Detailed Information on the
Reactor Licensing Assessment

The program needs to re-calibrate its targets to be more ambitious and demonstrate continuous improvement.

The Program does not have assessments performed regularly. There have been evaluations performed by independent entities, such as NAS, GAO, and the NRC IG, that have touched upon some aspects of the program. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the type described in the PART guidance. Over the coming year, the program needs to secure a regularly scheduled independent assessment of sufficient scope and quality, including an evaluation of the program's annual and long term performance measures, ability to deliver results to all relevant stakeholders, and efficiency and effectiveness with regard to strategic planning and program management.

Improve and limit the number of performance measures for the program, ensuring that measures capture the scope of program activities, demonstrate year-to-year progress, and promote continued improvement.

Improve integration of budget and performance information.

Resource needs are not presented in a complete and transparent manner. Over the coming year, the program will update the operating and leadership plans to include strategic outcomes and performance measures provided in the agency budget document and strategic plan. This will help provide transparency and strengthen the alignment of the program operations with the goals of the agency as a whole. Additionally, the agency's budget document will be updated to state which strategic outcomes and performance measures apply to each program in each program section, and will cross-reference these measures by providing them in the performance measures section of the budget document. The agency's budget document will also included an explanation of the common prioritization process. This will include an explanation of the process for how budgetary resources are allocated to achieve planned accomplishments (PA) in order or priority, as well as the criteria used for relative ranking of PAs.

While the program has achieved efficiencies in the past, it does not have procedures in place to systematically measure, monitor, and achieve efficiencies and lacks efficiency measures. Over the coming year, the program intends to develop an efficiency measure. The measure is expected to be: "greater than 70% of selected processes deliver desired efficiency improvements." The program needs to determine which reactor licensing actions will be measured as well as appropriate baselines and targets; these outputs will support the overall efficiency measure for the program.

Measure: No nuclear reactor accidents.

Explanation:

Measure: No acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities.

Explanation:

Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures.

Explanation:

Measure: No releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts.

Explanation:

Measure: No instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States.

Explanation:This measure is new in FY 2005 but is closely related to the FY 2004 measure of "no radiological sabotages at nuclear reactors"

Measure: Number of new conditions evaluated as red by the NRC's reactor oversight process.

Explanation:This is a new measure in FY 2005 that monitors high safety-significant events or performance indicators at individual plants. Over recent years, the baseline has ranged from 0 to 2 "Red" conditions per year.

Measure: Number of significant accident sequence precursors (ASPs) of a nuclear reactor accident.

Explanation:This measure is a count of events rated as significant ASPs and it provides a method for systematic evaluation of operational events that are most significant with respect to the likelihood of causing reactor core damage.

Measure: Number of operating reactors whose integrated performance entered the Manual Chapter 0350 process, the multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column or the unacceptable performance column of the ROP Action Matrix with no performance exceeding Abnormal Occurrence Criterion I.D.4

Explanation:This is a new measure in FY2005 that counts operating reactors whose declining overall safety performance warrants increased regulatory response.

Measure: Number of significant adverse trends in industry safety performance.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed applicable regulatory limits.

Explanation:

Measure: Unrecovered losses or thefts of risk-significant radioactive sources.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of significant unauthorized disclosures of classified and/or safeguards information.

Explanation:

Measure: Age of licensing action inventory

Explanation:This is timeliness measure for the issuance of licensing actions. The age of open licensing actions is measured at the end of the fiscal year. *Target not met in 2004 due to redirection of resources to higher priority security work. **Target decreased in 2005 to reflect licensing actions deferred in FY 2004. Targets 2004: 96% less than or equal to 1 year; 100% less than or equal to 2 years 2005: 90% less than or equal to 1 year; 100% less than or equal to 2 years 2006: 96% less than or equal to 1 year; 100% less than or equal to 2 years Result for 2004: 91% less than or equal to 1 year; 100% less than or equal to 2 years Result for 2005: 91.8% less than or equal to 1 year; 99.9% less than or equal to 2 years

Measure: Timeliness of completing actions on critical research programs.

Explanation:

Measure: Age of power uprates

Explanation:This is a timeliness measure for the issuance of license amendments to increase rated power of a plant (power uprate). There are 3 types of uprates: measurement uncertainty recapture (MUR), stretch, and extended power uprate (EPU). The targets are MUR in 6 months, stretch in 9 months, and EPU in 12 months. Results for 2005: 100% < 9 months 100% < 12 months

Measure: Number of substantiated cases of theft or diversion of licensed, risk-signifi cant radioactive sources or formula quantities of special nuclear material, or attacks that result in radiological sabotage.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of substantiated losses of formula quantities of special nuclear material or substantiated inventory discrepancies of formula quantities of special nuclear material that are judged to be caused by theft or diversion or by substantial breakdown of the accountability system.

