ML16316A018

Responses to Recommendations of Panel on ACRS Effectiveness

ML16316A018
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/20/1986
From:	Banks M, Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Palladino N NRC/Chairman
References
D860320
Download: ML16316A018 (15)

Text

D860320 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

SUBJECT:

RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF PANEL ON ACRS EFFECTIVENESS

=

Background===

During the latter part of 1984, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards decided to undertake a concerted review of its own effectiveness as an advisory body to the Commission. We reflected on the role ACRS has taken in the past and considered whether continuation of that role, substantial modification, or even dissolution of the Committee might be most appropriate for the future. We recognized that the Commission was at a turning point in its history. New plant design, construction, and licensing activities have become less important; or the time to effectively influence them has passed.

Concern about operations in almost 100 nuclear power plants has become paramount. And this has proven to be something with which the body of regulations and reservoir of expertise within the agency is less able to cope. Also, the need has arrived for regulations to deal with the largely political and social issues related to disposal of high-level waste. And finally, the proper plan and schedule on which the agency must prepare for a resumption in building of nuclear power plants, whether more of the same, standardized plants, or non-LWRs is very unclear and difficult to bring into focus.

Given what seemed to us to be a different mix of challenges facing the Commission than that of ten years ago, we questioned whether the makeup of the ACRS, its methods for developing advice, and the subject matter it had traditionally addressed were still appropriate for effectively assisting the Commission with the essential issues of today. The Committee discussed and agreed upon several changes in its operation and new initiatives in its programs. However, we recognized that a critique of our advisory role and its effectiveness from an outside perspective would be useful.

Formation of Panel on ACRS Effectiveness Accordingly, we set up the "Panel on ACRS Effectiveness" and were fortunate in assembling a group of experienced and distinguished individuals. Eight of the nine panel members represented a spectrum of viewpoints and experience in nuclear safety, with each having an interest in improving reactor safety and safety regulation. The ninth [Dr. Hagedorn] is a senior consultant in management and organizational effectiveness. The Panel membership consisted of:

Mr. L. Manning Muntzing, Chairman Dr. John F. Ahearne Mr. Myer Bender Mr. Edson G. Case Dr. Homer J. Hagedorn Mr. Richard Hubbard

Dr. Herbert J.C. Kouts Mr. Steven Sholly Mr. John M. West The Panel was asked "to provide advice and guidance that will permit the ACRS to improve its effectiveness as an advisory body to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and in furnishing more general leadership in matters of reactor safety." A fuller statement of the Panel's charter is given in Appendix A.

The Panel began its work in March of 1985 and presented its report to the Committee at our 305th meeting on September 12, 1985. Copies of their report have been furnished to you.

To supplement the prior knowledge of its members, the Panel gathered infor-mation about regulatory needs, ACRS programs, and ACRS procedures from systematic interviews of people concerned with and experienced in nuclear power, safety, and regulation. A total of about 65 interviews was conducted with present and past members of the ACRS and of the Commission, present and former NRC Staff, hearing board members, Congressional staff, representatives of industry and public interest groups, and State government authorities.

The Panel began its activities by developing an estimated scenario for the course of nuclear power and safety regulation through the year 2000 so that the role of ACRS could be considered against what needs to be done in the present and near future rather than what has been done in the past. The Panel's report is in several sections:

~ Scope of ACRS Activities Through the Year 2000

~ ACRS Approach to Substantive Technical and Related Issues

~ Relationships of the ACRS Within and Outside the NRC

~ Membership on the ACRS and the Selection Process

~ Organizational Effectiveness of the ACRS

~ ACRS Operational Methods

~ Enhancing ACRS Contributions to the Regulatory Process

~ Conclusions and Recommendations General Recommendations of the Panel The Panel recommended that the ACRS continue in its present role with some changes in emphasis and in its methods of operation.

