ML20137L662
| ML20137L662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/03/1997 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137L664 | List: |
| References | |
| COMSECY-96-067, COMSECY-96-67, DSI-23, SECY-96-067-C, SECY-96-67-C, NUDOCS 9704070281 | |
| Download: ML20137L662 (7) | |
Text
.
\\
April 3, 1997 RECY NOTE:
The following documents are being released to the public at this times i
1.
Text of DSI 23 (Enhancing Regulatory Excellence) f 2.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated March 27, 1997.
3.
Views of Chairman Jackson dated January 30, 1997.
4.
Views of Commissioner Rogers dated January 21, 1997.
5.
Views of Commissioner Dicus dated January 14, 1997.
l 6.
Views of Commissioner Diaz dated January 28, 1997.
7.
Views of Commissioner McGaffigan dated February 21, 1997.
John C. Hoyle Secretary of the Commission lll i
i 0"i0005 9704070281 970403 h5.!Nb!0N!.!NOR.!k PDR NRCSA I 23 paa m
Suminary Analysis of Comments Enhancing Regulatory Excellence i
3.15 ENHANCING REGULATORY EXCELLENCE (DSI 23) joMm6 67
=
9
- g h ::
3.15.1.
Direction-Setting issue and the Options
. a-How can NRC enhance regulatory excellence through the maintenance of
- W m.
regulatory standards, rules, and requirements?
.ih
~*
o Option 1:
Continue the Current Approach
.H
- O Option 2:
Initiate a More Proactive Approach to Improvement
- Irj lM e*
3.15.2 Commission's Preliminary Views
- gj Mm 1
. CC The Commission believes that striving for regulatory excellence in all PRC functionsisbothdesirableandnecessarytomaintainaneffectiveand........j efficient regulatory framework in todey's changing environment.
Recent events have shown that we could be more proactive in identifying potential problem areas and responding appropriately. Other DSIs have focused on critical areas that involve how the regulatory process can be improved. This DSI should emphasize how the NRC can implement strategies designed to improve its own internal performance, that is, for the NRC to be proactive in making our own people and processes function with a goal of excellence. Therefore, while the Commission supports taking a proactive approach as described under option 2, including the establishment of an agency-wide senior management review group, it does not support the limited focus of the approach which emphasized making l
improvements in the regulatory framework such as the SRP and the license amendment process.
lhe Commission would support an approach under option 2 in which the focus of the effort would be broadened to include acdressing how to improve the way the NRC does its job. The Commission envisions development of an implementation plan that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following: 1)
Identified goals with milestones ana clear criteria for judging success: 2)
Measures to engage the work force at the grassroots level and to stimulate management and employee communications in problem solving;
- 3) Improvements that address elements involving all NRC regulatory areas; and 4) Improvements to the NRC's processes and management and sul. port functions so as to enhance the efficiency and performance of the NRC staff.
3.15.3 Summary of Comments A.
Significant/Important Comments Directly Affecting the Preliminary Views or the Direction Setting Issue In both the written comments and those presented at the stakeholder meetings, there was very broad support for NRC initiating a more proactive approach to improving its regulatory effectiveness with a goal of excellence (0ption 2).
Thirteen of fifteen stakeholder organizations and individuals that stated a preference in their written or oral comments favored Option 2.
Supporters of Option 2 came from 'the external stakeholders in the power reactor and materials program areas as well as an internal stakeholder respondent and included, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the Organization of Agreement Page 3-137 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaaion Repon
Enhan&g Regulatory Excellence Summary Analysis of Comments States (0AS), almost all of the State respondents, three nuclear utility 3
licensees (South Carolina Electric & Gas, Southern California Edison, Yankee Atomic Electric Company) and Moni Dey within the NRC.
l There was considerable diversity in the stakeholder comments on the focus, priorities, process, and timing with which NRC should pursue regulatory excellence. Stakeholders expressed a range of meanings or areas of specific interest for achieving regulatory excellence. An extensive number of commenters emphasized areas and activities that involved direct, rather than indirect, regulatory impact.
For example, most stakeholders characterized enhancing regulatory excellence as applying either risk insights to NRC's framework of regulations, standards, and guidance as a means of changing or eliminating requirements in areas of little environmental or public risk, or a performance-based approach to revise requirements that are too restrictive, or both. However, comments from Public Citizen indicated that recent changes in regulations made in connection with the Marginal-to-Safety Program amounted to industry deregulation rather than the pursuit of regulatory excellence. NEI indicated that achieving quality and consistency in implementing agency policies at all levels and across organizations were important elements in enhancing regulatory effectiveness.
