ML20135G120
| ML20135G120 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-GENERAL, NUDOCS 8509180180 | |
| Download: ML20135G120 (80) | |
Text
-
PDR 09I525
[
[
[
[ Panel on ACRS Effectiveness
[
Analysis and Recommendations
[ Concerning the Scope, Methods,
[ Management and Effectiveness of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
[
[
[
[
[
,f.....
E t'
[
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[ Washington, D.C. 20555 September 1985
{
{ eg91egp e509:30 DDICNMD caIanat GENERAL PDR Cortified By_ [ g
~~a
b i~
L r -
L
[ PANEL ON ACRS EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE SCOPE, METHODS, MANAGEMENT, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
{
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
( -.
[
[
[
[
[
[
September 1985
[ Washington, D.C.
[
[
[
a mi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ........................................ 1 II. Scope of ACRS Activities Through the Year 2000....... 4 A. Background...................................... 4 A.1 Nuclear Capacity................................ 4 l
A.2 Reactor Safety.................................. 4 A.3 Waste Management................................ 5 A.4 De c om i s s i o n i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A.5 New Design Initiatives.......................... 5 A.6 New Management Concepts......................... 6 A.7 NRC Licensing Activities........................ 6 B. Implications for ACRS........................... 6 ACRS Approach to Substantive Technical and l III.
Related Issues..................................... 9 A. The General Approach............................ 9 B. Implications of the Approach....................ll C. Regulatory Research............................ 12 IV. Relationships of the ACRS Within and Outside the Nuclear Regulatory Comission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A. Relationship with the Commission and 1 Com i s s i on e rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B. Relationship with the NRC Staff................ 15 C. Relationship wi th Congress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. Relationship with Licensing Boards............. 16 l
E. Relationship with Industry and Intervenors..... 17 F. Relationship with International Groups......... 17 G. Relationship with the General Public........... 17
P 4
E TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
- Page r V. Membership on the ACRS and the Selection Process....18 L
A. Purpose........................................ 18
[ B. Size of the ACRS............................... 18 C. Composition.................................... 18
[ D. Length of Service of Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 E. Appointment and Reappointment of Members....... 20
{
F. Conflict of Interest........................... 22
[
VI. Organizational Effectiveness of the ACRS............ 23 A. The Chairmanship and a Proposed
[ ~
Management Committee......................... 23 B. Sub-c omi ttees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
{
C. Consultants.................................... 26
[ D. Effort Requi red of Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 E. The ACRS Staff................................. 28
[
VII. ACRS Operational Methods............................ 31 A. The Consensus Objective and Means for Achieving Consensus........................... 31
[ A.1 In ACRS' Current Role, Clarification of Issues is More Important than Achieving Consensus.................................... 31
[ A.2 Better Use of Consensus-building Techniques is Attainable..................... 33 B. Letter Writing: Documenting the Consensus Process............................ 33
[
[
11
{
~
L TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page l C. Achieving Better Communication with the L Audience Requires More Oral Presenta-tions and Discussion......................... 34 C.1 Important Written Opinions of the ACRS About Which at least One or Two Members Feel Strongly Should be Backed up by Oral Dis-( cussion...................................... 34 C.2 ACRS Should Deal with the Regulatory Staff on a Technical and Professional Basis........ 35
[
D. FACA........................................... 36 E. Comi ttee Bu dge t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7
[ VIII. Enhancing ACRS Contributions to the Regulatory Process................................ 39 A. Perceptions of ACRS Contributions.............. 39
[
- 8. Advising the Comissioners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 C. Licensing Reviews.............................. 41 D. Regulatory Policy.............................. 42
[
E. Timel iness of Recomendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 F. Evaluating Difficul t Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
[
G. Contributions of Members as Individuals........ 44
[
IX. Conclusions and Recomendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
( A. ACRS Mission................................... 46 B. Relations with the Comission and the NRC Staff................................ 47
[
C. Internal Operational Questions................. 48
[
[
[ iii
E TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) u Page
- APPENDICES L
I. Proposed Task Description for an ACRS Effectiveness Study...........................Al
[ II. Interview Questions..................................A4 III. Conflict of Interest Restrictions...................A18
{
IV. Consensus-building Techniques.......................A21
[ V. Le tte r Wri ti ng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A22
[
[ _.
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
iv
{
r
[
PANEL ON ACRS EFFECTIVENESS I. INTRODUCTION
{
The Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) was established by law in 1957.
[- Previously, a Reactor Safety Comittee had been established by the Atomic Energy Comission, but the Congress in its report amending the Atomic Energy Act to establish the Committee stated that the main reason for
[ making the Comittee statutory was "...to ensure that any features of new reactors would be as safe as possible. This subject was thought to be so important as to require a committee established by statute." (Reportof Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Public Law 85-256, September 2, 1957.)
{
The current law pertaining to the ACRS, including amendments, provides as follows:
There is hereby established an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards consisting of a maximum of fifteen members appointed by
[ the Commission for tems of four years each. The Comittee shall review safety studies and facility license applications referred to it and shall make reports thereon, shall advise the Comission with regard to the hazards of proposed or existing reactor
[- facilities and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards, and shall perfom such other duties as the Comission may request.
One member shall be designated by the Committee as its Chairman.
[ The members of the Committee shall receive a per diem compensation for each day spent in meetings or conferences, or other work of the Committee, and all members shall receive their necessary
[ traveling or other expenses while engaged in the work of the Comittee. The provisions of section 163 shall be applicable to the Committee (exempting the Committee from conflict of interest statutes except for compensation from a source other than a non-
[
profit educational the Comission or ininstitution of any matteris directly which the Commission involving ).
directly interested In addition to its other duties under this section, the Committee,
[ making use of all available sources, shall undertake a study of reactor safety research and prepare and submit annually to the Congress a report containing the results of such study. (Section
[ 29, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.)
The Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards shall review each application under section 103 or section 104b. for a construction
{ permit or an operating license for a facility, any application under section 104a. or c. specifically referred to it by the Comission, and any application for an amendment to a construction
[ pemit or an amendment to an operating license .under section 103
[
[ 1
or 104a., b., or c. specifically referred to it by the Commission, and shall submit a report thereon which shall be made part of the record of the application and available to the public except to the extent that security classification prevents dis-E closure. (Subsection 182b., Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as L
amended.)
To assist the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in carrying
[. out its function, the Committee shall establish a fellowship program under which persons having appropriate engineering or scientific expertise are assigned particular tasks relating to the
[ functions of the Committee. Such fellowship shall be for 2-year periods and the recipients of such fellowships shall be selected pursuant to such criteria as may be established by the Committee.
(Section 6. Public Law 95-209, December 7,1977.)
{
In recognition of changing requirements in the regulation of peaceful nuclear uses, the ACRS in December, 1984, decided to appoint a
[ panel to assist the Committee in its efforts to define better the Committee's role, goals, and procedures so as to improve its effective-ness as an advisory board. The Task Force Description, which is
[ enclosed as Appendix I, states that "The purpose of the Panel's review should be to provide advice and guidance that will permit the ACRS to improve its effectiveness as an advisory body to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and in furnishing more general leadership in matters of
{ reactor safety. There are indications that some of the Committee's practices and policies, while effective in the past, may not be as appropriate for the maturing and changing industry and regulatory
[ climate of today." As a result, the panel on ACRS Effectiveness was established in early 1985, with the following membership:
( Mr. L. Manc.ng Muntzing, Chainnan Doub and Muntzing, Chartered Washington, D.C.
Dr. John F. Ahearne Resources for the Future Washington, D.C.
{
Mr. Myer Bender-Querytech,Inc.
[ Knoxville, Tennessee Mr. Edson G. Case (Retired, formerly U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission
[ Washington,D.C.)
Dr. Homer J. Hagedorn
[ Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
[ Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates San Jose, California
[ 2
N Dr. Herbert J. C. Kouts E Brookhaven National Laboratory L Upton, New York H Mr. Steven Sholly L Union of Concerned Scientists Washington, D.C.
[ Mr. John M. West (Retired, fonnerly Combustion Engineerin Windsor, Connecticut)g,Inc.
Members of the panel conducted interviews with a wide range of persons who have either dealt with the Committee or are interested in its activities. The panel interviewed approximately sixty-five per-
[ sons. These included all current NRC Commissioners as well as prior Commissioners, all members of the current ACRS and some prior members, a number of members of the NRC Staff as well as prior staff members,
[ NRC lawyers and members of the Hearing Boards and Appeals Board of the NRC, Congressional staff personnel, members of industry, representa-tives of public interest organizations, and state attorneys general.
(A copy of the questionnaire developed for use and guidance during the
[ interviews is~ enclosed as Appendix II.) The interviews served as an important input for the panel's deliberations, and the time and effort given by the many people interviewed to share and discuss their views
[ with the panel are greatly appreciated.
The panel recognized that the ACRS had an operational history
[ dating back to the 1950's and thus focused its attention on how the Comittee could be most effective in the coming years and on ways in which improvements could be made in the Comittee's work. To do this, the panel considered the expected future scope of ACRS activities and
[ approaches to its mission. Relationships to other organizations were evaluated so as to focus on the prime audience for the Committee's deliberations. Various managerial questions were addressed, such as
[ membership on the ACRS and the selection process, organizational issues, and methods of operation. Finally, the panel considered the past effectiveness of the ACRS and developed illustrative criteria for
[ measuring future Comittee effectiveness.
[
[
[ l
[
3
II. SCOPE OF ACRS ACTIVITIES THROUGH THE YEAR 2000 A. Background r Discussion of the scope of ACRS activities throughout the rest of L this century requires decisions on two fundamental issues: first, what will be the likely conditions of the nuclear industry and events affecting it throughout the next fifteen years, and, second, what
[ ought to be the role of the ACRS with respect to the NRC and other audiences. This chapter will primarily focus on the first issue and then draw conclusions regarding the scope of ACRS activities. Chap-
[ ters III and IV will address the second issue.
The Panel developed major assumptions for the nuclear field for the next fifteen years, focusing on those that might have an impact on
[ the ACRS. These assumptions are not unanimously agreed to by the Panel. Where there were several strong views represented, the de-scription indicates this split. Although the Panel addressed a
[ broader list of issues, those that seemed to be most important in determining the appropriate scope for the ACRS are the following:
A.1 Nuclear Capacity
[
There has not been a sustained booking of a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since 1978, in sharp contrast to the average of 24 units
[ per year between 1965 and 1974. Furthermore, cancellations have reduced the number of nuclear plants currently on the books to approx-imately 125 units.
Demand for electrical power continues to grow. The nuclear plants under construction or in operation, which now represent about
[ 15 percent of the U.S. capacity, will be critical to maintaining the existing national capacity. As further supply expansion occurs, it will be mostly in fossil fuel plants or in nuclear plants. In any case, it will be desirable for the existing base of nuclear power
[ plants to reach its anticipated, useful lifetime and perhaps to extend its lifetime because of its economic value.
[ A.2 Reactor Safety The Panel believes it is not possible to confidently predict
[ either the severity or the frequency of future accidents. However, it also is not possible to preclude accidents in the future. The Panel assumes that the average number of events per operating reactor year will be the same as today, with one relatively large event (e.g.,
[ similar to the Brown's Ferry fire or the Salem ATWS event) approxi-mately every five years. The Panel could not agree on whether there would be another accident as severe as TMI-2 during the next fifteen
[ years or, in the event of a major accident, whether significant off- . ,
site exposures should be expected. Nevertheless, the Panel does note that reactor years are accumulating at an accelerated rate: twenty
[ years up to now were needed to experience the same number of operating years as will be accumulated through the remainder of the 1980's.
A.3 Waste Management
' Spent civilian fuel is expected to be delivered to the Department of Energy at a monitored retrievable storage facility which is ex-
- pected to be operational in the 1990-1995 time frame. The Panel L expects a high-level waste repository site to be chosen, the licensing review process completed, and construction begun, before the year 2000, but operation is not expected by then. The Panel expects state
[ compacts for low-level waste disposal to have been approved by Con-gress, and 4-10 low-level waste sites to be operating.
There probably will be increased interest in the use of dry
[ vaults for at-plant storage, such as those with which TVA is experi-menting, to decrease the number of spent fuel shipments and stretch them out past the useful life of a plant. Although issues will
[ continue to be raised, it is expected that there will be increased shipments of nuclear materials whose risk will need to be considered.
However, the transportation requirements that have been developed are
[ thought to be adequate to prevent any significant releases.
A.4 Decomrrissioning The 1 nel~ assumes there will be a strong incentive to keep nuclear plants running as long as possible because once the capital costs have been paid off the electricity they generate will be rela-
[ tively inexpensive. The Panel expects no decommissioning of large plants, but estimates that some small reactors will have ended their useful life by the year 2000.
[ Although nuclear plants will be operated as long as safety and economics justify their use, the decomissioning actions needed for these plants will have to be considered well in advance of plant
[ shutdown. Experience with TMI-2, Dresden 1, and Shippingport will provide the underlying basis for future regulatory requirements concerning decomissioning. Service life extension of "near-end-
[ of-life" plants will require attention to disposition of parts of these plants that are no longer useful.
[ A.5 New Design Initiatives Most utility executives believe that the light water reactor (LWR) type should be improved rather than abandoned in favor of a
{ radically different type for which there is little or no experience.
There is some interest in parallel development of potentially attrac-tive types such as a small, passively safe reactor.
{
Most utility people believe that the existing LWR designs should be improved in an evolutionary way in certain areas and then standard-
[ ized. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has launched an Advanced LWR Development Program whose goal is to develop criteria that NSSS vendors and architect-engineers will follow to produce standard-ized designs. The Panel expects the NRC will be asked to endorse
[
5
_.__ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
this program in order to relieve uncertainties and increase predicta-bility.
}
A.6 New Management Concepts There may be a shift in the way reactors are owned and operated.
Generating companies may come into operation that would own generation facilities and then sell electricity to transmission and distribution
[ companies. These generating companies may not be regulated utilities; they would be under safety regulation but not necessarily under economic regulation. They would tend to be regional entities.
A.7 NRC Licensing Activities The Panel expects reactor regulation through the year 2000 to
[ place more emphasis on quantitative safety goals and on operating facilities. While it is not expected that Congress will impose new regulatory requirements, some licensing reform legislation may be
[ passed that will affect licensing procedures.
B. Implications for ACRS
[ As noted'1n Chapter I, the basic requirements for the ACRS as listed in the Atomic Energy Act, Section 29, were put into statute in 1957, with some modification in 1962. The world has changed drastic-
[ ally in the subsequent years, as can imediately be seen by trying to construct an estimate of what the next fifteen years would have looked
_ like using 1960 as the basis. Given the above scenario for nuclear
~
power in the United States over the next fifteen years, what are the implications for the ACRS?
In the early years of its existence, the ACRS was strong, the
[ Regulatory Staff was relatively weak, the Atomic Energy Comission left most of the initiative on safety to the ACRS, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy through its oversight role reinforced an
[ ACRS dynamism. There were few licensing cases to consider. The only public hearings provided were those held by the ACRS. It was during this period that most of the broad endJring Contributions of the ACRS were made.
In more recent years, the Joint Committee was disbanded, and the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission assumed the single role of regulat-ing the nuclear industry. The regulatory staff grew greatly in size and competence as the general policy decisions of the earlier period were developed into a mass of detailed implementation requirements,
[ and as the rate of licensing cases greatly increased. De facto, the role of ACRS changed to the position of evaluating the adequacy of the
- staff's licensing review.
At the same time, the two layers of Hearing Boards that provide public hearings were assuming a greater importance, in response to increased activism by intervenor groups. The Atomic Safety and
[ Licensing Boards and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards
+
H also became backstops to the regulatory staff. In the 1980's the NRC E staff is much stronger. The NRC differs from the AEC, which had to L devote much of its time to other programmatic problems, especially the nuclear weapons program. Comissioners now have increased interest 7
and roles relative to regulation of nuclear power.
L The unique importance of ACRS languished, subjugated to the secondary job of " keeping the Staff honest," and facing competition even in this. Some came to regard the ACRS as an anachronism no
[- longer required except to issue letters on docket cases and to issue an annual review of safety research as required by statute.
