ML20141D767
| ML20141D767 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/14/1997 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9705200199 | |
| Download: ML20141D767 (74) | |
Text
.. _..
ORLGiNA'_
T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
Title:
BRIEFING ON PROGRAM TO IMPROVE REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS - PUBLIC MEETING I
Location:
Rockville, Maryland I
J Date:
Wednesday, May 14,1997
\\
Pages:
1 - 56 hf 200054 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1250 I St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.20005 9705200199 970514 P
.7 PDR lllllillilill,I JilUIII
.)
j
-l i
DISCLAIMER l
l This is an' unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on
[
May 14, 1997 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The' meeting was-l open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript l
has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may
(
contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 4
I not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the 1
Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed 1
4 to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as
]
the Commission may authorize.
1 l
\\
I
.--m-1 r,
j 1
1
_ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
.s 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4.
)
BRIEFING ON PROGRAM TO IMPROVE 5.
REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS 1
6E i
7' PUBLIC MEETING 1
8
~
J 9
. :U)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
11 Commission Hearing Room 12
-11555 Rockville Pike 13 Rockville, Maryland i
14' 15 Wednesday, May 14, 1997 16 17' The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 18 notice, at 3:04 p.m.,
the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 2
19
' Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
l 20 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
21 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON,. Chairman of the Commission 22 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission i
23 GRETA J.
DICUS, Member of the Commission 24 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 25 EDGAR McGAFFIGAN, JR.,
Member of the Commission i
0
{
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 i
L L
i
i '.
2 j...
1
-STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:-
a 2'
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary-3 JOSEPH CALLAN, EDO t
4 EDWARD JORDAN, Deputy Executive Director for l
l
'5' Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight, t
6 Investigations and Enforcement 7
DAVID MORRISON, Director, Office of Nuclear j
8 Regulatory Research L
9
' JAMES LIEBERMAN, Director, Office of Enforcement 1
10 THOMAS MARTIN, Acting Associate Director for R
l 11 Technical Review, NRR i
~12 DENWOOD'ROSS, Director, AEOD 13 GUY. CAPUTO, Director, Office of Investigations 14 15-16 i
i 17 18 l
19 I
i 20 1
21 I
22 23 24' 25 I
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l-Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 W a s h i n g t o n,. D.12. 2 0 0 0 5 (202) 842-0034
I 3
')
l 1
. P' R O C E E. D I N G S
.o
)
2
[3 :04 p.m.]
j 3
oCHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Good afternoon.
I'm pleased to 4-welcome. members of the staff who will.brief the Commission 5
on the Agency's' regulatory effectiveness-program.
6 The regulatory _ effectiveness organization is a l
7 part'of the recent restructuring of the reporting 8
arrangement under the.EDO, the executive director for 9
operations, and contains four vital NRC offices: 'Research, 10 Enforcement, Investigations and AEOD.
The structure l
11 reflects the Commission's belief that the staff needs a high i
12 level focal point for program evaluation.
The organization 13 is independent of the line organizations with responsibility 14 for the. day-to-day regulatory. agenda, f
15 During today's briefing, the staff will discuss 16 plans to independently assess and improve NRC's 17 effectiveness in regulating licensees.
The briefing will 18
, cover program goals, objectives, potential assessment areas, 19 and the role of the regulatory effectiveness offices and a 20 new effort that's been created and resource requirements.
t 21 I and my fellow commissioners are looking forward
.22 to your briefing today.
I understand that copies of the 23 viewgraphs are available at the entrances to this meeting, n
a 24 and unless anyone has further opening comments, Mr. Callan, 25 please proceed.
e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 e
+,, - -
4 1
MR. CALLAN:
Thank you, Chairman, and good 2
afternoon, Commissioners, once again.
3 The Commission provided direction in a staff requirements memo dated March 22nd, 1997 on the DSI, the 4
5 direction setting issue for regulatory excellence.
This 6
briefing focuses on the implementation plan for this one 7
element of the overall program for enhancing regulatory 8
excellence. The staff is committed to provide 9
recommendations on the overall program for regulatory 10 excellence by September 1997.
This briefing will be given 11 by Mr. Ed Jordan, who has a new title. He's the deputy EDO 12 for regulatory effectiveness, and Mr. Tom Martin, who is the 13 acting associate director for technical review.
14 I think behind me, we have Denny Ross, Dave 15 Morrison, Guy Caputo and Jim Lieberman, who are here in 16 recognition of the roles that their offices play in the 17 regulatory effectiveness initiative.
18 Mr. Jordan will continue this briefing.
19 MR. JORDAN:
Thank you.
20 As you recall, I was the sponsor from the 21 Strategic Assessment Steering Committee for development of 22 the regulatory excellence direction setting issue 23.
We're 23 responding to that direction setting issue and the 24 Commission's direction in the SRM, plus Mr. Callan's 25 direction to expedite the element directed towards ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
5 1
assessment of the quality of NRC regulatory programs.
This 2
proposal is described in SECY 97-103, which was distributed 3
to you yesterday.
4 This independent quality assessment element is 5
designed to improve NRC recognition of programmatic issues 6
through focused review of potential vulnerabilities.
7 Generally most effectiveness lessons have been byproducts of 8
reviews, inspections or incident investigations conducted by
/
9 NRC of licensee activities.
This effort is focused on 10 examination of NRC activities and programs in order to 11 obtain regulatory effectiveness lessons more directly.
12 Insights about specific licensees' or industry products' 13 performance would be byproducts.
14 Could I have slide 2, please.
15 This proposal relies on resources and perspectives 16 of the four offices that report to me, plus an assessment 17 team. The leader, Tom Martin, reports directly to me, 18 currently by a one-year assignment from the Office of 19 Research.
20 Tom is uniquely qualified based on his background 21 and experience.
He has nuclear utility experience, 22 assessment team experience in NRC, regional inspection and 23 management experience, and most recently research management 24 experience.
In addition, Tom was the engineering team 25 leader for the Maine Yankee independent safety assessment ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
~~
l I
6 1
this past summer.
He is both exacting, tenacious and l
2 experienced.
3 We plan to explain the goals and objectives of 4
this program, the scope of issues, the sources and methods 5
of selection of assessment areas, the method for handling 6
findings, the role of the four offices, and the 7
implementation plan.
8 I would like to assure you that this element is an 9
integral part of the regulatory excellence program.
That 10 overall program will address engagement of the workforce at 11 the grassroots level, employee communications issues, and 12 improvement of NRC processes and management and support 13 functions as directed in the SRM.
A full briefing of this 14 program, the regulatory excellence program, will be provided 15 to the Commission by the September due date.
Dr. Billy 16 Morris of the Office of Research will be managing that 17 development.
18 We have had internal discussions of the concept of 19 this regulatory effectiveness element of the program with 20 NRR and NMSS managemerJ,.
We have briefed the ACRS, NRC 21 partnership committee, and the Office of the Inspector 22 General.
The concept was also discussed with Energy at the 23 Regulatory Information Conference, and the CFO and the CIO 24 have been briefed on this issue.
25 While the basic concept has remained,.these l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
.. ~.
...... -. - ~.. _.. - _. ~. -. -.
. -. ~. - - -. - _. ~ -
- j s,
7 1
discussions.have been very beneficial in the development of I
2 details and; processes, i
4
~3 Could I have the next slide, please?
4 The goal of the regulatory effectiveness-5 initiative is to improve the regulatory focus and the 4
6' performance of the NRC.
The concept is to select areas for 7
review by a systematic process and conduct assessments of l
8 the highest priority areas through a combination of in-l 9
house and licensee reviews.
10 The output of the. process'is constructive feedback i
11 to the program office through a. report of findings and I-12 recommendations to the deputy executive director for 13 regulatory programs,from myself.
14 The positioning of this activity is between the 15 Office of. Inspector General, audits, and the program office, I
d 16 assessments.
We will carefully utilize these two to avoid 17 duplication.
It is expected that the process for selection
[
.18 of areas for review may affect future areas of program 19-office assessment.
j 20 Could I have the next slide, please?
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Before you go, Mr. Jordar.
1 l
22 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
[
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- have you developed what 24 basis you will use to judge improvements in NRC's regulatory 25 focus and performance?
i 4
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
, Washington, D.C. 20005 4
(202) 842-0034
.. ~..
.. _ ~
m
-.-__.m.__._
~ -
8 1
MR. MARTIN:
That's upcoming in one_of the slides 2-
.in terms'of-the'--
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You're going to talk more'about
?
4 that'.
)
5-
.MR. MARTIN:
Yes, we'll talk more about that.
6-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
And then-the other 7
question I had is in terms of this feedback process, you're 8
describing it as being at.the deputy executive director.
9 level, and so -- but presumably-you're going to flesh that j
10 out a.little more.
