ML20035H659
| ML20035H659 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/30/1993 |
| From: | Shewmon P Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ACRS-R-1521, NUDOCS 9305060169 | |
| Download: ML20035H659 (4) | |
Text
i t
[p?* MG
'o, UNITED STATES ACRSR-1521 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
- }$
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS PDR o
9 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 April 30, 1993 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Selin:
SUBJECT:
STAFF INITIATIVES TO REVISE THE SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE PROGRAM During the 396th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, April 15-17, 1993, we discussed with representatives of the NRC staff and NUMARC the staff's final recommendations for changes to the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Program, as delineated in SECY-93-090.
We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.
Since SECY-93-090 was a
predecisional document before the Commission's April 15, 1993 SALP briefing, the NUMARC representa-tives did net have an opportunity to review it before our discussion.
In a number of our past reports, we have provided comments and recommendations to the Commission based on our assessment of the SALP Program.
In general, we have agreed with the longstanding industry position that major changes were needed to correct serious problems with the Program. A major thrust of our past comments and recommendations was that the staff inappropriately uses the Program as a means of imposing its demands and expectations (beyond what is required by the NRC's basic regulatory requirements) on nuclear power plant licensees.
We have argued for a more effective set of checks and balances on the SALP Program and more NRC senior staff management involvement in monitoring its implementation.
The staff has evaluated comments related to the SALP Program that it received during its 1989 Regulatory Impact Survey and, in response to a Staff Requirements Memorandum, it developed "prelimi-nary conclusions for changes to the SALP program" as described in SECY-92-290.
The staff then sought public comment on these proposed changes. Additional changes are now being proposed by the staff as described in SECY-93-090.
We have the following comments and recommendations on-this SECY paper:
169 930430 93050
- k PDR RS-PDR i(
R-1521 W-
The Honorable Ivan Selin 2
April 30, 1993 We agree with the staff that an effective, integrated program e
for periodically assessing licensee performance is a necessary regulatory tool, We believe that the changes to the SALP Program that the staff e
is proposing will prove to be beneficial.
- However, we continue to point out that many of the important changes are aspirational in nature.
Good intentions do not always result in improved and more ef fective regulation.
Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission establish a periodic feedback mechanism so that it can monitor the anticipated staff progress in improving the SALP Program.
One such mechanism would be to conduct another Regulatory Impact Survey in one to two years after these changes to the SALP Program have been implemented, We recommend that the Commission formalize an appeal process e
that would permit a licensee to bring grievances regarding the application of the SALP Program to the attention of senior staff management without fear of retribution.
We are persuaded by the staff's arguments that the objectives e
of the SALP Program require the use of a numerical grading system for the consolidated SALP Functional Areas.
We expect to interact with the staff and the industry on this important matter as experience is gained with the SALP Program.
. Additional comments by ACRS Membeli James C.
Carroll, Harold W.
Lewis, and Charles W. Wylie are presented below.
Sincerely, Paul Shewmon Chairman Additional Comments by ACRS Members James C.
Carroll. Harold W.
Lewis, and Charles W. Wylie We are in agreement with the Committee's report with the exception of the comment that the " objectives of the SALP Program require the use of a numerical grading system for the consolidated SALP Functional Areas."
We believe that many of the internal and external difficulties with the Program would be lessened if the grading system were eliminated.
We no'.m that INPO's periodic evaluation program does not use a numerwal grading system for individual plant functional areas.
O e
i The Honorable Ivan Selin 3
April 30, 1993 Their program appears to be effective in communicating the results of the evaluations to the utilities.
We also note that the staff's proposal is inconsistent in that the Plant Support Functional Area now comprises several important rating categories (including some that were previously classified as individual Functional Areas).
Use of a single grade for the Plant Support Functional Area does not provide the numerical grades for these important categories that the staff claims it needs "in its allocation of resources to oversee, inspect, and assess licensee performance."
We recommend that the staff develop a pilot program (perhaps centered in one region) to test the effectiveness of the Program without the use of a numerical grading system.
Recall that on December 21,
- 1989, the ACRS recommended that the Program be suspended, and that no new ratings be issued until it is fixed.
Soon thereafter the Commission considered eliminating numerical ratings entirely, and the motion was defeated on a tie vote.
References:
1.
SECY-93-090, dated April 6, 1993, for the Commissioners, from James M.
Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC,
Subject:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Program 2.
- Letter, dated December 18,
- 1992, from Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, to Joe F.
Colvin, NUMARC, responding to NUMARC's October 20, 1992, letter on the SALP Program 3.
Letter, dated October 20, 1992, from Joe F. Colvin, NUMARC, to Ivan Selin, NRC Chairman, providing industry views on the SALP Program 4.
Letter, dated October 9, 1992, from Douglas S.
Reynolds and David S. Repka, Winston & Strawn, to David L. Meyer, U.S. NRC, regarding SALP Program 5.
SECY-92-290, dated August 19, 1992, for the Commissioners, from James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC,
Subject:
Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
Program 6.
Memorandum dated December 20, 1991, from Samuel J.
- Chilk, Secretary, for James M.
- Taylor, Executive Director for Operations, NRC,
Subject:
SECY-91-172. - Regulatory Impact Survey Report - Final 7.
Report from David A. Ward, ACRS Chairman, to Ivan Selin, NRC i
- Chairman,
Subject:
The Staff's Recommendations on the Regulatory Impact Survey Report, September 10, 1991 8.
Letter, dated December 11, 1990, from Zack T. Pate, Institute i
of Nuclear Power Operations, to Kenneth M. Carr, NRC Chairman, l
providing comments on the results of the NRC Regulatory Impact l
Survey and ACRS comments on regulatory coherence 9.
Report from Carlyle Michelson, ACRS Chairman, to Kenneth M.
- Carr, NRC Chairman,
Subject:
Reevaluation of the SALP Program, September 12, 1990 1
l l
4 4
The Horiorable Ivan Selin 4
April 30, 1993 10.
Letter, dated September 4, 1990, from Joe F. Colvin, NUMARC, to Harold W.
Lewis, ACRS, providing comments on proposed changes to the SALP Program 11.
Report from Carlyle Michelson, Acting Chairman of ACRS, to Kenneth M.
Carr, NRC Chairman,
Subject:
Coherence in the Regulatory Process, December 21, 1989 h
n I
s i-I T
I m
.