The Panel has concluded that the need for continued detailed ACRS review of license applications no longer exists. This may even raise in some minds the question as to whether the ACRS itself is still
[ necessary. However, in the flood of licensing reviews in recent years and in the midst of tumoil of readjustment following the TMI accident, memory of the other contributions of ACRS in the past has
[ been submerged. The Panel believes that it is the activity of the ACRS in advising on broad technical policy that has been most valu-able. ACRS is still needed, but not for licensing reviews. It is very much needed in the more important activity of providing wise,
[ broad, technical policy advice.
The Committee's title includes two words whose current validity
( is questionable: reactor and safeguards. The tem safeguards has been used to refer to issues concerning protection against sabotage and diversion of nuclear material. The Committee's role is far
[ broader than that (and some would recomend excluding those two subjects from the ACRS scope). With regard to " reactor", the funda-mental issue is: should the Committee restrict itself to reactor issues. In light of the changing range of interest of the ACRS and
{ the meaning of the word " safeguards", a more accurate name would be appropriate, such as the Advisory Comittee on Nuclear Safety, Ad-visory Committee on Nuclear Regulation, or the General. Technical
[. Advisory Committee, to fit the revised role that the Panel suggests in this report.
[ The issues that are going to be most important for the NRC and therefore for the ACRS in the next fifteen years, as outlined in the previous description of our estimate of the future, include much greater stress on generic issues, operational plants, waste management
[- issues, and future reactor designs. Even though fewer plants will come up for review, the Panel believes that the ACRS should spend much less time on each individual plant. The ACRS is not a second regula-
[ tory staff. It is recommended that the ACRS not review a plant of a type previously reviewed unless a unique feature is involved. In that case, the ACRS review should be directed toward this unique feature
[ and its implications. Thus, the ACRS should do selective review, and then onl concept)y The if there is an Panel important recognizes thisissue (e.g.,
will take a new containment a legislative change.
However, the Panel believes such'a change important: the objective is
{.
b 7
W to permit the ACRS to focus on the new, important, or troublesome u issues, rather than the routine.
The Panel believes the ACRS should be involved in covering issues L
of waste management because those will be of great importance to the NRC. However, we agree the technical issues are neither as complex nor as directly related to the skills of the current members as safety of nuclear power plants (obviously, the latter point can be resolved
[ by selection of new members). The Panel does not believe the ACRS should be involved in the design of new reactors but it ought to be involved to an extent in the review of such design proposals, partic-ularly in the review of criteria that are suggested either by the industry or by the NRC staff.
[ Issues that the Panel has identified as appropriate for the ACRS c scope do not specifically include detailed review of research budgets.
This topic is discussed in more detail in Section III of the Panel's report.
[
If, as the Panel is recomending, the ACRS is to be available to cover the wide range of NRC technical regulatory policy issues, it is
[ obvious that it cannot do so with the type of detailed technical depth i that it has been inclined to use in the past. This does imply a shift }-
to more of a generalist approach. It also raises the question of
[ additional advisory groups. Currently the NRC has an advisory group on medical isotopes. Some of the interviewees recomended fonning advisory comittees on radiation effects and waste management. It has in the past been suggested that a specific advisory comittee on
[ research be formed. Forming these specific groups would fit with the conclusion of a current member of the ACRS who said "the NRC needs a General Advisory Comittee to help them on management, administration,
[ and regulatory problems." In . fact, a general advisory comittee is the type of committee that the Panel is recomending. Whether spc-cialized advisory comittees would then be appropriate we leave up to
[ the NRC to decide, since any such would be advisory to elements of the staff rather than to the Comission as a whole.
In sumary, the Panel recommends the ACRS be a true advisory
[ committee to the Commission, with a charter much broader than merely reactors, particularly when reactor issues are defined narrowly as being those issues appropriate to the design, construction, and
[ operation of nuclear power reactors.
[
[
[
8
- III. ACRS APPROACH TO SUBSTANTIVE TECHNICAL AND RELATED ISSUES A. The General Approach In addressing the Committee's scope one must decide what type of L approach should best be taken in the future. In our interviews we have identified two lines of belief: the " nuts and bolts" and the
" cosmic" camps. We come down on the side of the latter, believing
[ that the Committee should be composed of " wise, best judgment ex-perts." This implies that the Comittee should take on aspects of the long-term view that the NRC does not (or cannot) find the time to consider. The Committee's most important role would then be to advise the Commissioners on the needs the Commissioners may not even rec-ognize, which is one of the more valuable functions an advisory group can perform. .
{
We were consistently told by interviewees that the Committee should be more decisive, should lead not follow, and should try to
[ provide incisive advice rather than cautious platitudes. It should accordingly be a voice of critical, constructive reason even if in this prccess the ACRS' record of being seldom wrong may be lost.
[ However, the value of an advisory group is not simply in how often it is right but in addition, how often it provides timely useful'~ coments k on important issues. In this sense, the ACRS would be providing-advice on issues of high importance to the NRC, and, consequently, its
[ scope should be broad enough to cover all matters of safety importance to the NRC. This must be true if the ACRS is going to be a true advisory body. We recognize there has been considerable concern about
[ the ACRS getting into what have been described as administrative or management questions. However, where these questions have important .
- safety aspects, the Panel believes that they should be within the
[ purview of the Committee.
Almost all interviewees believe that the ACRS ought not to be involved in firefightin
[ accident (or incident) investigation.
g and, in particular, not bewith We concur involved in This this view.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)-type activity is currently being discussed both in the Congress and the NRC. However, we do not
[ believe that the ACRS ought to be involved in that type of activity.
The ACRS does not have the time, the expert detailed knowledge of specific plants, nor the staff to be accident investigators. In
[ addition, even if the bulk of the ACRS resources were to be allocated to this effort, so that the above objections could be met, we do not believe that would be a wise use of ACRS members' time.
[ As was said earlier, the issues that are going to be most import-ant for the NRC, and therefore for the ACRS in the next fifteen years, will include generic issues, operating plants, waste management, and
[ future reactor designs. With regard to operating plants, the Panel believes the ACRS should focus on technical issues of high importance
-- issues that are mostly generic and seldom narrowed to plant-specific
[ areas. Experience from operating plants should be considered not only from the standpoint of whether any changes should be made in existing
[ 9
A plants, but also whether changes should be made in safety criteria for future plants.
The Panel believes that the ACRS should become more proactive r concerning technical safety issues of disposal of radioactive waste.
L The ACRS should contribute best by providing advice regarding techni-cal criteria to be used by the NRC.
[ The ACRS should also cooperate with the NRC Staff to establish s safety criteria for advanced nuclear plants that industry may sponsor x in the future. Significant industry efforts are underway to develop specifications for future LWR plants which will be safer, more con-structable, more maintainable, simpler to operate and that should have a higher plant capacity factor. The ACRS should review future designs as they are developed by industry for the purpose of providing early ,
[ guidance on the safety criteria for future plants. This could reduce ambiguity and enhance licensing stability over the long run. A fresh look at safety objectives could result in both additions to and
[ deletions from current criteria, as well as modifications to adapt them to non-LWR plants.
The Panel does not believe the ACRS 2hould in any way prescribe
[ reactor designs. This is the responsibility of the nuclear industry.
However, the ACRS can provide guidance and leadership regarding what designs developed by others must accomplish with regard to protecting
[ the health and safety of the public. Such guidance may in some instances need to be quite specific as, for example, the nature of containment provisions needed. A guiding principle should be that
[ uncertainty in licensing requirements should be minimized and that a clear new requirement or deletion of an existing practice could, in some cases, be less onerous than continuing to carry an unresolved safety issue.
[
The list of activities that the Panel believes appropriate for the ACRS in the future does not specifically include research budgets
[ as an area that might receive greater stress. In fact, the ACRS currently spends what most of its members seem to believe is an inordinate amount of time reviewing the NRC research program. This ..
[ review leads to reports to the Congress and to the Comission. Most ACRS members recomend substantial reduction in the amount of effort devoted to reviewing the research progru. As one member said, the h'
t ACRS spends too much time on the research program " holding endless ;
[ meetings on the subject." Undoubtedly, some of the conclusions that this effort is wasted are based on perceived lack of effect. The individual quoted above also noted that even when the ACRS recommends
[ more research the budgets continue to fall. However, one other ACRS member pointed out that if the size of the budget is a measure of importance, the ACRS should spend even more time on the research program.
The Panel believes the ACRS should provide an overview of the
[ research program which avoids the detail of the current reviews and which is instead focused on overall progress and on whether the 10
critical issues are being addressed. This activity could be in-creased, but the detailed, budget-level examination should be dropped.
~
The detailed report to Congress appeared to be a good idea at the time, but it now seems to have lost all value. If a report to Con-gress is still needed, a short letter report should suffice.
L The preceding is consistent with the Panel's belief that the effectiveness of the ACRS can be best achieved by altering its mission
[ to concentrate on major safety issues with a corresponding decrease in other activities that are better conducted by the NRC Staff or by owner / operator processes.
B. Implications of the Approach The NRC Staff has axtensive capability. It includes many highly
[ skilled personnel, and it can draw on supplementary resources from National Laboratories and contractors to handle day-to-day licensing problems and investigate unusual events. However, the press of
[ day-to-day concerns forces it to concentrate on current problems leaving little opportunity for its senior personnel to seek long-term solutions and to forestall future problems. This creates the void that an ACRS is well suited to filling. It is the Panel's view that
[ the ACRS can and should provide a more cosmic perspective directed to a rational regulatory system, rather than solving " nuts and bolts"
{
problems of day-to-day regulation.
{
This does not mean that the ACRS would entirely ignore the more practical aspects of nuclear power plant safety or that it would
[ totally divert its attention from current events at individual nuclear power plants. But its interest in such matters would be directed to ensuring that problems are understood and treated, and would not extend to direct participation in finding corrective solutions, or to
[ oversight of subsequent actions. The Panel's discussions with outside observers suggest that the most effective contributions of ACRS in these areas come from anticipating problems and drawing attention to
[ need for action on them early enough for problem resolution before a regulatory crisis.
( A body of 15 people cannot be expert in everything and cannot have time to follow all areas of NRC Staff activity. In fact, it would make no sense for the ACRS to duplicate review by the NRC Staff.
In thorough study of current safety issues that are of high importance
( or that are perceived to become so in the future, the ACRS ensures its continued role as a leader in forming the regulatory basis for public safety. The implementation of regulation is best left to the NRC
[ Staff, which has the numerical ar.d technical strength and the legal capability of enforcement.
[ The ACRS could still keep its finger on the pulse of regulation by occasional reviews and selective participation in licensing actions. In this way, the ACRS could be sure that objectives of
[ regulations are being attained without distorted interpretation of safety requirements.
11
To illustrate these points, the Panel lists some important broad
~
technical activities that can be taken on by ACRS. These are offered
' only for purposes of illustration of the Panel's concept, and are not meant to imply that they are the most important matters that can be r dealt with by the ACRS.
L
- 1. Selection and consolidation of the most important safety issues from the NRC Staff's Generic Items list, the Unre-
[ solved Safety Issues, the TMI-2 Lessons Learned Action Plan, and other listings to establish a prioritized set of those most urgently requiring action. (It is realized that the
[ ACRS is already involved in this activity. This topic is included in the list to indicate the kind of current ACRS activity that the Panel recommends be continued in the
[ future.) ACRS might also set up a system for monitoring NRC Staff action taken in accordance with this list.
[ 2. Review of the degree to which engineered safety features in nuclear plants (especially containment buildings) provide an adequate defense in depth, and consideration of the viabil-ity of alternate or additional measures that might ef-
[ 'fectively remove any weaknesses.
- 3. Development of a safety philosophy for controversial safety
[ issues associated with such broad questions as large earth-quakes, floods and tornados, and sabotage and terrorist threats.
[ 4. Consideration of the need for a rational balance between provisions for preventing serious accidents to nuclear plants and for mitigating consequences if these accidents
[ occur. (Probabilistic Risk Assessment could become a tool
< for this purpose if used with cautious concern for the relevance and completeness of its data base and depend-
[ ability of its logical structure.)
- 5. Review of current nuclear plant design concepts to see how
[ they address multiple failures, automatic versus manual control, plant aging, in-service monitoring, and similar questions. This should naturally lead to a clearer under-standing of Standardized Light Water Reactor design require-
[ ments for future plants.
- 6. Development of a rational regulatory basis for the dispo-
[ sition of high- and low-level radioactive waste from hand-ling of spent fuel, from plant maintenance, from refurbish-ment of operating plants, and from unexpected accidents.
C. Regulatory Research The NRC Staff in the course of its day-to-day regulatory activity
[ develops " user needs" for research, and these are passed on to the research arm of the Staff for development of programs to satisfy the 12
requirements. In the course of consideration of technical policy issues, such as those above, ACRS will also uncover requirements for research that might have broader implication and that might be directed more to satisfying future requirements. The need for some 7 research may be indicated by an ACRS list of high priority generic L issues; other research may be called for through other analysis. A channel should be developed for ACRS to transmit " user needs" for research to the NRC Staff in accordance with this process.
simi
[
[ ..
(
mes
[
[
[
[
13
T L
IV. RELATIONSHIPS OF THE ACRS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPMISSION
[
It is important to determine whom the ACRS should be advising.
r Should it be the Congress, or the Commissioners, or the NRC Staff, or L the nuclear industry, or the public, or the press, or intervenors against licensing actions? All have been suggested at one time or another as suitable recipients of ACRS advice.
[ As noted in Chapter I, the ACRS was established in 1957 through Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act which states that the Comittee "shall advise the Commission with regard to the hazards of proposed or
{ existing reactor facilities and the adequacy of proposed reactor safety standards...." Sub-Section (b) of Section 182 requires that the ACRS shall review license applications under Section 103 and 104
[ and "shall' submit a report thereon which shall be made a part of the record of the application and available to the public...." In 1977, a requirement was added to Section 29 that the Committee " undertake a
( study of reactor safety research and prepare and submit annually to the Congress a report...."
The requirement to review all license applications is not only an
[ activity decreasing in intensity as fewer new plants come up for operation and no new construction is proposec', but also one that most reconsnendations for licensing refonn over the past ten years would
[ eliminate. That is, the recomendations have identified the require-ment that the ACRS review ever license application as an unnecessary activity providing little ne it. It is important to stress that
( this ArRS function is simply to review applications mostly after the NRC Staff has already done so, and to provide reports for the record.
Thus, here the ACRS serves as a backup to the staff in the licensing process rather than providing advice.
[
Similarly, the report to Congress on the research program is not a true advisory opinion, as there is no mutual interchange of views
[ based upon the advice being provided. This function has become a formality that was presumably intended at one time as part of the annual Congressional budget process, but which seems to serve little useful purpose at the present time. Consequently, if these arguments are accepted, then as far as the relatively old statutory language is concerned, the ACRS should only advise the Commission. But does it?
[ And should it?
A. Relationship with the Commission and Comissioners These last questions focus the issue as to whom the ACRS should address its work. The answer depends on the type of issues and approaches-to those issues that the ACRS takes on in the future. If,
[ as discussed in Chapter II, the ACRS is to provide technical regula-tory policy advice, its agenda will focus'on issues of primary in-terest to the Commissioners themselves, and the advice would naturally
[ be directed to them. The ACRS role would be to help mold the phil-osophy and conscience of the Agency. Therefore the Panel concludes 14
a that the ACRS should be advisory to the Commissioners, providing them with independent advice as a body of wise experts. This presumes that
[ the Commissioners are willing to turn either to consultants hired by themselves or to the NRC Staff (including their Office of Policy Evaluation and its consultants) for any assistance they seek on
[ matters of technical detail.
This advisory attitude will be most useful when the ACRS is
[ willing to be frank and willing to take risks of being wrong on occasion. By taking the initiative on controversial subjects, the ACRS has been invaluable in the past and can continue to be so in the future. For example, someone must take the initiative in pointing out
[ when the benefit of a costly research project is over, e.g., LOFT. It is on such major issues that the ACRS can provide the type of advisory review that will be valuable to the Comissioners. However, the Panel
[ believes the ACRS should recognize that it is advice that is being offered, not decisions that are being made. The distinction between the Commissioners' positions, which are decisions, and the ACRS'
[ positions, which are advice, must be maintained. In the past, under-standing of this distinction has sometimes been lost.