It should consider its primary task as advisory to the Commission rather than to the public, the Congress, or the NRC Staff. It should be prepared to assist the Commission in the full range of technical issues with which the Commission is concerned. With regard to such issues, it should concentrate its advice on matters of broad policy and should not attempt to develop detailed solutions to problems.

The Panel also recommended that the ACRS continue to consider the development of consensus positions on issues as its primary mode of operation. However, the Panel believed that ACRS reports should furnish more explanation of the reasons for positions the Committee has taken and of the range of opinions which underlie the consensus.

The Panel further recommended that the ACRS retain its present size, but consider its composition against future needs. It recommended that the Committee strengthen internal leadership and that it consider whether the

Committee staff could be reduced given an emphasis on broad policy rather than on details of issues.

General Responses of the ACRS Since receiving the Panel's report and recommendations, the ACRS has, in several meetings of its Subcommittee on Procedures and Administration and of the full Committee, reviewed and discussed them at length. We concur with the thrust of the Panel's report and conclusions and plan to adopt the overall sense of its recommendations.

We agree that our primary mission is to advise the Commission. Although we have a specific obligation to advise the Congress on the research program, we perceive this to be a less demanding task than in the past and believe it does not seriously detract from our primary responsibility. We agree that our interests should be as broad as those of the Commission, but believe our resources should be concentrated on the issues which have greatest importance to public safety. We also note that while our advice should concentrate on broad policy, it is frequently necessary for the Committee to delve into details to develop the proper understanding of important issues.

The Committee has recently restructured its system of subcommittees to eliminate unnecessary project subcommittees and to provide increased emphasis on operating plants and on issues of radioactive waste disposal. In addi-tion, we have created subcommittees and Committee programs to advise the Commission on development of a long-range plan for the agency and to provide a statement on the state of overall safety in the nuclear power plants of today.

The ACRS views its collegial nature and its ability to develop consensus positions as uniquely valuable attributes. While we agree that more ef-fective communication of the reasons for our positions and of the opinions of individual members could be helpful to the Commission on occasion, we believe too much emphasis on the latter will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the ACRS.

The Committee is cognizant of the need to add members with the appropriate background for dealing with current and expected future issues. However, we believe each member must also be able to function effectively as a general-ist. There are, and will continue to be, many more than 15 technical areas of concern with which the ACRS must deal. The Committee has taken steps, formation of a management committee and a trial two-year term for officers, to strengthen its internal leadership.

The Committee is accommodating to budget-inspired reductions in its staff by reducing support activities for members and by eliminating programs which are perceived by the Committee to be less important to public safety. We believe there is no reason to expect, as the Panel seemed to, that a reduction in staff would follow directly from an ACRS move toward concentration on "broad policy issues." Given any further staff and resource reductions, we will eliminate less important programs.

The Panel made twenty-seven specific recommendations in three areas:

A. ACRS Mission B. Relations with the Commission and the NRC Staff

C. Internal Operational Questions We find most of these specific recommendations to be wise and helpful and plan to adopt them, in spirit if not always to the letter. However, we take exception to a few. In most cases, the Panel's recommendation is to the ACRS and response is under control of the Committee. In three instances (A.2, A.3, and B.3 in Appendix B), action by the Commission or the Congress would be required to fully comply with the recommendation. While we disagree with none of these three recommendations, we believe there is no urgency connected with any of them, and we plan to initiate no action in the near term. In Ap-pendix B we have repeated each of the specific recommendations and provided a summary of the Committee response including a description of action planned.

Sincerely, David A. Ward Chairman Attachments:

Appendix A - Proposed Task Description for an ACRS Effectiveness Study Appendix B - Specific Panel Recommendations and ACRS Responses APPENDIX A (Not included in this electronic version. Refer to hardcopy)

APPENDIX B SPECIFIC PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACRS RESPONSES Recommendation A.1. "We believe that an advisory group such as the ACRS will still be strongly needed in the future. However, ACRS should turn its attention to concentrate on the broad technical policy questions on which the Commission needs wise counsel. A few examples of the kinds of issues that should be taken up by the Committee are given in Chapter III of our report."

