ML20035D355
| ML20035D355 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/06/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-090, SECY-93-90, NUDOCS 9304130118 | |
| Download: ML20035D355 (28) | |
Text
a arceg
.c y
sh i\\
\\
i
~n.,E s
a
%.'..../
POLICY ISSUE S - 9 3- "
April 6, 1993 (Notation Vote)
FOR:
The Comissioners FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) PROGRAM PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the staff's final recommendations for changes to the Fystematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program.
BACKGROUND:
The Commission, in its December 21, 1991, staff requirements memorandum for SECY-91-172, " Regulatory Impact Survey Report - Final," directed the staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the SALP program and to provide the results of its review along with any recommended changes. The staff provided its preliminary conclusions for changes to the SALP program in SECY-92-290,
" Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance," of August 19, 1992. Those conclusions resulted from many discussions and meetings with managers and staff members in the regions and at headquarters.
In addition, the staff advised the Commission of its plans for increasing management oversight of the SALP process and for conducting a workshop to receive public comments on the proposed changes.
The staff conducted the public workshop on September 29, 1992, and solicited written comments on the proposed changes to the program. The staff received a number of comments on the proposed changes.
However, the majority of the comments recommended that the NRC eliminate the SALP program because it enforces rising performance expectations, is too subjective, and the public and other regulators misuse the category ratings. The staff disagrees with
Contact:
C. Holden, NRR 504-1037 SECY NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AT THE COMMISSION BRIEFING ON APRIL 15, 1993.
QG Z26b pH ~
t
,4 i
i I.
the conclusions drawn in the industry comments.
However, in light of the nature and extent of the comments, NRC senior managers recently met to discuss l'
the staff's evaluation and proposed disposition of those comments.
The senior managers' discussions focused on the basic elements of the program and on how i
the SALP process is used in fulfilling the agency's safety responsibilities.
The details of this final review and the staff's recommendations for changing
[
the program are provided in this paper.
DISCUSSI0th i
The SALP program was designed to integrate inspection findings, to draw conclusions on the licensees
- operational performance, and to serve as a forum
[
for candid discussion with utility management following a thorough evaluation, t
using examples from the assessment. This common-sense rationale for the SALP program worked well over the years.
Based on the public and industry comments received, the basic objectives of the SALP program were reviewed against the safety needs of the agency and the manner in which the program fulfills those needs. NRC senior managers. particularly the regional administrators, l
confirmed that the SALP program is an essential tool in achieving the agency's j
responsibility for assessing licensee performance. However, a number of enhancements were identified which would facilitate clearer communications with licensees and would enhance the process for collecting and assessing performance information.
The staff recommends adopting the program changes forwarded to the Commission l
in SECY-92-290 with the modifications and additions detailed in Enclosure 1.
i These additional changes include: (1) revising the Board composition to be l
Senior Executive Service (SES) members only, (2) reducing the length of SALP reports and revising the process in order to focus on the most significant j
issues in each of four functional areas, (3) providing additional guidance for the SALP public meeting, and (4) assisting in the allocation of NRC inspection resources by allowing some reduction in NRC oversight at better performing i
plants. forwards draf t Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance," which includes the recommendations of
{
this paper.
One comment received during the public comment period questioned the NRC's legal authority for the SALP program. is an analysis from the j
Office of the General Counsel which concludes that the SALP program does not l
violate applicable legal requirements.
The staff continues to study various options for the elements of the SALP l
program applicable to plants under construction.
In the near term, the construction facilities (Watts Bar and Bellefonte) can be reviewed under the current provisions of the construction SALP program. The staff will forward l
to the Commission its recommendations regarding the SALP program for construction plants at a later date.
CONCLUS10th During its comprehensive review of the SALP program, the staff confirmed that
{
the program was useful and effective, and that it is an essential tool for t
r O
h l o
carrying out the agency's responsibilities. However, in addition to retaining most of the preliminary recommendations provided in SECY-92-290, the staff also recommends additional changes to enhance the process and to better promote clear communication of our assessments to licensees and the public.
COORDINATION:
l i
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to the contents of l
this paper.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Commission approve the staff's recommended changes to the SALP l
program and the implementation of Management Directive 8.6, " Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance."
SCHEDULING:
[
i The staff will implement MD 8.6 for assessment periods ending 60 days after the Commission approves the recommended changes to the SALP program.
A x: E i
J/mesM.T or fxecutive irector
[
j j
L,-
for Operations
Enclosures:
l As stated DISTRIBUTIo5:
Commissioners OGC CAA IG OPP REGIONS i
EDO SECY
{
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to SECY j
by COB Wednesday, April 21, 1993.
j Commission staff office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT April 14, 1993, with an information copy to SECY.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
l
?
m E_)
w Additional Changes Proposed for the SALP Program 1.
Manaaement Control The staff proposes a number of changes to reinforce communications between NRC management and the licensee, and to emphasize the role of the regional administrator as the focal point for the NRC's assessment efforts.
