UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

October 17, 2016 

MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Burns 

Commissioner Svinicki 

Commissioner Baran 

FROM: Victor M. McCree /RA/ 

Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS 

CHANGES REQUIRING COMMISSION APPROVAL AND 

NOTIFICATION 

The purpose of this memorandum is to request Commission approval of proposed criteria to 

define when proposed Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) changes need Commission approval, 

as directed in Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-M160602B, “Briefing on Results of the 

Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM),” dated June 24, 2016 (Agency Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16176A078). 

In SRM-M040504B, “Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM),” dated 

May 27, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML041480131), the Commission directed that the staff 

should provide any substantive changes to the ROP to the Commission for approval prior to 

incorporation into the ROP. To date, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has 

not formally defined the criteria for changes that are considered “substantive” for the purpose of 

seeking prior Commission approval. 

A memorandum from the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation responding to a 

differing professional opinion (DPO) (publicly available in the DPO case file at ADAMS 

Accession No. ML15194A444) directed the staff to develop a set of guidelines for when 

changes to the ROP would be considered substantive. In response to this direction as well as 

Commission direction in SRM-M160602B, the staff has drafted proposed criteria for ROP 

changes requiring Commission approval and notification. 

The following list is intended to provide guidance to the staff for determining if Commission 

approval is needed when making changes to the ROP. 

CONTACT: Andrew D. Patz, NRR/DIRS 

 301-415-2303 

PLEASE RESPOND BY:

November 02, 2016

COMSECY-16-0022
The Commissioners - 2 - 

The staff should present the following ROP changes to the Commission for approval prior to 

implementation. 

1. Changes to fundamental elements of the ROP framework (e.g., cornerstones, crosscutting areas, assessment inputs); 

2. adding or deleting oversight processes in their entirety (e.g., cross-cutting issues (CCI) 

process, supplemental inspections); 

3. changes to ROP thresholds (e.g., significance determination process (SDP) thresholds, 

performance indicator (PI) thresholds); 

4. changes to the number of inputs needed to make column changes in the Action Matrix; 

5. adding or deleting PIs; 

6. specific ROP-related safety culture activities beyond communication and education; and 

7. items specifically identified by the Commission. 

The staff should notify the Commission of the following ROP changes prior to implementation 

using an appropriate method based on the urgency and complexity of the change, such as an 

informational Commission paper, a Note to Commissioners’ Assistants, or a briefing of 

Commission staff. 

1. Significant changes1 to the implementation of existing ROP programs (e.g., baseline 

and supplemental inspection procedures, implementation of the CCI process, 

implementation of SDPs, implementation of the assessment program); 

2. changes to definitions affecting the Action Matrix other than threshold changes; 

3. adding or deleting baseline inspections; and 

4. pilot program plans and results that involve licensee participation. 

Staff may notify the Commission of other ROP changes of lesser significance (e.g., more routine 

changes to baseline inspection procedures) after implementation using an appropriate method, 

such as the annual ROP self-assessment Commission paper. The staff will continue to employ 

proactive communications if the issue is time-sensitive or likely to garner significant stakeholder 

interest. 

In the past, the staff typically considered the first three bullets in the first list (changes to 

fundamental elements of the ROP framework, adding or deleting oversight processes in their 

entirety, and changes to ROP thresholds) to be policy issues for which Commission approval 

was required. For instance, last year the staff submitted SECY-15-0108, “Recommendation to 

Revise the Definition of Degraded Cornerstone as Used in the Reactor Oversight Process,” 

dated August 28, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15076A066), requesting Commission 

approval to revise the definition of a degraded cornerstone. The revision resulted in a change in 

the definition of a degraded cornerstone and therefore changed the threshold for Column 3 of 

the Action Matrix. Because this was a change to an ROP threshold, Commission approval was 

requested. 

The reference to SDP thresholds is also consistent with previous Commission interactions. For 

example, in SRM-COMSECY-06-0023, “Significance Determination Process Related to 

 

1 For the purpose of this criterion, changes involving notable differences in the level of industry or NRC 

effort, garnering extensive stakeholder feedback, or impacting the publicly available outputs of the ROP 

should be considered “significant changes.” 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

Radioactive Liquid Effluent Releases,” dated May 18, 2006 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML061380645), the Commission directed the staff to make a recommendation to the 

Commission to either maintain the current Public Radiation Safety SDP, or to change it with 

appropriate justification. The staff submitted its recommendations to the Commission in 

SECY-07-0112, “Staff Evaluation and Proposed Revision to the Public Radiation Safety 

Significance Determination Process to Address Radioactive Liquid Spills and Leaks,” dated 

July 6, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070790598). The Commission subsequently approved 

the staff’s recommendation. 

As an example of an “item specifically identified by the Commission” is the safety culture item 

that is listed separately. In SRM-SECY-11-0005, “Proposed Final Safety Culture Policy 

Statement,” dated March 7, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110660547), the Commission 

stated that since the safety culture policy statement is not a regulation or a requirement, staff 

activities beyond communication and education should not be pursued without further specific 

Commission approval. Therefore, the staff explicitly included “safety culture activities beyond 

communication and education” as one of the list of items requiring Commission approval. 

