ML20058K816
| ML20058K816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/16/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PII, TASK-SE SECY-90-250, NUDOCS 9007190042 | |
| Download: ML20058K816 (14) | |
Text
- -
e......................e RELEASED TO THE PDR
- p* "%,g F
s f/.2/90
&~
~
k
'I (fate '
l/ffials eeeeee..esseeeeeeeeeeees
- ..+
POLICY ISSUE July 16, 1990 (InfOrrnation)
SECY-90-250 For:
The Comissioners From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
SURVEY OF NRC STAFF INSIGHTS ON REGULATORY IMPACT
Purpose:
To inform the Comission of the results of the internal staff survey of the impact of NRC regulatory activities on the safe operation of nuclear power plants.
Background:
In SECY-89-238, the staff recommended to the Commission that senior management survey the impact of HRC activities on the safe operation of nuclear power plants. On September 22, 1989, the Commission approved the staff's recommendation to conduct a survey of selected licensees, in addition, the Commission requested that the staff con-duct a survey of HRC personnel to obtain their insights
" beat ing on the perceived problems in the NRC's regulatory scheme for use in drawing conclusions or making recom-mendations for improvements to the NRC regulatory program.
SECY-90-080 forwarded the results of senior management's survey of selected utilities.
This paper forwards the results of the staff's survey of NRC personnel.
Discussion:
Beginning in January 1990, teams of staff members from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation conducted surveys of each of the regional offices in conjunction with week-long annual inspection program assessment visits to the regions.
In addition, teams made up primarily of the same individuals who surveyed the regions conducted separate, week-long surveys of the divisions under the Associate Director for Projects and the Associete Director for Inspection and Technical As-sessment in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The survey teams conducted interviews of a broad spectrum of the
=
staff ranging from engineers to middle managers to associate directors and regionel administrators.
NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 10 WORFING DAYS PROM THE
Contact:
DATE OF THIS PAPER E. J. Butcher, NRR 492-1243 iCO]I4004 f
y
.u
c:
S
[k J' w
The Comissioners_,
The survey teams focused the interviews-to gain insights on the -taff's perception of areas in which the NRC has an inappropriate impact on licensees.- As a result of this effort to identify problems in NRC regulatory programs, the staff's coments presented in this report present a
= somewhat negative view of several NPC activities., it is important to' note that although many areas were identified-r where improvements could be made in the regulatory process to lessen the potential for inappropriate-impact, the overall 1
opinion of the staff was that NRC activities are effective-C in assuring that the public health and safety is adequately protected.
A wide diversity of opinions existed in several areas.
Despite this diversity, many coments could be grouped into three or four recurring themes which in retrospect closely resemble the principal themes ra.ised in the senior management survey of utility personnel. Together these surveys suggest several areas where improvements in NRC regulatory activities and staff awareness to regulatory impact concerns should be made.
In general, an underlying ' observation expressed by most of the staff surveyed, regardless of the specific NRC program being discussed, was that licensees are extremely sensitive to_HRC activities and sometimes acquiesce to avoid-
_ confrontations that could create the perception that they are unresponsive. To this extent, licensees are vulnerable to potential abuses of regulatory authority.
In addition to this general observation, the following more e
t specific principal themes emerged:
1.
Many of those surveyed felt that the NRC does not consider the cumulative impact of requirements on l
licensees.and does not adequately comunicate to licensees.the priority of each new requirement.
2.
Many of those surveyed stated that the volume and scheduling of NRC activities on site, particularly team inspections, significantly-impact licensees.
1 M
To a lesser extent, persons surveyed expressed the 3.
view that a continued loss of experienced professionals has depleted the knowledge and experience base of the NRC.
Examples were cited where a lack of experience, training, or careful management oversight resulted in an unnecessary impact to licensees.
J
jt The Commissioners.
'The enclosure, " Staff's Perceptions of the Impact of the NRC on Nuclear Power. Plant Activities," provides the detailed results of the staff survey. For ease of-analysis, results are presented in categories suggested by the' industry survey.
However, the sury.ey team solicited the staff's perceptions independent'of the industry survey.
j Future Staff
.The staff will develop final recommendations on what Actions:
changes should be made to the-NRC regulatory program in September 1990. The staff will implement those changes that are not of a policy nature and will obtain the Commission's approval for any changes that would cause.a shif t in agency policy.
1 F
J A
J jjf;?
