ML20053B203
| ML20053B203 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/08/1982 |
| From: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053B198 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7, TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-82-150, NUDOCS 8205280168 | |
| Download: ML20053B203 (30) | |
Text
- - -
u tu p uava
?s f
3 5
e i
a
...../
POLICY ISSUE Anril 8, 1982 szcy-82-130 (Notation Vote)
For:
The Commissioners From:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM (PAT) INSPECTION PROGRAM
Purpose:
To present alternatives and a recommendation for the Performance Appraisal Team (PAT) inspection program.
Category:
This Paper covers a minor policy question requiring Commission consideration.
Resource estimates are Category I.
Issue:
In light cf the Commission's regionalization initiative, the on going INPO evaluation program, and the need to utilize resources effectively, should the PAT inspection program at operating reactors be continued as it was established, be diminished, be modified, or be abolished?
Alternatives:
a.
Continue the present PAT program.
The program would continue to be an IE Program with approximately 21 man years of staff effort expended by IE staff located in Washington and the Regions.
About 15-17 PAT inspections would be conducted per year, with no offsetting credit for the INPO program.
b.
Continue the present PAT orogram with implementation by Regions.
IE would develop and assess the program using 2 staff positions and the program would be implemented by the Regions, as is the case for other inspection programs.
Nineteen Regional staff would conduct 15-17 PAT inspections per year.
No credit would be given for the INPO program.
c.
Diminish and restructure the PAT program. Maintain some IE staff positions located in Regional offices.
The program would continue to be managed by IE, but
Contact:
James G. Partlow, IE 492-9650 820 5 2 8 () \\ La8
l The Commissioners 2
it would be restructured to give credit for the INP0 program.
The INP0 program would be monitored by direct observation and review of reports by 7 personnel located in Washington and in the Regions.
Additionally, 2-3 PAT inspections would be conducted each year as an independent cross-check on the INPO program and the effectiveness of the IE inspection program.
d.
Diminish and restructure the PAT program. Consolidate the staff in Washington. Same as Alternative c above, except all staff would be permanently duty-stationed in Headquarters.
Current Region duty-stations woula be phased out over a period of about one to two years.
e.
Diminish and restructure the PAT program under a Lead Region.
Under management of a Lead Region, 2-3 PAT inspections per year would be conducted by 6 personnel with Regional duty stations.
An IE staff of 2 personnel would monitor the INPO program by direct observation and review of reports.
f.
Abolish the present PAT program, but have IE monitor the INP0 program.
PAT inspections would be eliminated.
An IE staff of 2 personnel would monitor the INP0 program by direct observation and review of reports.
Decision 1.
Licensee Management Review.
Does the alternative l
Criteria:
provide for NRC review of overall licensee management controls of safety-related activities at operating plants independent from Regional offices?
2.
INPO Program.
Does the alternative take advantage of similar program evaluations being conducted by INP0 while maintaining adequate NRC independent review?
3.
Resource Efficiency.
Given other priority needs, is the alternative resource efficient?
4.
Regionalization Concept:
Is the alternative consistent with the concept of IE developing and evaluating the inspection program and the Regions implementing it?
c.
The Commissioners 3
5.
Licensee Burden.
Does the alternative reduce the burden being borne by the licensee?
Background
In June 1977, the Commission approved a Revised 'nspection I
Program for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0397) that included placing resident inspectors at licensee sites, development of a national performance appraisal capability, development of an independent measurements capability, and enhancing the inspector career management and training programs.
That action resulted in the creation of the Performance Appraisal Branch (PAB) under the Division of Reactor Construction Inspection, Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE).
This branch and its members were initially called the Performance Appraisal Team (PAT).
As described in NUREG-0397, PAT inspections were designed to meet the following objectives:
- Evaluation of the performance of NRC licensees from a national perspective
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of the NRC inspection program
- Confirmation of the objectivity of NRC inspectors With the development of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program during the 1979-80 period, the results of PAT inspections were used as part of the Region's SALP review and of the Headquarters SALP overview and final national rating of operating reactors.
It should be noted, however, that SALP provides an annual assessment for a given plant, and even at full strength the PAT program would conduct an inspection at that plant on an average of once every four years or so.
The SALP program was continued until implementation of the Commission's regionalization initiative in late 1981.
At that time the Commission directed that the SALP program be regionalized; the program would be implemented in its entirety within each Region in accordance with a program defined by IE and approved by the EDO.
An approved regionalized SALP Program is currently being implemented.
The Commiss'ioners 4
The PAT inspection program as established prior to implementation of the Commission's regionalization initiative last year was conducted by an IE Branch allotted 21 positions.
Three PAT teams were in place and it was contemplated that each team could complete at least 5 PAT inspections per year with each individual inspection requiring about 9 weeks of team effort; about 3 weeks of this was on-site and in-utility office inspection time.
Because of economic considerations, 12 of the 18 inspectors in the Branch were permitted to be duty-stationed in the Regions from which they were recruited for the PAT assignment.
As part of the IE reorganization the Washington based PAT inspectors have been integrated into the Reactor Construction Programs and Operating Reactor Programs Branches which have the primary responsibility for inspection program development and assessment.