Explanation:

Measure: Number of substantial breakdowns of physical security or material control (i.e., access control containment or accountability systems) that signifi cantly weaken the protection against theft, diversion, or sabotage.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the Nation's civilian use of byproducts, source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, to promote common defense and security, and to protect the environment. The NRC has several programs to fulfill its responsibility to protect public health and safety, one of which is the reactor licensing program. This program establishes requirements for the commercial use of radioactive material by both power and research and test reactors within the legal framework of the NRC's safety and environmental regulations. Licensees are required to follow the NRC's regulations specifying how nuclear plants are to be designed, constructed, and operated. The NRC conducts licensing program activities in a manner that is open, effective and ensures management excellence.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Atomic Energy Act, Title I, Chapter 1, Section 2, item d. [page 1 9]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Energy Reorganization Act, Title II, Chapter 1, Section 203 [page 2-19]); Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Section 1.1, Creation and authority; Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1, Section 1.43, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- Overview [page 31]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1614, Volume 3, Strategic Plan FY 2004-FY 2009, August 2004 (Mission [page 2 - inside cover])

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The reactor licensing program licenses and regulates the Nation's 104 commercial nuclear power plants and 51 research and test reactors. The program ensures that operating nuclear power plants maintain adequate protection of public health and safety throughout the plants' operating life. This includes assurances that facilities are adequately designed, properly constructed, and correctly maintained and that trained and qualified operating and technical personnel can prevent or cope with accidents and other threats to public health and safety. The NRC's licensing activities include reviewing license applications and changes to existing licenses, reviewing reactor events for safety significance, and improving safety regulations and guidance by adding necessary safety requirements and deleting requirements that unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial use of nuclear materials. These activities are performed routinely since licensees make frequent changes to their facilities and operations.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Atomic Energy Act, Title I, Chapter 1, Sections 1 and 2 [pages 1 9 & 1-10]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Energy Reorganization Act, Title II, Chapter 1, Section 203 [page 2-19]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- Reactor Licensing [page 32]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1614, Volume 3, Strategic Plan FY 2004-FY 2009, August 2004 (I. Safety -- Means to Support Safety Strategies [pages 10 & 11]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-BR-0256, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and How It Works, August 2000 (Section 2.2, Government Reorganization [page 7])

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The NRC has the sole responsibility to license commercial power and research and test reactors and ensure that these facilities are being operated in accordance with license conditions and other Federal regulations. The nonnuclear aspects of these facilities are also subject to regulation by EPA, DOT, and FEMA. The NRC has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with these and other agencies to avoid duplication of effort and enhance cooperation. Key licensing program interfaces are defined in NRC regulations. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act requires agencies with overlapping responsibility to consult with one another before establishing possible requirements related to risks and benefits to both people and to the environment.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Energy Reorganization Act, Title II, Chapter 1, Section 203, item (b)(1) [page 2-19]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 5.2, Memoranda of Understanding With States, March 18, 1993 (revised October 15, 1997) (Exhibit 1); Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between U.S. NRC and the State of Illinois (49 FR 20586, May 15, 1984); Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (58 FR 47996, June 17, 1993)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The basic legal standards for the reactor licensing program were set by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 1 of the Act states, "Atomic energy is capable of application for peaceful as well as military purposes. It is therefore declared to be the policy of the United States that the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare, subject at all times to the paramount objective of making the maximum contribution to the common defense and security...." There is a worldwide consensus for a nuclear regulatory body and its framework. The provisions for the regulatory framework with a regulatory body were confirmed through the Convention on Nuclear Safety for which the United States is one of 65 signatories. Within that framework, the NRC has continuously sought to refine the balance between what is appropriate for detailed, case by case reviews and what should be controlled by licensee review with NRC oversight through sampling.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Atomic Energy Act, Title I, Chapter 1, Section 1 [page 1 9]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0314, Protecting Our Nation Since 9 11 01, September 2004 (Executive Summary [pages iii & iv]) (Research and Test Reactors [pages 25 & 26]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 4.4, Management Controls, October 14, 1999 (Revised May 18, 2004) (Policy [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Impact on the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from Support of the Review of Security Plan Changes, May 17, 2004; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1100, Volume 21, Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2006," February 2005 (Financing NRC????s Budget [page 6]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fact Sheet on Probabilistic Risk Assessment, June 2003 (Background [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1650, Revision 1, The United States of America Third National Report for the Convention on Nuclear Safety, September 2004 (Article 7. Legislative and Regulatory Framework [page 7-1]) (Article 8. Regulatory Body [page 8-1]); Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities; Final Policy Statement (60 FR 42622, August 16, 1995)

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The licensing of civilian nuclear reactors is mandated by law and all resource allocations are effectively targeted to enable 104 commercial power reactors and 51 research and test reactors to operate safely. The program ensures that issues at reactor facilities are identified and resolved before public health and safety is adversely affected. The program applies probabilistic risk assessment methods to provide a technical basis for improving regulatory programs and focusing activities on the most risk significant aspects of licensed activities. Resource allocations for the program target the direct work (70% of program resources) performed either by NRC technical and professional staff or by NRC contractors, as well as the overhead and support activities (30% of resources) needed to implement the program. In addition to targeting specific resources to support the program as described in the NRC budget, the Agency also monitors the use of funding and staff during the execution year to ensure that resources are expended as planned.

Evidence: Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in Nuclear Regulatory Activities; Final Policy Statement (60 FR 42622, August 16, 1995); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Fact Sheet on Probabilistic Risk Assessment, June 2003

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Reactor Licensing Program has several high priority long-term measures that focus on the NRC's primary goals of safety and security. They are: (1) no nuclear reactor accidents; (2) no acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities; (3) no releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures; (4) no releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impacts; (5) no instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States; and (6) stakeholders are informed and involved in NRC processes as appropriate. The Reactor Licensing Program's long-term measure of no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials focuses on the NRC's enabling goal of effectiveness. The reactor licensing program develops, maintains, and implements licensing and regulatory programs for reactor related activities as a strategy to ensure long term performance measures associated with protection of public health and safety and the environment. For example, licensing requests are reviewed to confirm that they are consistent with regulatory requirements. Other strategies the licensing program employs to ensure safety include the evaluation of domestic and international operating experience to enhance decision making and the use of applied research to anticipate and resolve safety issues. To ensure the long term performance measure associated with security of radioactive materials, the reactor licensing program completes vulnerability assessments to determine the consequences of a range of threats against existing safety, safeguards, and security requirements. To meet the long term measure that there are no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial use of radioactive materials, the licensing program uses risk information to improve the effectiveness and realism of NRC actions. The program also improves regulations by adding needed requirements and eliminating unnecessary ones.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1614, Volume 3, Strategic Plan FY 2004-FY 2009, August 2004 (Strategic Outcomes [page 7]) (I. Safety -- Means to Support Safety Strategies [pages 10 & 11]) (II. Security -- Means to Support Security Strategies [page 13]) (III. Openness -- Ensure Openness in Our Regulatory Process [page 14]) (IV. Effectiveness -- Effectiveness Strategies [page 17])