~
mes M. Ta r
v xecutive D rector for Operations
Enclosure:
" Staff's Perceptions of the Impact-of the NRC on Nuclear Power Plant' Activities" DISTRIBUTION:
Conunissioners OGC i
OIG l
-GPA REGIONAL OFFICES
'l EDO-ACRS l'
SECY
c p
- ? - '
c' Enclosure STAFF'S PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF THE NRC ON-NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ACTIVITIES-BACKGROUND AND PRINCIPAL THEMES' I
In SECY-89-238, the staff recommended to the Commission that senior management 1
survey the-impact of NRC activities on the safe operation of. nuclear power plants. On September 22 -1989, the' Commission approved the staff's recommendation to conduct.a survey of selected licensees. The Commission also i
.I' requested that the staff conduct a survey of NRC personnel to obtain their in-sights ;" bearing on the perceived problems in the NRC's regulatory. scheme."
As a result', beginning in January 1990, teams of staff members from the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation conducted surveys of each of the regional offices in conjunction with-weeklong annual inspection program assessment visits.. In addition, teams made up,primarily of the same individuals who surveyed the regions conducted separate weeklong surveys of the divisions under the Associate Director for Projects and the Associate Director for Inspection-and Technical
~
Assessment in the Office of Nuclear-Reactor Regulation.
l A total of 188 staff members were interviewed, including a broad spectrum of management and-employees. The survey teams focused the interviews to gain
^ insights on the staff's perception of areas in which the NRC may-have an inappropriate impact on licensees. As a result of this focus on identifying L
L problems in NRC regulatory programs, it is not surprising that the staff's comments presented a negative view of several NRC activities.
It is important
~ to note, however, that even though many areas were identified where improvements l
L-
q i
4' i
l' d 2-
-l t
could be made.in the regulatory process, the overall view ~of'the staff was that
~
, the public health' and safety is adequately protected.
Although the results of the staff survey are presented in categories. suggested' by the industry st rvey for ease of analysis, the survey team sought to solicit the staff's perceptions independent of the industry survey. A wide diversity-a of. opinions existed in.several areas based on the individual perspectives'of-those surveyed.. For example, inspectors surveyed, in. general, were pleased with the impact of inspection activities on licensees but in some.
' cases were concerned that requirements are not always as well defined as they i
should be. Managers of-inspection sctivities tended to be more concerned-about the potential for inappropriate regulatory impact than individual inspectors. Licensing reviewers surveyed were generally satisfied that requirements documents clearly define expectations,. but they sometimes felt that. occasionally inspectors pursue their own agenda for achieving. improvements in'11censee performance.
f l
- Despite the wide diversity of comments, several common views were expressed with some frequency.
In general, an underlying theme expressed by most of' those surveyed, regardless of the specific NRC program being discussed, was that~
licensees are extremely sensitive to NRC activities and sometimes acquiesce to
' avoid confrontations that could create the perception that they are unresponsive.
~
This makes licensees vulnerable to potential abuses of regulatory authority.
- n' 4
3
.-3
. In addition to the overall sensitivity of licensees to NRC activites,. the following more specific principal themes emerged:
l 1.
Many of those surveyed felt that the NRC does not consider the cumulative. impact of requirements on licensees and does not adequately.
communicate to licensees the priority of each new requirement.
j i
- 2..
Many of those surveyed. stated that the volume and scheduling of HRC activities on site, particularly team inspections, significantly impact licensees.
i 3.
To a lesser extent, persons surveyed expressed the view that a contin'ued loss of experienced professionals has depleted the' knowledge and-experience base of the NRC..
Examples were cited where a lack of experience, training, or careful management oversight resulted-in an unnecessary impact on licensees.
I Detailed comments are provided below.
j t
i i
i STAFF PERCEPTIONS OF IMPACT OF NRC ACTIVITIES ON LICENSEES t
t
}
REQUIREMENTS AND PERCEIVED REQUIREMENTS Of these members of the survey group who commented on the impact of HRC requirements or perceived requirements the concern most widely stated was that i
the NRC does not consider the cumulative impact of various requirements on i
n
3
- 4~-
r licensees.
Specifically, many stated that bulletins and generic. letters
. independently address legitimate safety concerns but are not integrated int.o -
the total body of regulatory requirements. As a result, many believed that-overlap in requirements may exist and that the potential exists that the total 1
tody of requiren'ents for which a licensee is responsible may be unnecessarily burdensome.