Because of staff losses and reassignments since the regionalization initiative was undertaken in November 1981, only seven personnel are currently members of the PAT staff.
The PAT organization completed 8 inspections from FY 1978 through 1980 when the program was being developed and staff was being assigned and trained.
In FY 1981 the group completed 10 inspections.
Four inspections have been completed in FY 1982 to date.
The results have been of significant benefit, especially in providing clearer insight into areas where specific utilities were either deficient or were very effective in management controls.
The PAT program has not been free of criticisms, organizational problems and staffing problems.
Critics have questioned the efficiency and effectiveness of the program given the relatively large staff, long interval between inspections and additional burden on licensees.
Some aspects of the program duplicate or are similar to features of the routine inspection program and INPO's evaluation program.
The organizational problems are those which inevitably develop when personnel are co-located with the organization they are evaluating and when they are geographically separated from the supervisors and management.
While these problems have not seriously degraded the overall PAT inspection program, they have continued to have an impact on our ability to attract and retain top quality experienced personnel.
Recruitment of an adequate number of highly qualified staff with experience in NRC and utility management and reactor operations has been difficult.
The Commissioners 5
As an industry initiative, INP0 has developed and is now routinely implementing a program of evaluating operating plants tnat in many ways duplicates the PAT inspections.
We have observed one such INPO evaluation and have discussed the INPO and PAT program features with INPO.
While the programs differ in some measure, we are favorably impressed with the INPO effort.
We believe that, with proper NRC monitoring of the INP0 effort, credit for the INP0 evaluations could be granted.
We could release staff resources to other priority tasks and relieve the inspection burden being borne by some licensees.
Last year's survey of operating utilities directed by Region II provided clear evidence of the heavy inspection burden being experienced by licensees and of their need for relief from redundant and overlapping demands.
In evaluating whether to modify the PAT program, the Commission should also consider prior correspondence with the House Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources (Committee on Government Operations) concerning Committee recommendations contained in H.R. Report No. 96-1452 of October,2, 1980.
The Commission's response to these recommendations was forwarded in a letter dated December 9, 1980 from the Chairman to Congressman Toby Moffett.
A copy of this letter is included in Appendix A to this paper.
In large part, the Committee report is based upon an oversight hearing which was held in May 1980.
Mr. Stello, as well as the Director of Region I and two members of the Program Appraisal Branch, appeared before the Committee at that time.
Appendix A also includes pertinent extracts from the transcript of that meeting.
i l
Discussion:
We have considered the various alternatives described previously for the PAT program in light of the decision criteria listed above.
A summary of each alternative with Pros and Cons based on the decision criteria is presented in the following discussion.
Alternative a.
Continue the present PAT program.
Pro 1.
Provides a continuing program independent of the Regional Offices.
l l
The Commissioners 6
Con 1.
Grants no credit to INPO program and duplicates many aspects of the INPO activity.
2.
Frees no resources for other priority tasks.
To re-establish the staff of 21 will be disruptive to other' priority tasks.
3.
Not consistent with regionalization policy of having inspection programs developed and assessed by IE but implemented by the Regions.
4.
Maintains present inspection burden on licensees.
Alternative b. Continue the present PAT Program with implementation by the Regions.
Pro 1.
Provides a continuing program of licensee performance appraisal.
2.
Consistent with regionalization policy of having the inspection program developed by IE, that the Regions should implement that inspection program, and that IE should assess the Regions' performance in that implementation.
Con 1.
Abolishes the independence of the program from Regional Offices.
However, the program would be independent of the routine Regional program.
2.
Grants no credit to INPO program and duplicates many aspects of the INP0 activity.
3.
Frees no cesources for other priority tasks.
To re-establish the staff of 21 will be disruptive to other priority tasks.
4.
Maintains present inspection burden on licensees.
Alternative c. Diminish and restructure the PAT program.
l Maintain some IE staff positions in Regional offices.
The Commissioners 7
Pro 1.
Provides a continuing program independent from the Regional Offices.
2.
Grants reasonable credit to INPO programs.
3.
Frees 14 positions for other priority tasks.
4.
Generally consistent with regionalization policy of having inspection programs developed and assessed by IE but implemented by Regione.
(2-3 PAT inspections per year would primarily be used to assess the adequacy of the INPO program and, as a part of the regular IE program, to assess the overall NRC inspection program and the Region's performance in implementing that program.)
5.
Reduces the inspection burden on licensees.
Con 1.
Geographically separates those PAT staff members located in the Regions from their supervisors.
Alternative d. Diminish and restructure the PAT program.
Consolidate the staff in Washington.
Pro 1.-
Provides a continuing program independent from the Regional Offices.
2.
Grants reasonable credit to INPO programs.
l 3.
Frees 14 positions for other priority tasks.
4.
Generally consistent with regionalization policy of having inspection programs developed and assessed by IE but implemented by Regions.
(2-3 PAT inspections per year would primarily be used to assess the a,dequacy of the INPO program and, as a part of the regular IE program, to assess the overall inspection program and the Region's performance in implementing that program.)
--T---w-
+.---,
The Commissioners 8
5.
Reduces the inspection burden on licensees.
Con None.
Alternative e. Diminish and restructure the PAT program under a lead region.