First, it is recommended that the SALP Board be comprised of four Senior Executive Service (SES) members. This recommended change in the Board composition from that described in SECY-92-290 will reinforce the philosophy that SALP is an NRC management product.
This change will remove project managers and senior resident inspectors from the Board, however, because of the importance of their insights, they will continue to participate in Board discussions.
In addition, other non-SES staff members will still participate in Board discussions in their areas of expertise.
Second, the SALP Board.will develop the functional area assessments and will recommend category ratings, including any differences in opinion, to the regional administrator for each functional area. The regional administrator will consider the Board's recommendations and meet with the Board, if necessary, to resolve any differences in opinion.
The Regional Administrator is the agency official responsible for implementing the SALP program for facilities within his or her region and for issuing individual licensee SALP reports.
The regional administrator's overall assessment will continue to be communicated in the cover letter to the SALP report, and will emphasize those areas considered most significant.
2.
SALP Report The staff recommends condensing the SALP to four functional areas, as discussed in SECY-92-290, by combining Radiological Controls, Emergency l
Prepareaness, and Security into one functional area designated Plant Support.
Safety Assessment / Quality Verification will be considered for each functional area rather than a separate functional area. This change will more accurately reflect the balance of NRC inspection resources applied.
On the basis of its review, the staff also concluded that brief, concise SALP assessment reports would help to better focus attention on plant safety.
l Therefore, the staff recommends that SALP reports consist of a cover letter that communicates the overall assessment and emphasizes those areas considered j
most significant, and an enclosure of approximately six pages that contains the assessment of the four functional areas, including category ratings.
In some cases, there may be a limited number of issues in a functional area to j
assess and the SALP report would be correspondingly brief in that area.
It is not required to address issues simply for completeness.
Initial (draft) SALP reports will no longer be issued. Any comments or factual errors identified after issuance of the SALP report will be handled on a case-by-case basis by the regional administrator.
Overall, the process will require less i
administrative support while providing clearer, more direct communications between NRC and licensee management on safety-significant issues.
I l
l n i
r To further simplify the process, the complex Board voting procedures and evaluation criteria, attributes, and matrices have been eliminated.
New category rating definitions have been developed to assist the board in reaching its conclusions and the regional administrator in establishing the SALP ratings.
These category rating definitions include the key points of the j
evaluation criteria and attributes previously approved by the Commission.
l l
The present SALP report and category ratings reflect an historic summary of issues and often are not fully representative of recent licensee performance.
Therefore, the staff recommends that the category ratings emphasize the most recent performance, i.e. about the last six months of the assessment period.
l The written assessment for each of the four functional areas will continue to address performance over the entire assessment period, as appropriate. The j
staff also recommends removing the trend designators (" improving" or
" declining") and reducing the time interval between the end of the assessment period and the public meeting.
These changes will help to communicate the l
i NRC's assessment of current licensee performance rather than an historic summary of issues that may already have been corrected.
f s
3.
SALP Public Meeting t
The staff concluded that SALP public meetings, in general, could be improved
}
to provide more clear, candid communications with the licensee and the public.
The staff believes that the changes now being proposed to clearly identify the significant performance issues will result in more focused public meetings.
In addition, the regional administrator or the deputy regional administrator will preside at all SALP public meetings to ensure that the SALP results are conveyed in a clear and accurate fashion and represent NRC management's l
assessment. The regional administrator may decide not to hold a SALP public meeting when there are no significant issues to communicate to the licensee or in those cases where such information has recently been communicated during a l
public meeting in the vicinity of the plant.
l t
4.
Resource Allocation The SALP process results are now considered in decisions regarding allocation i
of NRC inspection resources.
In view of the Commission's decision regarding j
SECY-92-354, " Process for Obtaining Exceptions to the N+1 Policy," dated October 20, 1992, licensee performance will also be considered, on a case-by-i case basis, in the assignment of resident inspectors. The staff will also further develop the concept of recognizing licensee self-audits by good performers as a basis for waiving or reducing the scope of technically duplicative NRC area-of-emphasis team inspections. These changes will be incorporated into the agency inspection program and procedures and will assist in allocating NRC inspection resources by allowing some reduction in NRC
[
oversight at better performing plants.
}
[
t
i
)
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) i Directive
]
(Formerly O MC 0516) Q, i
i 4
1 1
i l
l I
i 1
i l
a Volume S, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Directive 8.6 l
Contents P o l i cy........................................................
1 Objectives..
1 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority..........
2 The Executive Director for Operations (EDO)......................... 2 The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)................ 2
. 2 Regional Administrators.
A p pli cab i li t y..............................................
3 3
i Licensees..
Employees.
3 Handbook......
3 References....
3 t
L l
4 i
Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) i l
p ?** %
[
j U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Volume: 8 Licensee Oversight Programs NRR Systematic Assessment of Licensee j
Performance (SALP)
Directive 8.6 Policy
}
(8.6-01) 11 is the policy of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
[
use the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) process to articulate the agency's observations and insights on the licensee's safety performance. The SALP report communicates those observations and insights to licensee management and the public.