11.
MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
8 12-
-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I mean, for instance, will l
l 13
' recommendations be made as appropriate --
- 14 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
15
. CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- which would then impact the j.
16
, program areas?
And will the issues be tracked to resolution 17 and who will own that tracked resolution?
4 18 MR. JORDAN:
Okay.
Yes; yes, and the'EDO.
19-
[ Laughter.]
20 MR. JORDAN:
And we will cover that.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
You will cover that.
Okay.
22' I'll wait.
23 MR. JORDAN:
Slide 4, please.
24 Three parallel-paths that we are going to be 1
25 following are comprised of an assessment team -- that is Tom ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 9
1 Martin's effort -- to perform independent assessments, and 2
two paths to identify potential areas for further 3
assessments.
We're going to spend quite a bit of effort on 4
the identification of areas for assessment.
Measures to 5
collect and review information and nominate areas for 6
assessment will be integrated across the four offices that 7
report to me.
8 At this point, I would like for Tom to discuss the 9
independent assessment team activity in more detail.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Before you begin, and if you're 11 going to answer this in the course of your remarks, you can 12 incorporate them.
13 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
According to this previous 15 viewgraph and this one, you know, you have these three 16 parallel paths for identifying and assessing issues.
The 17 question is, will there be a common assessment methodology 18 and will you generally describe the assessment process you 19 have in mind?
20 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
And are we still on 22 schedule to have this REGMAT, this matrix developed by the 23 end of the year?
That was a date that I was given when I 24 25 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
I
-..~.. -.-.. -.-
~
. ~.. _
10 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- had a chairman's briefing 2-fairly recently.
We're still tracking to do that?
3 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
And --
5 MR. JORDAN:
I'm not certain that that would be a 6
, complete development of the REGMAT, but we will have a 7
workable tool that will identify areas --
8 MR. MARTIN:
Concept.
9 MR. JORDAN:
-- before the end-of the year.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
So maybe as you talk,
~
11
- you can give more flesh to that.
12 Then I guess the only other question, if-you could 13 address it as you talk, is how many assessments do you
~
14 foresee being conducted at any given time?
15 MR. MARTIN:
That's a more difficult question.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Right.
1 17 Commissioner McGaffigan will add ten more.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Well, I just want to, I
'l 19 right at the outset, sort of raise an issue of what the 20
. definition of regulatory effectiveness is, and it sort of 21 comes up in this parallel paths graph.
22 For me, regulatory effectiveness partly is, you 23 know, how well do we -- do NMSS and NRR and the other 24
. program offices carry out their missions, how processes can 25 be improved.
The original paper, the DSI 23, listed, you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
11 1
know, a whole host cf processes within offices that need 2
improvement or where efforts have been made to improve in 3
the past, and how do the people who do the work get involved 4
in this assessment effort, you know, how does NRR say our 5
50.59 process, which is on people's minds, or whatever, is 6
working or isn't working, or the senior management meeting 7
process, or, you know, whatever.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
That's all part of this 9
feedback.
10 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, but why don't I try to answer 11 that to help lay some of the groundwork.
The regulatory 12 excellence program will provide the opportunity and the 13 process to improve agency processes you might say in general 14 and specifically those will be selected and worked on 15 independent of this.
16 This process is designed to identify areas that 17 are not as obvious that we, through our normal programs, are 18 not seeing and to assess them and to identify whether the 19 NRC needs to increase the emphasis, reduce the emphasis, or 20 do it differently.
21 So this is a fairly narrow assessment, and in 22 terms of if an office or if an individual or a member of the 23 public has an area that is of concern to them, we have a way 24 of collecting that information and then prioritizing and 25 deciding whether it is worthy of an assessment.
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
- ~ - - - -
~ ~
~
12 i
1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGaN:
I just might say, my 2
problem with that is if it's not obvious, it may also not be t
'3
_ primary.
It may be, you know, secondary to the mission of 4
the agency, and we may be creating an infrastructure here
- 5 that sort of looks on secondary issues while we are 6
neglecting the fundamental --
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Right.
Leaving egregious 8
problems in'the main program --
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
We're kicking the can i
10 down the road for a decade, and you guys are going to come 11 up with new areas where we can, you know, provide additional l
12 problems for us to work on without resolving the big ones, j
13 MR. CALLAN:
Let me say something, Tom.
14 First of all, Commissioner, I would say that what i
15 we're trying to avoid is, to the extent we can, surprises.
i 16 The problems we know about, many of them are indeed i
17 challenges and some of them approach being intractable, it 18 seems.
But we will labor on, but we also, I think, need to 19 devote attention, resources to try to identify next year's i
20 problems sooner and not just focus on the problems we 1
21 already know about.
That's one point.
1 1
22 The second point I'll make is somewhat in response 23 more generally to your earlier question.
I think there's i
24 probably more than three parallel paths; there's at least a I
25 fourth parallel path.
That -- Ed alluded to it -- that is I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
13
)
1 the need for the program offices to do self-assessments and i
2 for the line to become more self-critical.
3 Here's an area where I think the NRC as a
)
4 regulator can learn from the regulated industry.
The 5
nuclear industry, over the last decade at least, has 6.
certainly shown the way here, and we can learn a lot from 7-them.
And we know a lot about this because we have been 8
observing them intrusively throughout.this evolutionary 9'
- process.
So if there's one lesson the nuclear industry has 10
. learned the hard way,'that is you cannot rely solely ^on 11 third-party outside assessments.
You have to engrain the t
12 self-critical approach in the line.
If you don't do that, l-l 13 you never truly arrive, and that absolute need is well 14-recognized by the office directors, and it's the ultimate L
15 goal.
l i
16 We will always need an outside oversight function, 17 but-ultimately the answer, I think, to your question is i
18 going to be line self-assessments, validated by ED's
?
organization.
19 20 That's why he made a point in an earlier slide of i
21 recognizing and I would even say nurturing more than 22 recognizing, nurturing internal assessments and ongoing i
1 I
23 improvement programs, just like we tried to do the same with l
l 24 the industry.
r 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan, you
!~
i
}..
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i
- Court Reporters i
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
}
Washington, D.C.
20005 3
(202) 842-0034 w
4-g
14 1
still have --
2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
We'll stay on this, but, 3
you know, there's a tendency around here for next year's 4
problem to have been last year's problem or even last 5
decade's problem and, you know, I'm just concerned about 6
adding additional things when they're really central issues 7
that we need to grapple with and we desperately need to make 8
improvements given the budget reality in the outyears that 9
we're facing.
10 CRAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I think that the 11 challenge is, as you're laying out what you're going to be 12 describing this afternoon, is to, in fact, illustrate the 13 connectivity to the improvements that we all want to see in 14 our main-line, baseline regulatory program.
So you should 15 keep that at the back of your mind.
16 Commissioner Rogers.
17 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
It's the same question, I 18 guess, that Commissioner McGaffigan asked:
How are you 19 defining regulatory effectiveness?
You know, I think the 20 problem I have is I see lots of ways of assessing something, 21 but I'm not sure what we're assessing it against.
22 You know, Mr. Callan, you said something that I 23 think was very important, that we're trying to avoid 24 surprises.
Well, you know, there's a concept there that I 25 think needs to be perhaps put in a little different language ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 i
(202) 842-0034
..~.- ~. -.. _. -. -. -. ~. - -. - - _. - - -. -. -
l 15 1-that's more appropriate for a definition.
Because we're 2
-trying to avoid something -- that's not a definition; that's l
t
?
3 an outcome.
4 But I.thinklthat really more clarity needs to be 5
evident here on what we really'mean.when we say we're trying-i 6
to= assess. regulatory effectiveness.
The problem that I-see
'7 in what the materials are that I've seen so far is that it l
8 seems to me we're'looking out at what licensees are doing
'l 9
right now as a measure of that, but then how do we connect 10 that?
11 I'll tell you, I'm just a bit uncomfortable here, 12 because I personally-don't see much connection between this 13 and DSI 23, the Commission's position on regulatory i
14 excellence.
Now, if we're saying that regulatory 15 effectiveness is a broader concept than regulatory 16 excellence, that somehow or other regulatory excellence is 17 something we're going to look at as phase 2, but regulatory 18 effectiveness is what we're looking at right now, then I-19 would like to understand that better, because I don't have 20 an appreciation of that point of view.
t 21 MR. JORDAN:
Let me try to respond to that, t
t l
22 Regulatory excellence is a larger umbrella and the l
23 regulatory effectiveness is a slice of it.
The regulatory 24 excellence really involves the entire agency, both the
~
25 technical programs and the suppor programs, and the 1
i i
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 I
,...v..