In this regard, an NEI commenter suggested that NRC consider regulatory skills training (in addition to technical skills training) for the NRC staff at all levels to enhance staff knowledge, skills, abilities and consistency in regulatory oversight activities. NEI and CAS commented that NRC resource expenditures and activity (e.g., inspection) levels should be commensurate with the degree of risk associated with the issues. NEI's comments were endorsed by Entergy and South Carolina Electric & Gas and OAS's comments were endorsed by the responding Agreement States.
Most commenters that explicitly expressed a view on the scope of the more proactive approach to improvement, agreed that the approach should not be limited to the areas described in the issue paper but should be more broadly scoped to include all agency programs and functions. However, OAS, with the endorsement of the responding Agreement States, felt that the more proactive approach should be phased in over an extended period so that cumulative changes resulting from the actions taken by the staff in connection with DSI 23 and the other DSIs do not introduce a destabilizing organizational effect on the agency.
i Many commenters (including 0AS with Agreemnt States endorsement, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, ABB-CE) urged that knowledgeable i
external stakeholder (e.g., the public, Agreement States, vendors) representatives participate in the NRC's screening and assessment process, in order that they might help in identifying regulatory program elements for priority evaluation, as well as in providing specific ideas for enhancing regulatory effectiveness.
Several internal commenters (including NTEU, Richard Barkley, Moni Dey) also supported the Commission's preliminary view that the work force should be engaged and empowered at the grassroots level to assist in identifying areas, ideas, and actions for improvement. However, Barry Mendelsohn questioned how "another ' agency-wide senior management review l
group' will make a difference in regulatory effectiveness."
The State of Washington commenter preferred Option 1. The eight other 3
Agreement States that responded preferred Option 2.
Page 3-138 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report
e Enhancing Regulatory Ezcelle:ce Sununary Analysis of Comments B.
Coments on Other Options The State of Washington favored Option 1 on the basis of the view that implementation of Option 2 would come at the same time as numerous other change activities f-om the staff actions on this and other DSIs and could result in "too much, too fast." Additionally, one internal stakeholder (John Davidson) indicated that NRC's periodic program assessments, self-initiated reviews, response to industry initiatives and external events, and other internal review programs already provide a wide range of approaches that move the agency toward regulatory excellence.
C.
Comments on important 0 missions NEI suggested that the NRC consider having another Federal agency, such as the Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal Aviation Administration, conduct a peer review of NRC's processes.
The commenter for Supply System suggested that the NRC consider baselining itself against a foreign In this regard, the organization performing the same function as the NRC.
Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) commenter stated that an internal "QA system" for the regulatory body, designed according to modern industry principles, was an important element in monitoring the quality and efficiency of regulatory processes.
A representative of the NRC's Subcommittee on Managing Diversity, responding to the concern identified in the strategic issue paper that initiatives aimed at streamlining and regulatory efficiency might undermine staff safety vigilance, recommended that an agency-wide assessment of NRC's organizational culture be conducted for the purpose of (1) characterizing the current culture and (2) identifying culture changes that might be needed as a result of streamlining. ABB-CE commented that NRC contractors should also be considered in the scope of initiatives for enhancing regulatory excellence.
NEI's written comments contained a number of additional aspects that it characterized as significant omissions from the issue paper. NEI (and YAEC) specifically wrote that to achieve regulatory excellence, NRC would have to adopt a consistent, coherent, and objective safety standard for adequate protection in order for the Agency to objectively evaluate the need for additional measures.
Further, NEI stated that without such a baseline standard, it would be impossible for the NRC to determine whether individual NRC activities were contributing to the Agency's mission, or were distracting staff and licensee personnel from activities needed to support adequate Such a baseline (e.g., applyir.g existing safety goals) would help safety.
focus NRC's activities and adjust (lessen) the response to events and issues of low significance.
NEI also stated that the NRC lacks agency performance 1
measures for evaluating its own activities and thereby spends significant resources on activities of low safety significance. Accordingly, metrics were needed to measure the agency's own effectiveness.
In this regard, SKI stated i
J in its written comments that indicators for regulatory body performance were "a must."
D.
Comments on Internal / External Factors Several respondents took issue with the concern that changes directed at regulatory efficiency, organizational streamlining and reducing regulatory burden in response to Federal Government policy and budgetary considerations might be misinterpreted by the staff as a basis for relaxing safety vigilance.
1 Page 3-139 Phase 11 Stakeholder Interaction Report
.~
Enhancing Regular y Excellence Summary Analysis of Conunent.s A comon theme of the commenters was that highly successful organizations are l
both effective and efficient in carrying out their mission.
l The internal and exterra! factors description of the issue paper indicstes l
that licensees have not emphasized changes specifically focused on enhancing l
regulatory effectiveness. However, the coments provided in both the stakeholder.neetings and in writing clearly indicate that there is broad support among external stakeholders, including the regulated industry, for NRC actions aimed at improving its regulatory effectiveness.
l E.