I Objectives (8.6-02) i To conduct an integrated assessment oflicensee performance that focuses on the safety significance of the NRC findings and conclusions during an assessment period. (021) l f
To provide a vehicle for meaningful dialogue with the licensee regarding its performance based on the insights gained from l
synthesis of NRC observations. (022)
To assist NRC management in making sound decisions regarding allocation of NRC resources used to oversee, inspect, and assess licensee performance. (023) l
?
To provide a method for informing the public of the NRC's
[
assessment of licensee performance. (024) i F
~
i b
Approved: (Draft March 30.1993) 1 u
n Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Directive S.6 Organizational Responsibilities and Delegations of Authority (8.6-03)
The Executive Director for Operations (EDO)
(031)
Provides oversight for the activities described in this directive and handbook.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
(032)
Implements the requirements of this directive within NRR. (a)
M onitors the S ALP process. Assesses the uniformity and adequacy of the implementation of the program. (b)
Evaluates and develops SALP
- policy, criteria, and methodology. (c)
Regional Administrators (033)
Implement the. requirements of this directive within their respective regions. (a)
Confer with tb- ' o ctor, NRR, and inform the DEDR when contemplating xg:4. ant deviations from the requirements or guidelines of % daective. (b)
Develop and issue the SALP report, which contains a concise assessment oflicensee performance, including category ratings for each functional area. (c)
Direct reallocation of regional inspection resources, as and when appropriate, based on the functional area assessment. (d)
Establish a schedule and determine a site for a public meeting with the licensee, as appropriate, to ensure mutual understanding of the issues discussed in the SALP report. (e) 2 Approved: (Draft March 30.1993)
r Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Directive S.6 Regional Administrators (033) (continued)
Suspend the SALP process for any plant that is placed on the Category 3 iist of problem facilities as a result of the Senior hianagement hieeting process. The SALP process should not resume until the facility is removed from this category. SALP assessments with no category ratings may be performed as a part of the restart readiness evaluations. (f)
Assess the uniformity and adequacy of regional implementation of the SALP Program. Provide to the Director, NRR, recommendations for improving the SALP Program. (g)
Applicability (8.6-04)
Licensees (041)
This program applies to all licensees of power reactors with operating licenses or construction permits.
Employees (042)
The provisions of this directive and handbook apply to and must be followed by NRC hndquaners and regional personnel.
Handbook (8.6-05) specified in h1ajor components of the SALP Program are Handbook 8.6.
References (8.6-06)
- 1. NRC Announcement 200, " Revised Guidance on the Use of Performance Indicators," November 28,1989.
1
- 2. "Public inspections. Exemptions, Requests for Withholding,"
i Approved: (Draft Niarch 30,1993) 3
1 Systematic Assessment of l
Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook (Formerly CQ Appendix 0516) Q, Q
'l 4
i 4-4 i
4 i
I i
l 4
l a
n
m Volume 8, Licensee. Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook S.6 Parts 1 - 11 Contents I n t rod u ct i o n......................................................
1 Part I General Guidance for the SALP Program..........................
2 Eval u a t ion Fre q u en cy ( A)..........................................
2 Eval u a tion Process ( B )............................................. -
3 4
Functional Areas (C).............................................
4 Operating Phase Reactors (1).
Construction Phase Reactorc (2) 5 j
Performance Category Ra tings (D)..................................
5 Part II l
1 Implementation of the S ALP....................................
8 l
1 8
{
Assessment Process (A)
Preparation for the SALP Board hiecting (1) 8 i
10 l
Conduct of the SALP Board Meeting (2)...
Completion and Issuance of the SALP Report (3)...
10
+
S ALP M eeting With the Licensee (B)..................................
12 l
General (1) 12 i
Meeting Preparation (2) 12 Licensee Meeting (3) 12 i
)
L r
i i
t i
J i
1 Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) -
i i
I
-.-.,.--m m
,c, y
w
e-Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Ilandbook 8.6 Introduction Introduction The sal _P process is used to develop the NRC's conclusions regarding a licensee's performance. The sal P report documents the NRC's observations and insights on a licensee's performance and communicates the results to the licensee and the public. It provides a vehicle for clear communication with licensee management with a focus on plant performance relative to safety risk perspectives. The NRC utilizes sal _P results when allocating NRC inspection resources at licensee facilities.