,a
..p
~ _ - -
~
16 1
attitudes of the staff and management in the way we work 2
together and the actual efficiency, this piece of it, 3
regulatory effectiveness, is a narrow slice, and the intent 4
is that it's associated only with -- directly with the 5
regulatory programs of NMSS, NRR, Enforcement, 6
Investigation, that it's how we implement the Agency's 7
mandate and whether we're focusing on safety issues so that 8
we're being productive in putting our resources in the right 9
places.
10 So our object is to give a fresh view of that, and 11 the regulatory matrix is a part of that that I'll talk a 12 little bit more about in a few minutes.
But it's really 13 within the regulatory excellence program, and it is a fairly 14 narrow I'll say quality assurance, not a quality control, 15 activity.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Diaz I think has a 17 question.
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
I think in the same 19 issue, I understand why we need to do additional assessments 20 of what our programs do, but I have the impression that what 21 we were going to do was look at our own programs and l
22 actually try, you know, as quickly as possible, to provide a 23 serious directive to increase the effectiveness of our 24 programs from our own view inside before we start assessing 25 anything else.
1001 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
,__.__._m...
17 t
1 CHAIRMAN: JACKSON:
Mr. Martin has.given me the 2
signal that he's. going to speak to that issue; so why don't r
r 3
we move along.here.
Then if not, then you can anticipate 4.
that we're going to.come back.
5 MR. MARTIN:
We'll keep going to more detail.
But 6
I'm ready to.get started to do just that very thing.
7 Slide 5, program objectives.
l t
8 These are the objectives of the program overall.
f 9
First, of course, is to provide quality assurance oversight 10 of.NRC regulatory activities.
Up to this point, we.have not 11 had an independent technical quality assurance feedback 12 Lprocess for our regulatory programs.
13 The attributes in the following bullet will be 14 discussed in more detail on the next slide and hopefully 15 will. address more directly your. question on what is 16 effectiveness and how we will measure it.
.17 The word coherency here is referring to whether 18 our various programs all pull in the same direction.
i 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
How close are you to being able t
20 to lay out a program plan for accomplishing these 21 objectives?
22 MR. MARTIN:
I believe we have;a program plan f
23 already in place that we can implement on fairly short l
l 24 order, and given several resources as requested, we could,
[
t 25 undertake to get into some of these very areas.
I l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
i
.~
r l
18 l
l
,o 1
For example,.-in the inspection' area, there are a
- 2-lot of questions,-I believe,-and I'm not picking on one 1
3 certain program here, but I'think it might be very useful to 4
Ime illustrative ~ in whereL we're heading'. -You know, just some
-L 5
' questions that come up that may be resolved through this 6
- process are whether^the core inspection program over-L 7
emphasizes operations and we're looking-in the wrong area, l
8_
perhaps, as opposed to.looking more in design,'or whether 9-margins of safety are eroded in other technical areas.
10 Could the inspection program be better apportioned
~11 based on risk, based on PRA, IPE.
The accident sequence i
t 12 precursor program and the kind of issues that are derived as 13 significant from that, could that be used to apportion the j
I 14-inspection program in a better fashion?
15 We could analyze how much effort is being opent in i
16 each area, and whether that makes sense relative to the i
i 17 significant inspection findings that are being generated or 18 the significant issues that we're facing today in our 19.
regulatory environment.
1 20 That's just some examples of --
d 21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Why isn't that an area' i
22'
.where NRR is given a crack at doing that first?
And maybe
]
23' they're already doing it.
Mr. Gillespie a few months ago J
24' addressed us on the inspection program, and I recall -- I l
25 think he said some of the same things you just said, you li-l ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
~
19 1
1-know, we have to look at the balances and whatever.
2 What is the value added of your group looking'at
]
l 3
_that.as opposed to NRR first taking a crack at it and then l
4-you evaluating whether they did well or did poorly?
J l
'5 MR.-MARTIN:
That could very well'be our course of 1
l 6
action.
I'm not_necessarily proposing now that we undertake 1
7 a review of the inspection' program as our first effort'.
I
\\
8 doubt that we would do that.
However, I think.there are 9.
n any areas --
10 MR. CALLAN:
Let me -- on slide 3, the third 11 bullet, I can't emphasize -- that needs to be said over and
' 12:
over again.
This was a major issue in the internal 13-discussions leading up to this briefing.
This has been a 14 major issue, as you know, between us and the industry, and 15 the same standard.that'we apply with the regulated industry 16 certainly ought to. apply internally, and that is that we 17 will do everything in our power to encourage, nurture this 18 line self-assessment in this critical assessment culture 19 that we're heading towards.
20 So to use our hypothetical example, Commissioner, 21 it is hypothetical, but I would suppose that if such an 22 effort were underway, then we would do exactly what you j
i
)
23 suggested, which is to monitor how that's going.
s 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
25 MR. MARTIN:
Next slide, please, the scope of i
i i
l-
)
l-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters L
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
--v+-
y =
w..
r s-
20 1
issues.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Slide 6?
3 MR. MARTIN:
Slide 6.
4 I believe this may address some of your questions 5
about what we're actually referring to when we refer to 6
regulatory effectiveness.
7 We want to look broadly at our programs, but we 8
also want to be careful to focus on regulatory outcomes 9
rather than assessing regulatory outputs.
For example, we 10 don't intend to emphasize conformance to NRC internal 11 procedures for controlling our work processes.
12 The five attributes on this slide frame the basis 13 for a regulatory effectiveness finding.
The program will 14 focus on any regulatory program, regulation or activity that 15 lacks technical justification to the extent that an 16 inappropriate regulatory position or decision may be taken; 17-is inconsistent or not complementary with other programs, 18 regulations or activities such that attention may be 19 diverted from matters of higher risk significance; lacks 20 clarity such that it may not be understood; is 21 underemphasized or overemphasized relative to the risk 22 involved; or does not accomplish its intended purpose.
23 This last item is essentially the definition of 24 ineffective.
The previous items are more representative of 25 the potential to be ineffective.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 1
l l
.m
._m._...
21 l
1 We also intend to focus initially on power 2
. reactors and would intend to expand the scope of the program
'3 to the materials area in mid-FY '98.
4-CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Would you, for-instance, look
~5 at~ regulations,.you know, like the station blackout rule and 6
the ATWAS rule?-
7 MR.-MARTIN:
Yes, those would be candidate areas 8
-that we could look at from an effecF veness standpoint and 9
determine whether those rules, in fact, have the desired 2
10 intent, met the intent of the rule.
11 HCHAIRMAN JACKSONi Commissioner McGaffigan and i
12 Commissioner Rogers.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Sort of implicit in this 14 list is a bullet that would be wastes NRC resources or 15' licensee resources.
If they meet some of these criteria, 16 then there's an effectiveness in the sense of waste 17 involved.
18 MR. MARTIN:
Correct.
Yes.
t
-19
. COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Should that be a i
20 criterion or is that just implicit?
~
21 MR. MARTIN:
Well,-it is -- no -- it is a 22 criterion in regard to being overemphasized.
If we 23
-overemphasize something relative to the risk involved, I f
E24 think that is an occasion'that we're not being effective.
25' So I would notl consider it implicit; however, when we cross i
JUIN RILEY1& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
1 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 L
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
i l
22
.1, over into efficiency, matters of pure efficiency, it may be t
.2 getting< involved in more conformance to our own procedures 3
and then slip-into what.I would consider the broader realm 4
of regulatory excellence as opposed to effectiveness.
5-But yes,- I would consider that.if we're applying 6-too many resources inf the industry is applying too many 7
resources in'a:certain area, with the zero sum gain that's C
8 involved in the budgeting process, it would be Egt. indication 9-of not being as effective as we could be.
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I mean, maybe it's just a 11 matter of style, but it does seem to me that this slide, 12 scope of issues, is what you're really using to define 13 regulatory effectiveness.
14 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
But you're doing it through 16-the back door, in-a way.
I mean, you're saying what's 17' wrong, and somehow, you know, it doesn't come across that 18 this is basically the basis for your definition of what you 19' mean by regulatory effectiveness, that it does -- regulatory 20 effectiveness or programs that are effective don't have
)
21.
these deficiencies in them.
22 So it may be just a matter of how you make your 23 presentation, but I think that the way I read this packet 24L was, well, these are some things we're going to look at, but 25 we'll be doing other things as well; whereas it seems to me, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
-.e-er r
_..~
r 23
- 1 from.what I'm gathering thus far, this is really the heart
-2 of what you're doing, and I think it needs to get emphasized 3
that-way a little. bit.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I mean, think there's a 5
difference between looking to see if something lacks 6
technical justification as opposed to'being proactive to 7
ensure'that things are technically justified, that they are 8
consistent and complementary, that th'ey are clear, that the 9
. emphasis is relative to the risk' significance of it, and 10 that there are metrics for ensuring that whatever we do 11 accomplished the purpose and they're as efficiencly 12 administered as possible.
l 13 MR. JORDAN:
We agree, and we can define it from l
14 the positive and the negative.