In the role of providing advice to the Comissioners, the ACRS is
[ acting as-~a group. The views of the ACRS as a whole are being sought and not those of the ACRS staff or its consultants or even individual members. If a Commissioner wishes to receive advice from an indi-
[ vidual ACRS member, procedures in the ACRS Bylaws concerning the procedure and the protocol should be followed. However, it is the ACRS majority view that will usually be most useful to the Comission,
( though independent views can serve to sharpen the view of the major-ity.
The Panel does not believe that individual members should be
[ precluded from meeting with and discussing issues with individual Comissioners. In principle, this is a role that is determined by the Comissioners since the ACRS is advisory to them. In practice, ACRS members have a responsibility to ensure that when they meet with d
individual Comissioners they characterize opinions as their own and not those of the ACRS (the Panel does not mean to imply that such has occurred in the past but rather to warn against what could be a corrosive practice).
B. Relationship with the NRC Staff
[
Several members of the ACRS said that even when its letters were sent to the Comission, they were sometimes really written for the
[ staff, who by cither participation in the meeting or familiarity with the details would understand what was being said. The Panel believes that the ACRS should address its advice to the group that the ACRS
[ believes will find it useful. The staff usually needs detailed advice on specific detailed issues, and generally the Commission does not.
Conversely, if the ACRS is providing advice that is most useful to the Comission it is in the nature of broad policy that the Comission
[ must first adopt or modify or reject. It is only after Commission 15 h .. _
action on such matters that staff action can be instituted. The Panel believes that although the principal role of the ACRS should be to
~
advise the Comission, all letters should be addressed to those to whom the advice is being offered. Thus, when advice is being offered 7 to the staff, the letter should be addressed to the Executive Director L for Operations.
The Panel considered the relationship the ACRS might have with
[ respect to the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). The Panel recognizes that the CRGR serves a significant management func-tion for the ED0 and the Commission. The Panel believes that since the CRGR's functioning can have a significant impact on regulatory
[ policy, it is important for the ACRS to understand how the CRGR functions, and the criteria that the CRGR actually uses. The Panel therefore recommends the ACRS review the process the CRGR uses to
[ review items brought to it, in particular the methods of technical analysis used by the CRGR, including the use made of PRA and the types of data required for a CRGR decision. However, the Panel opposes the
[ ACRS assuming the responsibility of reviewer of each CRGR decision.
C. Relationship with Congress
[ In general, interviewees believed that Congress does not pay much attention to the ACRS research report. For example, the Congressional staff membert who were interviewed either did not know such a report
[ was submitted or believed the review was not used. This view also can be seen as contributing to the lack of Congressional interest in asking ACRS to testify thi; year. The requirement for the ACRS report
[ on research could just as well be either removed entirely or at least reduced in detail and effort.
The ACRS would not be very effective serving in an advisory role
[ to the Congress. Greater effort by the ACRS might establish closer ties to some Congressional staff, but this involvement with Congress could quickly lead to a substantial investment of time by both ACRS
[ members and staff. This would not be an effective use of ACRS re-sources either, and could substantially interfere with the ACRS role of providing sound, timely advice to the Commission. Furthermore, the
[ Congress has available to it the resources of the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the Con-gressional Research Service (CRS), and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Consequently, any review needed by the Congress can be done
[ outside of that done by the ACRS.
D. Relationship with Licensing Boards
{
There was uniform objection to the ACRS having any fomal in-volvement in the actions of Licensing Boards. This does not seem to
[ be a useful function for the ACRS to perform and it would require an extraordinary amount of time. In addition, difficulties would be raised with advising the Commission because of the interaction at one
[ level of a quasi-judicial process while still trying to advise at a higher level of the same quasi-judicial system.
16
' ' ' ^ ' ' ' ' ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E. Relationship with Industry and Intervenors
- The ACRS needs to have sufficient contact with industry to stay abreast of new developments and major issues in this arena. The Panel m believes that the ACRS should have more involvement with both industry L and intervenors in its meetings in order to determine the views of strong believers on controversial and important issues the NRC is facing. The ACRS' value as an advisory committee to the Commission is increased if its insulation from the principal proponents and oppon-
[ ents on a particular safety issue is decreased. However, the ACRS should not function as an advisor to either of these two groups.
F. Relationship with International Groups The ACRS is in a unique position concerning evaluation of inter-
[ national nuclear safety issues. The Committee because of its repu-tation is invited to send one or more members to many international meetings where important safety subject matter is discussed. The ACRS is able in these ways to interchange views with other review bodies in
[ other countries that serve a function similar to its own. This practice can help to develop a broad understanding of safety ap-preaches applied in different countries. While some of this oppor-
[ tunity is available to NRC staff members, the establishment of peer relationships by ACRS can have its own unique value. The ACRS should expand such contacts to assure maximum advantage.
G. Relationship with the General Public Although members of the general public do sometimes read ACRS reports, the Panel believes that the ACRS should not focus its at-tention on the public. To the extent that the press and other media are interested in what the ACRS is doing, their representatives are
[ always free to attend ACRS meetings and to receive copies of ACRS reports. However, if the ACRS were to fix its eye on how its reports will appear to the public, it will lose its focus on usefulness to the
[ Commission. The ACRS' principal function is to provide sound advice to the Commissien and in so doing it will best serve the public.
[
~
4
[
17
V. MEMBERSHIP ON THE ACRS AUD THE SELECTION PROCESS A. Purpose r As a result of the Panel's interviews and prior experience with L the ACRS by some Panel members, the following questions were identi-fied as major potential issues concerning ACRS membership:
- 1. Is the size of the ACRS optimum?
[
- 2. Are the skills and experience of ACRS members consistent with
~
the involvement the Committee should have with operating
- reactors, fuel cycle facilities and related generic safety issues?
b 3. Does the ACRS need new members?
- 4. Is the method of nominating and selecting ACRS members
( appropriate?
- 5. Has the member selection process been effective?
- 6. Da " conflict of interest" requirements adversely affect the availability of potential members?
b The Panel's conclusions as to these questions are set forth in the following paragraphs.
( B. Size of the ACRS ACRS membership is established by the Section 29 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended as consisting of a maximum of fifteen
[ members appointed by the NRC Comissioners for terms of four years each. The current composition of the ACRS, including a brief des-cription of the longevity and technical qualifications of the Com-
[ mittee members, is set forth in Table V.1.
The Panel found that the present ACRS size appears to provide an
[ appropriate balance between the need for a diversity of skills on one hand and the potential inefficiencies in the group process of too large a number of members on the other hand. Further, in the inter-views conducted by the Panel, the present size of the Committee was
[ not identified as an issue by those within and outside the Committee.
The Panel concluded that the present size of the Committee appears to be reasonable for its objectives.
{
C. Composition
[ At present, as set forth in Table V.1, nine members of the Committee are associated with academic institutions in teaching and/or management positions while two members' experience is primarily with national laboratories. One has been involved with operation or
[ operations support of a government-owned production reactor for most 18
i r , i 1 i m , , , i , , , i r 1 i m o m , i 1 i m r- i r i i t TABLE V.1 COMPOSITION Of ACR5 FIRST TECHNICAL DEGREES NAME APPOINTED RE APPOINTED __. CURRENT /LAST POSITION Professor of Chemical Engineering Princeton University Physical Chemistry
- 1. Robert C. Amtmann 1981 --
Professor and Chairman of Nuclear Engineering Department. Mechanical Engineering / Heat
- 3. Jesse C. Ebersole 1976 1980/84 TVA, Head of Nuclear Engtneering. Division o'f Engineering Design Electrical Engineering (retired)
Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Director of the Of fice of Electrical Engineering
- 4. William terr 1972 1976/80/84 Energy Research, University of Michigan Physics
- 5. Harold W. Lewis 1979 1983 Prgfegor 53 f gigs pt. of Physics, University of Call.
Division Leader of Theoretical Division, Los Alamos Scientific Physics / Mathematics
- 6. J. Carson Mark 1976 1980/84 Lab (retired)
Director of NRC Of fice of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Electrical Engineering /
- 7. Carlyle Michelson 1983 --
Industrial Management Data (retired) and Principal Nuclear Engineer. TVA (retired)
Professor of Engineering in Environmental Health. Harvard Univ. Nuclear Engineering / Sanitary
- 8. Dade W. Moeller 1973 1977/81/85 Engineering / Civil Engineering and Associate Dean for Continuing Education for the School of Pubitc Health 1967/71/75/19/83 Professor of Engineering & Applied Science, Dept. of Mechant- Mechanical Engineering / Physics
- 9. David Okrent 1963
~
cal, Aerospace and Nuclear Engr., Univ. of California, LA Plant Manager-Point Beach Nuclear Plant (retired) - Wisconsin Mechanical Engineering
- 10. Glenn A. Reed 1984 --
Electric Power Company Professor of Nuclear Engineering, and Associate Vice-President Nechanical Engineering II. Torrest J. Remick 1932 -.
for Research, The Penn State University
- 12. Paul G. Shewmon 1977 1981/85 Professnr, MPtallurgiCal (ngineering Dept., Ohio State University Metallurgical Engineering Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois Civil Engineering
- 13. Chester P. Siess 1968 , 1972/76/80/84 1984 Research Manager of the Reactor Safety Research Division, DuPont Mechanical Engineering
- 14. David A. Ward 1980
- 15. Charles J. Wylie 1994 -- Chief Engineer of Electrical Division Duke Power Company Electrical Engineering (retired) l l
N
of his professional career. Four members have some commercial nuclear
~
plant experience, but only one has extensive experience with operation L of nuclear plants. As a result, some interviewees questioned whether the Comittee's talent mix is weighted too heavily toward academic or laboratory experience (10 members) as contrasted to actual plant L design and operation experience.
The Panel concluded that while the Comittee's present compo-
[ sition is not best suited to the role that is recommended for the future, no rigid prescription of the mix of expertise of Comittee members is necessary or desirable. In general, the Panel believes the composition of the Committee can evolve as new technical issues in
[ reactor and fuel cycle facilities become dominant. Regarding the need for additional members with operational experience, the Panel observed that the recent additions of two former utility executives promises to ..
[ provide increased utility perspective, including that of operations <
personnel. The Panel's review reveals, however, that the reactor f system and pressure boundary expertise developed by NSSS vendors is
[ not suitably represented, that the current members' experience in radioactive waste issues is minimal, and that addition of more members with reactor operating experience would be appropriate. Consequently, the Panel believes that the Committee's composition should evolve
{ generally ~1n conformance with the following objectives: members with management experience in operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, members with NSS system design experience (one with PWR
[ experience and one with BWR experience would be appropriate), and a member with chemical engineering expertise applical.le to issues ,
involving nuclear waste. Finally, the Panel concluded that regardless
( of particular areas of expertise, the ACRS primarily requires " wise" members who can react to problems as generalists and not individuals whose principal qualifications are those of narrow specialists.
[ D. Length of Service of Members The duration of service of individual Comittee members is set
[ forth in Table V.I. A single term of a Comittee member is four years. Five of the fifteen Committee members are serving in their -
third and fourth terms and two others are in their fifth and sixth
( terms. The average current member has served on the Committee for over eight years. A number of interviewees, both within and outside the Committee, voiced the concern that the long length of service of some of the current members has unduly affected the Committee's
[ ability to add "new blood".
The question of the length of ACRS service and the need for newer
[ members was addressed by the Comissioners in September 1983. A policy was established limiting newly appointed members to a maximum of three terms. The Comissioners approved the following plan with
( regard to current members:
- 1. Current ACRS members who are in their first term shall be limited to a maximum of three consecutive tems.
[
19
- 2. Current ACRS members who are in their second or third terms shall be limited to a maximum of four consecutive terms.
- 3. Current ACRS members who have already served more than three
- consecutive terms shall be limited to a maximum of one more L consecutive tenn upon expiration of their current term.
In establishing these limits, the Comission did not intend to create a presumption that reappointment within these limits would be auto-
[ matic. Rather, the Commission would continue, as it has in the to treat pending vacancies on the ACRS on a case-by-casesee basis (past,
~
Section E).
The Panel concluded that a general policy of limiting a member of the ACRS to eight to twelve years of service is reasonable. Such a
[ limitation is important in assuring that new perspectives are advanced and considered. However, the Panel recognizes that increased turnover of Comittee personnel during the transition period could result in
[ the loss of critical experience. Thus, the Panel recomends that appropriate measures to make available to the NRC and the Committee the knowledge and experience of retiring members be developed and implemented. Moreover, the Panel observed that despite the prior lack
[ of specific guidelines in this area, one-third of the current Com- p mittee members are in their first term. L
( Finally, the Panel's review disclosed that before 1988 the Comittee and the NRC Comissioners will be faced with eight member-ship decisions: seven potential reappointments and one new appoint-
[ ment. Therefore, if the capabilities of the Committee are to be restructured over time as suggested in Section C, then the Panel concludes it is critical that all reappointment decisions be carefully evaluated in terms of the required technical composition of the
[ Comittee. Indeed, decisions regarding needed membership capabilities should occur well in advance of the time of the potential reappoint-ments.
E. Appointment and Reappointment of Members
[ The normal procedure currently followed for the appointment of a new member to the ACRS is as follows:
- 1. Members discuss the needs of the Comittee with respect to
{ the discipline needed to fill an opening.
- 2. ACRS informs the Comission of its desires regarding the
[ discipline of the new member.
- 3. The Comission authorizes publication of a press release
[ calling for nominations in the appropriate technical field.
Copies of the press release are sent to appropriate technical societies (e.g., ASME) and minority organizations, as well as the general public.
{
20 6- - - - . . _
~
- 4. Nominations are gathered and screened by the ACRS Staff and a flominating Panel composed of ACRS members. Nominations from representatives of NRC, including individual Comissioners, and from ACRS members are also considered.
- 5. The ACRS Nominating Panel selects a panel of persons to be considered by the full Comittee, taking into account their discipline, affiliation, and availability.
b
- 6. The ACRS selects a group of approximately three candidates and forwards their names to the Commission for a final selection. The ACRS may or may not order the candidates by
~
preference.
- 7. The Commission makes the final selection and appoints the new
[ member. [
For replacement of an on-board member, the Comittee is polled to
( determine if it recomends reappointment. If the answer is yes, the member is queried regarding his interest in reappointment. If the answer is yes, t.is reappointment is recomended to the Comission.
The Comission normally reappoints members so nominated, but it is not
[ obliged to~ do so.
The Panel concluded that the current nominating process is
[ generally reasonable. However, the Panel concluded that because of the need for new blood, incumbents should not, in practice, be auto-matically reappointed. Rather, the Panel recomends that well in
[ advance of considering a reappointment the Nominating Panel should thoroughly review the contribution of the incumbent as well as the area of his expertise, as if it were reviewing the qualifications of a proposed new member. The majority of the Panel believes that re-
[ appointments should then follow the same process as new appointments, which result in the names of multiple candidates being submitted to the Comission.
{
Finally, the Panel concluded that while the Comittee's current selection procedures seem adequate, the present composition of the
[ Comittee suggests some modification of the results of the actual process. For example, the Panel observed that the nominating of new raembers has been dominated by the immediately previous makeup; i.e.,
new members are often clones of the departing members. Also, the
[ Panel observed that no woman or member of a minority group has served or the ACRS, despite past efforts to recruit such persons. The Panel believes that technically qualified female and minority candidates
[ wi*.h a diversity of skills are available. Therefore, the Panel recomends that increased attention be focused on the selection process with the objective of achieving a more diverse composition of
[ bacr. ground and technical skills among the Comittee i.. embers (see conrents on Composition).
[
21
F. Conflict of Interest One explanation that has been given for the small number of ACRS members with commercial reactor design or operating experience is that the Committee's conflict of interest requirements unduly hamper the
( ability of the ACRS to recruit such people. The personnel policy of the ACRS pertaining to conflict of interest restrictions is contained in Part 0 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations are based on Executive Order 11222, the Ethics in Govern-
[ ment Act,18 U.S.C. 201-209, and Office of Personnel Management regulations.