1 Approved: (DrafI March 30,1993)
=
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Ilandbook 8.6 Part I t
i F
i Part I General Guidance for the SALP Program i
Evaluation Frequencyta)
The NRC will normally resiew and evaluate each power reactor licensee that possesses'an operating license or a construction permit on about an 18-month interval (plus or minus 2 months).~ Variations to this interval can be made in the following instances: (1)
I When a new operating license is issued, two consecutive SALP evaluations should be scheduled at approximately 12-month interds after issuance of the low-power license. Following completion of these two evaluations, a determination should then be made on whether to place the licensee on a normal SALP.
schedule. (a)
When NRC assessments, such as SALP or plant performance -
j reviews. indicate that licensee performance warrants additional oversight, the regional administrator may elect to. reduce the SALP assessment period to as-frequently as 12 months. conduct l
additional management meetings with the licensee, or some combination of the two. (b) l
'Ihe assessment period may be extended to a maximum of j
24 months when a plant receives a Category 1 rating in all four i
functional areas. The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), will be informed in writing when extensions are granted. (c)
[
i S ALP frequency and the scope of the assessment may be adjusted -
l for plants in extended shutdowns, extended outages, or decommissioning. In each case, the regional administrator shall confer with the Director. NRR, and document the basis for the q
change.(d) l l
2 Approved: (Draft March 30.1993) l
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
IIandbook 8.6 Part 1 Evaluation Frequency (A)(continued)
The SALP process will be suspended for any plant that is shut down and requires authorization by the Commission (not the staff) to restart. As a part of a restart resiew process, an ungraded evaluation of performance in the SALP functional areas may be performed. (e)
Each reactor site will have a separate assessment. For plants at one site in different stages (construction or operating), individual assessments will be performed. For other multiple unit sites, the regional administrator will determine if individual assessments are necessary to capture and communicate the NRC's assessment of licensee performance. (2)
Evaluation Process (n)
The evaluation process entails the following steps: (1)
Members of the regional and headquarters staff that have inspection and/or oversight responsibility for the site develop background information for the SALP Board. Background information may come from a variety of sources, including inspection reports, events, enforcement results, management meetings and discussions with licensees, and results of periodic plant performance reviews. (a)
The SALP Board assesses licensee performance and provides recommendations to the regional administrator. (b)
The regional administrator issues the SALP report. (c) l The regional administrator or the deputy regional administrator conducts a public meeting with the licensee's management to discuss the assessment. (d)
Additional guidance regarding the SALP process is provided in Part 11 I
of this handbook. Implementation procedures for the SALP process will be contained in regional procedures and NRR office letters. (2) l l
Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) 3
)
.~
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs
~
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook 8.6 Part 1 Functional Areas (c)
Functional areas represent a grouping of similar licensee actisities.
Operating Phase Reactors (1)
The functional areas for operating reactors are-Plant Operations (a)
This functional area consists chiefly of the control and execution of actisities directly related to operating a plant. It includes actisities such as plant startup, power operation, plant shutdown, and system lineups.
Thus. it includes actisities such as monitoring and logging plant conditions, normal operations, response to transient and off-normal conditions. adequacy and implementation of emergency operat!ng procedures and abnormal operating procedures, manipulating the reactor and auxiliary controls, and control room professionalism. It also includes initial and requalification training of licensed operators.
Maintenance (b)
This functional area includes all actisities associated with either diagnostic. predictive, preventive, or corrective maintenance of plant structures, systems, and components, or maintenance of the physical condition of the plant. It also includes conduct of all surveillance testing actisities, all insersice inspection and testing, instrument calibrations, equipment operability tests, post-maintenance testing, and post-outage testing, containment leak rate tests, and special tests.
i Engineering (c)
This functional area addresses the adequacy of technical and engineering support for all plant activities. It includes all licensee activities associated with design control; the design, installation. and testing of plant modifications: engineering and technical support for operations, outages, maintenance, testing, surveillance, and procurement activities; configuration management; design-basis information and its retrieval; and support for licensing actisities.
1 4
Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) i O
i Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs i
~
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) l Ilandbook 8,6 Part I 5..
I i
i Functional Areas (C)(continued)
Operating Phase Reactors (1) (continued) l Plant Support (d)
~
This functional area covers all activitics related to plant support I
functions, including radiological controls, emergency preparedness, security, chemistry, and fire protection. It includes all activities associated with occupational radiation safety, radioactive waste management, radiological effluent control and monitoring, transportation of radioactive materials, licensee performance during emergency preparedness exercises and actual events that test emergency plans, emergency plan notifications, interactions with onsite and offsite emergency response organizations during exercises and actual events, and safeguards measures' that protect plant equipment, including physical security, fitness for duty, access authorization, and control of special nuclear material. llousekeeping controls are included in this area.
.l I
Other Functional Areas (as appropriate)(e)
{
For example, when plants are in extended shutdowns, it may be more appropriate to address shutdown operations in lieu of plant i
operations. Foi readiness assessments. SALP 130ards may need to i
consider activities that take place over a shorter interval, such as j
startup testing.
j Construction Phase Reactors (2) l To be provided at a later date.
Performance Category Ratings (o)
{
Licensee performance in each functional area is assessed by assigning j
a category rating as discussed below. Licensees assigned a Category 1 rating in a functional area have clearly demonstrated superior performance, which justifies some relaxation in NRC oversight.