Coments on Staff Requirements Memorandum Questions In its preliminary views, the Comission did not pose any additional questions for public coment.
3.15.4.
List of Commenters WRITTEN COMMENTS 1.
October 21, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert Quillin) 4 2.
October 25, 1996, Barry Mendelsohn, USNRC l
3.
October 28, 1996, State of Washington (Terry Frazee) 4.
October 29, 1996, Richard Barkley, USNRC i
i 5.
November 3, 1996, Marvin Lewis, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 6.
November 4,1996, State of New Hampshire, Department of Health and Human Services (Diane Tefft) 7.
November 7,1996, State of Mississippi, Department of Health (Robert W.
Goff) 8.
November 7, 1996, Organization of Agreement States (Robert M. Quillin) 1 9.
November 13, 1996,- Roxanne Sumers, USf;RC Subcomittee on Managing Diversity 10.
November 14, 1996, State of Oregon, Department of Human Resources (Ray D. Paris) 11.
November 14, 1996, State of South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental Control (M.K. Batavia) 12.
November 20, 1996, Moni Dey, USNRC 13.
November 21, 1996, State of Louisiana, Department of Environmental Quality (Ronald Wascom) 14.
November 21, 1996, State of Georgia, Department of Natural Resources (Thomas E. Hill)
Page 3140 Phase 11 Stakeholder interaction Report
-.- - -..._ -~_-=_ _ _ ___.._-
Summary Analysis of Comments Enhancing Regula:ory Excellence i
15.
November 21, 1996, State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality (William J. Sinclair) i 16.
November 22, 1996, South Carolina Elect.ic and Gas Company (Gary Taylor) f 17.
November 26, 1996, Kennecott uranium Company (Oscar Paulson) l r
18.
November 27, 1996, Nuclear Energy Institute (Thomas D. Ryan)
{
19.
November 27, 1996, Statt of Texas, Department of Health-(Richard i
Ratliff) 20.
November 27, 1996, Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (William P. Dornsife) i 21.
December 1, 1996, Environmental Coalition on Nuclesr Power (Judith H.
1 Johnsrud) l 22.
December 2,1996, Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (Lars Hogberg) 23.
December 2, 1996 Barry Mendelsohn, USNRC 4
24.
December 2, 1996, Wyoming Mining 8.sscciatien (Marion Loomis) 25.
De'cember 2, 1996, State of New Jersey (Jill Lipoti) 26.
December 2, 1996, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Jane Grant) 27.
December 2, 1996. Entergy Operations (Michael J. Meisner) 28.
December 2, 1996 ABB-Combustion Engineering Nuclear Systems (Charles 8.
Brinkman) 29.
December 2, 1996, hon-Destructive Testing Management (R.D. Dicharry) 30.
December 3,1996 Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project (James Riccio) 31.
December 4, 1996, John David m, USNRC 32.
December 6, 1996, James Creed, USNRC URAL COMMENTS Washington, D.C. (October 24-25, 1996) pages 104 - 115 1.
James Riccio, Public Citizen's Critical Energy Project 2.
Richard Ratliff, Organization of Agreement States 3.
Scott Innett, affiliation unknown 4.
Dale Yielding, National Treasury Employees Union 5.
Judy Johnsrud, Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power Page 3-141 Phase !! Stakeholder interaction Repon
Enhandng Regnslaton' Excellence Sssanary Analysis of Comments 4
l Colorado Springs, C0 (October 31-November 1, 1996) pages 121 - 136 l
1.
William Sinclair,. Organization of Agreement States l
2.
Steven Floyd, Nuclear Energy Institute l
3.-
Tom Tipton, Nuclear Energy Institute 4.
Reger Walker, Texas Utilities 5.
Charles Bririkman, ABB-CE 6.
Les England, Entergy Operations
[
7.
Kennetn Weaver, State of Colorado
)
Chicago, IL (November 7-8, 1996) pages 113 - 131 f
4 1.
Dave Swank, Supply System 2.
Steve Collins, Organization of Agreement States 3.
Derek Mercurio, Southern California Edison I
i j
4.
'lon Fraass, State of Kansas f
5.
Thomas Tipton, Nuclear Energy Institute f
(-
6.
Glen Kelly, USNRC 7.
Kristin Erickson, Michigan State University
[
8.
Paul Farron, Wisconsin Electric i
1 s
i i
P:ge 3-142 Phase !! Stakeholder interaaion Report I
-