I think the way we' fell into i
'15 this was the. idea that'we're looking for areas that are 16 potentially vulnerable, and then we'll assess them and
[
1 17 identify whether, in fact, that potential. area has specific i
[
18 weaknesses, I'll say, consistent with this particular slide, 19 and,then we'll make recommendations about them.
20 So we're working from that negative side, much as 21 our inspection' program does and our review program does with 22 licensees.
J 23' CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner?
24-COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Yes.
Following on the same
~25 issue, it seems to me like this is a kind of performance
- i I
H
[
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
~
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 j
1 i
24 1
measurement matrix rather than'the issues.
I think aus 2
important-as establishing this as criteria is prioritizing 3'
what it is-really-that you're' going to need to look'at 4
4 first,'and that really~becomes an issue, because we kind of 5
look at'everything all of the time.
1 6
MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner McGaffigan?
8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The other thought I 9
have, you know, is if I were doing this slide, I'd probably 10 have "is untimely."
You know, any NRC regulatory program,-
11 regulation or activity would probably apply more to program.
12.
and activity rather than to a regulation, but the drafting 13 of regulations, the-drafting of reg guides, the-conformance 14 with industry standards when we go off into code and 15 standard space and take forever to get around to endorsing a 16 code and standard, does that belong here or have you pushed.
17 that off into excellence space rather than effectiveness 18 space?
19 MR. CALLAN:
It's interesting you bring that up, 20-because that has been kind of a bone of contention in our 21-internal discussions.
As Tom Martin alluded, he's trying to 22 avoid measuring, as a metric, measuring performance against-23 specific procedural criteria.
24 For example,-- we have a 30-day criteria for getting 25 inspection reports out, is an example.
Rather than devote ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters J
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
O 25 1
. resources to see whether or;not a region meets _that 1
l2 there's other ways of doing it..That kind of timeliness 3
measurement is probably not very productive in the-context 4
of.what we're talking about, but the examples you gave a~re 5
the. kind'of. examples that we've used internally to establish l
'6-the type of timeliness'that does impinge'on regulatory 7
' effectiveness as defined.
8 1
So not all measures of timeliness would --
i l
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Right.
But the SRM said 10.
come up with performance ~ measures for the NRC' staff in 11 ~
timeliness of, for instance, rulemaking and reg guides'and
]
12
. codes'and standards and whatever.
Is that effectiveness or l
1 13-is that excellence?
1 14.
MR. JORDAN:
That's intended to be within the 15 excellence' umbrella.
J i
l l
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
So that's not
- 17 MR. JORDAN:
We would not'be,.in this effort, L
18 devoting much in the way of resource for that aspect of 19-measuring that performance metric.
We would devote j
L
'20 resources towards,-if it came up as a high priority, i
I.
121 reexamining the manner of issuing regulations, the process 22 as a study.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I think there's an issue 1
24 here-having-to do with as you look at things, and if.
[
25 timeliness, for instance, comes into play, you have to make 1
l i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
"^"'t"!'f";4?: 63
26 1-
.a delineation between what is in the NRC's control versus
-2
-- you know, and understand how it gets impacted by what's 3
external, and a focus on what we can do better.
You know,
.4~
that would seem to me to be an appropriate --
5-MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
And this is NRC's regulatory
~
6 effectiveness, what we can do better.
i 7
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think ---why don't we --
8, COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
Just one general comment j
~
9 from my perspective.
.I'm having trouble with the
-10 effectiveness versus excellence and judging the
'11 effectiveness program on which we're getting briefed.today 12 without knowing what the umbrella of the excellence program 13 is, and judging the -- I'may well care more about what they i
14 have defined as excellence than I do on some of these --
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
We have a definition'which is i
16 in the Commission's own DSI, and so it will be for the 17 Commission to take a look and judge what they're talking 18 about. relative to what the Commission felt it was saying in 19 the regulatory excellence arena and to what extent, you 20 know, this matches or beings to address those sorts of 21-
' concerns.
22' MR. JORDAN:
And I'would pick out of the SRM --
23
.there were statements with regards to expediting the 24-development'of a proactive assessment of the quality of our 25 regulatory programs.
Those were the words that we used as ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
27
~ he foundation for this particular effort.
i 1
t
-2 So.it's a proactive, independent assessment of the 3
quality of our regulatory programs and those other elements 4
are within the excellence program, and it is up to the 5
Commission as to whether we're putting the. emphasis on the-6 wrong syllable or on'the right syllable.
7.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
We're going to ta,lk about 9
these things sooner or later, so we might as well talk about 10 them as we go.
J 11 You know, the industry has:made the point from 12_
time to time, and I don't buy it particularly, but, you 13 know, that we should be regulating towards safety,_not 14 excellence, all right?
So somebody is drawing a distinction 15 between those two.
I don't necessarily buy that, but.I'm 16 just saying.
17
.It seems a little bit to me as if you're' drawing a i
18 distinction between excellence and effectiveness, that they j
19 are somehow related, but on some scale tney differ.
The 20 trouble that.I have with that is that it's a way of j
21
. proceeding here to get something done, but when I go back j
22 and look at DSI-23 and the COMSECY, the Commission really 23 asked the staff to do certain things that it seems to me j
24-have to be done at the very beginning of the effort.
o
'25 For example, develop an implementation plan that i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters f
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 1
l 1
28
.1 includes but-is.not necessarily limited to the following, 2
and then there were a number of-points, and one was identify 3
~ goals.with milestones and clear criteria for judging 4
success..Well, we're asking here, well, how do you judge 5
. success here, you know?.And measures.to engage lthe
- 6 workforce at the grassroots level and to stimulate 7
management and employee. communications.and problem-solving.
8 I think we've felt, atfleast I've felt and 9
everybody else signed off.on this, we felt that.was really' 10 fundamental'here,. and we're not' hearing about that.
We're 11-hearing about a team that's.being created and so cx1, so 12 forth,.and the notion of a grassroots participation with 13 everybody who works for'this organization committed to this 14 goal of achieving excellence is fundamental to'what we want 15 to accomplish.
16 I'm just -- I'm having trouble here because I see 17
.these are-reasonable things to do, but they're not what we l
18.
asked for.
And so that may be perfectly okay.as long as you 19 can put it in the context of what we asked for, and that I 20' don't see as having been done.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Why don't we proceed and see if 22 you did put it within the context of-what we. asked for.
23 MR. MARTIN:
Slide number 7, sources and selection 24-
-of, assessment areas.
25 I think-it.would be useful at this point first of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
, _ ~. _
29 1
all.to_defineLwhat we mean by an assessment area.
An
'2 assessment area is where we intend to look for regulatory 3
effectiveness findings.
We will present'some examples of 5
-4
- assessment areas on the next slide.
.5 With regard to your comment, Commissioner Rogers, 6
about involving -- looking at a broad. area, involving-the:
7 staff at a grassroots basis, a point that we want to make 8
here is that we're casting a wide net to look for can'didate 9
- assessment areas.
The-regulatory matrix assessment tool, or 10
. what we refer to as REGMAT, is one source of information
' ll provided by Research.
The'performan'ce information that will l
12
' be developed through AEOD, OI, OE, is another-source of 13 information.
l 14 We will also be getting stakeholder input from the 15 NRC staff and management, including the program offices that i
l 16
'will be directly involved in our assessments.
l 17' Also, in order to facilitate getting input from I
18 the public and industry, we intend to' establish'an e-mail 19 address, a website and a mailing address so'that members of 20 the industry can provide potential assessment areas directly i
21 to.the regulatory effectiveness assessment staff.
We would 22 anticipate sorting through these inputs to put the
- 23 appropriate items into the mix of our activities.
24 The prioritization of these areas will be based on l
25 the potential for identification of regulatory effectiveness i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 e
.n-n a
+
\\
~
j 30 1,
-findings. ' Areas that represent the most risk significance 2
uor the most_ potential impact will be given a higher priority 3
and then pursued-through our. assessment process.
4' CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Will you make use of'DPO's 1
5 differing, professional opinions, DPV's --
6 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- and allegations in the 8
selection of areas'to review?
9 MR. MARTIN:
Yes.
Absolutely.
10 The regulatory effectiveness assessment staff will 11 take the lead in compiling a prioritized list of these i
12 assessment areas.
That will be submitted for approval to 13 the deputy executive director of regulatory effectiveness 14 and provided to the Commission on a periodic basis.
'I 15 Slide 8.
16 These are examples of the' types of areas for 17 assessment that'would be identified by the programs we are 18 introducing today.