Whereas, licensees assigned a Category 3 rating in a functional area-have demonstrated acceptable performance but are of concern to l
NRC.The NRC will consider additional interaction with and oversight i
of the licensee in the af fected area. (1)
I l
Approved: (Du March 30,1993) 5 I
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) llandbook 8.6 Part 1 7
l Functional Areas (C)(continued)
Operating Phase Reactors (1) (continued)
Plant Support (d) i This functional area covers all actisities related to plant support functions. including radiological controls, emergency preparedness, security, chemistry, and fire p:otection. It includes all activities associated with occupational radiation safety, radioactive waste management, radiological effluent control and monitoring.
transportation of radioactive materials, licensee performance during emergency preparedness exercises and actual events that test l
emergency plans. emergency plan notifications, interactions with onsite and offsite emergency response organizations during exercises j
and actual events, and safeguards measures' that protect plant equipment, including physical security, fitness for duty, access authorization, and control of special nuclear material. Housekeeping l
controls are included in this area.
Other Functional Areas (as appropriate)(e) l For example, when plants are in extended shutdowns. it may be more appropriate to address shutdown operations in lieu of plant operations. Foi readiness assessments, SALP Boards may need to l
consider activities that take place over a shorter interval, such as startup testing.
I Construction Phase Reactors (2)
To be provided at a later date.
l Performance Category Ratings (o) i Licensee performance in each functional area is assessed by assigning a category rating as discussed below. Licensees assigned a Categoty 1 rating in a functional area have clearly demonstrated superior performance, which justifies some relaxation in NRC oversight.
Whereas, licensees assigned a Category 3 rating in a functional area l
have demonstrated acceptable performance but are of concern to N RC. The N RC will consider additional interaction with and oversigh t of the licerisee in the affected area. (1)
Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) 5 C
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook S.6 Part I Performance Category Ratings (o)(continued)
The final rating for each functional area will be a composite rating of the performance based on a knowledgeable balancing of the issues in a functional area and their safety significance. (2)
The three category ratings are as follows:(3)
Category 1. Licensee attention and involvement have been properly focused on safety and resulted in a superior level of performance. Licensee programs and procedures have provided effective controls. The licensee's self-assessment efforts have been productive in the identification of emergent issues. Corrective actions are technically sound, comprehensive, and thorough.
Repeat problems are eliminated and resolution ofissues is timely.
Root cause analyses are thorough. Licensee resources are effectively applied. (a)
P Category 2. Licensee attention and involvement are normally well focused and resulted in a good level of performance. Licensee programs and procedures normally provide the necessary control of activities, but deficiencies may exist. The licensee's self-assessments are normally good, although issues may escape identification. Corrective actions are usually effective, although some may not be complete. Root cause analyses are normally thorough. Licensee staffing and resources are generally effective but at times. may be strained. (b)
J Category 3. Licensee attention and involvement have resulted in an acceptable level of performance. However, licensee performance may exhibit one or more of the following characteristics. Licensee programs and procedures have not provided sufficient control of activities in important areas. The licensee's self-assessment efforts may not occur until after a potential problem becomes apparent. A clear understanding of the safety implications of significant issues may not have been demonstrated. Numerous minor issues combine to indicate that i
the licensee's corrective action is not thorough. Root cause analyses do not probe deep enough, resulting in the incomplete l
resolution ofissues. Licensee resources are restricted, limiting the effectiveness of programmatic and/or corrective action. Because the margin to unacceptable performance in important aspects is small, increased NRC and licensee attention is required. (.c) 6 Approved: (Draft March 30.1993)
.. J
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) llandbook S.6 Part I Performance Category Ratings (o)(continued) i Categog N.
Insufficient information exists to support an e
assessment oflicensee performance. These cases include instances in which a rating cannot be developed because of insufficient licensee activity or insufficient NRC inspection. This category is normally used for construction phase reactors only. (d) f i
i 1
l i
I 1
i
[
l Approved: (Draft March 30.1993) 7
Volume S. Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) llandbook 8.6 Part 11 Part II Implementation of the SALP Assessment Process <A)
Preparation for the SALP Iloard Meeting (1)
To prepare for the SALP Board meeting, each region shall-1s. ue a memorandum establishing the assessment period, the due -
s date for SALP Board input, and scheduled dates for the SALP 130ard meeting, issuance of the SALP report, and the licensee management meeting for all facilities within the region scheduled foi a SaLP during the fiscal year. The regions shall distribute this memorandum to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR),
including the NRR SALP Program Manager, and to the Executive Director for: Operations (EDO) by the end of the fiscal year preceding the scheduled actisities. The regions shall proside any changes to SALP schedules to these offices. The applicable SALP data in the Shared Information Network (SINED should be updated as appropriate. (a)
M embers of the resident inspector staff, the NRR project manager, other staff members with inspection responsibilities or oversight functions, and their sunenisors should develop the background information for tl.
SALP Board. ~ Sources of background information vary and include, but are not limited to, the following:
inspection report findings, licensee events, enforcement results.