Pro 1.
Provides a continuing program of assessment of overall licensee management controls.
2.
Grants reasonable credit to INP0 program.
3.
Frees 13 positions for other priority tasks.
4.
Consistent with regionalization policy of having inspection programs developed and assessed by IE but implemented by the Regions.
5.
Reduces the inspection burden on licensees.
Con 1.
Abolishas the independence of the program from Regional Offices.
However, the program would be independent of the routine Regional program.
Alternative f. Abolish the present PAT inspection program but have IE monitor the INPO program.
Pro 1.
Grants maximum credit to INPO program.
2.
Frees 19 positions for other priority tasks.
3.
Involves no practices inconsistent with t
regionalization policy.
l 4.
Reduces the inspection burden on licensees.
l Con 1.
Provides no specific NRC program, independent of the Regions, for inspection of overall t
licensee management controls of safety-related activities at operating nuclear power plants.
2.
Provides minimal oversight of INP0 program.
em-w'"w
-m
The Commissioners 9
While the concept and objectives of the present PAT program remain valid, the staff believes a number of recent organizational changes and program developments support a modification of PAT:
The regionalized and strengthened SALP program now looks more extensively at licensee management controls.
Senior regional management is involved and an independent review and some input is provided by IE, NRR and AE00 participation.
The INPO program to annually evaluate operating plants is similar to the PAT program and in some respects duplicative of the routine NRC inspection program.
With adequate NRC review of the INPO program, we believe INPO evaluations could be used to reduce the number of independent NRC reviews.
The reorganization of the regions and IE has focused management attention on inspecton program development and appraisal.
IE will not be involved in day to day inspection activities but will be evaluating the way the inspection program is executed and structured.
I propose modifying the PAT program to reflect the above considerations.
The revised PAT Program would involve monitoring the INPO program by direct observation and review of reports.
Additionally, 2 to 3 PAT inspections would be conducted per year as an independent cross-check of the INPO program, licensee performance and inspection program effectiveness.
l An IE staff of seven would be duty stationed in Washington.
The staff size will be more resource efficient, freeing some resources for other high priority initiatives.
Additionally, I believe with a staff of seven located in Washington, most of the past organizational and staffing problems can be mitigated.
Recommendations:
That the Commission:
1.
Approve Alternative (d).
Diminish and restructure the PAT Program.
Consolidate the staff in Washington.
The Commissioners 10 2.
Note that if the recommended alternative is approved, I propose to retain the PAT Organizational element in the Division of Reactor Programs in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
The inspector personnel for the group would be selected from the experienced PAT inspectors now duty-stationed in IE Headquarters and in the Regions.
The selection of personnel would consider individual preferences to the extent possible and would be based on an agreement reached by the involved Regional Admini-strators and the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement (aided by the Director of the Division of Reactor Programs) and approved by the EDO.
3.
Note that a draft Memorandum of Agreement between NRC and INPO, which would define the general guidelines for NRC recognition of INPO evaluations, has been developed by the staff.
It has not yet been approved by me or by the INPO Board of Directors.
4.
Note that if the recommended alternative is approved, the Staff will prepare a letter to Congressman Moffett summarizing the restructuring of the PAT Program.
Scheduling:
This paper should be scheduled at an open meeting.
No specific circumstance is known to staff which would require Commission action by any particular date in the near term.
ill Efm 'J. Dircks l
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Appendix A l
Ccmnissioners' ccmnents shculd be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Mcnday, April 26, 1982.
Ccmnissicn Staff office ccmnents, if any, should be subnitted to the Ccmnissioners NLT Monday, April 19, 1982, with an information copy to the office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical l
review and ccmnent, the Ccmnissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of l
when ccmnents may be e.W.
DISTRIBUTION:
Ccmnissioners Ccmnissicn Staff Offices l
i Appendix A CONGRESSIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING PAT PROGRAM This Appendix contains the Commission's response to recommendations made in Report No. 96-1452 of the House Government Operations Committee.
The Commission will note that the forwarding letter describes the. responses as staff comments rather than Commission commitments.
Additionally, the staff has extracted the following pertinent oral testimony from the transcript of the May 1980 hearing attended by Mr. Stello:
During his oral testimony before the Subcommittee, Mr. Stello stated that "I am strongly supportive of the PAB activity; I think it has the potential for focusing on an area which, I think, the accident at Three Mile Island showed us was very important--the people-related problem or ma.1agement system.
The emphasis of the PAB inspection is the management controls, which does not get the same degree of emphasis in the regionally based programs cince they are taking it a piece at a time.
And the only real comprehensive look that we have at the management control system is now beginning with the PAB activity and the systematic assessment of licensee perfor-mance, which is now going on in all the regions.
In my view, I think this is a general upgrading of both our standards and the standards we expect in the industry."
During the hearing, Congressman Moffett noted that "As you may know, just about at this hour-maybe within a half an hour--the Energy and Power Subcommittee will begin the markup of the NRC authorization bill; and as a member of that sub-ccamittee, I can assure you that I will be pushing for adequate resources for this PAB group."
-r
'~
(9 g
n....
' n Ft.it.:r:
.1:
i
.... g., r.,,
December 9. 1980
- -4 n.