Based on Commission direction in SRM-M160602B stating that “[p]roposed significant changes 

or pilot programs related to the [ROP] and the [SDP] should be provided to the Commission,” 

the staff included significant changes and pilot programs in the category of items that are 

provided to the Commission for information. For the purposes of the ROP, the staff views a 

“pilot” as an activity used to test a change to the ROP on some subset of all licensees, replacing 

(rather than operating in parallel with) existing program requirements, to evaluate its efficacy 

and gain any lessons learned before consideration of full implementation. As such, the process 

being piloted provides actual results for the licensees affected. For example, the current 

initiative to revise the Component Design Basis Inspection was piloted at several sites and 

lessons learned are being incorporated into the process for full implementation at all sites. An 

activity that affects only internal NRC processes, a parallel testing of a process that may involve 

external stakeholder interaction (e.g., “tabletops”), or an activity that looks back at historical or 

hypothetical situations and evaluates them in an ROP process would not be considered a “pilot” 

for purposes of these criteria. 

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission approve the above criteria for ROP changes 

requiring Commission approval and notification. If approved, the staff will incorporate the 

criteria into Management Directive 8.13, “Reactor Oversight Process.” 

SECY, please track. 

cc: SECY 

 OGC 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 CFO 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

Radioactive Liquid Effluent Releases,” dated May 18, 2006 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML061380645), the Commission directed the staff to make a recommendation to the 

Commission to either maintain the current Public Radiation Safety SDP, or to change it with 

appropriate justification. The staff submitted its recommendations to the Commission in 

SECY-07-0112, “Staff Evaluation and Proposed Revision to the Public Radiation Safety 

Significance Determination Process to Address Radioactive Liquid Spills and Leaks,” dated 

July 6, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML070790598). The Commission subsequently approved 

the staff’s recommendation. 

As an example of an “item specifically identified by the Commission” is the safety culture item 

that is listed separately. In SRM-SECY-11-0005, “Proposed Final Safety Culture Policy 

Statement,” dated March 7, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML110660547), the Commission 

stated that since the safety culture policy statement is not a regulation or a requirement, staff 

activities beyond communication and education should not be pursued without further specific 

Commission approval. Therefore, the staff explicitly included “safety culture activities beyond 

communication and education” as one of the list of items requiring Commission approval. 

Based on Commission direction in SRM-M160602B stating that “[p]roposed significant changes 

or pilot programs related to the [ROP] and the [SDP] should be provided to the Commission,” 

the staff included significant changes and pilot programs in the category of items that are 

provided to the Commission for information. For the purposes of the ROP, the staff views a 

“pilot” as an activity used to test a change to the ROP on some subset of all licensees, replacing 

(rather than operating in parallel with) existing program requirements, to evaluate its efficacy 

and gain any lessons learned before consideration of full implementation. As such, the process 

being piloted provides actual results for the licensees affected. For example, the current 

initiative to revise the Component Design Basis Inspection was piloted at several sites and 

lessons learned are being incorporated into the process for full implementation at all sites. An 

activity that affects only internal NRC processes, a parallel testing of a process that may involve 

external stakeholder interaction (e.g., “tabletops”), or an activity that looks back at historical or 

hypothetical situations and evaluates them in an ROP process would not be considered a “pilot” 

for purposes of these criteria. 

The NRC staff recommends that the Commission approve the above criteria for ROP changes 

requiring Commission approval and notification. If approved, the staff will incorporate the 

criteria into Management Directive 8.13, “Reactor Oversight Process.” 

SECY, please track. 

cc: SECY 

 OGC 

 OCA 

 OPA 

 CFO 

DISTRIBUTION: SRM-M160602B

See next page 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML16223A728 *concurred via email 

OFFICE NRR/DIRS/IPAB Tech Editor* NRR/DIRS/IPAB NRR/DIRS/IRIB NRR/DIRS:DD 

NAME APatz CHsu NSanfilippo CRegan CMiller 

DATE 8/11/16 8/25/16 8/11/16 8/17/16 8/18/16 

OFFICE OGC* NSIR NRO NRR EDO 

NAME VHoang MKohen JUhle WDean (MEvans for) VMcCree 

DATE 9/13/16 9/28/16 10/17/16 10/7/16 10/ 17 /16 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Memo to The Commissioners from V. McCree dated October 17, 2016 

SUBJECT: PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS CHANGES 

REQUIRING COMMISSION APPROVAL AND NOTIFICATION 

DISTRIBUTION: 

RidsEdoMailCenter Resource 

RidsOgcMailCenter Resource 

RidsSecyMailCenter Resource 

RidsNrrDirs Resource 

RidsNrrOd Resource 

RidsRgn1MailCenter Resource 

RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource 

RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource 

RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource 

RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource 

RidsNsirMailCenter Resource 

RidsOcaMailCenter Resource 

RidsOpaMailCenter Resource 

TClark, OEDO 

JBowen, OEDO 

NSanfilippo, NRR 

APatz, NRR