Safety Evaluation Report inputs, the outcome oflicensee and NRC management meetings, results of periodic plant performance reviews, and other performance information. He background information will be assembled to highlight significant issues to the board. Repetitive items or issues that may cross functional area boundaries should also be highlighted. (b) _
Proper preparation for the SALP Board meeting is essential for-board members since they are expected to participate in 8
Approved: (Draft March 3b,1993)
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs
~
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) j Handbook 8.6 Part II Assessment Process (A>(continued)
Preparation for the SALP Board Meeting (1)(continued) discussions of each functional area in order to contribute effectively to the assessment of the licensee's performance and the identification of common themes and symptoms of that performance. All board members should (1) become familiar with the plant's performance during the assessment period either by having sisited the site or through involvement in management-level meetings with the licensee and (2) be familiar with inspection report findings that were issued during the assessment period. The regional administrator may exempt specific board members on a case-by-case basis from these requirements. It isimportant that the i
board membership for a specific SALP remain constant throughout the board's assessment process. (c)
The SALP Board will be composed of the following four members: (d)
- One SES-level representative from each of the responsible region's Division of Reactor Projects, Division of Reactor Safety, and Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards. (i)
(
- An NRR SES-level manager from the Division of Reactor Projects. (ii)
- An NRR deputy division director or above (not from the Division of Reactor Projects)may be substituted for one of the three regional SES-level representatives on the board. (iii)
Because of the combination of reactor projects and reactor safety l
in Region V, the Regional Administrator for Region V may i
appoint two SES-level representatives from the Division of Reactor Safety and Projects to ensure both the reactor projects and reactor safety perspectives are represented on each board. (e)
One of the four members of the board will be appointed SALP l
Board Chairman by the regional administrator. (f) r i
Approved: (Draf t March 30,1993) 9
{
Volume S, Licensee Oversight Programs i
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
IIandbook S.6 Part 11 7
AsSessiiienit Process (A)(continued) i Conduct of the SALP Board Meeting (2)
Based on the background information and staff briefings, the SALP Hoard shall produce an assessment for each functional area. The assessment will address the observed performance and place it in context with plant safety. The safety significance of an issue should dictate the level of detail required by the assessment.The SALP Board i
members will ensure that each functional area section concisely i
conveys the board's siews, with selected examples to illustrate key findings. SALP Board members should discuss characteristics of a i
licensee's performance in a functional area and the common themes or symptoms that extend through multipla functional areas. Issues will
{
normally be discussed in only one functional area. (a)
'i The S ALP Hoard will recommend a category rating for each functional j
area. Although the functional area assessments should consider the licensee's performance throughout the period, the categog rating I
should emphasize the licensee's performance during the last 6 months of the assessment period. In those casesin which the board determines i
that performance was significantly different between the beginning j
and the end of the assessment period, consideration may be given to assigning a category rating based on the performance during the entire j
assessment period. Note that it is inappropriate to refer to Perf ormance Indicator Program results in forming a SALP rating (see NRC Announcement 200. " Revised Guidance on the Use of
(
Performance Indicators," November 28, 1989). The board will forward its assessment of performance and recommendations for category ratings, including differences in opinions, to the regional j
administrator. (b)
The SALP Board will recommend changes to the NRC mspection program based on its assessment of performance forimplementation l
at the specific facility. (c)
Completion and Issuance of the SALP Report (3) l The cover letter for the SALP report will communicate the overall l
assessment of the licensee's performance and will emphasize those l
areas considered most significant. The enclosure will contain the j
assessment (one to two pages) of each functional area, along with the l
category ratings. The significance of the issues discussed in the SALP l
l 10 Approved: (Draft March 30,1993)
4 Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs l
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook 8.6 Part II Assessnient Process (A)(continued) i Completion and Issuance of the SALP Report (3)(continued) report will dictate the length of the report. The SALP cover letter i
should include the following:
A characterization of overall safety performance of the licensee.
I The SALP cover letter will highlight common themes of licensee performance identified by the SALP process. The cover letter should characterize the licensee's performance and should place in perspective any significant events or findings that took place outside the assessment period that bear on the evaluations in the report. The SALP report should be consistent with the results of any other current events and processes related to the plant's performance, such as results of recent Senior Management Meetings and major team inspections. to ensure that conflicting messages are not inadvertently transmitted to the licensee. (a)
Areas or issues that warrant discussion during the meeting with the licensee. For any functional area rated Category 3. the cover letter should request that the licensee be prepared to discuss l
performance and planned actions in this functional area. (b)
For all functional areas rated Category 3, the cover letter will request the licensee to reply in writing within 30 days and prmide planned corrective actions to improve performance. (c)
The cover letter and functional area assessments will be transmitted to the licensee before being publicly rele-ased. (d)
Copies of the report should be provided to the offices of the EDO:
the Director, NRR: the Director, Office of Enforcement: the Commissioners: and the NRR Division of Reactor Inspection and Licensee Performance (DRIL) SALP Program Manager. The SALP report will be distributed on a timely basis as a standard docket item to the Document Control System, the NRC Public Document Room, the appropriate local Public Document Room, and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. Each report will be assigned an inspection report number. (e) i Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) 11 J
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Handbook 8.6 Part 11 SALP Meeting With the Licensee (s)
General (1)
The SALP meeting with the licensee should be scheduled at least 2 weeks after the SALP report has been issued. Additionally, this public meeting with the licensee's management will be held within 60 days of the end of the assessment period to discuss the assessment. The meeting will be conducted on site or in the sicinity of the site, if feasible, to foster accessibility and a more widespread understanding of the NRC's siews.The regional administrator may decide not to hold a SALP public meeting when there are no significant issues to communicate to the licensee or in those cases in which such information has recently been communicated in a public meeting in the local area.The Director, NRR, will be informed in writing when a SALP public meeting is not held.