Th'e Honorable Toby Moffett, Chairman Subcomittee on Environment. Energy and Natural Resources Cemittee on Government Operations United States House of Representatives
~
Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Comission has had an opportunity to review the recomendations contained in Report No. 96-1452 of the House Committee on Government Operations for the improvement of NRC's Inspection and
~
Enforcement program.
After reviewing the Comittee's report. I asked the NRC staff to consi.1er each recomendation and provide its corrrents.
I am I
. enclosing for your informati.on the corrments received by the Corr.ission from Mr. Stallo, Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcecent.
The enclosure lists each recomendation of the Comittee and the related staff response..The Com.issicn agrees in' general with these comments.
We will examine the Cnmittee's recomendations in developing our program.
l Si 'erely,
\\' #
f w..AM c
John F. Ahearne Chairman
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
Toep, paul fl. McCloskey, Jr.
r k?
//10IJ[,3j)@
NITiTCTiM.- 2
. p'#[ _ ],',
y v
n
. --.- -.~ - - -- - - -. - - -----
~..p A
With respect to the problem of identifying weak utilities, the Committee s
recommends:
I.,
The NRC should move as rapidly as possible to expand its Performance Appraisal program, as enforcement Director Victor Stello pledged to the Subcommittee he would.
The goal should be to have at least four highly qualified teams in the field.
On that basis, a cycle of_ appraising the management of all currently operating utilities every three years or less should be achievable.
Such a cycle should be a minimum goal.
' Response:
Action has been taken to assign sufficient personnel.for three teams witn a fourth team to be manned by the end of FY81.
About half the inspectors in the current three teams are on temporary assignments with PAB of six to nine months since they were drawn from Regional inspe'ctor resources.
Thus, it will be necessary to recruit to replace those assignees as well as to man the fourth team during this fiscal year.
We are committed to proceed with that process.
A.2.
In that expansion of the PAB staffing, the NRC should place a high priority on obtaining a composite of individuals with extensive experience in operating and. inspecting nuclear reactors cnd individuals with manage-ment experience, whether from the nuclear industry or another high-tech-
~
nology industry.
The documented reluctance of the regional offices and some licensees to accept the findings and conclusions of this new internal audit group dictate the need for an especially high level of experience and competence on the part of its inspectors.
y
+
I
Response
We are placing a high priority on obtaining such a composite
~
of qualified personnel in our presently accelerated staffing efforts.
A.3.
The NRC should strongly c'onsider extending the PAB program to the
~~
construction permit stage, with PAB inspe'ctions made of the licensee's performance at critical " hold points" or stages of the development of the nuclear facility.
PAB approval of the adequacy of the management controls utilized by the licensee would be made necessary for continuation of the construction.
Should incremental budget' authority be needed for the additio,nal PAB teams required for this extension of the program to the construction phase, this Committee and the Congress should be so advised.
Likewise, the NRC should inform this Committee and the Congress in a timely fashion if it is aware of factors which would impede the implemen-tation of this recommendation.
Response
The PAB program was originally planned to include reactor construction.
Because of staffing difficulties, no PAB inspection of l
construction sites is currently scheduled.
Priority has been given to operating reactors in the ir,+e 2st of public health and safety.
We are l
l currently deveioping a trial program for inspection and identification of' t
poorer performing construction licensees through Regionally-based teams of specialists which we expect to meet PAB objectives' in the construction '
~
area - at least in the near term.
A.4.
The PAB teams should continue to use " observations" in their reports to identify the management strengths and weaknesses of particular licensees.
i
'l.
_3,
Response
PAB observations regarding strengths and weaknesses remain a key part of that inspection process.
A.S.
Weaknesses and areas of poor performance discovered by the PAB team inspections which appear to 'be prevalent throughout the industry should be given high priority attention by NRC headquarters for resolution for all licensees.
For example, the PAB reports and statemen,ts studied by the Subcommittee indicate that the training of non-licensed personnel by operating utilities may be a generic problem in the industry worthy of a comprehensive enforcement response by the NRC.
Response
Based upnn the same weaknesses being noted in other inspections, we have initiated corrective action in the area of training of non-licensed personnel by preparing revisions to the appropriate industry Standa'rd and is' suing a Regulatory Guide.
Before concluding that any other weaknesses noted are sufficiently prevalent to take action with all licensees, we l
believe we should complete considerably more'than the eight inspections l
done to date.
r l
1 i
A.6.
By the same token, those specific strengths of licensees,identifiec by PAB and the details of the overall performance of licensees gr'aded as good performers should be communicated by NRC headquarters to all licensees.
A clear objective of the PAB program must be to raise the industry-wide standards by disseminating information about the management techniques of utilities that are doing a superior job in the NRC's judg-ment.
That will provide an important and necessary complement to the
?
Y
. ~.
4_
current industry efforts, through the new Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), to meet this need.
Response
We have initiated a program for distribution of PAB reports to all li.censees and have communicated with INP0 representatives regarding inspection results.
We have emphasized weaknesses more than strengths, probably because of our function as regulators.
We will, concentrate to bring out positive inspection results as well.
A. 7.
The SALP program should be expedited and the results of those analyses utilized by thoroughgoing enforcement followup.