Another concern expressed by many of those surveyed was the way in which the HRC issues requirements sometimes makes implementation by licensees more difficult.
First, many felt that when issuing requirements, the NRC does i
a poor job of communicating to' licensees the priority of each new requirement in-relation to existing requirements. This results in the perception among the r
industry.that all requirements are of equal safety importance, making resource i
allocation on the basis of priority difficult. Second, many felt that generic
' letters and bulletins are sometimes issued prematurely or without sufficient detailed guidance, thus causing the need for supplements, worksh' ops, and clari-
.fications. However, several of those surveyed attributed the apparent lack of details to a conscious attempt to avoid being overly prescriptive and attributed the sometimes premature issuance of requirements to NRC's need to expeditiously i
address' issues of. impending safety consequence.
Finally, many of those surveyed felt that the occasional practice of requiring rapid responses from licensees (less than 30 days) to generic letters and bulletins prevents licensees from in-tegrating the required action into their existing priority system.
1 L
Many of those surveyed felt that licensees, apparently motivated by a desire to L
l appear responsive or to avoid confrontation, respond to casual comments by NRC
-A
.m
I a
'4.~
personnel and to interpretations of requirements with which they disagree. This occurs, according to.many surveyed, despite clear, repeated encouragement given
'by the NRC that utilities should raise concerns and should challenge issues if j
! they perceive the NRC has moved _beyond its regulatory authority.
- NRC LICENSING ACTIVITIES Comments from the survey group on the impact of.NRC' activities on licensees in
?
the area of licensing came primarily from those with responsibilities in the licensing area. Of those commenting, most agreed-that the processing of licensing amendment requests that are.not urgent is sometimes not completed in a timely
'I
- manner. Of many. reasons given, the most widely stated was that this lack of-timeliness is partly'due to the fact that project managers and technical reviewers are overworked. Almost all agreed, however,-that licensing actions affecting plant operation are resolved expeditiously.
i NRC INSPECTION ACTIVITIES i
i
.Many of those surveyed expressed the belief that a central clearinghouse for
)
travel by NRC_ personnel to reactor sites does not exist and that this has resulted in uncoordinated site activity that in some cases has been excessive.-
l In, addition, many stated thet on occasion major site inspections are poorly scheduled and, tnerefore, interfere with major licensee evolutions. As a result of these concerns, many believed that the scheduling of HRC activities impacts the licensees' ability to manage plant operations.
p; y
T 4
- =i Another-concern expressed by many of those surveyed was that the number of -
team inspections currently being mounted causes an excessive burden on licensees. - Specifically, many stated that since licensees' frequently assign e
two or three persons to support the activities of each team member, team-I inspections require a significant resource commitment on the part of 1
. licensees.
In light of the resource burden associated with support of team inspections, inany stated that the practice of conducting a designated 1-team inspection ~ at every site regardless of licensee performance may unneces.
sarily. impact some licensees.
i Finally, many of those surveyed expressed the concern that the inspection i
program is sometimes used to create new requirements. Many stated that inspectors and their managers sometimes attempt to enact their own regulatory agenJ2 by, for example. expressing personal likes and dislikes and making recomtendat ons for improvement based on perceived good practices.. In addition, i
many stated thet inspection reports' are sometimes used as a tool to pressure Llicensees to implement recommendations made by inspectors through the use of openLitems and unresolved items. These items, it'was stated, are left open-until licensees, out of fear of appearing unresponsive, resolve the issue in accordance with-tte inspectors' desires. To balance this feeling, however, y
several,other persons stated that inspection reports are not used to pressure licensees to take ections that are not based on the requirements, in-their view, careful management overview of inspection reports ensures that "if a de concern won't stick, it won't get included in the inspectior report."
E l
1 a
- j a
_f
_ ' PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 5' Most of those surveyed who offered comments related to the impact of
. performance evaluations on licensees expressed the view that the SALP_ process j
is'an effective tool for improving licensee performance. Many stated that the process allows a great deal of pressure to be brought to bear on licensees whose performance in a particular area is rated Category 3 and enables the NRC to intervene with licensees whose performance has been rated Category 2 and declining before.significant degradation has occurred.
4 I
The-most widespread concern expressed by those comenting in_ this area, however, was that the practice of considering licensee responsiveness to NRC
=
-initiatives as an evaluation criterion for determining licensee safety perform-ance in the.SALP_ rating process may result in the staff placing undue-pressure-on_ licensees to implement actions that are beyond the regulations. Also,
'although expressed to a lesser degree, many stated that. third-party misuse of a
SALP results tends to cloud communications between licensees and the NRC and
'has a significant monetary impact on licensees.