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets for the long term performance measures that support the strategic goals of the Agency are ambitious. The targets for safety and security measures are zero, reflecting the Agency's zero-tolerance approach towards nuclear-related incidents that could jeopardize public health and safety, the environment, or national security. These measures also generally have an unlimited time frame. These targets and time frame are appropriate given the extremely low frequency and high consequence of the events tied to these performance measures. For the Program's enabling goal of effectiveness, the target for the long-term measure is also zero. The Agency seeks to impose only those requirements that are necessary to achieve its mission, thereby creating no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials. For the enabling goal of openness, the target is based on the supporting annual measures and outputs. Given the potentially high consequences of nuclear events and the public's perception of the risks to the community and environment, the openness target is ambitious. As noted by OMB in its circular, "Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies," programs for which failure to prevent a negative outcome would be catastrophic, traditional outcome measurement might lead to an all or nothing (i.e., zero) goal. As long as the negative outcome is prevented, the program might be considered successful, regardless of the costs incurred.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1614, Volume 3, Strategic Plan FY 2004-FY 2009, August 2004 (Strategic Outcomes [page 7]); U. S. Office of Management and Budget, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies, June 18, 2003 (Section III.4. [page 11])

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: These annual performance measures include: (1) the number of new conditions evaluated as "Red" by the NRC's reactor oversight process (ROP); (2) the number of significant accident sequence precursors of a nuclear reactor accident; (3) the number of operating reactors whose integrated performance entered the Manual Chapter 0350 process, the multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column or the unacceptable performance column of the ROP Action Matrix with no performance exceeding Abnormal Occurrence Criterion I.D.4; (4) the number of significant adverse trends in industry safety performance with no trend exceeding the Abnormal Occurrence Criterion I.D.4; (5) the number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed applicable regulatory limits; (6) the number of security events and incidents that exceed the Abnormal Occurrence Criteria I.C.2-4; (7) percentage of selected openness output measures that achieve performance targets; (8) percentage of selected processes that deliver desired efficiency improvements is greater than 70 percent; and (9) the number of instances where licensing or regulatory programs unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials. The reactor licensing program contributes to these annual performance measures by conducting research programs to identify and lead reviews that support the resolution of ongoing and future safety issues, including providing independent information and expertise to support decision making. The licensing program also evaluates operating experience and trends to improve NRC processes and decisions. By improving regulatory activities through research, operating experience, and other sub programs/processes, the reactor licensing program supports achievement of the annual measures. Not meeting the long term performance targets is absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, the NRC uses proxy measures to determine if sufficient margin from unsafe performance exists. The proxies are closely tied to the outcomes and are based on industry performance. Evaluation of industry trends and increasing margin to a safety baseline is indicative of improving program performance. As noted by OMB in its circular, the proxy measures used by the NRC are useful to assess the ongoing effectiveness of its programs.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1100, Volume 21, Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2006," February 2005 (Goal 1, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 [pages 71 & 72]) (Goal 2, number 2 [page 73]) (Goal 3, number 2 [page 74]) (Goal 4, number 3 [page 76]) (Performance Measure 3 [pages 155 & 156]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0210, Status of the Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program and the Development of Standardized Plant Analysis Risk (SPAR) Models, November 8, 2004 (ASP Program [page 4]) (Figure 1: Total precursors [page 24]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0052, FY 2003 Results of the Industry Trends Program for Operating Power Reactors and Status of Ongoing Development, April 6, 2004 (Background - items (1) and (2) [page 2]) (Automatic Scrams and Safety System Actuations [pages 4 & 5]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-99-007, Recommendations for Reactor Oversight Process Improvements, January 8, 1999 (Attachment 2, Appendix I [page I 2]); U. S. Office of Management and Budget, Performance Measurement Challenges and Strategies, June 18, 2003 (Section III.4. [page 11])

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: While the program has established new performance measures, they do not demonstrate continuous improvement and do not appear ambitious. For example, the performance measure entitled "number of operating reactors whose integrated performance entered the Manual Chapter 0350 process, the multiple/repetitive degraded cornerstone column or the unacceptable performance column of the ROP Action Matrix with no performance exceeding Abnormal Occurrence Criterion I.D.4." has a target of less than four. Historical data shows, however, that the program has not had a result of greater than three in a year, and, in fact, has achieved levels of two and one over each of the last two years, respectively. Some of the existing performance measures also lack ambitious targets. The program has maintained some of its targets at levels that have been met comfortably for several years. For instance, this holds true for the performance measure that reads "number of radiological releases to the environment that exceed regulatory limits." The program has consistently achieved zeros in this area, yet has not lowered its target from "less than or equal to three". In another case, after having a target of zero and meeting that target for several years, the program increased the target to "less than or equal to one" for FY 2005 and FY 2006, again demonstrating lack of an ambitious target for an annual performance measure; this holds true for the performance measure that reads "the number of significant adverse trends in industry safety performance with no trend exceeding the Abnormal Occurrence Criterion I.D.4."