Response
We agree with this recommendation.
SALP efforts are progressing well in.the Regions.
Headquarters efforts to review Regional results are getting underway.
l A.8.
Both the PAB and SALP programs should grade the performance of licensees.
The three-tiered system suggested by past NRC studies of the t
l weak utility problem and pioneered by the PAB group appears acceptable.
l
Response
We wi,11 c'ontinue with the three-tiered grading approach.
i A. 9.
The results of the PAB and SALP evaluations should be m'ade readily available to the public, in light of the strong public interest, 4
particularly on the part of those living near an operating r.eactor, in learning more about the operational performance at nearby nuclear plants.
y.
-.__,,_-,,_,_.,_.-,.-...,_-,,-_._..m_
WI l.
\\
\\
Response
These reports are being placed in the Public Document Room.
We will review this recommendation with an eye toward further modifying' our program for wider dissemination of PAB inspection results.
B_.,
With respect to the five NRC regional enforcement offices, the Committee recommends:
1.
NRC headquarters should insist upon regional support for the concept of the PAB program as an internal audit device by which the NRC can monitor,the performance of the regional enforcement offices.
Response
The PAB effort has the support of NRC management.
Mr. Stello has emphasized acceptance of the PAB program by Regional Directors.
B.' 2.
The NRC should complete a substantially higher portion of its routine inspection program.
The Committee does not express a view on whether certain parts of the existing program could be eliminated.
It recommends only that the NRC must clearly determine what routir.2 inspec-tions are necessary for insuring full licensee compliance with NRC regula-tions, then complete essentially all such inspections on a timely basis.
Response
The current reorganization of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement emphasizes the need for program review and development.
Many of the compeling requirements for resources rising out of the TMI-2 accident have subsided somewhat which has aided program completion.
We expect to perform a review and adjustment of our present program to
I
?
~
assure that it emphasizes only those matters that we consider to be
~
important to safety.
In addition ws have emphasized program performance appraisal in the recent reorganization, which should also be a positive
~
contribution in this area.
B.3.
Documentation of the NRC enforcement steps, including all contacts between the regional offices and licensees, must be comp 1,ete.
Of particular importance is the-contemporaneous recordation of any and all licensee commitments to the NRC to solve identified problems under -
specific timetables and licensee promises to take any additional steps
' ndicated by the NRC as needed to improve the licensee's performance.
i
Response
We will emphasize that all NRC enforcement steps and licensee responses must be documented B.4.
The NRC should be certain that it has regular and full access, through its regional enforcement program, to all industry self-audits.
The Committee notes with particular approval Mr. Stello's statement that the NRC intends to achieve access to such industry self-audits as those to be produced by the new INPO.
Inthenormalcourseofreguiation,the NRC 'should not base enforcement action directly on such self-audits, but should in all cases utilize their findings fully as th'e basis for indepen-dent identification by the Commission of problems indicated b'y such audits.
~
Response
We will assure that we have regular and full access to industry self-audit,s in the area of HRC's responsibility.
We would respect the privacy of any audit criticism of licensee individuals and recognize the counter productive nature of using such audits for enforcement action.
C.
With respect to licensees, the Coconittee recommends:
L The NRC should encourage the use of such self-audit techniques as those discussed above.
Utilities should be encouraged to share with each '
other information ab'out management and technical developments.at particular utilities that could improve the performance of the e,nti.re industry.
Response
We agree with the Committee's reccmmendation concerning the use of self-audit techniques and the subsequent sharing of the results of such self-audits among utilities.
Our present rules prescribe self-audits on the part of licensees.
C.2.
The NRC should consider formalizing an enforcement response directed at utilities which show persistently poor performance when evaluated by the PAB and SALP programs.
For example, the NRC could determine that any utility receiving " Poor" evaluations on half or more of the areas examined by PAB on two successive examinations within a three year period be automatically subjected to a formal proceeding considering the suspension of their operating license.
As the SALP program is developed, an alterna-tive trigger for a suspension or revocation proceeding could be hinged to
.g.
the evaluations produced by that program.
The Committee defers to the NRC's regulatory judgment in deciding the precise e,nforcement arrangemerit, but recommends strongly that the NRC create a formal enforcement device that puts licensees on notice tfiat persistently poor evaluations jeopardize
~
their construction permits and operating licenses.
Response
NRC enforcement policy is based upon the principle of correcting and improving licensee performance.
The Committee's aims with regard to use of PAB and SALP results in enforcement' actions will be carefully considered as these programs are further developed and utilized.
C.3.
In similar fashion, the NRC should devise a formal enforcement mechanism for sanctioning licensees who repeatedly fail to honor compliance cordmitments made to NRC enforcement officials in a timely fashion.
Even if the underlying problems at a utility.are not seen as a direct threat i
to safe operation of a facility, it should be recognized by the NRC and the industry that a pattern of repeated failures to honor commitments to,
the Commission to solve those problems is itself a major failing incensis-tent with the standard of performance the public must demand from the nuclear power in'dustry.
Response
The recently revised NRC enforcement criteria better takes into account the impact that a licensee's past failures should have on a given enforcement sanction.
7
^
_g_
C.4.