Appendix III sets forth a summary of the conflict of interest restrictions which apply to ACRS members who are special Government employees of the NRC. Each provision is annotated to indicate its
( source in 10 CFR and any other legal basis. In limited circumstances, exemptions from these regulatory restrictions can be granted by the Chaiman of the NRC.
[ The Panel understands that the major problem with the current conflict of interest requirements is that the limits effectively preclude the selection of Committee members who are active in the
[ nuclear business except for employees of the national laboratories.
Another lesser problem is the fact that the Ifmitations that are placed on the members regarding their outside activities tend to cut
[ them off from consulting or other activities that could continue to keep them up-to-date as to events and trends in their field of exper-tise.
[ The Panel concluded that while the Committee's conflict of interest requirements are pervasive and burdensome, qualified indi-viduals who would not have a conflict of interest are available for.
[ ACRS assignments. For example, individuals currently active in other high technology industries can be selected. In addition, the ACRS currently does have several members who have retired from the nuclear
[. industry. Further, when necessary, any conflict of interest issue can be handled by temporary removal of the member from a potential con-flict on a project-specific basis. Hence, the Panel concluded that
( the current NRC conflict of interest requirements applied to the ACRS are appropriate and are not unduly restrictive.
[
[
[
[
[ 22
.. .i
N VI. ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ACRS T
L The Pe.:el believes tnat several key factors contribute to the organizatianal effectiveness of the ACRS. In each of these key areas, either sh;rt-run or longer-range improvements would seem beneficial.
[ This cha9ter singles out for discussion comittee management (the role of the /.CRS Chairman and a potential role for an ACRS Management Committee), sub-committee activities and their management, utilization
[ of ACR3 consultants, noms for required comittee effort, and the possible impact of change on the ACRS staff. ACRS activity consumes an annual resource of more than 7 person years in member time, plus approximately 50 person years in consultant and staff time, in
[ addition to the time required of applicants and the NRC Staff. These are quantities that in themselves justify management and leadership more active than anyone is presently in a position to provide.
A. The Chaimanship and a Proposed Management Comittee
( This section of the chapter describes the present role of the ACRS Chaiman, and suggests an augmented role which the Panel believes can be best carried out if there is simultaneously created a Management Comittee composed of the Chaiman, the immediate past
[ Chairman, the Vice Chaiman and the Executive Director of the ACRS staff (ex-officio).
b The present role of the ACRS Chairman is to be the instrument of the Committee. The Chaiman presides over monthly meetings, is first among equals in planning for those meetings, and calls special meet-
[ ings. He serves as the focal point for changes in ACRS structure, initiates the nominations process, is in the best position to call for deviations from agreed routine or changes in priorities, and provides direction to the ACRS Staff Executive Director. Hence, a chaiman
{ takes on an administrative role more than a leadership role. Of late, the Chairman has been chosen by seniority. He is the most senior ACRS member who has not previously served as Chaiman. The Chaiman serves
[ for one year. The job is described as burdensome and anxiety-provoking by most of the former ACRS chalmen interviewed--an oppor-tunity to learn, no doubt, but more of an imposition than an office to
( be sought.
The attitudes and practices outlined above seem to have served the ACRS and its members well enough in the past. The Panel ques-
[ tions, however, whether the place now accorded the Chairman is helpful enough to the emerging role of the ACRS. It has been suggested earlier that the principal task in the ACRS mission should now be to
{ advise the NRC Comissioners on important broad technical issues in the national agenda for assuring the safety of nuclear power and the nuclear fuel cycle. To do this will require more initiative by the
( ACRS than if its task were primarily to react to a stream of ap-plications, to react to proposed rule-makings, and to review annually the NRC research program.
23 f
It would go against ACRS custom, however, to invite a Chairman to take over the reins, and drive the Comittee wherever he chooses. The
' Panel believes that any ACRS Chairman who tried to do this would simply isolate himself from his colleagues, and would ultimately fail.
Therefore, the role urged is leadership, but not dictatorship.
[ Furthemore, it is a role that could be carried out effectively if done with and through a well-informed, well-connected Management Comittee. Such a Management Comittee would constitute a leadership
( group that should be both acceptable and effective. The role of the Chairman would then be to initiate, to suggest, to stimulate, and to formulate decisions as to the direction, prioritie; and hard choices facing the ACRS, acting through the Management Comittee. The
[ Management Comittee would further develop planning and guidance for the Chairman and the ACRS as
- whole, to test and help mature the plans the Chainnan wants to implement, and to see to it that the ACRS
[ understands and responds constructively to leadership initiatives.
To help the Chairman carry out his role, the Panel suggests that
[ the ACRS make the following changes:
- 1. Elect Chalmen for a two-year tem, re-electable once if desired, so that those members with outstanding capability to
[ carry out the job have more of an opportunity to do so.
Moreover, such a change would signify to all members that the leadership capabilities of a potential Chaiman are im-
[ portant to the Comittee's functioning.
- 2. Request that the legislation be changed to permit the Chair-
[ man to be paid an additional amount as recognition for taking on an even heavier responsibility than other members.
- 3. Amend the ACRS bylaws to fonnalize and require an enhanced
[ role for the Chaiman. The bylaw would say that the role of Chairman is the primary obligation for any ACRS member who accepts it. A Chairman who wishes to retain Sub-comittee
[ Chairmanships, for example, would have to convince his M:,nagement Comittee, and if they are dissatisfied with his argument and he still persists, he would have to persuade
[ the entire ACRS. The Chairman should be permitted and directed in the bylaw to lead, that is, to set near-term and longer-term goals, to launch new initiatives, to close
[ down superfluous activities, to fom sub-comittees and propose their redirection or their termination, to call for improvements in ACRS operations / priorities / structure, to maintain close one-on-one contact with such important con-
{ stituents as the NRC Comission Chainnan and the NRC EDO, and to demonstrate by his actions how to make the ACRS reach its stated goals. Traditional rights and duties should also be
[ confirmed and in some cases extended: To supervise the Executive Director of the ACRS staff, and through him, the ACRS staff, to chair the ACRS meetings with accountability to
[ assure their effectiveness (with comittee-accepted criteria and standards for evaluating their effectiveness), to assure
[ 24
the appropriateness and balance of agendas for ACRS meetings, meetings of the Management Comittee and other management meetings, to initiate the nominations process, and to call special meetings.
- 4. The bylaws of the ACRS might be amended to rename and upgrade the Procedures Comittee to become in fact the ACRS Management Comittee. At a minimum, the Chairman needs a mechanism for helping to lift the ACRS and its sub-committees out of more routine activity. ACRS Chairman, immediate past Chaiman, Vice Chairman, and the ACRS Executive Director sitting in as an ex-officio member would comprise an effective Management Comittee. Its role could include a regular schedule for review and updating of ACRS plans, priorities, and activities. Revisions it makes in the plan would con-stitute guidance for the chairman.
The Management Comittee could also be given certain oversight as to internal management procedure. It could be ment to the ACRS Chairman with respect toorhis any(given other)the right to com-proposals to create, recharter, or disband sub-comittees. It could actively review major input or actions by consultants and sub-comittees. It could be consulted by the ACRS Chairman with respect to steps in the nominating process which are traditionally the prerogative of the ACRS Chaiman, or the responsibility of the ACRS Staff's Executive Di-rector. The Management Comittee could have a general responsibility to monitor, through day by day contact with ACRS members and staff, the progress and problems faced by leadership initiatives . Beyond personal monitoring, individual members of the Management Committee could also have the responsibility to advocate, persuade, and motivate other ACRS members to undertake and carry out appropriate activities towards realizing ACRS objectives.
The Management Comittee could assess ACRS perfomance and relation-ships quite broadly. For example, it could review any extensive requests for infomation that ACRS sub-comittees make to the regu-latory staff, to consider their relative priority, and their overall impact on the NRC, and could act as an intermediary between the managers of the regulatory staff and the sub-comittee chaimen when appropriate.
B. Sub-corLrfttees The ACRd now has over 100 sub-comittees. Of these, around 30 held meetings in 1984, and they carried out an average of three meetings each. Sub-comittees have been essential to ACRS operation, and it is expected that they will continue to be important. Sub-comittees are set up to accomplish at least two purposes: To carry out specific responsibilities of the ACRS, and to solve problems.
Most sub-comittees have been formed in response to licensing appli-cations, and a separate sub-comittee exists for each of most operatin7 plants at well as for those still under review.
25
In reflecting on the way the ACRS has functioned and on its accomplishments, the Panel has developed the working hypothesis that one sub-comittee role is most important: to deepen and enhance ACRS understanding of chosen subjects. Sub-committees by clarifying issues and educating the entire membership thereby support the ACRS. A valuable by-product of sub-comittee activity is to review with the NRC Staff its basis for particular conclusions, and the basis ap-plicants have for particular proposals of major significance.
The Panel questions the current practice of fairly routinely approving creation of new sub-comittees desired by individual mem-bers. As noted earlier, if the ACRS Chairman is given a somewhat stronger role, and more of an opportunity to work with a Management Comittee, one task the Chairman should assume and share with the Management Comittee is a more systematic review of requests to set up new sub-comittees. At a minimum, all sub-comittees, including those in process of formation, should be held accountable for both developing and carrying out plans with identifiable milestones. This will become even more important if the fraction of the ACRS' work that is self-initiated becomes larger.
C. Consultants The ACRS takes on as consultants a nuniber of specialists to increase the available depth of knowledge in relevant specialties.
Consultants in certain specialties are required when the ACRS does not include these specialties among its own members.
Sub-comittee uses of consultants varies a great deal. Subjects new to t!? ACRS require more consulting time and more different con-sultants than other subjects. This seems appropriate.
Instances have been alleged in which consultants have been allowed to " speak for the ACRS " either in face-to-face dealings with appli-cants and/or NRC Staff, or in drafting letters which then had more or less perfunctory review by the ACRS. If such instances have occurred, the Panel believes they should not have. As a general principle, the Panel believes the review process should develop enough understanding of subjects and issues that ACRS members can speak and write for themselves.
The Panel suggests that the ACRS should follow the following policies and practices with respect to consultants:
- 1. Consultants should be briefed on their roles. (This goes beyond the existing practice of briefing new consultants on the ACRS, the implications of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, etc.) In sub-committee meetings with regulatory staff or with applicants, consultants should be careful to confine questions and remarks to their own areas of expertise. They should be sure not to give any implication that they speak for the ACRS, and should be careful to avoid the appearance of doing so. They should assume responsibility 26
_ _ _ - - _ - . . - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _a
for understanding the context of any meeting or discussion into which they are invited.
- 2. Sub-comittee chairmen should prepare their consultants ahead r of time for meetings and, when necessary, other sub-comittee members I as well. The consultants deserve orientation to the objectives, past work, and problems currently facing the sub-comittee. This could be especially important for newly appointed consultants, or those used infrequently.
- 3. Sub-comittee chairmen should require written reports from their consultants. This requirement should be stated to consultants in advance, and in many cases, the sub-comittee chaiman will need to tell the consultant the nature of the material he wants in the re-port: the issues to be addressed, how he expects to use the report, and suitable scope and scale for the report.
- 4. The Management Committee, as described earlier in this chapter, should annually review the quality of the consultants of-ficially accepted by the ACRS, and the effectiveness of the work the active consultants do. This review should be based on evaluations by the ACRS members who use the consultants, on the reports submitted by consultants, and on such other evidence as the Management Comittee can obtain.
D. Effort Required of Members This section discusses the norms underlying ACRS membership: How much of what kind of work a member must do in order to satisfy his responsibilities. The Panel believes that the ACRS should face this subject more squarely than it appears to have done in the past.
- 1. Individual ACRS members worked on ACRS business from 69 to 223 days in 1984. The average was 126 days. The Panel believes that the ACRS should be attempting to recruit new members on the basis of their potential contribution, re-gardless of their willingness to serve the average number of ACRS days per year. As it is, a member who puts in many fewer days than 100 in a year is likely to be perceived as not doing his share.
- 2. Individual members might try to estimate at the beginning of each year the scope of their ACRS work, including an estimate of the amount of time they can devote to ACRS and any breakdown of this time they can forecast. The estimates can then become one of the inputs for planning the work of the ACRS and its sub-comittees.
- 3. ACRS members, on joining the Comittee, should receive informal as well as formal orientation. They already are given extensive reading material. They are supposed to meet with the Chairman early in their first term, and a few months 27
s later, with some other member, to be interviewed. But with T
all of this, it is still not clear that a new member is L necessarily told how the ACRS really works, what the ACRS has to do to be effective, what the various members are good at, or what the real requirements are for satisfactory Committee membership. The Panel suggests that the Chaiman should ask at least two different members to discuss infomally with I each new member the workings of the ACRS from their own viewpoints. This kind of stimulated interchange would furnish new members with some hypotheses (sometimes con-I flicting) about what they observe, and the questions that arise for them. Having such hypotheses should greatly accelerate new members' coming tp to speed and focusing on the basic objectives of the ACRS.
l
- 4. The Panel has been told that the staff of the ACRS now receives at its own request on the order of 20,000 sets of I documents each year. Most documents come from the NRC Staff.
Considerable effort goes into screening and directing these documents, so the right ACRS members see the right docu-I ments. The Panel believes that screening procedures could be improved (e.g., through computerized search in the Docu-ment-Control System) to reduce the number of documents examined. It should be borne in mind that the ACRS has asked I to be included in many distribution lists. The Panel sug-gests reexamination and pruning, consistent with revised scope and scale of effort that would grow out of ALRS fnple-I mentation of the Panel's recomendations as to redirection of the Committee. If the ACRS no longer has to report on every application for construction and operating licenses, I the work load will naturally be reduced.
E. The ACRS Staff I The ACRS staff includes over 40 professional and support level personnel. Many of the professional level personnel function as staff project engineers, assigned to work with ACRS sub-comittees. In addition, a class of employee called "ACRS Fellows" was created several years ago. Fellows tend to be relatively young professionals, some still in graduate school or recent graduates.
- 1. The Panel believes that ACRS staff perfomance and staff requirements should be evaluated in depth when it is clearer what the ACRS is going to be doing over the next several I years. If all the recomendations of the Panel come to be accepted, requirements for both staff size and competence 28 1
l
N-could become very different, and considerable job redesign and reorganization would appear appropriate.
[
Even if few changes were made in ACRS activity or its mode of r operation, the staff should probably be evaluated to help clear up L whether the size is justified or not, and whether the technical
- competence needs more emphasis. The Panel suggests evaluation in this case not because it has any preliminary findings, but because some
( persons have levied criticisms and others have raised the question.
Some staff issues relate directly to the operating mode of the ACRS: How much " technical work" should the ACRS staff do? Is the ACRS
[ fully using the capabilities of the people now on the staff, some of whom are technically trained and prepared to do technical rather than administrative work?
{
- 2. In the opinion of the Panel, the ACRS leadership evaluates the staff too rarely and in not enough depth. The proposed
[. Management Committee might quite naturally take responsi-bility for such on-going evaluation. Certainly, if the Management Committee is to do the on-going evaluation, they
[ should be involved in an initfal evaluation as well.
- 3. TheManagementCommittee(orotherACRSleadership)could also evaluate the Fellows and the fellowship program. This
[ program was meant to supply the ACRS with an ability to address special technical problems. The original idea was to have individual Fellows work closely with particular ACRS
( members. Fellows are given training assignments to famil-f arize them with methodologies (such as probabilistic risk assessment) with which the ACRS has been heavily preoccupied.
Even though the program concept has changed somewhat, and
[ the present number of seven Fellows is far below the theo-retical authorization of fifteen, no other evaluation than by the ACRS members themselves Nould make complete sense.
{
This section is concluded with a series of observations on the relationship between the ACRS and the ACRS staff. The staff is highly
[ motivated to comply with the requests it receives from ACRS members.
This is a positive quality if all the requests of the rembers are pertinent to the work to be done. One criticism leveled against the ACRS staff and its management by the ACRS is that the experience and
( knowledge of the senior members of the ACRS staff are not always brought to bear in helping to evaluate the importance of work required of individual ACRS staff members, as well as to figure out how that
[ work is to be done. Collecting the views of staff could be a bit more strongly emphasized as a part of what the ACRS Chairman and the Executive Director of the staff are supposed to do.