Response

We agree, with comment.

While we concur that the "output" [advice] of the ACRS should be

confined to matters of broad policy, we agree that we have not always limited ourselves thus in the past, and resolve to do better. However, we note that much of the "input" [information gathering] to the ACRS must be at rather detailed technical levels. We must maintain an effective sampling process among the trees to understand and appreciate the forest.

Recommendation A.2. "The ACRS should be relieved of the requirement to conduct reviews and issue reports on all nuclear plant applications. The Committee should only have to review a license application when a safety-related feature is proposed that is new and significant.

In such cases, review should be necessary only for that feature."

Response

Requires Congressional action. We agree, but consider it not urgent.

We believe it is not an issue at present because of the rela-tively few applications pending. If there is a resumption in building and licensing plants, individual ACRS reviews may or may not be appropriate depending upon the nature of the resurgence.

We believe the Commission and the Congress should consider a change in the law for the future, but there is no present ur-gency. We plan no action on the part of ACRS to initiate a change.

Recommendation A.3. "ACRS reviews of the safety research program should focus on the question of whether the right research programs are planned or underway, in light of priorities. The detailed budgetary-level review seems to serve no strong purpose, and should be dropped."

Response

Requires Congressional action. We agree, but consider it not urgent.

However, we believe it is possible for the ACRS to prepare an annual report to the Congress, simpler and less demanding of ACRS resources than those of the past several years. We do plan to give continued attention to the research program. Our report to the Congress can be a spinoff from this with less emphasis on details of the research budget and more on the general content and direction of the program. Therefore, unless we hear from the Congress that a more comprehensive annual report is desired, we will continue to honor the present mandate as described.

Recommendation A.4. "The scope of the Committee's technical interest and attention should be essentially as broad as that of the Commission. The Commission should feel free to seek the Committee's views on any

technical regulatory problem confronting it."

Response

We agree, with comment and an exception.

We agree with the general thrust of the recommendation and believe the Committee does and should continue to concern itself with any issue identified by the Commission, or by the Committee itself, which is important to nuclear safety. We do not agree with the Panel's implication that the Commission should seek the Committee's views only on "technical regulatory problem[s]."

While what that phrase means might be debated, we believe a likely connotation is too narrow. Historically, the Commission has sought and heard Committee advice concerning a broader range of issues. The tests of pertinence we intend to use are [1]

whether the issue is important to safety and [2] whether the Commission will find the advice useful.

Recommendation A.5. "The ACRS will be most valuable in its revised role if it confines its recommendations to the directions to be taken, and avoids developing detailed solutions to problems. Its advice should be at the level of the forest, not the trees."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We agree the ACRS should not attempt to develop detailed solu-tions to problems but should confine its advice to general directions and policy. However, we repeat the comment above. In order for us to understand the forest and to make general recom-mendations about forestry, it is necessary that we sometimes immerse ourselves in the trees.

Recommendation A.6. "There are other roles the ACRS should not try to fill:

a. It should not try to respond to day-to-day questions. That is, it should not do fire fighting."

Response

We agree.

Recommedation "b. It should not try to be a kind of National Transportation Safety Board. If it reviews findings of investigative groups, it should do so for their technical policy implications."

Response

We agree.

Recommendation "c. It is not a second Regulatory Staff, and should not try to function as one."

Response

We agree.

Recommendation "d. It should not try to manage or oversee the NRC Staff."

Response

We agree, with comment.

There may be occasions on which we will comment on how well some part of the Staff is doing in dealing with some particular issue.

Recommendation "e. The special relationship it once had to Congress has ended, and no effort should be made to reestablish it."

Response

We agree.

Recommendation B.1. "The ACRS should be advisory primarily to the Commission, provid-ing advice on technical policy as requested, and also on the initiative of the Committee."

Response

We agree with comment.