The Committee recommends that the NRC devote increased attention to the problems of reaching vendors of nuclear equipment with effective enforcement action, including possible expansion of the,NRC inspection program regarding vendors.
The Committee cannot make additional recommen-
~
dations in this area at this time, but views this as an important enforce-ment issue closely related to the question of adequate performance of utilities with nuclear operating licenses and construction permits.
Should the NRC determine that additional statutory authority'is either needed or would be helpful in reaching vendors with a more effective enforcemsnt program, this Committee and the' Congress should be so advised.
l
Response
We,have recently revised the policy for our vendor inspection program to place greater emphasis upon inspection of design-related work by non-licensees such as architect / engineers while continuing inspe'ction of vendor equipment problems of safety significance.
Under 10 CFR 21 we do have authority tc take enforcement action with non-licensees who fai1 to meet requirements with regard to promptly notifying the Commission of '
the existence of substantial safety hazards.
We do not need additional enforcement authority with non-licensees at this time.
f e
er
=
SECY-82-150 PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM (PAT)
~'
INSPECTION-PROGRAM (IN ADDITION TO THE BRIEFING SHEETS, THE STAFF HAS ATTACHED SOME INFORMATION WHICH COMPARES THE SALP, PAT AND INP0 PROGRAMS.)
?
l i
t i
e PATPROGRAMAPPROVEDIN1977 e
OBICTIVESi
~
]
/
- EVALLMTE LICENSEE PERFORMNCE FRCM MTIOML RRSPECTIVE
- EVALlMTE IRC INSPECTION PROGRAM EFFECTIWXSS.
- LOWIRM OBICTIVITY OF I,NSPECTORS
/-
O 9
.i i
PAT INSPECTION SIM MRY e FY 79 - FIVE INSP, FY 81
. TEN IfiSP.
FY 80 - THREE INSP, FY 82 - F0lR INSP.
e 21 POSITIONS (WASH. & REGIONS) l
/
e 3 TEAMS OF SIX INSPECTORS e 3 W(S. OF FIELD WORK (SITE & CORP '0FFICE) e 15-17 INSP, PER YR.
4 j
l l
e
PATREVIEWSMANAGEMENTCONTROLSYSTEMSFORMAJbRACTIVITIES:
e SAFETY COMMITTEES OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE 0A AUDITS RADIATION PROTECTION TRAINING DESIGN CHANGES CORRECTIVE ACTION SYSTEMS l
e GENERAL PAT QUESTIONS REGARDING LICENSEE PROGRAMS:
FORMAL PROGRAM ESTABLISHED?
STAFF AWARE OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS?
STAFF TRAINED AND QUALIFIED?
PROGRAM BEING IMPLEMENTED?
e QUESTIONS REGARDING NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS:
FOR PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY PAT, D0 ROUTINE INSPECTION PROCEDURES ADEQUATELY COVER AREA?
IF YES, WHY WAS PROBLEM NOT IDENTIFlED BY ROUTINE PROGRAM?
IF NO, SHOULD PROGRAM CHANGE BE MADE?
ANY OBSERVATIONS TENDlNG TO QUESTION OBJECTIVITY OF RESIDENT INSPECTOR?
PAT PROGRAM DEVELOPED IN 1977 SHOULD BE EXAMINED AGAINST 1982 NRC ORGANIZATION AND NEEDS:
e REGIONALIZATION HAS ALTERED OFFICE ROLES s
NEW PRIORITIES FOR ATTENTION e
DEVELOPMENT OF INP0 PROGRAM e
CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN SALP PROGRAM v'-
l I
I
INPO o
EVALUATE EACH OPERATING PLANT EVERY 15 MONTHS e
SIX EVALUATION TEAMS (G0AL IS 10) e 9 MAN TEAMS /2 WEEK EVALUATION e
EVALUATE AGAINST INP0 STDS OF EXCELLENCE IN:..
ORG. & ADMIN.
TRAINING & QUALS RAD PROT / CHEMISTRY OPS MAINTENANCE EMERG PREPAREDNESS CORPORATE (TH.IS YEAR)
TECH SUPPORT e
UTILITY RESP'ONSE TO FINDINGS AND PROGRESS REPORTS REQUESTED e
FOLLOWUP DURING SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION e
DRAFT NRC/INP0 COORD, PLAN NRC ACCOMPANIMENT ON SOME EVALUATIONS REVIEW 0F REPORTS & OTHER INFORMATION
SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE (SALP) a e
A REGIONAL PROGRAM - INPUT FROM OTHER OFFICES AS APPROPRIATE e
INDIVIDUAL SALP REPORT ISSUED ANNUALLY FOR EACH PLANT e
A REVIEW 0F INFORMATION/ DATA GATHERED.0VER PAST YEAR i
e PLANT EVALUATED IN ABOUT 10 AREAS:
CAT. 1:
REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE U
CAT. 2:
NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT NORMAL LEVELS CAT. 3:
BOTH NRC AND LICENSEE ATTENTION SHOULD BE INCREASED e
A PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION ACTIVITIES i
F CONGRESSIONAL IfffEREST IN PAT e HOUSE GOV, OPS, COMITTEE (TOBY M0H-uI)
- f%Y 1980 [ARING
-OCT1980 REPORT e COMITTEE RECutENDATIONS
-EXPANDPATTOLiTEAMS(INSPECTPLANTSEVERY3 YRS.)