ACRS staff project engineers, when assigned to sub-committees, are supervised by those sub-committees, and must (naturally) satisfy
[ the sub-comittees. The structure itself thus sets up a tendency for over-compliance and under-utilization of the skills and experience of 29
the staff. If the sub-committees become more directly and speciff-cally accountable to the ACRS, through its Chairman and a Management Committee, this situation can be adjusted by internal policy, so that ACRS project engineers feel a bit more entitled to speak up when they have good reason to believe a specific assignment given them should be modified, and can give good reasons why.
Committee staffs, no matter how subservient, are always subject to the accusation, and Committee members to the suspicion, that the staff members are participating in Committee decisions. The more the staff speaks up, the higher the risk. The only sure way to keep a high quality staff and minimize these rumors at the same time is for the Committee itself to be obviously vigorous and capable enough to make all its own decisions.
we 30 l
VII. ACRS OPERATIONAL METHODS This chapter sets forth a number of Panel observations as to the process of Atat business and the effect process has or can have on the actual product. The topics discussed therefore include interperscnal relations, interactions, and other aspects of the process whereby the t Committee arrives at its technical product. These are reviewed in the context of changes in the process that can improve the product. The Panel identified the following questions as the major issues regarding 4 the ACRS' operational methods: l
- 1. Is the " consensus" method for reporting ACRS' views to the p
NRC comissioners working well?
- 2. Does the Comittee's letter-writing process result in clear conmunications?
- 3. Can ACRS comunications to its various audiences be effective without an oral component?
- 4. Has conformance to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) adversely affected the Committee's work?
i
- 5. Is the Committee's budget subject to appropriate controls?
A. The Consensus Objective and Means for Achieving Consensus i There is strong implied pressure on ACRS members to reach con-sensus on matters brought before the Comittee. Since consensus can l be hard to achieve, one of the common conrequences of the pressure for i consensus is to " water down" the ACRS letters, and/or to make ACRS letters.hard to understand because they do not reflect the real variety of views which underlie them.
i Although consensus remains one of the bedrock values in the ACRS culture, dissenting views appended to ACRS letters are more frequent and more tolerable to the members than was the case a few years ago.
ACRS members nevertheless clearly believe that they should strive for consensus.
The Panel favors the consensus principle where consensus exists.
There are some reservations about the methods used to reach consensus, and the actions taken when consensus proves elusive. First, however, i a suggestion is made that the consensus-seeking process should be viewed in a revised context.
l A.1 In ACR$' Current Role. Clarification of Issues is More j Important than Achieving Consensus 4
The Panel concluded that the freedom the ACRS has to lay out ,
difficulties, dilemmas, uncertainties, contrasting opinions,
- 31 a
. - - - - _ _ . _ . _ _ , - ,~..,_-_..-_...---._m - _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ , . . - .....e
priorities, and trade-offs in stark and accessible terms is now more important for ACRS to achieve than is consensus. Indeed, the attempt to achieve consensus can legitimately be regarded as a device used primarily to speed up clarification of issues. This shift in the role
- of consensus seems to be the result of a change in the context in which ACRS operates. No longer is the ACRS the major voice pointing out the safe or most acceptable way to go for benefit of the Joint i Comittee and a single AEC Comissioner with a fledgling staff, who were the government officials for whom at one time nuclear power regulation had most importance. The role of the ACRS is now that of a major definer of the nation's nuclear power safety agenda instead of being the nation's primary technical resource on nuclear power reactor safety matters. In these circumstances cogency and integrity of ACRS statements are more important than consensus among members. Decisions are made elsewhere, by a Commission whose responsibility is safety.
Therefore the purposes of consensus-building are somewhat dif-ferent now from those in the past. Fonnerly, the principal purpose in ACRS consensus was to provide a unified direction to those being advised, to suggest to them the one best way to go, with some ad-ditional validity and protection provided if the overwhelming majority of members endorsed that position. In that situation, consensus needed to reside only in the particular recommended. action, since the requirement was to lend credibility to moving in the recommended direction.
The role the Panel foresees for the ACRS in the future is to throw light on the fundamental questions involved in safety-related decisions in nuclear power policy and practice. The decisions pre-ferred by the varying constituencies are usually stated both force-fully and early, and they provide clear options as to the possible direction (s) in which to proceed. What is missing or in short supply is well-informed technical guidance on what is true, what is probably true, what is uncertain, what precisely should be held to be in dispute, and what is actually unknown. If in its letters the ACRS provides consensus statements that powerfully describe each important issue in terms of the true, the probable, the uncertain, the disputed and the unknown, it will have done a great deal for the NRC Com-missioners and for other constituencies as well.
Although the need for consensus may no longer be as great, striving for consensus continues to be a valid goal, 2nd its achieve-ment is laudable as long as the consensus is genuine. Instances in which members, on announcing their intention to dissent, then opt out of the discussion rob comittee deliberations of their role in sharpening the product (the letter).
A real consensus would be group solidarity in sentiment and belief. In complex matters consensus may be hard-won, or even un-attainable. Consensus is most valuable when it reflects comon understandings in depth, which in unfamiliar territory can occur only after the more knowledgeable contributors have successfully trans-ferred the essentials of their specialized knowledge to the other l
l 32
g _
N participants. Thus, ACRS consensus also depends on the willingness of p members to give and accept education, to become more like one another L over time in their attitudes and understanding, and to become gen-eralists. Recognition of the desirability of mutual education and gradual translation of new members into "ACRS generalists" is shared
[ among at least some of the current membership of the ACRS. Attaining consensus on crucial underlying assumptions will aid the process of achieving consensus on matters of substance.
[ The Panel also suggests from its experience that the process of achieving descriptive consensus (consensus on what is true, etc.)
frequently results in long strides towards policy and decision con-
[ sensus as well. This happens because descriptive consensus is more nearly policy-neutral, and allows participants more latitude to surface the assumptions they are making without, necessarily, de-
[ veloping direct risk to their policy preferences. In the course of surfacing of major assumptions, people tend to move closer to the same views, and once they reach the same description of the issues, they also tend to move closer together on what to do in the face of those
[ issues.
The Panel believes that consensus that is reached by settling for
[ the least comon denominator is not useful, because it often results in vague and unusable generalization. Concealing conflict from readers of ACRS letters also tends to confuse them as to the intended
[ ACRS message.
A.2 Better Use of Consensus-building Techniques is Attainable
[ Certain discussion techniques are in themselves great aids to reaching consensus. They are widely used in other forums where it is important for a group of individuals of diverse backgrounds and
{- beliefs to work toward comon understanding and agreement. We believe that the ACRS could more conscientiously practice these techniques than they do.
We have written up two of these techniques that we believe could be used with the most benefit, and have set them in the context of
[ possible use by the ACRS. This writeup is attached as Appendix IV.
B. Letter Writing: Documenting the Consensus Process
{
ACRS letters are the Comittee's main product. Construction.
permits and operating licenses for comercial nuclear power reactors cannot be issued until the ACRS' opinion, in the form of a letter to the Commission,.is duly included in the appropriate docket. Thus letter-writing purposes and practices date to the origins of the ACRS.
[ ACRS letters have great potential value for shaping the thinking of people who are either less technically sophisticated than the members, or have less time to devote to the issues considered by the ACRS. The Panel has observed that some ACRS letters are cryptic, abrupt, and not
[ self-explanatory if judged in terms of their potential to make a b 33
persuasive educational case. In fact, minority views, usually written
- by one person with persuasion and justification in mind, are often u more illuminating than the letters themselves (in those cases where dissent is expressed with respect to a key issue). The Panel believes "scrutability" of the ACRS letters to be essential if the letters are to achieve their purpose. Some more detailed comments on ACRS letters
[ and their preparation are given in Appendix V.
C. Achieving Better Comunication with the Audience
[ Requires More Oral Presentations and Discussion
" Collegiality" means to ACRS members that individual members will
[ decline to speak for the comittee. The comittee speaks through its letters, or as a group, face-to-face with its audience. There are negative consequences from " collegiality" and from the assumption that ACRS letters are self-contained and speak for themselves. These
[ assumptions have the effect of abdicating a great deal of the respon-sibility for effective communications. The Panel has concluded that significant opportunity for enhancing effectiveness exists in the
[- communications area.
C.1 Important Written Opinions of the ACRS About Which at least One
[. or Two Members Feel Strongly Should be Backed up by Oral Discussion
[ The Panel notes that ACRS meetings are currently held with the Comission at about bimonthly intervals. We believe that sustained contact between the two bodies is desirable, and we endorse the current effort to make these meetings more useful. In many cases,
[ ACRS written opinions should be supplemented and reinforced by oral discussion, so that the Comissioners will have a good chance to assess the meaning and significance of the ACHS work, to test its
[ foundations if desired, and to ask quc:ticos. As fer the ACRS mem-bers, discussions with the Commissioners should provide valuable clues on the context in which the NRC is making particular decisions and on
[ the Comission's priorities.
When members of the ACRS develop strong opinions about issues discussed in an ACRS letter, and/or the ACRS wants to be sure that the
[ Comission pays careful attention to ACRS advice offered in a letter, we suggest that there is excellent reason for ACRS to ask for a special meeting with the Commission. Not all members of the ACRS need
[ attend--just those directly involved, most knowledgeable, most inter-ested (perhaps, for example, a dissenter) or those who for some other l reason are specially requested by the ACRS to participate. A meeting
[ between 15 ACRS members and 5 Comissioners is by definition unwieldy and wasteful if it includes people who will be unlikely to make a special contribution. If a member doesn't have a real role in one discussion, he probably will have in another, so there need be no
[ special status signified by members' participating in these smaller meetings. It's worth the effort to make sure the right ACRS members attend, in order to increase the focus and relevance of the
{
[ 34
~
discussion, and it is advisable also to prepare those scheduled to attend in advance of the meetings,
~
u C.2 ACRS Should Deal with the Regulatory Staff on a Technical and Professional Basis With respect to communications with the Regulatory Staff, a very different problem exists, a problem that reflects a somewhat compli-
[ cated relationship. The ACRS is sometimes now in the position of second-guessing the Regulatory Staff, or at least looking over their shoulders. The staff is sometimes in a position to withhold or greatly delay conducting studies or analyses that the ACRS asks for.
[ Neither party is unaware of these circumstances. Both ACRS members and Regulatory Staff members are from time to time made uncomfortable by them.
{
This kind of discomfort develops an impediment to comunication when it is expressed by ACRS members in behavior which the NRC Staff
[ can interpret as harassment, patronizing behavior, or just plain rudeness. We have been told about a number of such incidents. We have observed a few instances in which it must have been humiliating for the NRC staff members involved, especially since it was not
[ obvious whht the Regulatory Staff members involved had done to deserve the way they were treated. On the other hand, the_ Regulatory Staff seems to go out of its way to be careful not to treat ACRS members
[ other than deferentially. We suggest that ACRS would have better service from the Regulatory Staff and would enjoy better comuni-cations with the Regulatory Staff if ACRS members were a little more
( considerate in-the way they treat the Regulatory Staff. We suggest that it would be in everybody's interest for the ACRS to ask its Chairman and its Management Comittee to ponder this problem, and to begin working with individual members, if any, who are persistently
[ inconsiderate, with a view toward changing the noms in this regard.
The Panel is, of course, aware ~ that the Regulatory Staff could be
[ capable of recalcitrance and obduracy now and then. .The question is whether harsh behavior by ACRS members has the effect of overcoming these barriers or making them worse.
In addition, certain attitudes exist, which contribute further to the same difficulties. The NRC Staff to some extent believes itself to be just as knowledgeable as the ACRS in general, and more so in
[' detail, and that Regulatory Staff members will therefore get little profit out of their participation in ACRS meetings. Some members of the ACRS seem to assume an informal oversight role by the tone and
[ nature of their dialogue with the Regulatory Staff. This includes the obligation of a member to administer corrective guidance when he
' believes correction is needed.
These two attitudes, both of which the Panel believes to be inappropriate, exacerbate each other. It would be good if the ACRS
[ were to break the " vicious circle." ACRS.might consider arguing out-within itself some ground rules for providing guidance to the 35
~
Regulatory Staff. What kind of arrangements need to be in place between the ACRS and the Commission to cover those instances in which
- it is or should be legitimate for the ACRS to provide guidance, or to
" task" the Regulatory Staff? Should it ever do so at all?
E L Regardless of the outcome of such discussions, the ACRS should also guide itself by the following prohibitions and requirements:
[ 1. Regulatory Staff members should not be attacked when it turns out that they are the wrong ones to have appeared before a sub-comittee or the ACRS itself. If the ACRS believes NRC staff witnesses are,not knowledgeable, they should be
[ courteously excused and the issue taken up with the EDO or the Comission.
- 2. To the extent possible, ACRS questions to the Regulatory Staff should follow the lines and subject matter that the Staff has been notified of. If it is necessary to depart
[ from the subject matter the ACRS had told the Staff would be covered, there should be no surprise, vexation, or recrim-ination when questions in the new areas of subject matter cannot be answered on the spot by the Staff members present.
[
- 3. Keep meetings on schedule, so visitors for subsequent ses-sions need not be kept waiting needlessly while the ACRS
[ falls behind. If the ACRS does fall behind schedule by more than a few minutes during a particular session, replan, and infom affected prospective attendees by telephone so they
[ don't have to leave their offices or hotels until a reason-able time before their participation will be required.
- 4. Above all, plan meetings and sub-comittee meetings
[ carefully. Identify the people whose attendance is desired or identify precisely the questions and subject matter to be pursued, so that the NRC Staff can chose the right people to
[- provide the information desired. To sumarize: give prospective attendees as much notice as possible, as to the information required, the form it should most desirably take,
[ and the time and place it is to be delivered. This will be easier as the ACRS begins to assume the initiative in planning its agenda, rather than reacting to NRC Staff
[ initiatives.
D. FACA The Federal Advisory Comittee Act (PL 92-463, 92nd Congress, Oct. 6, 1972) (FACA) is intended to assure that:
I . advisory comittee purposes are restricted to the giving of advice;
[ . advisory comittee meetings are truly open to the public; 36
~
. a designated federal employee is present at all advisory comittee meetings to assure that FACA provisions are enforced; and r . minutes, reports prepared for or by advisory comittee, and L other documentation are preserved and made available to the public.
[ There is one ACRS staff employee whose time is dedicated pri-marily to maintaining the required files. All new project engineers on the ACRS staff must, as one of their initial training procedures, qualify as a designated federal employee under the act.
[
When the FACA was passed, there were many predictions of dis-aster. The Panel-did not see that FACA has had any significant
[ adverse impact on the activities of the ACRS, with one exception. The NRC Staff may be more inhibited in its discussions with ACRS than it once was, and the requirement that ACRS deliberations and records be
[ open to the public may have something to do with this reticence. If FACA has done damage to ACRS it would seem not to be major. ACRS subject matter, vocabulary, and operational mode all contribute to a situation in which the meetings are a good deal less "open" to the
[ public in practice than they are in theory. What has been accom-plished by enforcing FACA, therefore, is indirect but useful. Those groups that are technically competent to understand what the ACRS is
[ doing now can monitor the meetings. The result is a net reduction in suspicion, and a net increase in the opportunities such groups have to influence what the ACRS does. The Panel believes that FACA does more
[ good than harm, so far as its effects on ACRS are concerned. The purposes of the Act would be better served, however, if transcripts, handouts and other documents used or produced by the ACRS in its open meetings were to become available more promptly. ACRS meeting papers
[ are not usually accessible at the NRC Public Document Room sooner than a month after the meetings they document. The Panel recomends cutting this delay to a week in the ordinary case, and no more than
[ two weeks in extraordinary cases.
E. Committee Budget The Panel has not addressed directly the size of the budget. We were asked to evaluate ACRS effectiveness, not its cost vs. the costs
[ of other advisory comittees. We are aware of the fact that ACRS is both active and relatively large (among advisory bodies) and that it is supported by a relatively large staff. The result is a requirement for a relatively large budget. The right time to review the ACRS
[ budget will come when the Panel's major recomendations have been implemented. With adjustments in the Comittee's role, its methods of managing itself, some of its constituency relationships, and its
[ internal operations, there should be improvements in effectiveness and adjustments in requirements for resources.