Evidence: The program needs to re-calibrate its targets during the FY 2007 budget process to be more ambitious.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The collective efforts of the NRC and licensees are needed to meet the annual and long term safety goals. The NRC reactor licensing program establishes rules, safety standards, and guidance for licensees. The licensees have the responsibility to design, construct, and operate nuclear reactors safely. Industry performance is a key input in evaluating the effectiveness of the reactor licensing program. An Industry Trends Program has been developed by the NRC to identify and evaluate adverse trends and take appropriate actions. The results of this review are documented in an annual Commission paper and reviewed by senior NRC managers as part of the annual Agency Action Review Meeting and Commission briefing on the status of the ROP. In addition, data on performance is collected by licensees and submitted to the NRC quarterly through a voluntary program. Data is also submitted for event specific conditions pursuant to Commission regulations. The NRC conducts inspections of licensees' processes for collecting and submitting data to ensure completeness and accuracy.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- Industry Trends Program [pages 39 thru 41]) (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- The NRC's Role in Improving Safety [page 41]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0052, FY 2003 Results of the Industry Trends Program for Operating Power Reactors and Status of Ongoing Development, April 6, 2004 (Discussion [page 2]); Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.73, Licensee event report system; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 8.14, Agency Action Review Meeting, March 19, 1997 (Revised May 7, 2002) (Policy [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1100, Volume 21, Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2006," February 2005 (Appendix IV [page 133])

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Program does not have assessments performed regularly. There have been evaluations performed by independent entities, such as NAS, GAO, and the NRC IG, that have touched upon some aspects of the program. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the type described in the PART guidance. Over the coming year, the program needs to secure a regularly scheduled independent assessment of sufficient scope and quality, including an evaluation of the program's annual and long term performance measures, ability to deliver results to all relevant stakeholders, and efficiency and effectiveness with regard to strategic planning and program management.

Evidence:  

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Resource needs are not presented in a complete and transparent manner. Over the coming year, the program will update the operating and leadership plans to include strategic outcomes and performance measures provided in the agency budget document and strategic plan. This will help provide transparency and strengthen the alignment of the program operations with the goals of the agency as a whole. Additionally, the agency's budget document will be updated to state which strategic outcomes and performance measures apply to each program in each program section, and will cross-reference these measures by providing them in the performance measures section of the budget document. The agency's budget document will also included an explanation of the common prioritization process. This will include an explanation of the process for how budgetary resources are allocated to achieve planned accomplishments (PA) in order or priority, as well as the criteria used for relative ranking of PAs.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The NRC developed a new strategic plan for FY 2004 2009. This plan better clarifies alignment between the Agency's strategic objective and its mission and corrects a number of deficiencies found in the previous strategic plan. For example, the revised plan has a separate security performance goal to reflect heightened security concerns as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In addition, a new long term performance measure was added that states there should be no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials. A baseline and target is being developed for the annual performance measures of the number of instances where licensing or regulatory programs unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial use of radioactive material. With this new measure, the NRC intends to improve upon the former performance goal of reducing unnecessary regulatory burden.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1100, Volume 21, Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2006," February 2005 (Goal 4 - Effectiveness Performance Measures - number 3 [page 76]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1614, Volume 3, Strategic Plan FY 2004-FY 2009, August 2004

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: NRC regulations issued by the reactor licensing program are considered necessary to provide assurance that licensees operate their facilities in a safe manner and the goals are met to protect public health and safety. The NRC issued an office instruction for rulemaking that provides procedures and guidance to the staff. Any rule imposing requirements needs a backfit analysis (per 10 CFR 50.109 Backfit Rule) either justifying that the requirements are necessary for adequate protection or are cost beneficial safety enhancements. An internal review committee (Committee to Review Generic Requirements) reviews these analyses before any rule is forwarded to the Commission for consideration. Also, the NRC has undertaken various efforts to review its regulations to ensure that there are no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials. For example, the NRC embarked on a number of rulemakings to risk inform requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 and remove unnecessary regulations.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 5, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook, March 2001; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2004 (Abstract [page iii]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SRM to SECY-98-144, White Paper on Risk Informed and Performance-Based Regulation, March 1, 1999 (Attachment - second paragraph [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-03-0044, Update of the Risk Informed Regulation Implementation Plan, March 21, 2003 (Summary - first paragraph [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-05-0052, Proposed Rulemaking for Risk Informed Changes to Loss of Coolant Accident Technical Requirements, March 29, 2005 (Summary [page 1]) (Attachment 1 - Rulemaking Initiative [page 15], Regulatory Analysis [page 95], Backfit Analysis [page 95]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office Instruction LIC-300, Revision 1, Rulemaking Procedures, December 9, 2003 (Policy [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Risk Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors (69 FR 68008, November 22, 2004) (Summary); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0233, Proposed Rulemaking Post Fire Operator Manual Actions, December 22, 2004 (Attachment 2 - Introduction [page 1]) (Attachment 1 - Rulemaking Initiation [page 8], Regulatory Analysis [page 57], Backfit Analysis [page 59]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Rule, Risk-Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors (68 FR 26511, May 16, 2003) (Rule Initiation [page 3], Regulatory Analysis [page 39], Backfit Analysis [page 39])