We note that some of the beneficial influence of the Committee in the past has been through direct interactions with the Staff. We believe these are useful and should continue. We also note that our relationships with the part of the Staff reporting to the EDO, with whom we have a Memorandum of Understanding, have been more fruitful than relationships with Commission-level offices.

We intend to develop better working relationships, perhaps including MOUs, with some of these other offices.

Recommendation B.2. "The ACRS could also provide advice to the NRC Staff, but when this is done it should be through a communication addressed specifically to the Staff. Such advice may have the greatest value if it is provided early in the process of consideration of an issue."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We agree that advice to the Staff, particularly comments on pre-liminary positions of the Staff revealed as part of Committee-Staff discussions, should be addressed to the Staff and not to the Commission. We intend to address such advice directly to the Staff in the future, for example, by letter addressed to the EDO.

Recommendation B.3. "The Commission should consider, now and on a continuing basis, how it can better take advantage of the existence of an ACRS which is redirected to providing broad advice on technical policy questions."

Response

This is a recommendation directed to the Commission; however, we have a comment.

There are two potential ways in which the Commissioners might be tempted to use the ACRS, but which we believe would be a misuse of the uniqueness of the ACRS.

One would be to expect the Committee to respond to the fire-of-the-week that challenges the Commission and Staff. The ACRS, consisting of part-time members, sited remote from Washington and remote from each other is not well-suited to this sort of ac-tivity. The ACRS functions best in a more deliberative, hope-fully thoughtful, mode. The second is to use the experience and expertise of ACRS members as individual consultants. We perceive that the most unique capability of the ACRS is its inclination and ability to develop collegial positions on complex matters.

We believe that too-frequent individual advice and pronouncements from individual members to Commissioners or Staff will seriously erode the efforts of the Committee to reach consensus. There are many other individual consultants available to the Commissioners or the Commission.

We believe neither of these have been serious problems in the past, but we see trends indicating they might become such in the future. We encourage the Commission not to nuture these trends.

Recommendation B.4. "Oral communications between the ACRS and the Commission should be improved by better management of the agenda. Not all members of the ACRS need to attend every meeting with the Commission. A smaller group of those principally concerned with the subject to be discussed would enable better exchange and discussion."

Response

We agree only in part.

We believe that joint meetings between the Committee and the Commission have been useful and believe they should continue, perhaps with an increased frequency. However, we believe it is not desirable to limit attendance of ACRS members to fewer than the full Committee. We have seen no evidence that discussion has been impeded by the numbers. We think that the general practice of full attendance by ACRS is an important protection of our collegiality.

We note that the impending relocation of Commission and ACRS offices to different suburbs is likely to discourage future joint meetings.

Recommendation B.5. "Individual Commissioners should be able to discuss ACRS matters with individual ACRS members, not to undercut the collegial nature of either the Committee or the Commission, but to open a channel that would permit the Commission to appreciate ranges of opinion of ACRS members in rendering collegial advice to the Commission. We see the pitfalls in this arrangement, but we believe they can be avoided. In the next section on internal operational questions, we recommend development of procedures for this one-on-one interaction."

Response

We agree, with comment.

The ACRS is considering an addition to its bylaws to govern such interchanges. We are opposed to practices which amount to having an individual ACRS member "lobby" the Commission or a Commission-er on a particular issue.

Recommendation B.6. "Relations between the ACRS and the NRC Staff should be improved.

Presumably a trend toward improved interpersonal relations can develop if the ACRS is redirected so as no longer to seem to be in competition with the Staff on licensing issues, or in the position of second-guessing the Staff."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We acknowledge there have been occasions on which the ACRS members have appeared to be rude to members of the Staff in the course of, sometimes, heated discussions in public meetings. We also acknowledge that we are too sparing in articulation of praise for the Staff even when it is obviously appropriate. We attribute this to our own human fraility and inattention rather than to any systematic fault in the NRC Staff. To the contrary, we believe the NRC Staff is, in the main, competent and profes-sional and serves the nation well.