-PLACEPRIORITYONHIGHQUALITYSTAFFIfE
- CONSIER EXTENDING PAT TO PUWTS UNIR CONSTRIETION
DECISION CRITERIA 1)
ORIGINAL PAT OBJECTIVES MET?
LICENSEE PERFORMANCE FROM NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
~
EVALUATE INSPECTION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS CONFIRM INSPECTOR OBJECTIVITY 2)
INP0 PROGRAM RECOGNIZED - IF WARRANTED?
3)
CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PRIORITIES FOR PEOPLE?
4)
CONSISTENT WITH REGIONALIZATION CONCEPT AND IE/ REGIONAL ROLES v'-
5)
REASONABLE IN REGARD TO LICENSEE INSPECTION BURDEN?
+
e
i PAT ALTERNATIVES A)
CONTINUE PRESENT PROGRAM IN IE.
B)
CONTINUE PRESENT PROGRAM WITH IMPLEMENTATION BY REGIONS.
i c)
DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTURE PROGRAM.
MAINTAIN SOME IE STAFF IN REGIONAL 0FFICES.
9)
DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTURE PROGRAM, CONSOLIDATE STAFF IN WASHINGTON, E)
DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTURE PROGRAM UNDER A LEAD REGION.
F)
AB0LISH PRESENT PROGRAM.
HAVE IE MONITOR INP0 PROGRAM.
I 1
ALT. A:
CONTINlE PRESENT PROGRM IN IE e AN IE PROGRM (21 STAFF) e NO CREDIT FOR ItP0 e LOCATED IN WASHINGTON & REGIONS e CONDUCT 15-17 INSP,/YR, e BQ e [0N
- PROGRAM INDEPENENT OF REGIONS,
- PARTIALLY DUPLICATES ItP0 WITH NO CREDIT
- FREES NO RESOURCES DIFFIClLT TORE 4STABLISHSTAFF.
l
-NOTCONSISTENTWITHREGIONALIZATION l
ROLES OF IE/ REGIONS,
- MAINTAINS PRESENT INSP BLREN, I
\\
\\
i ALT. B.: COMINUE PRESENT PROGRAM WITH IfMEKtffATION BY REGI0f6 e REGIONS IfREKNT (20 STAFF) e NO CREDIT Fm If00 e IE EVELOP/ ASSESS PROGRAM (2 STAFF) eCONDUCT15.17INSP,/YR.
e EQ ef@
- PROVIES CONTINUING APPRAISAL PROGRAM.
.- PROGRAM NOT CorRETELY INDEPENENT
- CONSISTENT WITH REGIONALIZATION ROLES FROMREGIONS, 0F IE/ REGIONS,
- PARTIALLY DUPLICATES 1000 WITH
-N0 CREDIT,
- FREES NO RESOURES. DIFFICULT TO RE-ESTABLISHSTAFF.
- MAINTAINS PRESENT INSP, HRIN, I
9
ALT. C:
DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTlRE PROGRN1. MAINTAIN S0 W IE STAFF LOCATED IN REGIONAL OFFICES eANIEPROGRAM(7 STAFF) e CREDIT AND MONITOR IJP0 PROGRM e LOCAlED IN WASHINGTON AND REGIONS eCONDUCT2-3INSP,/YR.
e PRQ ef@
- PROGRAM INDEPENDENT OF REGIONS e REGIONAL PAT STAFF SEPARATED
-GRANTSREASONABLEINP0 CREDIT FROM WASHINGTON WMGEENT
- FREES 111 POSITIONS FOR OTHER PRIORITIES
- GEER /tLY CONSISTENT WITH v'1 REGIONALIZATIONPOLICY
- REDUCES INSPECTION IIREN l
1
.J 1
ALT, D:
DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTURE' PROGRAM, 1
CONSOLIDATE STAFF IN WASHINGTON e
AN IE PROGRAM (7 STAFF) e CREDIT AND MONITOR INP0 PROGRAM i
l e
LOCATED IN WASHINGTON (AFTER 2 YEARS) e CONDUCT 2 - 3 INSPECTIONS / YEAR e
PRO e
CON PROGRAM INDEPENDENT OF REGIONS NONE i
GRANTS REASONABLE INP0 CREDIT FREES 14 POSITIONS FOR OTHER PRIORITIES GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH REGIONALIZATION POLICY REDUCES INSPECTION BURDEN i
i I
l ALT. E: DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTWE PfE@ UNER A LEAD REGION e REGIONS.IBREfGT (6 STAFF) e CREDIT NJD MONITOR ItP0' PROGRAM (IE) 4 e IE EVELOP/ ASSESS PROGRAM (2 STAFF) e CONDllCT 2-3 IISP./YR.