Sleeting Preparation (2)
The region shall notify those on distribution for the SALP repon of the meeting with the licensee. (See Section (11) of this part.)(a)
The region shall notify the media and State and local government officials of the issuance of the S ALP report and of the meeting with the licensee once the report has been released. Generally at least I week's notice should be prosided before the meeting. (b)
The licensee should be encouraged to have the following management representatives participate in the meeting: (c)
The senior corporate nuclear officer / manager (i)
Management officials responsible for the major f mctional areas (ii)
The site manager (iii)
Licensee Meeting (3)
The r egional administrator will designate the NRC participants for the licensee meeting. NRC panicipants for this meeting typically include the following: (a) 12 Approved: (Draft March 30,1993) m
i r
Volume 8, Licensee Oversight Programs Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Ilandbook S.6 Part 11 SALP Meeting With the Licensee (li)(continued) t Licensee Sleeting (3) (continued)
. The regional administrator or the deputy regional administrator. (i)
Other regional and NRR personnel, as appropriate. to support th" regional administrator. (ii)
The regional administrator or the deputy regional administrator will conduct the licensee meeting. These meetings are intended to proside 1
a forum for a candid discussion of issues relating to the licensee's performance. The regional administrator should discuss those aspects of the licensee's operation that need improvement. as well as the positive aspects of the licensee's performance. The licensee also will i
be given the opportunity to respond at the meeting and to proside commentson the report in writing within 30 days after the meeting.(b) i SALP management meetings with the licensee should be public meetings. unless portions of the meetingsinvolve discussion of the type of matters that are not required to be publicly disclosed under Section 2.790 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 2.790). For those portions. the meeting must be closed.
Members of the public, the press.and Government officials should be treated as observers. Adequate notification of the SALP meeting should be accomplished by the timely distribution to the Public Document Room and the Local Public Document Room of the letter scheduling the meeting with the licensee. with copies to the parties on the senice list for the appropriate docket. (c) i l
i Approved: (Draf1 March 30.1993) 13 i
u
i Office of General Counsel Response to Winston & Strawn I
i:
1 One commenter, the law firm of Winston & Strawn, suggested that the SALP program as implemented by " Staff demands and expectations that exceed binding l
NRC regulations" (1) goes beyond NRC's regulatory authority, (2) circumvents the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and l
(3) bypasses NRC's backfitting rule.
in addition, according to the commenter, SALP imposes undefined evaluation standards that licensees are expected to meet in violation of APA requirements for adequate notice. Therefore, the commenter suggests, the Commission should examine the " program's legal underpinnings and consider whether it is an effective and legitimate means of compelling action by the nuclear power industry."
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the SALP program and finds that l
it does not violate applicable legal requirements.
Whether the Commission should proceed with reaking the changes to SALP, as proposed, is a matter of l
policy for the Commission.
Clearly, as established by the Commission, SALP falls within NRC's regulatory f
authority under the Atoc.ic Energy Act.
SALP was established as a means for NRC management to assircilate and assess information pertaining to licensee management of its plant to assist NRC management in identifying problem areas, present and potential. that could lead to unsafe plant conditions or i
operations. SALP itself places no demands on licensees.
SALP consists essentially of a structured procedure by which NRC officials representing various disciplines and perspectives who either have conducted or overseen inspections of a plant review together their separate observations and form collective judgments en a licensee's continued ability to operate the plant safely, including the spotting of deteriorating conditions that could lead to unsafe operations.
These judgments help NRC management to prioritize its schedule of plant inspections for implementation according to available resources.
Such a prcgran is well within the Commission's broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act to regulate nuclear power plants to protect the public health and safety.
This conclusion seems beyond dispute.
Even the commenter admits that in " broad concept" SALP "would appear to be within NRC's
)
authority to regulate nuclear power operations" and that "SALP per.s_e" is not the legal problem.
Notwithstanding this admission of the legality of SALP, the commenter suggests that SALP has become improper through implementation by the staff. As we j
understand the comments, the commenter asserts that NRC inspectors conducting inspections and other staff make unauthorized demands on licensees, to which the licensees agree because of their concern that a lesser response would lead to poor SALP evaluations.
To support.its claim that the purpose of SALP is to force licensees to go beyond regulatory requirements, the commenter points to an NRC Manual provision explaining SALP:
" compliance with NRC rules and l
regulations satisfies the minimum requirements for continued operation of a i
facility; the degree to which a licensee exceeds regulatory requirements is a measure of the licensee's commitment to nuclear safety and plant reliability."
l
These comments, however, are not valid. To begin with, as a statement of regulatory philosophy, there is nothing improper abut the foregoing NRC Manual provision.
