[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49043-49046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/index.html. 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 http://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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3b092819c9fddb4929f9f92949b9681b39d8190dd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d1f3e0fdfebcd5f3fefef3f5faf7e0d2fce0f1bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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 http://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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82f2e6f0acf0e7f1edf7f0e1e7c2ecf0e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="374753451945524458424554527759455419505841">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Federal Rulemaking Website: Public comments and supporting 
materials related to this notice can be found at http://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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#03516c6d626f672d4571626b6e436d71602d646c75"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="20724f4e414c440e665241484d604e52430e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.

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:
    <bullet> License nuclear facilities and the possession, use, and 
disposal of nuclear materials.
    <bullet> Develop and implement requirements governing licensed 
activities.
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>