The REGMAT approach would be a f
19
. systematic analysis of regulatory coverage and would likely 20 generate the kinds of areas that may not be getting enough 21 attention or perhaps too much attention.
22 The data / experience area would rely on compilation 23 of'various data sources from AEOD, Research, OE, OI and 24-
- others, i
25 The types.of areas that would be put into the mix l
i r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
' Washington, D.C.
20005 t
(202) 842-0034 t
. _ - ~.
~
~
31 1
by the_ regulatory effectiveness assessment staff would be l
2 developed independently as well as from stakeholderF, the i
3 public and industry as discussed on the previous slide.
l 4
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Before'you leave it, could l
5 you just help usL in understanding what your thinking there 6
is with' respect to water chemistry, as to why that's a
~
7.
regulatory effectiveness area.
I understand water chemistry i
8 is very.important for the maintenance of the materials in a 9
nuclear power plant.
How does that relate to an assessment 10 of NRC effectiveness?
11 MR. JORDAN:
If you'll indulge me --
1 12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Please.
1 1
13 MR. JORDAN:
First, I'll say this came out of the 14 idea of -- concept of a regulatory matrix, and if you 15 picture a matrix that --
1 16 MR. CALLAN:
Excuse me.
Let me just -- all of 4
17' you,.during your drop-ins, have seen annunciator window-18 concepts.
Everybody uses them in the industry.
We're 19 basically borrowing from that concept when we talk'about a j
i 20 matrix.
21 MR. JORDAN:
So if we described the regulated J
22 areas -- that is, those activities that the NRC does -- as 23
.one axis and the other axis is the utility, the licensee's 24-activities -- and so, for instance, for the licensee, you 25 could list the' system structures and components like the r
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
(
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
32 1
maintenance rule describes; you could list'the. functions and 2
activities of the licensee, operations, maintenance, and so 3
-on.
Juld for the' NRC, you would list the regulation, or 4
regulations that is,-you would. list the codes and standards, 5
you would list the research documents, you would listLthe 6'
training, the inspection procedures, all those elements that 7
drive the NRC in a particular direction, and you would then 8
be able to cross' code.
And I'll pick water chemistry as a 9
licensee activity, maintaining water chemistry in a primary.
I 10 system of a BWR and steam generators of a PWR3 for~ instance.
}
11 If I look down the regulatory side, I find that 12 the regulations are practically non-existent, that the tech 13 specs are extremely limited, that the guidance is limited, l
14 the inspection procedures, there'are not many, not much at 15 all.
16-If I come down to risk, I find there is l
17' considerable risk associated with the maintenance of water
'18 chemistry.
It drives the corrosion rate of steam 1
19 generators, it.has an effect on internals cracking in a BWR, 20 it affects fuel performance and has a significant safety 21 connotation.
3 22 So here is an area that has safety significance, l
(L 23 has very little NRC oversight and relies on the economic 24 effect of bad chemistry on utilities for its basis.
The L
t
'l 1
25 utilities-do'have guidance and, of course, one of the f
)
i 1
1 t
1 i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
i
33 1
elements would be this would be the EPRI guidance for water 1
2 chemistry, and this is only an example, a thought piece, to I
3 say, okay, are there areas that the NRC is not putting the i
4 right emphasis on, and so water chemistry was one that came
.]
1 1
5 up.
I don't know the answer.
I'm not sure whether we do or i
i f
6 not, but I know th'at~ water chemistry has caused premature
}
7 steam generator cracking, it has affected primary internals'
}
8 problems,' resin intrusions in plants that-were not reported.
i
-9 We don't.have reporting requirements for these areas.
10 So we're looking for, in this process, as Joe put i
11 it, annunciator windows that would say maybe we ought to 12 reexamine these areas.
And so if we had this matrix at its 13 simplest level, then we would identify those larger areas i
- L4 for consideration, we would prioritize them and decide 15 whether or not they were worth following up.
16 So this is one way of identifying areas.
We have l
17
.never taken what I call an integrated look'at what is the i
18 population that we should be regulating, and are we 19 regulating it toithe right level.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Diaz and then 21 Commissioner McGaffigan.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
You know, I must agree that 23 water chemistry is very important, but I think that the
-24 regulatory process has always been kind of a "what are you 25 doing, you know, and how-do we see it" type of process.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
~
~
34 1
The industry has for many years put tremendous 2
efforts in water chemistry, and they have actually tried, 3
although the knowledge at the tir..e wasn't that good sbout 4
water chemistry, and it has been changing and evolving.
5 You can look at, you know, what we did with steam 6
generators.
7 So the tremendous effort that the industry has put 8
into it, because that's where the economics are, besides the 9
safety, actually has made us limit our exposure into the 10 water chemistry area to technical specifications, but -- and 11 any time the fluorine passes certain limits, somebody 12 screams bloody murder.
So we do have some flags out'there 13 that are very, very important, and it might very well be 14 that what you're saying is correct, that we might need to 15 pay more attention to water chemistry, but I think the 16 question was, you know, as a fact, in the assessment area, 17 the fact that this comes out by itself, it seems --
18 MR. CALLAN:
That's the issue.
That's the icque.
19 Not that we need to do more; it's just that it will 20 highlight areas of vulnerability.
l 21 MR. JORDAN:
It's a tool.
l.
I 22 MR. CALLAN:
It's a tool.
l l
23 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Right.
t 24 MR. MARTIN:
Perhaps this could be looked at in 25 conjunction with our ISI program, which is the kind of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
~
35 1
program where we identify cracks or, you know, the integrity 2
of our pressure -- certain pressure boundaries.
Perhaps 3
some emphasis should be shifted to the prevention as opposed 4
to the identification after the fact.
5 MR. JORDAN:
And I would use the next one in a 6
very simple, analogous way, that we have many plants -- most 7
plants -- with unique design features.
We treat unique 8
design features the same as generic design features in our 9
reviews, in our inspections.
I'm not sure that's correct.
10 I feel that there may be a need to treat -- to examine each 11 plant for what are the unique design features and then put 12 more emphasis on the inspection and the licensing review of 13 those unique features.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think -- and I know 15 Commissioner McGaffigan is chomping here, and I was going to 16 wait until the bitter end, but I'm not.
It strikes me that 17 there are four challenges that you have, and I'm trying to 18 think about what you've already heard.
This is before you 19 go any further.
That is, how do you give positive 20 definition to what regulatory effectiveness is and what its l
l 21 tie is to regulatory excellence, which is what the 22 Commission gave the DSI on?
And how does what's in that 23 definition and what you're proposing to do derive, in fact, 24 from that DSI and how does it facilitate the implementation 25 of that DSI?
That is, can you clearly delineate what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
36 1
elements of DSI-23, what you're talking about this is, you 2
know, *ied to?
3 I think there is still-the question that's 4
hothering everyone as to what the connectivity is to program 5
office activities and having some sense of what is measuring i
-6 effectiveness or facilitating:the effectiveness in how those 7
program activities are carried out?
I 8'
Finally,-how does the role of Research, OI, OE and t
.9 AEOD and what their responsibilities are day to day tie'into i
l 10 what'you intend to do, not products.that you're expecting 11-for a narrow focus effort, but how is it that what -- you 1
12-laume, OI has a certain. job to do; OE has a certain job to' 1
13 do; AEOD has a certain job'to do; Research.
How is what 14 these offices do, okay, inform what you intend to do here?
.]
15 I think that if somehow you can address those four 16.
things, if not today, then going forward, then I_think you 17
'can begin to get at what I hear, you'know, is bothering the 18 different Commissioners as well as myself.
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I'm sounding like a 20-broken record on this, but on water chemistry, to take that 2
1 21 example, or the unique design features, it does look like d
22 we're potentially overall adding to the burden of the' Agency 23
.in one way.or another.
24 I think if we're going to -- if you're a 1
25' regulatory-effectiveness group, my definition of regulatory ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C 20005 (202) 842-0034 y
l
~ -
l 37 1
effectiveness, you've got to figure out what it is we're i
2 going to give up in order to have that additional focus, and 3
you've got to help us figure out how to -- if you're going l
4 to add things to our rules or our overall program, 5
inspection program or whatever, you've got to tell us what 6
it is, and part of your tasking, in my view, is what do we 7
give up?
You know, how do we free those resources up to 8
achieve this higher purpose if it is a higher purpose?
9 MR. JORDAN:
My answer istnot a pleasant one, 1
10 perhaps.
I understood part of this charter really was to l
11 try to avoid a Millstone type issue where the design -- the 12 NRC's emphasis on design basis reviews was insufficient.
13 I thought it was to avoid the fire protection 14 issue where the NRC failed to recognize the fire barrier 15 problem in a timely fashion.