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The NRC has a number of mechanisms for collecting and evaluating performance information such as the monthly Leadership and Operating level and the quarterly Executive level reports. The reports provide resource expenditures as well as data to support performance measures. The information in these reports is used to adjust priorities, focus resources, and determine areas in need of enhanced management attention. Industry performance is a key input in evaluating the effectiveness of the reactor licensing program. Industry performance data is collected by licensees. The NRC's Industry Trends Program evaluates the data to identify adverse trends and, if necessary, recommends appropriate actions. For example, the Industry Trends Program showed an increase in the number of scrams due to the August 14, 2003, blackout. This increase in scrams did not affect the statistical trend but the Agency developed a plan of actions to take to improve safety performance. The NRC also receives intelligence from U.S. security agencies and uses it to advise licensees of the threat environment. In addition, the NRC's Operating Experience Program systematically collects and evaluates operating experience including individual events, identifies and resolves safety issues in a timely manner, and applies lessons learned from operating experience to support the performance goal of ensuring safety. For example, the discovery of cracked reactor head nozzles at several nuclear plants resulted in improvements to the regulations governing inspection of reactor vessels and license requirements for certain nuclear reactors.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 8.14, Agency Action Review Meeting, March 19, 1997 (Revised May 7, 2002) (Objectives [pages 1 & 2]); Davis-Besse Reactor Vessel Head Degradation Lessons-Learned Task Force Report, September 30, 2002; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Actions Resulting from the Davis Besse Lessons Learned Task Force Report Recommendations - Correction, March 7, 2003; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Charter for Operating Experience Task Force - Revision, April 25, 2003 (Attachment [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0115, Rulemaking Plan to Incorporate First Revised Order EA-03-009 Requirements into 10 CFR 50.55a, July 7, 2004 (Attachment - Regulatory Issue [page 1]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0052, FY 2003 Results of the Industry Trends Program for Operating Power Reactors and Status of Ongoing Development, April 6, 2004 (Background - items (1) and (2) [page 2]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Management Directive, Reactor Operating Experience Program, December 21, 2004 (Objectives [pages 1 & 2])

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Each manager in the Program is responsible for development, management, and successful implementation of Operating Plan and Performance Plan performance measures to achieve performance goals. The accomplishment of these measures and goals are reflected in Senior Executive Service (SES) performance plans, which are used, in part, to appraise performance and determine awards. In FY 2004, the SES appraisals were modified to clearly link individual goals to NRC goals, providing a tangible link between NRC and Program goals and manager performance. OPM provided provisional certification of this in late 2004. Managers are held to exacting standards for cost, schedule, and performance results. Responsible managers are identified for each Program goal at the operating level; and must develop and implement strategies and measures to meet Program level outputs and outcomes that roll up to Tier 1 and NRC Strategic Plan goals. Changes in schedule or cost due to emergent work or external influences are managed using the Agency's PBPM and common prioritization processes to defer or shed lower priority work.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1614, Volume 3, Strategic Plan FY 2004-FY 2009, August 2004 (V. Management -- Budget and Performance Integration [page 23]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- The NRC's Role in Improving Safety [page 41]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 10.137, Senior Executive Service Performance Management System, March 20, 1995 (Revised October 1, 2001) (Purpose [page 1]); Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.40, Common standards

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: NRC systems for budget execution and the administrative control of funds comply with the requirements set forth in OMB circulars, the Antideficiency Act, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, etc. Agency policies and procedures are documented in NRC Management Directive, Vol. 4, "Financial Management." CFO monitors commitments, obligations, and expenditures on a monthly basis and reports findings in the monthly Budget Execution Report. Additionally, NRR contract funds are tracked at the project manager, Division, and Office level to ensure that commitment, obligation, and expenditure targets are met. Results are reported quarterly in operating plan briefings to Division, Office, and DEDO managers. To ensure that funds are provided consistent with Program needs, funds are routinely partially obligated at the start of the year and again later, when final Program requirements are more definite. Through a rigorous oversight and accountability process, we limit carryover (unexpended funds) at the end of each year. NRC tracks fund usage in NRC and NRR financial control systems. Measures and/or targets are established for carryover, contract funding, training, and travel resources.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 4.2, Administrative Control of Funds, December 17, 1993 (revised September 17, 1997

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: While the program has achieved efficiencies in the past, it does not have procedures in place to systematically measure, monitor, and achieve efficiencies and lacks efficiency measures. Over the coming year, the program intends to develop an efficiency measure. The measure is expected to be: "greater than 70% of selected processes deliver desired efficiency improvements." The program needs to determine which reactor licensing actions will be measured as well as appropriate baselines and targets; these outputs will support the overall efficiency measure for the program.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Where possible, the NRC engages in cooperative activities with other government agencies such as Department of Energy and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the nuclear industry, universities, and international partners. The research program includes the key areas of our licensing program. The NRC is conducting studies of advanced nuclear fuel design to develop technical bases for their use and confirm that safety is being maintained along with the economies of advanced fuel designs. The NRC is developing methods to evaluate the effects of degradation due to aging on plant risk to support risk informed regulatory decisions. In part, this research involves cooperative efforts with the industry and other international organizations to share operating experience and experimental data. These collaborative efforts maximize the efficient use of NRC resources as well as result in improved efficiencies at the NRC and reduction of unnecessary impediments to the use of radioactive materials by providing more realistic methods and assumptions for regulatory decisions. Consistent with the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, the NRC participates in the development of consensus standards in support of its mission and to encourage the industry to develop codes, standards, and guides that can be endorsed by the NRC and carried out by the industry. Doing this promotes the efficient and effective use of NRC resources to address a defined current or anticipated regulatory need.