i f
e ma e LOR
- PROVIES CONTINUING APPRAISAL PROGRAM
- PROGRAM NOT C00REIELY INDEPENENT
-GRANTSRFRONABLE1000 CREDIT FROMREGI0'S' N
- FREES 13 POSITIONS FOR OTTER PRITITIES
- CONSISlENT WITH REGIONALIZATION POLICY
- REDUCES INSPECTION IAREN v'-
e
ALT. F: AB0LISH PRESEffT PROGRM. HAVE IE MDNITOR ItP0 PROGRAM e AN IE PROGRAM (2 STAFil e CREDIT AND MONITOR ItP0 PB0GR/fl e NO PAT INSPECTIONS e ERQ
. C@
- GRANTS MAXIMLN ItP0 CREDIT
- NO PAT-LIKE INSPECTIONS
- FREES 19 POSITIONS FOR OTTER !.1IORITIES
- MINIMAL 1000 O WRSIGHT
- CONSISTENT WITH REGIONALIZATION POLICY
- REDUCES INSPECTION BLRIEN I
l
SUMMARY
e STAFF RECOMMENDS ALT D:
DIMINISH AND RESTRUCTURE PROGRAM CONSOLIDATE STAFF IN WASHINGTON
~-
e REPRESENTS REASONABLE METHOD OF MEETING ORIGINAL PAT OBJECTIVES:
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE THROUGH INPO AND SALP ASSESSMENT OF INSPECTION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS IS MAJOR IE ROLE INSPECTOR OBJECTIVITY i
A Comparison of SALP, PAT and INP0 Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP)
SALP is an integrated staff effort to collect available observations on an annual basis and evaluate licensee performance based on those observations.
The SALP process is a comprehensive review of the manner in which licensee management directs, guides and provides resources for assuring plant safety.
The goal of a SALP review is to direct NRC and licensee attention towards areas affecting nuclear safety that need improvement.
Part of the input to a SALP assessment consists of the past year's Licensee Event Reports, inspection reports, enforcement history and licensing issues.
Another important input consists of the collective judgment of,the SALP review board, which is composed..of the resident inspectors, licensing project manager and senior regional managers, all of wh'om are familiar with the facility's performance.
No new data is specifically obtained as an input to a SALP assessment.
The product of a SALP assessment consists of performance evaluations in several functional areas such as plant operations and licensing issues.
The evaluations are provided to the licensee in both a meeting and a written report in order to focus future effort to areas in need of improvement.
Performance Appraisal Team (PAT)
The PAT team is a group of experienced NRC inspectors who conduct a comprehensive inspection of an operating reactor's management control systems and related performance.
In contrast to the SALP review board, the PAT team will not have been directly involved in the daily licensing and inspection issues of a particular facility.
Thus the team inspection provides an independent review of the licensee's performance.
The PAT team spencs from eight to ten weeks on an inspection, which includes inspection preparation time, site and corporate office visits and report writing.
Unlike other NRC inspections, the PAT team evaluates licensee practices beyond those specifically based on regulatory requirements.
Functional areas examined include operations, maintenance, training, quality assurance, corrective action systems, design changes and safety committee activities.
If a l
PAT inspection were conducted at a facility during a SALP evaluation period, the l
PAT inspection report would serve as one of the many inputs to the SALP review l
process.
However, not every facility has received a PAT inspection each year.
l Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) l l
One of the major tasks undertaken by INP0 is an annual evaluation of each operating facility.
This evaluation is similar to a PAT inspection in that it is conducted by a team of experienced evaluators over a period of several weeks.
Although many of the functional areas evaluated by INP0 and PAT are the same, some differ.
PAT performs inspections in areas not yet included in INP0
v I
^*'
t,
.g.
evaluations such as, corrective action systems, safety review committees and corporate support for the facility.
INPO evaluations place a greater emphasis on chemistry, radiological protection and actual observation of plant evoluti-ons such as-surveillance testing.
./ course, INPO evaluations serve no regulatory function, but do provide a comprehensive assessment of facility performance.
t In summary, PAT and INP0 each perform independent inspections of licensee management control systems with a somewhat differing emphasis on the functional areas evaluated.
SALP consists of an annual review of all aspects of a licensee's regulatory performance.
SALP reviews past history, but does not conduct any new evaluations.
All three of these activities are intendep to contribute to the goal of jmproved safety.
4 m
IP.ANSMITTAL 1 2/81 lP T
Document Control Desk, j
016 Phillips bQ ADVANCED COPY TO:
O Yhe P lic Document P,oom g~
DATE:
)
1 I
cc: OPS File i
From: SECY OPS Branch
/
b I
C&R(Natali.e-)
g
-Attached.are l copies of a dommission meetinq
@b transcript /s/ and related meeting document /h/.
They are being forwarded for ent.m.f on the Daily Accession 3:>
i List and placement in the Public Document Room.
No P
other distribution is requested or required.
Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual documents wherever known..
~
b
~
~
@=>
Heeting
Title:
L N NO DATE:
[
1 ed DOS COPIES:
/
/
Copies (1 of each Checked) b ITD'. DESCRIPTION:
Advanced May Q
To PDR:
- Original be Duplicate F 1,
Af y~% 7
- Document Dup
- Cooy*
V
>6
/
/
- 5::
Fc g
2' c
b 3.
4.
l h
P c
5.
$c:
p S
(b
~
(PDR is advanced one of each document, two available."
,-M-of each SECX paper.)
b P