16 So maybe my mission understanding is quite 17 different.
I felt that the first priority was to go look 18 for areas that really contributed to safety that the Agency 19 was failing to see in a timely fashion, and so that's the 20 direction that I've launched.
So I hoped to be heading off 21 the next Time Magazine cover story.
So if that's not what 1
22 this narrow section out of regulatory excellence --
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, I think --
24 MR. JORDAN:
-- is intended to do --
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
No, no, no.
Look, I think --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
38 1
MR. JORDAN:
Because I don't plan to propose what 2
we give up; I plan to identify what we must do that we're 3
not doing.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think there are many elements 5
to this.
There's always a net zero sum gain or a kind of 6
triage that has to be done that at any given time, if there 7
are certain things that a judgment is made need to be given 8
focus and there is not some overall increase in the total 9
amount of resources available, there are trade-offs that 10 have to be made.
11 Presumably, and I would rather not put it in, "If 12 we give focus to water chemistry, what are we going to give 13 up, you know, in its stead," but really, that is, in fact, 14 what Joe's job is in terms of --
15 MR. JORDAN:
It's a budget decision we must make.
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
-- the integrated -- you know,
)
17 how does this play off against other parts of what we do.
18 So I don't think it's something that we need to be asking 19 you to, you know, give us a decision about or a statement 20 about today, but I think it's part of an overall way 21 resources get balanced.
I mean, that's what Joe's 22 fundamental job in the regulatory areas turned out to be --
23 turns out to be.
24 But I think where your challenge lies is to show 25 elearly and to make the statement clearly as to how what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1
you're describing is derivative of what's in DSI-23, namely 2
' regulatory. excellence, and what elements of that, what 3
.you're talking about and describing, this ties-to. I mean,.
4 that's where I think, you know, the disconnect.
And it may 5
not be that -- and I don't think that one can definitively 6
say that you're going down a wrong path.
It's more making 7
the ties to what's already laid out there, you know, in a 8
more clearly defined way, because -- and that helps you to 9
give flesh and-focus to whatever it is that you're 10 purp viring to do here as opposed to saying we think you're.
11 going down the wrong path.
I don't think anyone is saying 12 that specifically, but rather we want to see this tie to 13 this overall base.
14
.Yes, Commissioner Diaz?
15 CCMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I agree with you, but I just 16 heard somet hing that really disturbs me, and that's 17 addressing Time Magazine.
I really do not intend to have my 18 responsibilities driven by Time Magazine and I don't think 19 you should, either I think the press has a role to provide 20 feedback and information, but we're not driven by Time 21 Magazine; we're driving by vt.quate protection of health and l
22 safety of the public, and that has been based mostly on 23 operational safety.
Design basis has a part in that, and l
24 this is an important part, one we need to take care of, but 25 it's certainly not the whole direction of where the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
...-......, ~.
~
~
40 i
1
' Commission should be going.
2 It is a part that we need to pay attention to.
3 We're paying attention.to it.
I think we're getting'better 4
at it.
But~that definitely I don't.think was the intention 5
.of the Commission.
I don't think Time Magazine runs this t
6 Commissioni.I think that's very important for everyone to
'7 know.
I certainly know that it doesn't run me.
And I think 8
that that should be far away from any~decisionmaking.
We 9
should be aware of it because on many occasions, it does 10 produce important pieces of information, and it might1 help
~
11 us in doing a better job, but certainly it's not a driver.
12 MR. CALLAN:
Commissioner, I would just say,-in
~
13 Ed's defense, that I think that expression has crept into 14 our lexicon as sort of a metaphor for relying on external 15 stimuli to tell us where our problems are as opposed to 16 finding our own problems.
17 I don't think that Ed was referring to.over-18 concern about the media, per se, but we should be finding 19 our own problems and should not have to rely on outside i
20 organizations, whoever they may be, to tell us where our 21 problems are, and that's really the context in which the t
i 22 Staff focused on this.
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
I think we owe it to the staff L
24 to hear them out.
I mean, I think that, you know, until we 25 hear and give them the opportunity to develop what they plan i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
.. ~. - -.. _. _ _.
41 i
1 to develop, you know, with the guidance from the Commission 2
I mean, that's their job to do and we should hear them 3
out on that.
So on that basis, why don't we proceed.
4-MR. JORDAN:
Joe, thank you for taking my foot out
.5 of my mouth about Time M&gazine.
6 Proceed.
s 7
MR. MARTIN:
Slide 9.
8 Once the assessment areas are identified, the 9
conduct of assessments will rely on either in-office review, 10 visits to licensee facilities, or a combination of both.
11-Even though we anticipate performing some of'our activities 12 at licensee facilities that may look a lot like inspection, 13 the primary focus of our efforts will be to assess and 14 approve the NRC.
15 One thing that I would like to emphasize here is 16 the need for highly experienced reviewers in this process.
17 These reviewers must not only have applicable technical 18 knowledge, but credibility as well with the program office.
19 The regulatory effectiveness assessment staff will 20 provide the core of this effort and would be supplemented by
. 21 -
temporary assignments within the NRC as well as by the use 22 of contractors as we did in the recent Millstone and Maine 23 Yankee independent safety assessment teams.
24-For assessments that are site-focused, we 25 anticipate that we will look at a similar set of issues at ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
1
.a 42' 1
several plants in order to provide a better sample size on 2
which~to base our conclusions.
We will attempt to minimize j
t 3-the impact on the industry as a result of site-focused 4-assessments.
I would anticipate that five staff over a two-5 week period should be bounding numbers for these efforts.
6 Also, we anticipate that there will not be a need 7
for site visits in some cases depending on the' assessment 8
areas being evaluated.
9
. When we're in the field, we don't intend to merely.
10-plow the same ground as the inspectors before us.
We may 11-use cultural surveys to probe ~-- or probe in areas such as 3
12.
water chemistry or some.of the other areas that were I
i 13 discussed that are not routinely inspected.
14 Next slide.
15 The process for feedback and handling inspection 16 findings or regulatory assessment effectiveness findings 17 will be through a report of the findings along with causes 18 and recommendations provided to the deputy executive 19 director of regulatory effectiveness.
He will then provide i
20 them to the deputy executive director, regulatory programs.
i 21 If there is any disagreement on the conclusions or 22 proposed staff actions, they will be resolved by the EDO.
23 After there is agreement, staff action assignments will be 24 made to the-affected program office.
25 Risk and impact insights will be applied to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L7.D.
1'ourt Reporters 1250 1 Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 I
Washington, D.C.
20005 i
(202) 842-0034
43 1
regulatory effectiveness findings to help us prioritize 2
their resolution.
Staff actions will be tracked as any 3
other action signed by the office of the EDO and the 4
regulatory effectiveness assessment staff will monitor 5
whether the actions taken to close out the findings are 6
accomplishing their intended purpose.
7 At this point, I would like to turn the 8
presentation back over to Mr. Jordan.
9 MR. JORDAN:
Could I have the next slide, please.
10 The object here is to identify the role of the 11 four offices in support of this particular effort.
The 12 Office of Research will be responsible for developing this 13 regulatory matrix assessment tool, for developing the 14 workplace environment and safety attitude assessment tool 15 and providing risk insights to support the team and the 16 identification.
17 AEOD has the lead for compilation of performance 18 information from the four offices and to provide an input of 19 the proposed areas for regulatory effectiveness assessments l
l 20 to Tom and his team, and to conduct case studies of 21 regulatory issues which are a derivative of the present case l
22 study approach that AEOD applies.
23 The next slide, please.
l
(
24 The Office of Enforcement will provide insights of 1
25 both licensee and industry performance from enforcement and j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 i
44 1
to develop regulatory effectiveness insights from their 2
enforcement perspective.
3 Similarly, the Office of Investigation would
'4 provide insights on both l'icensee and industry performance 5
from investigations and provide those insights from 6
investigations.
Their data source information would then be 7
compiled by AEOD for Agency use.
8 Could I havefthe next slide, please.
9 The implementation plan consists of some eight or 10 so steps.
First of all, to assemble a regulatory 11 effectiveness assessment staff,.and that's part of the 12 reason for being here today, is to obtain Commission 13 approval to proceed with assembling people to. support Tom in
.14 this effort.
15 One of the first products would be to develop a 16 Commission policy statement that would be provided as a 17 Federal Register Notice for public comment in order to 18 obtain external views of our definition of regulatory 19 assessment; how we're -- regulatory effectiveness assessment 20 and how we are intending to go about it, to develop a draft 21 management directive that the staff would apply, to 22 implement programs to collect the performance information.
23 This is those four offices combined providing this input 24 information.
To develop the regulatory matrix assessment 25 tool and to establish the process for input by the public ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005
'(202) 842-0034
45 1
and by industry for potential areac for assessment, and then 2
to develop a prioritized list of assessment areas that we 3
would.then periodically reprioritize and add to, and to 4
begin the assessments.