Evidence: Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Section 50.55a, Codes and standards; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- Safety Research [pages 36 & 37]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 6.5, NRC Participation in the Development and Use of Consensus Standards, November 2, 1999 (Policy and Objective [page 1]); Memorandum of Understanding between U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. Department of Energy on Cooperative Nuclear Safety Research; MOU on Cooperative Nuclear Safety Research Between NRC and EPRI - Addendum on Integrated Chemical Effects Testing for PWR ECCS Recirculation, September 21, 2004 & October 4, 2004 (Introduction and Background [page 1])

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NRC financial management practices governing control of funds and resource allocation are detailed in NRC Management Directive 4.2 and are fully implemented by the Program. This establishes procedures for ensuring the uses of funds for authorized purposes only, that funds are economically and efficiently used, that the level of funds being committed and obligated are available, and that funds are committed and obligated in the proper time frame. Funds control duties are assigned to a sufficient number of adequately trained program staff who are designated in writing. Certifying funds availability responsibilities are separated from those for the commitment and obligation of funds, ensuring an appropriate level of checks and balances. The effectiveness of these practices are reflected in the fact that NRC's financial statements have earned unqualified opinions for 10 of the last 11 years, with no material weaknesses found in the 2004 audit impacting the program's financial management. On time payments of approximately 94% have been routinely observed; payments associated with this program are included in that figure. Similarly, the rate of improper payments is extremely low and involve only a very small fraction of the total funds, well below Improper Payments Information Act and OMB criteria for high risk; payments associated with this program are included in that figure. NRC has continued improvements to the cost accounting system. NRC is planning to complete replacement of the License Fee Billing System in FY 2006. NRC offers a financial management training seminar to staff twice a year on Administrative Control of Funds and Financial Management. Staff involved in the program's contract management activities must attend acquisition training. Annually, pursuant to Management Directive 4.4, Management Controls, the Program certifies that there is reasonable assurance that management controls are achieving their intended results, that resources are being used consistent with the Agency mission, and that resources are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse. The programs' certification is reviewed as part of the Office of the Inspector General's annual review regarding the implementation of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. Each manager in the Program is responsible for accomplishing Operating Plan and Performance Plan performance measures to achieve performance goals. The accomplishment of these measures and goals are reflected in Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level System (SLS) performance elements and standards, which are used to evaluate performance and, in part, to determine promotions and awards. In FY 2004, the SES & SLS appraisals were modified to clearly link individual performance to NRC goals, providing a tangible link between NRC Program goals and manager performance - OPM/OMB provided provision certification of this in late 2004. Managers are held to exacting standards for cost, schedule, and performance results. Responsible managers are identified for each Program goal at the operating level and must develop and implement strategies and measures to meet Program level outputs and outcomes that roll up to the Tier 1 Reactor Program and NRC Strategic Plan goals.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 [pages 19 & 21]; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OIG-05-A-02, Audit of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's FY 2004 Financial Statements, November 12, 2004; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 4.2, Administrative Control of Funds, December 17, 1993 (revised September 17, 1997) (Objectives [page 1], Director, Division of Budget and Analysis [page 4], Allowance Holders [page 5]) (Handbook - Part IV, Allotment Financial Management [pages IV-3, IV-4, IV-5, IV-6, IV-8, IV-9, IV-11, IV-12, IV-13, & IV-16); (4) U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 4.4, Management Controls, October 14, 1999 (Revised: May 18, 2004) (Policy [page 1], Chief Financial Officer [page 3]), Office Directors and Regional Administrators [page 5]) (Handbook - The Chief Financial Officers Act [page 3], The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act [page 3], Assessing Management Control [pages 7 thru 9]); OMB Memorandum 03-13, Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Public Law No: 107-300), May 21, 2003

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: In FY 2003, the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an independent program evaluation of the NRC's oversight of research and test reactors (Audit Report OIG 03 A 16). Through that evaluation, the OIG found that the program met expectations for reviewing and approving licensee requests for changes to licenses, met licensee demands for licensing reactor operators, and generally satisfied inspection requirements. Nonetheless, the OIG documented six recommendations to further enhance the effectiveness of the research and test reactor program. In FY 2004, the NRC completed actions on all six recommendations. Also, in FY2004, OIG performed its annual assessment of most serious management challenges facing NRC and identified nine challenges. The challenge of development and implementation of a risk informed and performance based regulatory oversight approach directly involves the reactor licensing program. The NRC continues to address this challenge and during FY 2004, the NRC submitted a final rule amending 10 CFR 50.69 to risk inform the regulations regarding special treatment requirements and published risk informed and performance based rules for 10 CFR 50.44 Combustible Gas Control for Nuclear Reactors and 10 CFR 50.48 Fire Protection. In its report OIG observed that "...the Agency continues to take steps to address the management deficiencies." Management Directive 4.4, Management Controls requires managers throughout the NRC to be responsible for ensuring that effective controls are implemented in their areas of responsibility. In FY 2004, the Director of NRR prepared an annual assurance statement that identified two control weaknesses that required attention of the NRC's Executive Committee on Management Controls. They are incorporating lessons learned from the operational events at the Davis Besse and Indian Point Unit 2 nuclear power plants. Action plans have been developed to incorporate the lessons learned into the reactor licensing program. Significant progress has been made toward completing these actions.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 1 - Management Control Review Program [page 17]) (Appendix A - Challenges 3 and 4 [pages 147 thru 148]) (Appendix A - Conclusion [page 158]) (Appendix B - Nuclear Reactor Safety [pages 165 & 166]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Management Directive 4.4, Management Controls, October 14, 1999 (revised May 18, 2004)

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: The rulemaking process at the NRC takes into account the views of the affected parties, recognizes the public's interest in the proper regulation of nuclear activities, and provides opportunities for citizens to make their opinions known. The NRC seeks to elicit public involvement early in the regulatory process so that safety concerns that may affect a community can be resolved in a timely and practical manner. All rulemakings provide the public with at least one opportunity for comment. Often, there are several opportunities. In some cases, the NRC holds meetings and workshops before a proposed rule is drafted so that members of the public can express their concerns early in the process. Sometimes the NRC may publish an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register to obtain public comments and provide clarification of certain issues before developing a proposed rule. The NRC is subject to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, thus it evaluates any expected impact on small businesses. The NRC reviews all comments it receives to identify if any changes should be made to the proposed rule, the regulatory analysis, OMB statement, or guidance. The NRC addresses each substantive comment to describe how it was incorporated into the rule or why it was not incorporated. Other comments (editorial, clarifying) may simply be acknowledged or treated as an aggregate. Responses to the comments are included in the Federal Register notice for the final rule. This discussion indicates any substantive changes made in the final rule as a result of public comment (and reasons for accepting the suggestion), any new information, as well as substantive comments not accepted (and the reasons why).