Recommendation C.1. "The Panel recommends that the role of the ACRS Chairman should be strengthened, and that the Chairman should exercise a stronger leadership role. As part of this strengthening process, the Chairman's term of office should be lengthened to two years, renewable once, and he should receive a higher remuneration for his service."

Response

We agree, with an exception.

The ACRS agrees to a two-year trial period which has begun without a change in its bylaws. We will consider a permanent change after this trial. We disagree that higher pay for the Chairman is appropriate.

Recommendation C.2. "The ACRS operates at present in a somewhat reactive mode. The subcommittees on generic questions provide some long-term coher-ence to Committee action, but a Management Committee is needed to plan out future directions of the Committee, develop priorities for issues to be considered, and set the course of action and schedule for these. A suitable Committee might be the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, and the past Chairman, with the Executive Director of the ACRS Staff as an ex officio member."

Response

We agree, with comment.

The ACRS has formed a Management Committee which functions as the Panel recommended. However, we may alter the membership of the Management Committee somewhat from that recommended to assure that no single person is a member for too long.

Recommendation C.3. "The consensus method of operation is appropriate. However, dissent should not be discouraged. Papering over disagreement with words meaning different things to different Committee members does not help the Commission and does not strengthen the image of the Committee. Letters might well reflect the breadth of opinion of the Committee. They should especially point up the opinions of any Committee members who are particularly expert in matters on which the Committee is commenting."

Response

We agree, with comment.

The ACRS agrees with the Panel recommendation. We believe con-

sensus is the most desirable mode when it does not result in watered-down or ambiguous advice. We have and use a method for dissent in our reports - separate comments by individuals. We believe this is adequate to assure dissent is heard. We plan to consider whether there can be some way to communicate the range of opinion, as opposed to actual dissent, contributing to the consensus expressed in our reports.

Recommendation C.4. "Committee letters should be clear and unambiguous. Letters should be self-contained, so that readers need not refer back to previous letters for interpretation or understanding. If the Committee moves away from responding to licensing needs, as we suggest, letter writing can then be more thoughtful and the product more meaningful. Subcommittee chairmen should be in a position to explain the entire contents of a letter and not just a limited part."

Response

We agree, with an exception.

The Committee is considering the development of guidelines to assist members who draft Committee letters [usually the chairman of a subcommittee which has developed the issue for the Commit-tee]. We do not believe it is always reasonable or necessary to expect the subcommittee chairman to be able to answer all questions related to a given letter. Once issued, a letter "belongs" to the full Committee, not to the original drafter or the subcommittee.

Recommendation C.5. "We see no reason to change the size of the ACRS. A membership of fifteen still seems reasonable as does the method of selection of members."

Response

We agree, with comment.

The ACRS accepts the recommendation. While 15 is a rather large committee by some theories of organizational effectiveness, the ACRS has enough tradition and experience that it is able to func-tion and reach consensus adequately. Too many fewer than 15 would make it difficult for the ACRS to deal with the wide range of issues it must accommodate.

Recommendation C.6. "The present policy that limits ACRS service to three terms is reasonable. The practice of long-term tenure for Committee members prevents taking on new members with fresh ideas or special competence in new areas of Commission interest."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We agree as a general practice. We may propose occasional and specific exceptions to the general rule if we believe there is justification. We also may propose greater use of emeritus status.

Recommendation C.7. "Reappointment of members should not be automatic. When a mem-ber's term ends, his reappointment should be considered in the same way and on the same plane as appointment of another person to replace him."

Response

We agree, with an exception.

We must acknowledge, however, that it is possible to judge a sitting member in light of his or her known contributions, and this may influence choices. There may sometimes be a tendency to prefer "the devil we know over the devil we don't know." In addition, when recommending a present member for reappointment, the ACRS does not intend to include the names of one or two other candidates as is the practice for first-time nominations.