So that's the sequence of the plan.
5 Next slide, please.
6 The resource requirements in order to do this 7
portion assumed -- and maybe it would be helpful if I 8
described it
-- assumed an 18-week evaluation cyc.le; that 9
is, a four-week development of the assessment areas and 10 preparation for the reviews that would be done within the 11 FRC offices and at licensee sites where necessary; a two-12 week review cycle, and a sufficient sample by going to three 13 sites if it requires site review in order to make a case, 14 provide a basis that is, in fact, sound; and then a four-15 week report preparation time.
We would expect to handle 16 something like six areas for each of these assessments and 17 would expect to be able to do two assessment cycles in a 18 year.
So that would be some twelve assessment areas in a 19 one-year period for the reactor program.
That would 20 require, during the remainder of this fiscal year, some 2 21 FTE that would be itabedded in doing this work, 7 FTE in 1998 22 and 8 in 1999 fiscal years.
23 MR. CALLAN:
That includes materials oversight, 24 too; it's not just --
25 MR. JORDAN:
It would begin materials in April of l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington,'D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
..-. -.-.- ~. - -
l f
46 il
'98..
So we would go through one year of reactor and then 2-begin~ development of materials assessment in April of
'98.
.i t
3 The' complement of' personnel would be an SES
.i 4
manager,..six technical staff,.and one clerical.
The full 5
implementation,' the additional'8.5 FTE, those are between-
)
6 three-FTE for rotation from other offices for expertise.
l 7
And this is what we would be expending, some 3 FTE in AEOD I
8 that would be performing the data collection, compilation, i
9 analysis and-associated case studies,. and the 2.5 FTE in i
10
~Research that would be devoted to developing the regulatory 11 matrix and the workplace assessment tool.
The financial or-i 12 the dollar resource of 1.3 million is for development of the 13 regulatory matrix, the database development and contract
'(
14.
support resources.
.15 Now I would like to try to go back and reconnect 16-what seems to be the biggest stumbling block, the idea of i
17 excellence and effectiveness.
The understanding I had --
18 and as I started, I was the manager on the strategic l
l 19 assessment committee that expressed the regulatory 20 excellence DSI, and our object was to have an overall 21 program and that we are addressing with an overall program 22 the idea of the safety attitude of the NRC staff and its 23 goal.or its objective to reach excellence, that we're 24-
.providing the tools necessary for the staff, we're providing l
26 the training, we're providing the management support and l
I i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
.- ~.- -. -.. -
m 47 4
e 1
' seeking in every way to-have a staff that's dedicated and 2-seeking excellence.
t 3
That of itself creates or should create an 4
effective regulator.
In the process of doing that, though, d
5
'we want to look proactively for areas in which the agency-6 ought'to put resources or ought to take. resources away that i
7 have grown by the iterative process that. occurs within an
' l 8
agency of this sort', not necessarily having grown in a risk-9
' informed environment that we now have, that we can now 10 apply.
11 So the genesis of the-effort that Tom is dedicated 12' to at this point was to provide this fresh perspective of j
13 the Agency's emphasis on clearly safety issues in the 14 regulatory program.'
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Did you have some final 16 comments?
17 MR. CALLAN:
Yes, Chairman, just a couple points.
18 One is.I think underlying some of the questions is a concern 19 that a process similar to this robust oversight process 20 would actually encumber the staff and create distractions 21 and actually cause the staff to lose focus on the major 22 issues that we have to deal with.
23 That is a concern.
There is certainly a concern 24 voiced by some of the program offices, probably all the 1
25' program offices in discussions, and it's something that we l
l i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 t-
_. - _ _ _ ~. _.. _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _
48 l'
have to be vigilant about.
2 The1 intent here is to establish a process that 3
.doesn't polarize, that actually builds team work, actually 4
adds to cohesion of the team, the NRC team, and makes us c
5 feel better about ourselves.
We're_ finding our'own 6
problems.
And we know!it can be done because we've seen the i
7 better utilities in the. country do it.
We know it can be 8
done.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Ten years ago, I.
9 think-the conventional view was they were mutually i
10 exclusive..We know that's not right.
We know it can-be 11 done.
12 My second point I just lost.
Oh.
And it's an 13 important point.
As Ed'said, Ed Jordan said at the outset, I
I i
14 part of the reason for this briefing today -- actually, it l
L 15-was supposed to be a week or two from now -- but-part of the 16 reason we're having it this spring and not in the fall is f
i 17 because of the sense of urgency and impetus that I 18 personally provided.
I feel a sense of urgency about this.
l 19 I think what Ed described and what Tom Martin described was t
I
(
20 largely a process.
What's lacking are many of the things 1
l 21.
that were identified during the discussion.
But it's a i
- 22 process.
23 My view is and I think our collective view is that 24 no matter what we_end up with, at the end of the day, we I
12 5 will need a robust oversight function of some sort, some f
i
.JU23 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington,.D.C. 20005
+
(202) 842-0034 m
- ~ !
49 1
independent oversight activity.
We wouldn't accept anything j
2 less than thatsfrom even a so-called SALP 3 performing 13 licensee.
I mean, it's -- we need a lot more than that, but 4-we do-probably need that of some sort.
5 So the. discussion today focused on setting up the 6
-- establishing'the groundwork for establishing such a 7
process,.and we have a lot of work to do, we understand, and 8
the final matrix will have to be integrated clearly with the I
9 overall umbrella of regulatory excellence which,.as I said
'10 at the outset, is due before the. Commission in September.
4 11
~ CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Okay.
Commissioner Rogers?
12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, we've all said a lot,.
13 and I'know you've gotten, you know, comments and thoughts 14 and points of view.
The other one -- I'm not going to 15 repeat myself here, but I do think that'the problem that I 16 see with what you've sketched out here is that it seems to f
17 be such a top-down driven effort when you really -- if you 18 really want a buy-in from everybody who is going to make an 19 important contribution, and we hope there isn't anybody here 20 that won't, I don't see what the mechanism for that is.
21 You know, we've seen lots of effort in the 22 industry from TQM and things like this that frankly I've 23 never really been sold on, but I do think that it is 24 terribly.important to engage everybody at as early a stage t
25 as you can in some way.
L e
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
L l
~ ~
50 1
Now, obviously management has to play its role in 2
the end and see that things happen, but the problem that I'm 3
hearing here is that it seems like this is, you know, a bit 4
of -- what I've seen and heard, and maybe you have something 5
more in mind, but, you know, a-team of people that is going 6
to go out and start to lay this all out, and then hope that 7
people will get engaged, and it doesn't work that way if you 8
want to capture people's hearts and minds.
You've got to 9
get them in very early.
10 So my comment simply is that I would hope that 11 before you go too much further, that "ou find a way to 12 capture the participation of the broad base of people who 13 work for NRC.
14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Dicus?
15 COMMISSIONER DICUS:
Yes, I have to agree 16 essentially with everything that I've heard today from 17 fellow commissioners on what we have had presented to us, 18 including the fact that there appears to be some sort ot 19 disconnect between what the DSI said or what we thought we 20 were saying in the DSI and what we have been given back, and 21 I think that's perhaps the basis of some of the concerns 22 that you've heard.
23 I agree that I think what we wanted to achieve 24 with this particular issue is to try to ensure that we'do 25 find our own problems, we do avoid Millstones and things of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
j
- o.
51 I:.
1' that. nature; but as'I looked at what is being presented,.I i
.2
'see a very labor-intensive, resource-intensive program being
'3-
-developed, even:taking on its own life, perhaps even-its own-I 4'
-- becoming its own bureaucracy that could, in fact, have.
5.
the result of preventing.us from seeing'our own problems, i
6 becomes so, so abstract and so, at the same_ time, forceful 1
7 on the staff 1from, as Commissioner Rogers said, the top down
[
81
-that we don't find the problems and we wind up with the
~
i 9
opposite effect.
t i
10 I should just suggest that'you really go back,
[
11 restudy,,re-review the DSI and the intent that's in it, try 12-to, simplify the process, and perhaps even look at outside I
i 13 the Agency.
I.mean, we almost may be; reinventing the wheel.
l t
14 Other, perhaps, agencies or industriesDor groups;have done-15 this, have found what is an effective program,.and might be 16 somewhat helpful to us as we try to really address what is i
17 in the-DSI.
1 18' We have a lot of rather detailed questions which I j
19 won't go into at this time.
They may surface if. we cp3 20 forward with this SECY, on the vote on it, but I would just-t 21 suggest kind'of
--.I think you need to go back and re-review
.22 what the intent is here.
[
23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Commissioner Diaz, 24 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
I think I would like to say i
25 that I was kind of anxious about the value of this meeting I
i r
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300
- Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 1
n 2.,-.,
c c_,
- -. -...... ~... _ - - -.. - - -
52 l'
when I saw the documents this morning.