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 5, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations Handbook, March 2001; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2004; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office Instruction LIC-300, Revision 1, Rulemaking Procedures, December 9, 2003 (Appendix D [page D7]) (Appendix E [pages E1 & E2])

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: NRC is covered by SBREFA and the Regulatory Flexibility Act and is in full compliance with their requirements on applicable rulemakings. As an independent agency, the NRC is not bound by the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, or for the most part, by Executive Order 12866. The one exception is the requirements in the Executive Order to regularly post the overall Agency regulatory agenda, which the NRC does in full compliance with the order. However, as a matter of normal practice, the NRC performs cost benefit analyses on proposed rules which are not on matters of immediate safety concern. The NRC's guidance directs the analyst to use OMB's Regulatory Impact Analysis Guidance, Appendix V in Regulatory Program of the United Sates Government; April 1, 1992 - March 31, 1993, and Benefit Cost Analysis of Federal Programs; Guidelines and Discounts, Circular No. A 94, (57 FR 53519, November 10, 1992).

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for FY 2003" (68 FR 36714, June 18, 2003); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2004; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final Report: Regulatory Effectiveness of the Anticipated Transient Without SCRAM Rule, April 27, 2001; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Final Report, Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule, August 15, 2000; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0936, NRC Regulatory Agenda, Semiannual Report, January - June 2004, August 2004; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rule forum Web site (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov)

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: As fostered by Commission policy, and in recognition of risk insights, the NRC has undertaken various efforts to review its regulations to reduce instances where licensing and regulatory programs unnecessarily impede the safe and beneficial use of radioactive materials and to ensure consistency with NRC goals. For example, the NRC has embarked on a number of rulemakings to risk inform requirements in 10 CFR Part 50. Significant examples include the revision to 10 CFR 50.69, 10 CFR 50.44, and 10 CFR 50.46. The NRC is engaged in an initiative to improve the coherence among its risk informed regulatory programs. As part of this effort, the NRC continuously evaluates its regulations to determine whether they are built on a unified safety concept (and consistent with our performance goals) and are properly integrated. Stakeholder input, either through formal petitions for rulemaking, or more informal suggestions, is also considered to identify areas where regulations could be improved for greater consistency and removal of unnecessary impediments to the safe and beneficial use of radioactive materials; thus enhancing regulatory effectiveness. The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Research conducts "look back" studies on the regulatory effectiveness of particular regulations to determine if the regulations achieved desired results. Input from external sources is continuously used to inform the look-back process. For example, the NRC is re-evaluating the effectiveness of the station blackout rule based on operating experience from the August 2003 blackout. Recent examples include: (1) 10 CFR 50.63 Loss of all alternating current (station blackout rule) and (2) 10 CFR 50.62 Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without scram. The NRC ensures that high quality, objective, and reliable information is used to develop its regulations. Information received from external sources, such as licensees, is credible because (1) Agency regulations require licensees and other external sources to report necessary and accurate information; (2) the NRC maintains an aggressive inspection program that, among other activities, includes auditing licensee programs to ensure that they are reporting information as required by the Agency's regulations; and (3) the Agency has established procedures for inspecting and evaluating licensees. In addition, daily interaction and exchange of information occurs between the NRC's headquarters and regional offices.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-05-0052, Proposed Rulemaking for Risk Informed Changes to Loss of Coolant Accident Technical Requirements, March 29, 2005; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final Report: Regulatory Effectiveness of the Anticipated Transient Without SCRAM Rule, April 27, 2001; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Final Report, Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule, August 15, 2000; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Data Sources and Quality [pages 93 & 94]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Information Quality Guidelines (67 FR 61795, October 1, 2002); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Combustible Gas Control in Containment (68 FR 54123, September 16, 2003); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Risk Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors (69 FR 68008, November 22, 2004); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Staff Requirements - Briefing on RES [Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research] Programs, Performance, and Plans..., May 9, 2005