IMPACT OF MULTIPLE OVERSIGHT ORGANIZATIONS ThE survey group had few comments that related to the impact of multiple oversight organizations on licensees. A few people commented that at times the HRC and tbc Institute of Hucicar Power Operations conduct inspections that 4
closely follow each other and are similar in focus and scope. This, it was stated, causes licensees to divert resources from implementation of corrective pj
,,q ro
+
actions (that were the-result of a recently conducted inspection) to prepara-tion for.re-inspection in-the same area.
.0PERATOR LICENSING k
1 1The survey group had few comments that related to the impact of NRC activi-ties'on licensees'in the area of operator licensing. Several; people expressed
<the belief that, overall, changes in the program have resulted in program improvements. However, those commenting stated that changes to NUREG-1021,
" Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," have occurred at a pace that inakes-implementation difficult. Therefore, they believed that a period of relative stability is needed.
ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIONS'
-Many of those_ surveyed commented on the impact of theLNRC enforcement program on licensees. A significant divergence of views existed. The majority of those is
+
commenting felt that the overall enforcement program has a clear, positive n:; '
' impact on reactor safety.and is an effective tool for ensuring the implementa-tion of needed safety improvements.
1, number of those surveyed, however, i
8 questioned the effectiveness of the enforcement program. They stated that the
~ time and effort spent.by the NRC and industry on enforcement actions outweigh a
L' their. safety benefit and that dollar fines serve primarily to create negative
- publicity and to ir.hibit goud commccications. Generally, those most closely e
involved in enforcement progre.m implementation viewed the program most
. favorably.
m k
i
t
=
'W
^[
1 j
4.
t
- There was genera 1' agreement among those surveyed that low severity level-violations have an impact on licensees that is disproportionate'to the
-' significance of~the violation. Many viewed Severity level IV violations as useful because they cause licensees to intervene to correct underlying.
' problems before.they have progressed to a point where escalated enforcement is necessary end/or public health and safety is th~ eatened. The overwhelming r
majority of _those commenting' in this area felt that Severity Level V viola-
.tions are seldom useful in that they require the expenditure of licensee q
resources to process;them that would be better used to resolve the identified
- concern.- Thus, except ir, rare situations, many felt that Severity Level V violations should not be issued.
EVENT REPORTING Many of those surveyed expressed the view that required event reporting and response to uncoordinated requests by NRC personnel for follow-up information on events sometimes adversely. impacts the licensees' ability to respond to events.
Many stated. th' t licensees must frequently respond to repeated calls from a a
number of NRC staff while attempting to resolve complex operational problems expediently and safely. Many of those surveyed attributed this to a " voracious need. to know and know now," which is driven by an attempt by each level of
. management to' understand events as they develop ahead of their respective managers.
6
- ~
9 COMMUNICATION WITH LICENSEES i
Although the survey group expressed a number of views concerning the impact of.
comunication between the NRC and licensees on licensee activities, no single view appeared dominant. One view shared by several survey participants was that, in general, NRC personnel are not good comunicators. They stated that written comunications frequently do not focus on the real me~ssage the staff
.s i
is attempting to convey to licensees.
In' addition, several persons felt'that some NRC personnel need training on interpersonal skills and maintaining an j
effective regulator-to-licensee relationship. Approximately an equal number of the survey group felt that, to the contrary, comunications between licensees and the NRC are open and effective and are conducted in a collegial l
atmosphere that, although not free from controversy and di.sagreement, is non-confrontational.
f i
QUALIFICATION, TRAINING, AND PROFESSIONALISM 0F NRC PERSONNEL i
Many of those surveyed expressed the concern that the continued loss of
. experienced NRC technical professionals has resulted in a decrease in overall agency knowledge and expertise. Many stated that, in the area of inspection, the decrease in inspector experience in some instances impacts licensees in that they are required to devote more effort to responding to inspectors'
.reques s for background information on system or component operation, design, t
and so forth. Many persons surveyed identified the team leader position as a key position in determning the effectiveness of the tear. inspection program.
j l
l
y y-u
, They.noted, however, that no formal training exists.for this critical position.
This lack of forral training for team leaders'was perceived-to have resulted in..some shortages in the number of quality team leaders who are more than -
just superior inspectors.
u i
.i i
s I
--