Even if that were not the case, that provision has no significance for it no longer is in effect.
It was part of an earlier explanation of SALP that was eliminated in 1990. Moreover, any complaint concerning improper staff demands go to a separate issue of employee conduct rather than to the validity of SALP. Thus, the commenter's claim that SALP is beyond the regulatory authority of the Commission does not withstand. scrutiny.
Similarly, the claim that SALP contravenes the rulemaking requirements of the APA should be rejected.
The APA generally requires notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for persons to participate prior to a rule's promulgation, amendment, modification, or repeal.
Excepted from this requirement, however, are interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, practice, or procedure.
Courts and legal experts alike have recognized that there is no clear distinction between a substantive rule requiring rulemaking and other pronouncements that do not. That distinction has been described, "most picturesquely" as "
- hrouded in considerable smog." Commuaity Nut rition Institute v. Young, 818 F.2d 943, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
It also has been described as a " hazy continuum" and as " fuzzy".
American Hospital Association
- v. Bowen, 834 f.2d 1037, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
The task for determining whether a given agency action is interpretive or legislative is an
" extraordinary case-specific endeavor." Ld. at 1045.
As notea above, the SALP process imposes no legal demands or requirements on licensees.
Even if SALP were to be considered a " rule", it would f~all under the exceptions to the notice and comment requirement of the APA.
According to the commenter, SALP requires notice and comment because, as implemented, it has a substantial impact on licensees.
'he commenter's reliance, however, solely on substantial impact as a test for determining whether a rule requires notice and comment, or falls under one of the exceptions, is misplaced. The narrow substantive effect test, enunciated in Pickus v. United States Board of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1974) and relied on by the commenter, has given way in recent years to one that inquires more broadly whether the agency acti n "also encodes a substantive value judgment or puts a stamp of approval o
or disapproval on a given type of behavior." American Hospital Association v.
Bowen, 834 F.2d at 1047. This broader test is "in recognition that even unambiguously procedural rules affect parties to some degree." id. at 1047.
See also Industrial Safet y Eauipment Association. Inc. v. E.P. A. (837 F.2d 1115, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (the court explaining that it has rejected the notion that the mere fact that an agency action has substantial impact transforms it into a legislative rule); American Postal Workers Union. AFL-CIO
- v. United States Postal Service, 707 F.2d 548, 560 (D.C. Cir.1983) (the court noting that the impact of a rule has no bearing on whether it is legislative or interpretive; interpretive rules may have a substantial impact on the rights of individuals).
This broader test is also consistent with the reading of the exceptions, judicially endorsed as the one "that seems most consonant with Congress' purposes in adopting the APA," that construes them "as an attempt to preserve agency flexibility in dealing with situations where substantive rights are not at stake." The rulemaking exceptions " accommodate
situations where the policies promoted by public participation in rulemaking-are outweighed by the countervailing considerations of effectiveness, efficiency, expedition and reduction in expense." American Hospital.
Association, 834 F.2d at 1045.
In recent years, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has also declared that a legislative rule, i.e. one requiring notice and comment "is recognizable by virtue of its binding effect."' Alaska
- v. Department of Transportation, 868 F.2d 441, 445 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Community Nutrition Institute v. Youna, 818 f.2d at 945-47.
Under either Alaska or American Hospital Association, SALP is not a rule requiring notice and comment. Applying, first, the Alaska standards, SALP does not require notice and comment for it has no binding effect on licensees.
Applying next the American Hospital Association principles to SALP, a strong f
case can be made for concluding that SALP is a policy statement or, alternatively, is a rule of internal agency procedure. To reiterate, SALP itself places no demands on licensees.
If, as asserted by the commenter, licensees take extra measures in response to staff comments during inspections and from SALP discussions to obtain a more current or future favorable SALP evaluation, it is the result of the licensees' own doing and not directly that of SALP.
SALP itself does not impose any value judgment on licensees and SALP evaluations do not result in enforcement action. Use by states and other entities of SALP evaluations are beyond the Commission's control and is not a purpose of the program.
Moreover,'SALP has no effect on licensee rights. On the other hand, SALP serves an important agency function in providing agency r
managers with the kind of staff input that is particularly useful in deciding i
how and when its resources can be used most effectively in its program of plant inspection.
These f actors give powerful support for the conclusion that l
SALP falls outside of the APA's notice and comment requirements.
i lhe remaining two complaints are, like the ones already discussed, based on the faulty premise that SALP imposes demands on licensees that go beyond the i
requirements of valid rules and regulations. As indicated before, SALP imposes no demands on licensees. SALP is strictly an internal agency program i
to assist management in making decisions relating to when and to what extent plants should undergo inspection. Accordingly, these two complaints as well as the others discussed above, as a matter of law, do not compel either that SALP be abandoned by the Commission or be substantially revised to accommodate i
the stated concerns of the commenter.
I r
h I
-