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: NRC conducts regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) to determine whether proposed changes maximize benefits. NRC guidance states that "OMB maintains that the regulatory analysis should select the regulatory alternative that achieves the greatest present value the discounted monetized value of expected net benefits." The NRC guidance also states "selecting the alternative with the largest net value is consistent with obtaining the largest societal gain from among the alternatives analyzed." However, not all benefits can be quantified; and in some cases, qualitative benefits were determined to justify the costs. Examples of significant RIAs are noted under Evidence/Data. The backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109(a)(7), states that if there are two or more ways to achieve compliance with a license, rule, or orders of the Commission, or there are two or more ways to reach a level of protection which is adequate, then the licensee is free to choose the way which best suits its purpose.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 2004; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-02-0176, Proposed Rulemaking to Add New Section 10 CFR 50.69, Risk Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components, September 30, 2002 (Attachment 2); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-05-0052, Proposed Rulemaking for Risk Informed Changes to Loss of Coolant Accident Technical Requirements, March 29, 2005 (Attachment 2); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0233, Proposed Rulemaking -- Post Fire Operator Manual Actions, December 22, 2004 (Attachment 2)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The reactor licensing program has achieved its long term performance measures to achieve (1) no nuclear reactor accidents; (2) no acute radiation exposures resulting in fatalities; (3) no releases of radioactive materials that result in significant radiation exposures; (4) no releases of radioactive materials that cause significant adverse environmental impact; and (5) no instances where licensed radioactive materials are used domestically in a manner hostile to the security of the United States. Industry performance indicators have shown significant improvement in long term trends for safety performance of nuclear power plants since 1993. A long term performance measure of no significant licensing or regulatory impediments to the safe and beneficial uses of radioactive materials is new for FY 2005. Although not a direct measure of licensing or regulatory impediments, the independent survey of power reactor licensees conducted by the Brookhaven National Laboratory showed that only 10% of the respondents were unsatisfied with the degree of impact of the NRC's regulatory activities. The long-term performance measure that stakeholders are informed and involved in NRC processes as appropriate is also new.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004 (Chapter 2, Program Performance -- Nuclear Reactor Safety -- Significant Events, Collective Radiation Exposure, Safety System Actuations, Automatic Scrams, Precursor Occurrence Rate, and Safety System Failure charts [pages 39 thru 41]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1100, Volume 21, Performance Budget Fiscal Year 2006, February 2005 (Goal 1 - Strategic Outcomes 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5 [pages 71], Goal 1 - Performance Measure number 6 [page 72], Goal 2 - Strategic Outcome [page 73], Goal 4 - Strategic Outcome and Effectiveness Performance Measure number 3 [page 76]); Brookhaven National Laboratory, BNL Technical Letter Report J-3105/8-2004, Final Results - NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Regulatory Impact Survey, August 3, 2004 (Section 3.0 [page 3])

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As noted in the explanation to question 2.4, the program achieves its targets. Several of these targets, however, are not ambtious. Where the program has existing and new targets that are deficient, the program should revise them to make them more ambitious.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: While the program has achieved efficiencies in the past, it does not have procedures in place to systematically measure, monitor, and achieve efficiencies and lacks efficiency measures. Over the coming year, the program intends to develop an efficiency measure. The measure is expected to be: "greater than 70% of selected processes deliver desired efficiency improvements." The program needs to determine which reactor licensing actions will be measured as well as appropriate baselines and targets; these outputs will support the overall efficiency measure for the program.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The reactor licensing program is a unique and independent regulatory program, and its performance compares very favorably to other Federal programs that regulate hazardous materials and nuclear defense related activities. In fact, evidence demonstrates that NRC oversight of the civilian use of nuclear materials ensures public health and safety and that NRC performance either exceeds other programs or compares very favorably to other hazardous/nuclear related programs. The program consistently meets its long term and annual performance measures; it contributes to NRC Tier 1 performance measures; and it has outcome based measures and efficiency (timeliness) measures and performs cost benefit comparisons in its regulatory impact analyses, where shortcomings were found in similar regulatory programs.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Atomic Energy Act, Title I, Chapter 1, Section 2, item d. [page 1 9]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0980, Volume 1, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation, June 2002 (Energy Reorganization Act, Title II, Chapter 1, Section 203 [page 2-19]); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1542, Volume 10, FY 2004 Performance and Accountability Report, November 2004; Office of Management and Budget PART Program Summaries, FY 2006 President's Budget

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Program does not have assessments performed regularly. There have been evaluations performed by independent entities, such as NAS, GAO, and the NRC IG, that have touched upon some aspects of the program. However, there has not been a comprehensive assessment of the type described in the PART guidance. Over the coming year, the program needs to secure a regularly scheduled independent assessment of sufficient scope and quality, including an evaluation of the program's annual and long term performance measures, ability to deliver results to all relevant stakeholders, and efficiency and effectiveness with regard to strategic planning and program management.

Evidence:  

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: The NRC Regulatory Analysis Guidelines state that the value impact analyses must consider implementation of the regulation both upon affected entities and on the NRC. These regulatory impact analyses are subject to public comment. The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Research has also conducted a number of "look back" studies on the regulatory effectiveness of particular regulations to determine if the regulations achieved desired results. Examples include studies of: (1) 10 CFR 50.63 "Loss of all alternating current power" (station blackout rule), and (2) 10 CFR 50.62, "Requirements for reduction of risk from anticipated transients without scram (ATWS) events for light water cooled nuclear power plants." For each study, a draft version of the report was circulated for both internal NRC and external comment before finalization. Another way that the reactor licensing program maximizes net benefits is by developing and implementing risk informed and performance based regulatory approaches. Incorporating risk analysis into regulatory decisions improves the regulatory process by focusing both NRC and licensee attention and activities on the areas of highest risk. This results in reducing regulatory impediments and increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency's resources.

Evidence: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-03-0044, Update of the Risk Informed Regulation Implementation Plan, March 21, 2003; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-05-0052, Proposed Rulemaking for Risk Informed Changes to Loss of Coolant Accident Technical Requirements, March 29, 2005; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Combustible Gas Control in Containment (68 FR 54123, September 16, 2003); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Rule, Risk Informed Categorization and Treatment of Structures, Systems, and Components for Nuclear Power Reactors (69 FR 68008, November 22, 2004); U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Final Report: Regulatory Effectiveness of the Anticipated Transient Without SCRAM Rule, April 27, 2001; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission memorandum, Final Report, Regulatory Effectiveness of the Station Blackout Rule, August 15, 2000; U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, SECY-04-0233, Proposed Rulemaking -- Post Fire Operator Manual Actions, December 22, 2004 (Attachment 2)