Recommendation C.8. "The redirection of ACRS away from 'nuts and bolts' questions should reduce the need for the Committee to have members repre-senting a complete range of disciplines. Some range of special-ist backgrounds may still be useful, but it will also be im-portant that Committee members be generalists who can consider questions as broad issues. Thus, the ACRS should move away from requiring new members to be clones of the departing ones."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We agree that wisdom should be considered as of primary im-portance over detailed expertise; a specific discipline can be provided by consultants. Our intention is to consider candidates for membership for their ability to contribute to the general work of the ACRS, as well as for their specific experience and expertise.

Recommendation C.9. "Though the amount of time devoted to ACRS business by individual Committee members is in many cases very high, it should be made clear to prospective members that substantially less time could be adequate. The time commitment should not be a serious ob-stacle to recruiting competent members to the Committee. The appointment of each member should include an understanding of the

limits each would set on his time availability."

Response

We agree, with comment.

The average service for members is about 120 days per year.

Those who can spend only significantly less time than this should not be ruled out for consideration, but we believe that a minimum of about 80 days per year is necessary to make a sustained contribution to the work of the ACRS. We intend to use these guidelines, flexibly and informally, in evaluation of potential members.

Recommendation C.10. "The specific composition of the Committee as measured by the skills represented may be reasonable for the present, but we believe that the composition should be changed as the direction taken by the Committee changes. For instance, the growing im-portance of waste management implies that a member should have a background in chemical process engineering. Additional former senior utility management with experience in nuclear plant op-erational management would also be desirable, as well as members with NSSS systems design experience."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We agree with the concept that the mix of technical disciplines represented in experience of the members should change as the mission of the NRC and the ACRS changes. We do not necessarily agree with all of the example suggestions made by the Panel. We believe it is important to recognize that the mix can be changed only slowly and with consideration of other factors, some of which we believe are more important [see C.8. and C.9.].

Recommendation C.11. "The list of ACRS consultants is very long, but most are not used very much. We do not find the use of consultants to be ex-cessive. The Committee should be careful to ensure that con-sultants do not appear to be speaking for the Committee. Con-sultants should only advise the ACRS."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We note that our use of consultants over the past few years is decreasing and we expect the trend to continue.

Recommendation C.12. "The size and composition of the ACRS Staff should be reexamined once the ACRS mission is changed as we have recommended, and

assuming this change takes place."

Response

We agree, with comment.

We have accepted the recommendation, largely under the pressure of budget restrictions. The total of personnel assigned to ACRS will be only 42 in FY 87 compared to 54 two years ago. We are accommodating the reduction largely by reducing service staff rather than by reducing the number of members, consultants, or technical staff. Some reduction in technical programs will also be necessary, and we are assigning priorities to all current programs, considering importance to nuclear safety, and, in some cases, other Commission requirements. We have concern that too great a reduction in staff support will cause the Committee to be less effective and make membership professionally less attractive for present or potential members. Therefore, we do not intend to make further reductions in staff without commensurate reduction in programs.

Recommendation C.13. "A channel should be established for ACRS to submit users' requests for research to the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Re-search, just as is done by the Regulatory Staff."

Response

We disagree with this recommendation. We can adequately influ-ence research programs under the present system and oppose ac-quiring the responsibility and bureaucratic load involved in becoming a formal user office.

Recommendation C.14. "ACRS should establish rules to cover the circumstances in which discussions between individual ACRS members and individual Commissioners can take place, and the protocol for these dis-cussions."

Response

See response to B.5.

Recommendation C.15. "The current conflict of interest and FACA requirements are not unduly restrictive."

Response

We agree, with an exception.

We agree, so far as FACA requirements, but disagree with regard to conflict-of-interest requirements. We believe the interpreta-tions of regulations in this latter area for application of the

activities of ACRS members may be unnecessarily restrictive. We are concerned that activities of members can be arbitrarily and unfairly restricted, and believe the matter warrants reevalua-tion.