[ The Panel, accordingly, recomends that the ACRS comit itself to a review of its budget and budget requirements after it has agreed to
[ 37
A changes in its charter and mode of operation, and these changes have begun to be reflected in the tasks it takes up and the demands that
~
' will then be placed on the ACRS staff.
E L
[
[
[
[ ..
[
[
[
[
[
[
[-
[
[
[- 38
^
~
VIII. ENHANCING ACRS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE REGULATORY PROCESS The ACRS has been visibly involved in nuclear safety regulation over the entire history of nuclear power. A partial listing of its
- contributions begins with concerns about criticality control and extends through containment, emergency core cooling, pressure vessel integrity, anticipated-transients-without-scram, the "ALARA" approach I to radiation exposure of workers, electrical reliability, emergency planning, human factors, and waste management. The discussion presented here is intended to provide some suggestions as to how the I ACRS as a Committee can further enhance the value of its contributions to the regulatory process.
A. Perceptions of ACRS Contributions The Panel members' interviews with those familiar with ACRS functions over the years uncovered a wide variation in perspectives I concerning what has been most valuable. The Panel observes that most of the issues to which ACRS contributions have been most important were active concerns of the ACRS several years ago. In recent years, their initiatives in major safety resolutions have not been as obvi-I ous. It remains to be seen whether this difficulty in identifying contributions by ACRS in recent years as a result of initiatives it took is a product of the long gestation time of important steps, or if I in fact it does represent a decline in important ACRS output.
The NRC Staff, as might have been expected, offered the longest I list of matters in which the ACRS contribution was of great value.
The time span of those contributions extended over a number of years, but many have come to fruition only in the last few years. Notably, I the Safety Goal Policy and the Severe Accident Policy are just now being established by the Commissioners. Others including electrical reliability, piping integrity evaluation, and fire protection are matters wherein the ACRS through its persistent probing has helped to I establish a regulatory position on complex technical issues. Some regulatory controversies such as the recent problems of Diablo Canyon seismic design and Midland soil settlement have been clarified by ACRS I assistance. Other matters in which the ACRS involvement has been useful in the near past include the CRBR licensing review, PRA method-I ology, diesel generator reliability, standardized design concepts, and I the research program. During operating license reviews the ACRS has been a catalyst for improvements in design, operations, and defense-in-depth. Many of these matters continue to occupy ACRS attention. Infrequently, when requested, the ACRS has helped to I resolve staff internal differences.
The NRC Commissioners, the main clients for ACRS advice, have I identified a less extensive list and, while they would, no doubt, acknowledge the above staff listing, have cited ACRS accomplishments that reflect their different type of need. Current and previous I Commissioners made reference to the following matters as helpful in developing Commissioner judgements: the recommendation to terminate the LOFT project, the involvement with the Appendix R fire protection 39 1
rulemaking, the views on regionalization, the reports on " cosmic
~
issues" such as safety goals, seismic adequacy, and on NTSB-type
- accident investigations, and the various discussions that members appended to consensus reports.
The Congressional Staff members mentioned only a few instances where ACRS contributions were deemed helpful, e.g. the safety goal Il policy, but there is not as much current interest by Congress in ACRS activities as was the case in the days of the Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy. The independent views of the ACRS on nuclear safety I are not directly sought, although one individual expressed a desire for the ACRS to act promptly in taking a position on plant safety questions of high public visibility.
I Industry observers seem to emphasize instances where the ACRS, during licensing reviews, narrowed the issues needing to be addressed prior to licensing action. These individuals tended to encourage ACRS I to concentrate on generic matters of major significance and avoid becoming involved in day-to-day licensing details.
Members of the public value the ACRS as providing them with an opportunity to air concerns they may have in a less fomal atmosphere than is available to them in hearings.
I The Panel believes all of the above participants in the regu-latory process expect the ACRS to continue to make contributions to the nuclear regulatory process in the interest of public safety, but I most believe the Committee should focus on its advisory function rather than becoming involved directly in regulation or design, construction, and operational details.
B. Advising the Comissioners The primary responsibility of the ACRS is to advise the NRC l Comissioners. The Panel believes that the Comittee should make certain that in discharging this responsibility it always keeps in mind the type of advice needed by the Comissioners and the form in I which it should be presented.
In most cases the Comittee will be expected to discuss with the I Comission issues which it intends to take up, whether they have arisen as a result of Comission query or are raised at the Com-mittee's initiative, and to review with the Comissioners how each issue might be addressed. As was the case of the Safety Goal Policy, l the ACRS may be asked to develop its ideas on how to deal with a problem within the regulatory framework. The Panel believes that such requests are best handled by identifying the strategies for resolving I a problem including sources of help, steps toward resolution, and the methods for attacking the problem through discussions with the Regu-latory Staff, the regulated industry, and contractor organizations.
I Generally, this is the manner in which ACRS has supported NRC and its predecessors in the past. The ACRS' more recent style of operation is to leave much of the initiative to the NRC Staff in determining what 40
relevant information is brought in. The Panel believes that if itRC
~
Staff resources are involved, the ACRS should develop a cooperative
- approach with the NRC Staff in assessing how problems of concern to the Commissioners should be resolved, but it should feel free to
- directly explore such matters with all who are knowledgeable about the subject matter.
In a few instances, the Comissioners will be interested in a straightforward statement of the problem, an explanation of the issues to be resolved, and the ACRS views on the best approach to resolving I the issues. A judgement about the problem can be useful even if it is given with little or no explanation, but it will be of more value if supporting evidence is provided for the Comissioners to use in evalu-ating the basis for judgment.
l If, as a result of such responses, the ACRS is seen by the Comissioners as a positive aid to them in bringing about the regu-I latory results intended by the Atomic Energy Act, it will be serving its best purpose. To this end, the Committee should be building a strong comunications link with the Commissioners through well founded i recomendations accompanied by well referenced evidence and explanatory discussion. The Panel believes that the Commissioners' display of understanding of Comittee " advice" is an excellent measure of ACRS contribution to the regulatory process and should result in l responsible consideration of its recommendations by the Comissioners.
C. Licensing Reviews Since review of construction permit applications (cps) is essen-tially inactive and is expected to remain so for a number of years, I and Operating License (OL) reviews will be limited to those currently on the regulatory agenda, the ACRS will have only occasional demands for its assistance in these areas. Furthermore, the regulatory system has a well established set of review procedures for such licensing l actions, reducing the need for the ACRS to augment the staff reviews.
The Panel believes that, when such reviews are undertaken, the I ACRS will be most effective if it selectively examines matters that are new or peculiar to a specific licensing action, or have become important because of new information arising from operating experience 1 or from other sources of technology insight, for example: PRAs and severe accident research. The reviews can also be effective in exposing the manner in which INP0 and other industry institutions are ,
influencing industry response to regulatory requirements. The Panel I does not believe that the ACRS can add a great deal t'c the regulatory -
process by detailed examination of design, but an occasional examin-ation of a design feature to illuminate safety principles can be of I value, as, for example, review of periodic testing methodology of diesel generators for positive and negative effects on emergency power reliability.
41
_ S The Panel believes that the continuing emphasis by the ACRS on reducing the number of issues to be resolved before licensing and on
- encouraging a reasoned basis for interpretation of regulatory re-quirements is of special value to the regulatory process and should be
- :ontinued. In this regard, ACRS review of proposed rules and im-g rtant safety guides and other regulatory tools used in licensing as a' separate but interrelated matter is seen by the Panel as an im-I portant adjunct to the licensing review.
The Panel believes that this focusing of Comittee attention on the manner in which important regulatory issues are treated by the NRC I Staff during its licensing reviews would be the best way of contributing to the regulatory process. In making this recomenda-tion, the Panel is not advocating an item by item examination of how I the NRC Staff handles regulatory matters, but only an evaluation of its interp'retative practices in enforcing the regulations. The results of the licensing review will then be of use in evaluating how the I regulatory system is working and whether critical safety issues are being properly handled, and would thus provide guidance to the Comis-sioners about future management of the regulatory system.
D. Regulatory Policy The Panel encourages the Comittee to assist the Comissioners 1 through advising on regulatory policy, but to limit the breadth of its contribution to the degree that the experience and knowledge repre-sented by the ACRS can enhance policy judgments. The Panel believes I that the Regulatory Staff Management must have freedom to make decisions about how to deploy the Regulatory Staff resources, if it is to be held responsible for its performance. The ACRS should, there-I fore, be concentrating its attention on policy matters that pertain more directly to safety issues. Safety goals, severe accident manage ment, and use of PRA would clearly fit within this area of interest.
Involvement in relations between the licensees and the Regulatory I Staff should be handled cautiously. The ACRS will serve the NRC best if it provides explanations as to why policies would improve or degrade regulatory results. It should not try to become an i independent policy-making unit.
E. Timeliness of Recommendations Recomendations for actions that will require much preparatory effort before implementation should be presented in a manner that draws attention to the time required for implementation. This was the I case in consideration of pressure vessel integrity issues. Months or perhaps years may be needed to obtain the desired results. The ACRS will also need to anticipate the types of resources that may be I required to respond to ACRS advice, and how they might be used.
Even the Committee's own capabilities must be taken into account I in developing its recomendations. Some of the suggestions given the Panel during interviews referred to the need to develop a better i
b
understanding of " standardization" and of the significance of " severe
~
accident" behavior. At the same time, others see the need for a more
' intensive effort concerning waste management and plant operations.
While many of these are included as illustrative suggestions elsewhere n in this report, the ACRS must consider which of such matters should be L given priority on its work agenda. In deciding what matters to include, it must consider how current matters competing for ACRS members' time and for the resources of the NRC, industry, and others
[ may be affected by ACRS initiatives. It may need to suggest changes in regulatory emphasis to the Comissioners that can alter resource usage or affect the time when actions can be implemented. The ACRS to be effective must display an understanding of how such priorities
[ should be assigned. A measure of its contributions will be its ability to identify and report on issues of critical significance in time for them to be handled as a part of normal regulatory operation
[ and not as a regulatory crisis. However, it is unrealistic to expect that every matter of critical significance must be fully examined by the ACRS. It will be necessary to allow many important safety matters
[ to be handled by the Regulatory Staff or agents of the regulated industry, and in such cases the ACRS will have to limit itself to advising the Comissioners as to whether those in charge are handling matters responsibly.
[
F. Evaluating Difficult Issues
[ The selection of issues to be examined should not, of course, be based on the level of public attention given to an issue. The ACRS will need to consider the potential seriousness of a problem, whether
[ the ACRS contribution will help to resolve the issue, and what matters must be set aside in deciding to attack a new issue. The ACRS recommendations will be of greatest value if they help to establish a path to resolution. In most cases, this does not mean providing a
[ complete answer to a problem. The advice will be-of most value if the Comittee can state criteria for resolution of issues, suggest steps for studying the issue, or even indicate a preferred course of action
[ when a path to full resolution is now known. Although cautionary suggestions are sometimes necessary in making recommendations about difficult problems, it is important that the ACRS " advice" be so
[ presented that the precautionary comments do not cause the advice to appear to be " fence straddling," thus providing no clear guidance.
One measure of the value of advice about critical issues is to
[ observe how the Comissioners and Staff respond to it, as shown by the following illustrations. Termination of the LOFT program was par-tially attributable to the ACRS evaluation of its worth to the
[ regulatory program at the stage at which the safety research program was reviewed. In the case of the pressurized thermal shock issue, the regulatory actions tracked the ACRS recomendations.
[ The attention which industry has given to the ALARA concept for controlling worker radiation exposure and to the safety significance of matters reported in LERs came from ACRS emphasis on these matters
[ during the mid-1970s. More recently, the attention to problems with 43 w
'u _ _
r bolting in nuclear plants has intensified as the result of ACRS r
probes. The current attention to control room " habitability" and L previous actions to assure independent operability of the emergency control room are evidence that the regulatory system is responsive to e ACRS recomendations.
L Neither the ACRS nor the NRC should expect that the ACRS should ;
take the initiative concerning public safety as a result of short tem
[ emergencies; the Regulatory Staff must handle such matters. The ACRS is not expected to be a discoverer of new safety problems, but rather, {
an evaluator of the safety significance of those that might appear from any source. The Panel believes that the ACRS has a responsi-
{ bility to identify, evaluate, and advise on trends in the nuclear safety arena that justify shifts in emphasis or further improvement in safety provisions, as was seen in cases referred to above.
l G. Contributions of Members as Individuals
[ Although the ACRS functions as a collegial body of experts, its members are selected in part for their individual skills, in part for their independent judgement, and in part for ability to apply their knowledge and judgment to the wide range of matters under the ACRS
[ purview. As the Panel has indicated throughout this report, the last characteristic is expected to be of the greatest value in the future, b All members should expect to participate in consensus-foming discussions, and should make certain that when they are especially expert in the subject matter under consideration, those of their
[ colleagues who may not be as expert receive adequate infomation as a ;
basis for judgement. Only in this way can consensus or its absence have meaning.
Recognizing, too, that individuals can develop biases and that even experts can sometimes be wrong, members should make an effort to further develop their understanding of important issues through
[. professional contacts inside or outside the regulatory system. At times the members may see the need for supplemental consultant support to help develop a position on difficult questions, but it is the
[ Committee members' judgements that are wanted. The individual members will be making their best contributions when they display the expected understanding of issues being reviewed and do not default their judgement responsibilities to a consultant or even a fellow member
[ because of unwillingness to learn about the issue being judged.
b
[
[
44
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RELOMMENDATIONS The ACRS has developed an influential and distinguished record over the years of its existence. It has been a leader in helping to
- establish the direction and the characteristics of the regulation of nuclear power, to select the general objectives of the national program of nuclear plant safety, and to define the major features of I the methods to achieve the desired level of safety. At the same time it has followed the Congressional mandate to review the safety of each new plant to detemine whether it meets the requirements for public I health and safety.
The contributions of ACRS have been most important and enduring when they involved broad policy questions on technical matters. Some l of the more vital subjects the ACRS has contributed to over the years have been: establishment of the requirement for strong containment buildings; development of the fail-safe concept; requirements that I nuclear plants be designed to withstand severe earthquakes, storms, and floods; the requirement for engineered safety features to prevent accidents and to mitigate their consequences (for instance, ECC I systems); the requirement to protect against loss of electric power (station blackout); the requirement to protect against consequences of radiation ~ embrittlement of pressure vessels (the issue of pressurized thermal shock); and the requirement for remote siting of nuclear l plants. The Panel observes, however, that most of these issues were active concerns of the ACRS several years ago. In recent years their initiatives in major safety resolutions have not been as obvious.
ACRS review of individual license cases is no longer as essential as it once was, when the NRC Regulatory Staff review was in its I formative phase. In the next few years there will be few, if any, new construction permit applications and the remaining operating license applications will follow previously approved plant design. If new orders for nuclear plants resume at some point in the future, it is I most unlikely that NRC will be confronted with much diversity of design. The Panel therefore believes that the need for the ACRS to review and comment on each license application is no longer necessary I or desirable. A more generic approach can be taken by the ACRS in its licensing actions, and the Atomic Energy Act should be amended to permit this.
Moreover, there is an urgent requirement for the ACRS to return to emphasizing the jobs and accomplishments it has dane best. There are numerous questions on which the Commission could profit from I broad, highly competent advice on technical issues. For this, the characteristics needed in ACRS members are technical competence, wisdom, and freedom from day-to-day pressure of regulation. The I questions on which advice as to technical policy would be profitable range across the field of responsibility of the Comitsion, such as nuclear plant operational safety, safety goals, decomissioning I philosophy, decontamination of plants, extension of plant life, safeguards and physical protection, international issues, low-level and high-level waste disposal, and spent fuel storage.
I 45 E _ _
This is background for our conclusions and recomendations, which
- we have divided into three areas: ACRS mission, relations with the Comission and the NRC staff, and internal ACRS operational questions.
We state the conclusions or recomendations in each area, with a brief 7
discussion of the overall implications.
