.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Michael Cheok,
Deputy Director, Division of Inspection &
Regional Support, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–23214 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am]
(18) Has the NRC been responsive to
public inputs and comments on the
ROP?
Comments:
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Agency Forms Submitted for OMB
Review, Request for Comments
(19) Has the NRC implemented the
ROP as defined by program documents?
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:52 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
Summary
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement
Board (RRB) is forwarding an
Information Collection Request (ICR) to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) to request a revision
to a currently approved collection of
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Under section 7(d) of the Railroad
Retirement Act, the RRB administers the
Medicare program for persons covered
by the railroad retirement system. The
collection obtains the information
needed by Palmetto GBA, the Medicare
carrier for railroad retirement
beneficiaries, to pay claims for
payments under Part B of the Medicare
program. Authority for collecting the
information is prescribed in 42 CFR
424.32.
The RRB currently utilizes Forms G–
740S, Patient’s Request for Medicare
Payment, (along with Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services Form
CMS–1500) to secure the information
necessary to pay Part B Medicare
Claims. One response is completed for
each claim. Completion is required to
obtain a benefit.
Information Collection Request (ICR)
Title: Request for Medicare Payment.
OMB Control Number: OMB 3220–
0131.
Form(s) submitted: G–740S, CMS–
1500.
Expiration date of current OMB
clearance: 9/30/2009.
Type of request: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Affected public: Individuals or
households.
Abstract: The Railroad Retirement
Board (RRB) administers the Medicare
program for persons covered by the
Railroad Retirement System. The
collection obtains the information
needed by Palmetto GBA, the RRB’s
carrier, to pay claims for services
covered under part B of the program.
E:\FR\FM\25SEN1.SGM
25SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49043-49046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0417]
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 and additional information about the ROP are available at
https://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/. 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 November 6, 2009. The NRC will
consider comments received after this date if it is practical to do so,
but is able to ensure consideration of only those comments received on
or before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit completed questionnaires and/or comments by
any one of the following methods. Please include Docket ID NRC-2009-
0417 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.
[[Page 49044]]
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 Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2009-0417. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher 301-492-3668; e-mail
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
Mail comments to: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking and
Directives Branch (RDB), Office of Administration, Mail Stop: TWB-05-
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or
by fax to RDB 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 https://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
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Website: Public comments and supporting
materials related to this notice can be found at https://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2009-0417.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Frahm, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation (Mail Stop: OWFN 7G13), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001. Mr. Frahm can also be reached by
telephone at 301-415-2986 or by e-mail at Ronald.Frahm@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 process,
conducted multiple public workshops, placed pertinent background
information in the NRC's Public Document Room, and maintained 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 2009 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.
Questions
In responding to these questions, please describe your experiences
with the NRC's reactor 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, please 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,
particularly when combined with the inspection program, to help ensure
plant safety and/or security?
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?
[[Page 49045]]
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Does the Performance Indicator Program effectively contribute
to the identification of performance outliers based on risk-informed,
objective, and predictable measures?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Does the Inspection Program adequately cover areas that are
important to plant safety and/or security, and is it effective in
identifying and ensuring the prompt correction of performance
deficiencies?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Is the information contained in NRC inspection reports
relevant, useful, and written in plain English?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Does the Significance Determination Process result in an
appropriate regulatory response to performance issues?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) Does the NRC take appropriate actions to address performance
issues for those plants outside the Licensee Response Column of the
Action Matrix?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Is the information contained in NRC assessment letters
relevant, useful, and written in plain English?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(10) Do the ROP safety culture enhancements help in identifying
licensee safety culture weaknesses and focusing licensee and NRC
attention appropriately?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions related to the efficacy of the overall ROP. (As
appropriate, please provide specific examples and suggestions for
improvement.)
(11) 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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(12) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's actions are
appropriately graduated on the basis of increased significance?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures
and products clear and written in plain English?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(14) Does the ROP provide adequate assurance, when combined with
other NRC regulatory processes, that plants are being operated and
maintained safely and securely?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49046]]
(15) Are NRC actions related to the ROP effective (e.g., are NRC
actions of high quality, efficient, timely, and realistic to enable the
safe use of radioactive materials)?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) Does the ROP ensure openness in the regulatory process (e.g.,
does the NRC appropriately inform stakeholders in the regulatory
process)?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(17) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to
participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and comments (e.g., does
the NRC appropriately involve stakeholders in the regulatory process)?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(18) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and comments on
the ROP?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(19) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program
documents?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(20) Does the ROP result in unintended consequences?
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(21) Please provide any additional information or comments related
to the Reactor Oversight Process.
Comments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of September, 2009.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Cheok,
Deputy Director, Division of Inspection & Regional Support, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-23214 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