L A. ACRS Mission
- 1. We believe that an advisory group such as the ACRS will still
[ be strongly needed in the future. However, ACRS should turn its attention to concentrate on the broad technical policy questions on which the Comission needs wise counsel. A few
[ examples of the kinds of issues that should be taken up by the Comittee are given in Chapter III of our report.
[ 2. The ACRS should be relieved of the requirement to conduct reviews and issue reports on all nuclear plant applications.
The Comittee should only have to review a license appli-cation when a safety-related feature is proposed that is new
[ and significant. In such cases review should be necessary only for that feature.
- 3. ACRS reviews of the safety research program should focus on the question of whether the right research programs are planned or underway, in light of priorities. The detailed
[ budgetary-level review seems to serve no strong purpose, and should be dropped.
- 4. The scope of the Comittee's technical interest and attention
[ should be essentially as broad as that of the Comission.
The Comission should feel free to seek the Committee's views on any technical regulatory problem confronting it.
{
- 5. -The ACRS will be most valuable in its revised role if it confines its recommendations to the directions to be taken,
[ and avoids developing detailed solutions to problems. Its advice should be at the level of the forest, not the trees.
- 6. There are other roles the ACRS should not try to fill:
- a. It should not try to respond to day-to-day questions.
That is, it should not do firefighting.
- b. It should not try to be a kind of National Transportation Safety Board . If it reviews findings of investigative groups, it should do so for their technical policy implications.
- c. It is not a second Regulatory Staff, and should not try to function as one.
- d. It should not try to manage or oversee the NRC staff.
46 1
- e. The special relationship it once had to Congress has ended, and no effort should be made to reestablish it.
m Discussion: We are recommending that the mission of the ACRS be p changed to emphasize the role in which the Comittee has historically L had the most influence; namely, providing advice to the Commission on technical policy questions. It would be appropriate, but not essen-tial, to change the name of the Committee to fit the new breadth and
[ character of its revised mission.
B. Relations with the Comission and the NRC Staff
[ 1. The ACRS should be advisory primarily to the Comission, providing advice on technical policy as requested, and also on the initiative of the Committee.
{
- 2. The ACRS could also provide advice to the NRC Staff, but when this is done it should be through a comunication addressed
[ specifically to the staff. Such advice may have the greatest value if it is provided early in the process of consider-ation of an issue.
[ 3. The Commission should consider, now and on a continuing basis, how it can better take advantage of the existence of an ACRS which is redirected to providing broad advice on
{ technical policy questions.
- 4. Oral comunications between the ACRS and the Commission should be improved by better management of the agenda. Not all members of the ACRS need to attend every meeting with the Comission. A smaller group of those principally concerned with the subject to be discussed would enable better exchange and discussion.
- 5. Individual Comissioners should be able to discuss ACRS
[ matters with individual ACRS members, not to undercut the collegial nature of either the Committee or the Commission, but to open a channel that would permit the Comission to
[ appreciate ranges of opinion of ACRS members in rendering collegial advice to the Commission. We see the pitfalls in this arrangement but we believe they can be avoided. In the next section on internal operational questions, we recomend
[ development of procedures for this one-on-one interaction.
- 6. Relations between the ACRS and the NRC staff should be im-
[ proved. Presumably a trend toward improved interpersonal relations can develop if the ACRS is redirected so as no longer to seem to be in competition with the staff on li-
[ censing issues, or in the position of second-guessing the staff.
[ Discussion: The relations that the ACRS has with the Commission and the NRC Staff are not ideal. The Comission is not at present 47
i r-L accustomed to calling on the ACRS for broad advice on technical policy questions, and this practice will have to be built up. The relations
{- with the NRC staff are sometimes rancorous, largely for reasons that our recommendations should help to ease.
b C. Internal Operational Questions
- 1. The Panel recommends that the role of the ACRS Chaiman should be strengthened, and that the Chairman should exercise
[ a stronger leadership role. As part of this strengthening process, the Chairman's tem of office should be lengthened
. to two years, renewable once, and he should receive a higher
[. remuneration for his service.
- 2. The ACRS operates at present in a somewhat reactive mode.
[ The sub-comittees on generic questions provide some long-tem coherence to Committee action, but a Management Com-mittee is needed to plan out future directions of the Com-
[ mittee, develop priorities for issues to be considered, and set the course of action and schedule for these. A suitable Comittee might be the Chaiman, the Vice-Chaiman, and the past Chairman, with the Executive Director of the ACRS staff
{ Es an ex-officio member. ,
- 3. The consensus method of operation is appropriate. However,
{. dissent should not be discouraged. Papering over dis-agreement with words meaning different things to different Comittee members does not help the Comission and does not
[ strengthen the image of the Committee. Letters might well reflect the breadth of opinion of the Comittee. .They should especially point up the opinions of any Comittee members who are particularly expert in matters on which the Committee is
{ commenting.
- 4. Comittee letters should be clear and unambiguous. Letters
[ should be self-contained, so that readers need not refer back to previous letters for interpretation or understanding. If the Committee moves away from responding to licensing needs,
[ as we suggest, letter-writing can then be more thoughtful and the product more meaningful. Subcomittee chaimen should be in a position to explain the entire contents of a letter and not just a limited part.
{
- 5. We see no reason to change the size of ACRS. A membership of fifteen still seems reasonable as does the method of se-
{_ lection of members.
- 6. The present policy that limits ACRS service to three-terms is
[ reasonable. The practice of long tem tenure for Comittee members prevents taking on new members with fresh ideas or special competence in new areas of Comission interest.
[ 7. Reappointment of members should not be automatic. When a b 48
nember's tem ends, his reappointment should be considered in
~
the same way and on the same plane as appointment of another
- person to replace him.
- 8. The redirection of ACRS away from " nuts and bolts" questions L should reduce the need for the Comittee to have members capresenting a complete range of disciplines. Some range of specialist backgrounds may still be useful, but it will also be important that Committee members be generalists who can
[ consider questions as broad issues. Thus, the ACRS should move away from requiring new members to be clones of the departing ones.
~
- 9. Though the amount of time devoted to ACRS business by in-I dividual Comittee members is in many cases very high, it should be made clear to prospective members that substan-tially less time could be adequate. The time comitment I should not be a serious obstacle to recruiting competent members to the Comittee. The appointment of each member should include an understanding of the limits each would set I on his time availability.
- 10. The specific composition of the Committee as measured by the skills represented may be reasonable for the present, but we l believe that the composition should be changed as the di-rection taken by the Comittee changes. For instance, the growing importance of waste management implies that a member I should have a background in chemical process engineering.
Additional former senior utility management with experience in nuclear plant operational management would also be de-I sirable, as well as members with NSSS systems design ex-perience.
- 11. The list of ACRS consultants is very long, but most are not l used very much. We do not find the use of consultants to be excessive. The Comittee should be careful to en:re that consultants do not appear to be speaking for the Comiti.sc.
i Consultants should only advise the ACRS.
- 12. The size and composition of the ACRS staff should be I reexamined once the ACRS mission is changed as we have recomended, and assuming this change takes place.
- 13. A channel should be established for ACRS to submit users' l requests for research to the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, just as is (one by the Regulatory Staff.
49
- 14. ACRS should establish rules to cover the circumstances in which discussions between individual ACRS members and
~
- individual Comissioners can take place, and the protocol for these discussions.
- 15. The current conflict of interest and FACA requirements are not unduly restrictive.
]
1 1
1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
f
APPENDIX I Proposed Task Description
- for an ACRS Effectiveness Study
Background
In a meeting of its Subcomittee on Comittee Activities at Harpers Ferry in November 1984 and in the full Comittee meeting of December ~
1984, the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards reviewed its own -
I performance and effectiveness and began considerat'on of several efforts to better define its role, goals, and procedures at: part of a program to improve its effectiveness as an advisory body, including any statutory I changes that may be required. The Comittee has been active for over 25 years and during that time has witnessed great change in the nuclear power industry and in the AEC/NRC regulatory role. While the ACRS has also evolved in its safety advisory role through the years, further I change may be in order. Although a number of improvements in ACRS procedures and priorities have been agreed upon by the members, it also became apparent that it would be useful to engage an outside panel of I experts to make an ad hoc appraisal of the present and anticipated future effectiveness of the ACRS and to develop recomendations for improving the Committee's perfomance.
Orcanizational Aop/cach l The ACRS will appoint a panel of three to five persons who have back-ground and interest suitable for assessing the role of ACRS in today's environment. The Panel will be reimbursed, making use of NRC contrac-tural arrangements as* appropriate. The Panel will have one of its l members designated as Chaiman, and he or she, in conjunction with the ACRS Chaiman and the ACRS Executive Director, will formulate a general charter for the review. The panel will arrange for its own administra-I tive and secretarial support.
Schedule The Panel should complete its review on a schedule that will permit it to make a report to the Comittee no later than July 1985.
I .
Panel Membership:
l Panel Chairman - L. Manning Huntzing, Doub & Muntzing Law Firm John F. Ahearne, Resources for the Future Herbert J. C. Kouts, Brookhaven National Laboratory l Myer Bender, Querytech, Inc.
Homer J. Hagedorn - A. D. Little Edson G. Case, NRC (retTred) 1 John M. West, Combustion Engineering (retired)
Steven Sholly - Union of Concerned Scientists Richard Hubbard - MHB Technical Associates
- Al -
[ .
- e Task Descriotion: -
The purpose of the Panel's review should be to provide advice and
- guidance that will permit the ACRS to improve its effectiveness as an advisory body to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and in furnishing more general leadership, in matters of reactor safety. There are I indications that some of the Comittee's practices and policies, while effective in the past, may not be as appropriate for the maturing and "
changing industry and regulatory climate of today. -
A base for the review should be the Comittee's charter as described in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. If the Panel believes this I fundamental charter should be changed, recomendations for that should be clearly separated from advice as to how the Comittee can more
- effectively fulfill its present charter.
I Given this starting point, the Panel should consider itself unrestricted in its review. We have provided below a list of questions that the Panel might explore. We have no preconception about the completeness or l the essential nature of these questions; they are examples only. We expect that the Panel may want to r,eview recent and past ACRS reports, interview members of the Comittee, past and present, interview Comis-I sioners and Comission staff, members of Congress and staff, and rep-resentatives of the nuclear power industry and the broader reactor safety comunity.
- 1. Is the Comittee's approach to generating advice on issues (i.e.,
through review of related documents supplemented by testimony to I Subcomittees and the full Comittee, and then developing a sum-mary, consensus report to the Comissioners) appropriate and effective?
- 2. Is the Comittee's present composition and the method of member selection appropriate and effective?
I 3. Id the method of selecting the Committee chairman and subcommittee chairmen and members the best anproach?
I 4. Are follow-up activities, vigorous enough?
S. :Should the ACRS work on generic vs. case-by-case determinations?
l
- 6. How should/should the ACRS interfaceawith the NRC Staff,
' Commissioners, and boards be changed, if at all?
- 7. How should the ACRS establish its work priorities?
- 8. Is the scope of Comittee involvement too broad or too narrow?
A2
- 9. Does the ACRS make effective use of its consultants? Should the use of consultants be expanded / reduced? ,
- 10. Are the Comittees conflict of interest restrictions too tight?
r See guidelines being prepared by OGC and ACRS regarding fi.nancial L and apparent conflict of interests (per telephone conversation with D. Ward on February ll,1985).
[ 11. Should the ACRS devote an increased amount of its effort to .'
following the activities of operating reactors and mote -
direct / active involvement in the investigation, evaluation of
[ reactor incidents and accidents?
- 12. Should operating experience gained from operating facilities be
[ used as the basis for coment regarding the specific facility and/or more generic considerations of the program in general.- .
[
I~
l I
l :
1 I
e A3 1
~'
- APPENDIX II
~
PANEL ON ACRS E F F ECT * *.'E N E S S Interview Ouestions
~
Information and opinions concerning the following issues
[ are desired in connection with interviews that will be conducted by mcmbers of the panel. The questions fall into three major cate .
gories.
[
Cateoory' I: What should be the role of the ACRS through the year '
20007
{
- 1. To what degree should the ACRS be addressing fundamental
[ regulatory policy questions, including the philosophy of -
regulation, or should it be addressing nuts and bolts issues? .
Or a combination of both? Should the ACRS devote its attention .
[ to establishing major safety requirements and depend on the NRC to see that these requirements are met?
b --
[ .
[ 2. How much independence should the ACRS have and why? Should it be principally responsive to Commissioner questions and provide advice'on those issues that the Commission requests, or should
[ it be a semi-independent body that provides advisory opinions to the NRC independent of whether the NRC has asked for them?
[
[
[
- 3. Should the ACRS focus entirely on issues of nuclear reactor safety, or should its scope be broader and even equivalent to
[ that ,of the responsibilities of the.NRC7 Should the ACRS pro-vide advice on fuel cycle f acilities and fuel cycle policy and technical. issues to the same extent that it provides advice on
[ reactor facilities and reactor policy and technical issues?
[ .
[ . A4 . ,
s
n Sh:uld tho'ACRS hevo the freedom to choose which license
~
4.
applications to review, unless specifically requested by the *
~
NRC to conduct a review?
E L
[ .
b 5. 'to what extent could activities of the ACRS be eliminated, reduced, or otherwise redirected?
[ . .
[ _.
[ 6. Under present circumstances, where there is a strong regulatory staff and the hearing boards and appeals boards are more active than they used to be, what is the special contribution of the ACRS in licensing? In review of operating plants? in review
~
j of research? In broad generic areas?
g l -
I l 7. .Should there be a restoration of the old relationship with Congrecs, where ACRS was in part responsible directly to Congress? If so, how could this be managed under present I circumstances?
I l
I A5 _
~ -
w S. h'h a t should be the ACRS role with. respect to incidents or
- accidents on operating reactors? Should the Committee routinely review all such events or only those events above
- some threshold? Should the ACRS review be contemporaneous with
_ or follow the staff review? Should there be joint ACRS/ staff reviews?
r L
[ .
[
- 9. In view of the fact that hardly any new plants will be licensed
[ in the next decade, the regulatory interests will be devoted ,
mainly to operating plants. But does such interest mean '
devoting review attention mostly to operational practices or,
{ alterna tively , to technological safety issues arising from operational incidents, equipment degradation, and design and construction flaws exposed by operating experiences? Can the
{ ACRS have an impact on plant management, training, maintenance, and surveillance of operating plants? Can it advise effectively about such matters as they affect public risk?
[ If there is to be ACRS involvement with individual reactor facility actions, is the Committee able to act as promptly as may be necessary in urgent cases? -
[~
[
[-
[
- 10. What involvement, if any, should the .\CRS have with reactor
[ construction and quality assurance. problems associated with individual facilities under construction?
[
[ .
[. .
- A6
~. .
~
11 What should be the ACRS relationship to the CRGR or.other technical NRC staff people?
~
r L
[ .
- 12. ' Assuming legislative changes that would permit one-step licensing of reactor f acilities, what should be the ACRS involvement in such cases at the time construction is complete and the plant is ready for operation? ,
[ .
[
- 13. What should be the AC.RS involvement in reviewing the match-up between a standard reactor plant proposed to be located at a pre-approved site (assuming prior ACRS review of the* standard
[ plant and' site)? Should the ACRS be involved in reviewing the technical competence, quality assurance program, etc.', of the utility applicant for a standard plant to be located at a
[ pre-approved site?
[
b -
[
- 14. Should the ACRS serve as a board for arbitrating technical-
[. disagreements between staff? Between staff and industry?
Between staff, industry, and critics?
[
[ .
b- .
A7 .
~. .-
~
~
- 15. Should the ACRS servo oc the institutional mamory of the
- technical regulatory process for the NRC? ,
[ .
'16. .Who should the ACRS be advising? Why? In what manner?
[ (Congress, staff, Commissioners, industry, critics, public?)
h .
[
[~ .. .
[ .
[
[
[
[
[
[ .
g
[
~ A8
[ .
- Catecory II: How can the ACRS best fulfill its defined role?
- 1. Is the size and composition of the ACRS optimum? ,
4 b
o Is the method of nominating and selecting ACRS members
[ appropriate? How effective has it been? -
[ -
I
[
. o Is the average time required per ACRS member per year too -
1arge for people who have other jobs?
{
[
[ o Do the members spend so much . time on the ACRS job that they lose objectivity and' expertise?
b ..
[
o Does the ACRS need more "new blood"? ,
[
'o Should the ACRS, like the NRC, have some members with broad
[ " systems" expertise?
[~ .
[
[ .
~
[- .
A9
, o
~
Is it inefficient to have a now chairman every year?
~
o
~
L
[ o Should some ACRS members work full time?
o Are any changes needed in the ACRS staff? .
[ . . ,-
[
o What improvements do you suggest?
[ -
[ -
2, Would it make sense to have more ACRS members and less
[ consultants? Vice versa? Does the extensive use of consultants to ACRS dilute or augment the value of ACRS opinions?
[ .
[
[ 3. Is the " consensus" method for reporting ACRS views to NRC commissioners working well? l
[ :
[
o Do minority opinions assist the regulatory process?
[
[ -
A10 -
- o 'Are subcommittee views given too much weight?
4
- o Does the NRC staf f tell everything the way it is in making L presentations to the ACRS?
[ .
o Is the procedure for arriving at consensus letters too
[ cumbersome? Is there a better method that could be developed? ,
o Does the consensus approach result in a convincing communication? .
{~
~
[ .
o Is the Committee's approach to generating advice on issues (i.e., through review of related documents supplemented by testimony to Subcommittees and the full Committee, and then developing a summary consensus report to the Commissioners) appropriate and effective?
[
[ 4. Does the ACRS have sufficient influence on safety matters?
[
[ o What is the influence of the ACRS on the Commission and the staff?
~
[ .
[ .
^"
[. .
o Does ths NRC frequently fail to "close the loop" by not informing the ACRS of the disposition of the ACRS
- recommendations?
~
u I
L o On what occasions do ACRS members discuss and share safety matters on an individual basis with NRC commissioners or NRC
[ staff? .
o Should members of the ACRS participate in adjudicatory
[ hearings?
[ -
[ o Do schedule conflicts adversely af fect the value of ACRS reviews? -
- 5. How can ACRS contribute to resolution of generic issues?
[
o How should the ACRS participate in establishing the priorities concerning generic issues?
[
[
o Are all of the generic issues major concerns?
[ . .
[
[ .
[ -
,- A1.2 .
I
~"
l@-
~
o How should the ACRS participate. more effectively in tha resolution of generic issues?
b
' o Is more R&D necessary? Should the ACRS have more . influence on this R&D?
[ -
1
_~
o Have opportunities for international cooperation been adequately exploited? .
[ . .
o Can the ACRS work on generic issues without doing some case
[' reviews?_, .
[ .
- 6. What is the ACRS doing toward defining safety requirements for
[ future nuclear power plants?
[
o Should the ACRS be more of a leader rather tha'n reacting to what others propose to do?
[ .
[
- 7. Would the ACRS be more effective if it concentrated on addressing major issues rather than diluting its efforts over a
[ broad spectrum of issues? ..
[
[ . A13
[' .
O e
B e
o Should the ACRS dopand more on the NRC to bring matters to the attention of the ACRS rather than do its own monitoring?
o Is there a large amount of overlap between NRC and ACRS activities?
[ .
,o Does excessive paperwork detract from ACRS effectiveness?
[ .
- 8. How will the end of operating permit applications affecti the ,
work of the Committee? Its composition?
[ -.
[ .
.[ 9. How has conformance to the FACA af f ected the value of the Committee's work? Is there too much formality and " legalism" in ACRS activities?
{
[
[
[
[- .
[
[ .
A14
[ , -
4
- 10. The' vague natere of nuclear sofoty research objectivos makes a judgment of the research accomplishments difficult, but what substitute can be offered for the present ACRS research review
- process as a means of following the progress of the safety research effort? Would other types of review be more effective, and do they exist?
E L
I
- 11. Considering the limited ability of 15 people, ev,en with an ,
[ average work time of 120 days per year, to cover the range and
. complexity of the subject matter introduced by the nuclear .
regulatory process, is there any substitute for subcommittee '
[ evaluations so that members can focus sufficient attention on issues about which it is asked to advise? Is the real value of such reviews to force the NRC Staf f to show that it has a good
[- basis for its regulatory approaches? Is too much emphasis placed on the Committee's Reports and to'o little on the review process itself? .
[ ..
[
[ 12. Are the skills' and experience of ACRS members consistent with the involvement the Committee should have with fuel cycle facilities and other issues?
[
[ ..
[
[ .
[. . .
l A15 s
- 13. D:>es the current ACRS lovel of involvement with reactor
- facilities an'd issues have to be reduced in order for the committee to assume a role concerning fuel cycle' facilities and
- other issues? ,
L
[ .-
[
- 14. Are the skills and experience of ACRS members consistent .With
[ the involvement the Committee'should have with both gene'ric ,
safety issues involving operating reactors and with plant spe-cific safety issues involved'with individual operating reactor
[ facilitiesr How do conflict of interest requirements affect the availability of people?
[ -- .
[ .
[
[
[ .
[. .
[
[ ,
[
[ .
A16 .
Catecorv III: General questions. . ._. .
- 1. Where do you believe the ACRS has been particularly valuable?
l
~
I
- 2. Is any new legislation desirable to improve the ef fectiveness l of the ACRS? ,
1 .
I l
1 .
i I
I I
I
% .*e
.. A17
APPENDIX III APPENDIX III CONFLICT OF INTEREST RESTRICTIONS Source: ACRS Bylaws, Appendix K, Aug. 20, 1985 l a) As a special government employee, an ACRS member may not advise the NRC on matters affecting an entity if the current value of the stockholdings in that entity held by the member, the member's spouse, or the I member's minor children exceed $1,000 in value or if the holdings constitute more than one percent of the dollar value of the outstanding shares issued by the I entity. (10 CFR 0.735-21) [18 USC 208).
b) Stock ownership restrictions are imposed on ACRS I members that bar the member, the member's spouse, the member's minor children, and other members of the ACRS member's household from owning any stock, bond or other I security interest issued by certain companies engaged in activities in the commercial nuclear field. Each April the Commission publishes a list of those prohibited security interests. Those subject to the I restrictions must fill out a form each year certifying that they are in compliance with the stock membership regulations. (10 CFR 0.735-29).
c) As a special government employee, an ACRS member may not provide advice to the NRC on a matter affecting the I financial interests of the member's employer or the employer of the member's spouse or minor children. The member also may not provide advice on a matter affecting an organization in which the member or the member's spouse, minor child or partner is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner or employee. This limitation does not apply if the special government I employee renders advice of a general nature from which no preference or advantage over others might be gained by any particular person or organization. (10 CFR I 0.735-21). [18 USC 208]
d) As a special government employee, an ACRS member cannot provide advice to the NRC on a matter affecting an entity with which the member is negotiating for employment or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment. As a special government A
employee, an ACRS member also cannot advise the NRC on I a matter affecting an entity (other than the federal government) in which the member has a vested pension.
I (10 CFR 0.735-21 and 22). [18 USC 208]
e) While serving as a special government employee, an ACRS I member cannot act as agent or attorney for anyone other than the federal government before the federal government with respect to any particular matter involving a specific party in which the member personally and substantially participated as a special government employee. This means that if the member, as a special government employee, reviews any part of a I construction permit or operating license application for a certain facility for the NRC staff, he or she subsequently cannot represent a private party before I the NRC with respect to any aspect of that same license application. Acting as an agent for a private party would include signing letters to the NRC on behalf of a private party or meeting with the NRC staff on the l matter. No violation of the law would occur if the member drafts a letter to the NRC for someone else to sign or if the member tells the private party what to I say in an oral presenttion to the NRC but does not attend the presentation in a representational l capacity. This does not preclude the member from l attending a public meeting as a public observer or participating as a private citizen. (10 CFR 0.735-23). (18 USC 203 & 205]
f) If, as a special government employee, an ACRS niember has worked for the NRC for more than 60 days in the past 365-day period, the member may not represent a I private party before the NRC (see paragraph e above) on any particular matter involving a party or parties (even a matter on which the individual previously did I not advise the NRC). (10 CFR 0.735-23). [18 USC 205]
g) After an ACRS member resigns as an NRC special I government employee, the restrictions set forth in paragraph e above continue for life. Therefore, one can never represent a private party before the federal government with respect to a particular matter that the I
, individual worked on personally and substantially for the NRC. (10 CFR 0.735-26) (18 USC 207]
A-19
k O-m r
L h) An ACRS member may not use information obtained as a
{ government employee and not made available to the public for a private gain for himself or another person. (10 CFR 0.735-51) (Executive Order 11222]
[.
i) On days that an ACRS member serves as special government employee, he or she may not engage in
( political activities barred by the Hatch Act.
Therefore, if a member performs work for the NRC on a given day, during that evening the member may not engage in certain political activities, such as giving
[ speeches on behalf of a candidate for a particular political office or raising funds for that candidate.
(10 CFR 0.735-30) (Merit System Protection Board
[ Decision) j) If an ACRS member is expected to work for the NRC in
[ excess of 130 days in a 365-day period, the member is subject to the same conflict of interest restrictions applicable to full-time government employees. [18 USC
[ 202]
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
A-20
{
APPENDIX IV Consensus-building Techniques
[
The following are discussion techniques that should be helpful to the
{ ACRS and its subcommittee chairmen in developing meetings in the direction of building consensus. They are offered with some realization that too much dwelling on the process of leading a discussion may turn a
[' dynamic process of value into an overcontrolled pattern of less value.
- 1. The discussion should be focused on fundamental issues at the
[ outset. In recent meetings of the ACRS, sub-comittee Chaimen introducing a new topic or a new draft letter were often incon-sistent in how they conducted their discussions. Not all put the matter in clear perspective. Not all called attention to points in
{ dispute or uncertainties. Not all recalled the history of the problem. The Panel believes that ACRS should develop some comon expectations for its discussions and how these discussions are
[ initiated. Casual and momentary exchanges that happen in the hall often can facilitate this process. What is really being suggested is that the sub-consnittee Chaiman should plan the general course
[ of discussions and should try to keep the discussions on track.
- 2. Another valuable technique in consensus building is the practice of summarizing the discussion from time to time during the course of
{ the discussion. It is good to sumarize when the discussion bogs down, or at a time appropriate to test for consensus. Such summaries give participants something to rally around, something
[ specific to agree or disagree with, a structure to test, and a way to compare their interpretations of the preceding discussion. Good summaries also help in consensus building by illustrating how
[ divergent views and differences that have been explored have an influence on shaping conclusions.
[
[
[
[
[ A21
[
W
- APPENDIX V Letter Writing Underlying Assumptions that Should Govern the Letter-Writing Process The Panel suggests that the ACRS consider whether the following three assumptions currently underlie the comittee letter writing process, almost regardless of whether a particular letter is undertaken l at comittee initiative, is a license-related letter, or is a commentary on a generic issue. The Panel believes that these assumptions are, in fact, broadly shared among ACRS members.
- 1. Consensus: The letter should sound as though it reflects ACRS consensus on a recomended course of action (see preceding section of I thischapter).
- 2. Collegiality: The members believe that the ACRS letters do speak for the ACRS as a body, and that few members feel a need, as l individuals, to interpret the Committee's position.
- 3. Self-sufficient: A letter should need no interpretation. What I it says is what the ACRS means. No more, no less. The letters speak for themselves.
The Panel suggests that these assumptions require reexamination if they do indeed govern the letter-writing process, particularly for letters of advice addressed to the Commission. The ACRS needs to recognize that the audience needs more explanation than most ACRS letters provide.
With respect to consensus, the implications of the analysis in the I first section of this chapter are clear. Some letters may turn out to be majority-minority letters, or may need in some other way to reflect unresolvable differences within the ACRS. When either of these I situations is the case, the letter should reflect the reality, and should not imply a consensus when there is no consensus. The assumption about consensus should be adjusted accordingly.
Collegiality, the assumption that an ACRS member should let the ACRS letters speak for the Committee, and not try to offer his own interpretation of the Committee, seems to have at least one unfortunate I
effect. It provides the opportunity to an ACRS member, when questioned about the meaning of an ACRS letter, to answer by talking about collegiality. Being " conditioned" by collegiality can and apparently does distract members of the ACRS from noticing or having to deal with the obscurity of some ACRS letters. The revision suggested here is simply to admit that the two subjects, collegiality and comprehen-sibility, are separate. The Panel would suggest adding to ACRS A22
A.
16 assumptions the statement, " Comprehensibility of ACRS letters is an
- independent and important subject in its own right."
L With respect to self-sufficiency of the ACRS letters, the fact is that times have changed. When high-ranking members of the regulatory staff attended all ACRS meetings, they constituted a well-informed,
[ parallel channel for transmitting ACRS intentions, whether these in-tentions were well spelled out in the ACRS letters, or not. The ACRS can no longer assume tS t anyone outside the ACRS and its own staff
[ knows enough, and has partit.jpatad in enough of the development of the ACRS position, to be able to put an ACRS letter into context. Those regulatory staff members who attend specific ACRS sessions are unlikely
[ to have an overview good enough to permit consistently valid inter-pretation of ACRS letters. It is unlikely that they will have enough access to the senior NRC staff to have significant opportunities for
[ interpreting the letters to NRC management.
The Panel believes there is opportunity for improvement. We suggest that the ACRS should assume that ACRS letters are as subject to
{ misunderstanding as are all other human consnunications, and that it is therefore important that letters be made clear and self-contained.
Further, we suggest that it should be borne in mind that nobody can
[ speak for the ACRS except itself.
As a footnote, the Panel notes that ACRS letters do and should
[ contain references to other documents. But these referer.ces should be there to facilitate tracing the integrity of the regulatory record, rather than serve as required reading. As the limitation on number of terms for ACRS members becomes effective and long-service members
{ disappear, the requirement to document the chain of precedents and evolutionary developments will become gradually more important. Sys-tematic means should be agreed on for enabling relatively easy retracing
[ of steps taken over the years. The objective can be accomplished through ACRS meeting minutes, sub-committee minutes, references appended to letters, a free-standing system, or otherwise. The Panel suggests
[ that ACRS decide on a relatively painless and natural method for estab-lishing such a written " trace," and set about implementing it.
Directions Should be Made Clear and the
[- Assignments Made in Advance of Letter Writing The Panel suggests that the ACRS should avail itself of the fol-
[. lowing management techniques:
- 1. The purpose of the letter should be decided at the time the
[ drafting assignment is made. In addition to testing the assumptions and revising them as appropriate, we suggest that ACRS made it clear to itself when making a letter-drafting-assignment what action is expected from the recipient or what purpose the letter is supposed to serve. The
[ extent and type of discussion in a letter will be different, depending on whether the letter is to be used to help prioritize among different proposed ways of allocating available resources, to help develop a
[ framework for making a decision, to provide clarification of a partic-ular issue, or to offer a specific opinion on a proposed course of .
I
[ A23
action. Moreover, agreement on what the letter is intended to do and
- what it is to be used for will suggest something about the format and L topical outline for the letter.
y 2. When possible, the criteria should be determined for evaluating L
letter drafts well before discussing the drafts. Noting the agreements reached prior to the letter's drafting will also provide criteria for evaluating the draft when the ACRS receives it. The criteria might be for instance how well certain key points are made clear. Evaluation
[ criteria should be made explicit at the time the assignment is made or before the draft is discussed by the ACRS. The drafter should begin discussion of the draft before the ACRS by reviewing the instructions
[ implicit in the assignment, and should also take a few minutes before discussing the draft to gain agreement on the criteria to be used in evaluation. If a sub-connittee has volunteered a letter draft with
[ little or no prior discussion in the ACRS leading up to it, the drafter might propose evaluation criteria before he actually presents the letter for discussion.
[ 3. Drafts should be distributed well in advance of the dis-cussions. Members other than the drafter will be better prepared to take part in such discussions of both the evaluation criteria and the
[ drafts if they receive the drafts well in advance of discussing them.
We notice that participants in current ACRS meetings receive a great many handouts--including draft letters--just at the time these handouts
[ are to be discussed. We believe that this practice is justified only when schedules are tight and inflexible. It seems possible that the ACRS has allowed itself to relapse into a faulty operational mode which should be corrected.
{
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[ A24
-