I think this has a
2 been a very valuable meeting because it.has shown a great 3-disconnect between the way the staff was thinking and I i
4 think the way the Commission was thinking,-and in that-
.5 sense, I think that's of tremendous-value, rather than 6
thinking that we were,'you know, arguing about points, I 7
think it's extremely important.
F I would like to go back and try to go back to, t
9 again, this issue of excellence and effectiveness, and I i
10 think that Mr. Jordan, you'know, really clarified, you know, 11 why the narrowness of the' approach -- because I think you i
12 said, and I don't-know whether I'm quoting, but it's close, 13 that you were focusing on the issue of the design basis, and 14
.that drove, you know, your intention of avoiding, you know,
.15 significant gaps in the design basis and who that drives the 16 17 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
.18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
-- regulatory effectiveness.
19 And I think that's the main issue, is that we actually 20 envisioned-something much more comprehensive, much more 21 holistic that actually, you know, pervaded the organization 22 and the structures and not just, you know, focusing on the l
23 design basis issue, which is an important issue, but it's 24 not the only issue.
With that, I think that showed the c
25-disconnect.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
l i
a l
53 l
4 1
A final point is that, you know, to summarize my l
2 perspective of what we wanted in very simple words is we l
3 really wanted to have a QA of the NRC that considered 1
l 4
everything that we're doing and it involved, you know, 5
everybody.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Mr. Jordan, you wanted to make 7
a comment?
8 MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
I wanted to clarify that by 9
raising the design basis issue, it was an example of the 10 kind of problem that we want to avoid, not that we want to 11 probe further into that particular problem that's already 12 been exposed.
So that was the intent of using that as an 13 example.
14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Oh, I'm sorry.
I understood 15 when you said it that it actually meant that when you 16 thought of the process and when you were put in this, the 17 main driving component was to address the design basis 18 issue.
19 MR. JORDAN:
Not at all.
20 COMMISSIONER DIAZ:
Okay.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSD"-
Comment?
22 MR. MARTIN:
Nu I think Ed clarified that.
23 That's just one example.
As a matter of fact, that wasn't
]
24 even on our top 10 list, the hit parade, right now.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
I will try to be a l
l l
r I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
i 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 l
~ ~
~
54 i
i broken record-only briefly.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: LLet's try to break new ground.
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
The fundamental issue, l
4 as'other commissioners have said,. is the disconnect -- the 5
~ Chairman has said -- between what you're saying today and i
6 what we read in DSI-23.
7 I have DSI-23 in front of me, and the option 2 l
8 discussion, and I've re-read the couple of'pages while we've 9
been. sitting here this afternoon, and I can find a passing 3
i 10 phrase in the couple of pages of description of option 2.
11
.You know, eliminating barriers and minimizing 12 vulnerabilities occurs on page 11, and there's a place on
[
13 page 12 where you could justify arguably that some part of i
- 14 regulatory excellence is what you're talking about here 15 today.
But the vast majority of the discussion on those 16 pages is on something quite different.
17 My concerns, you know, in the last few viewgraphs' l
18 you went through -- the policy statement in this area, I i
don't know what it would be, and I'm not sure there's i
l
.19 20 anything I've heard today that rises to the level of a
[
21 policy statement, but I think there'were in DSI-23, there 22 might be.
23 But 50 percent of the resources -- I mean, if --
24-and it's apples and oranges, but the resources that were 25' going to implement DSI-23 that we were told about were on it l
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
I Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034
~
55 1
the order 18'to 30 FTEs, steady state, and zero to $2 2
million'of contractor support.. Well, you know, by the year
'3 20C0, you're talking about 17.5 FTEs in this area, which is 4
-most of 18 to 30, and most of the zero to $2 million of 5
contractor support.
6 So it strikes me that, you know, if you just. read 7
where the resources'are going, which is what I tend to do,'
8 coming out of the Hill, you're talking here about most of
-9 the response to the regulatory excellence DSI, and I was 10 much more interested in the long list of things that'were on 11 page 11, you-know, fundamental processes of the agency, core 12 processes of the agency, where we clearly have a long ways 13 to go to make improvement.
14 So that'is,-you-know, a heartfelt reaction to 15:
,seeing this paperwork in the last 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.
I'll leave it 16-at that.
17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
Well, you have heard it here 18 first.
I would like to thank you for what has been l
t 19 informative to the Commission, because I think it has given 20 the Commission some sense of where your thinking is as to 21 where you think you ought to go compared to what'the 22 Commission thought it wanted you to do.
23 So it's going to obviously give you guidance, but
'24 the Commission does owe it to you to let you try to 25 structure an appropriate process, and I think that, again, e
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20005
~
(202) 842-0034 1
~
56 1
you have to give_a_ positive definition to what regulatory l
2.
effectiveness is and how that ties to regulatory excellence L
'3
'as laid out in DSI-23,.and how whatever it is you 4
_specifically lay out'to do programmatically. derives from 5
those elements of that DSI, because that is,-you know, kind I
6 of the template, and how what you're' proposing to do 7
facilitates that,'you know, how it's tied to the major t
8 elements of that DSI, how it ties into what the program 9
offices or the Agency as a whole does, and how the offices 10 under your specific purview inform that process.
11 If you are going to. develop.a policy statement, it 12 gives you the opportunity to make this kind of a tie-in.
If 13 you are going to develop a management directive,.it gives 14 you the opportunity tol talk about.how what you're going-to 15
.be doing ties to the elements of-the DSI as well as how the 16 connection is to what -- you know, the major programs and 17.
people of the NRC.
18 If you're going to implement a program to collect 19 the performance information,.again, it gives you the 20 opportunity to talk about how the offices in your specific 21 purview tie into that and how that, in fact, strengthens the 22 existing day-to-day regulatory programs.
23 So with that, I'll just leave it at that,-and 24 we're adjourned.
25
[Whereupon, at 4 :29 p.m., the briefing adjourned.]
o ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300 i-Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 842-0034 I-
.o CERTIFICATE 4
This is to certify that the attached description-of a meeting of the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
t TITLE OF MEETING:
BRIEFING ON PROGRAM TO IMPROVE REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS - PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING:
Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING:
Wednesday, May 14, 1997 was held'as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of I
the meeting, and that this is the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company l
Transcriber: /[
i u
M, e
n r- -
Reporter:
l l
l r
i i
Tc.>8 R EGy s
e Q,,,R i
%+++
REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS PROGRAM t
Edward L. Jordan Thomas O. Martin t
I t
May 14,1997 i
l I
i
i i
BACKGROUND t
- Recent reorganization established Deputy Executive e
Director for Regulatory Effectiveness
- Insights associated with reactor facilities in northeast United States
)
- Enhancement of regulatory excellence addressed as part of the Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Project DSI-23
- COMSECY-96-067 asked for a comprehensive, systematic, agency-wide approach to program l
assessment and improvement j
2 i
l
h i
GOAL AND CONCEPT l
J Goal:
improve NRC's regulatory-focus and performance f
Concept:
- Proceed on 3 parallel paths for identification and assessment of issues
- Provide constructive feedback to improve regulatory j
j programs
- Recognize program office internal assessment and
)
ongoing improvement programs
- Recognize OlG audits and staff commitments 3
i
PARALLEL PATHS I
Develop and implement an independent Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment Staff (REAS)
Develop a methodology to compile and display regulated activities against regulatory measures and activities (RES)
Compile regulatory performance objective measures, trends and data (AEOD,01, OE, RES) l i
4 I
L 1
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES I
- Provide a quality assurance oversight of NRC regulatory activities e improve the clarity, coherency, consistency, and l
technical quality of NRC regulatory activities
- Improve emphasis of regulatory oversight based on risk
- Involve a broad range of regulatory areas
)
- Identify issues at a low level before they become l
more significant problems i
l
- Improve public confidence in NRC activities l
l 5
+-
t SCOPE OF ISSUES 1
t i
Issues of interest may include any NRC regulatory l
program, regulation, or activity that:
1
- lacks technical justification;
- is inconsistent or not complementary; i
e lacks clarity,
- is underemphasized or overemphasized relative to l
the risk involved; or
- does not accomplish its intended purpose.
Rnitial development will focus on power reactors.
i i
i 6
i
l l
l t
i i
l SOURCES AND SELECTION OF ASSESSMENT AREAS
- Regulatory Matrix AssessmentTool, performance information, and stakeholder input
- Input by e-mail address, webdte, 'and mailing address
- Areas will be prioritized and the Commission will be informed i
7
e L
POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT AREAS REGMAT Water Chemistry Unique Design Features DATA / EXPERIENCE l
Workplace Environment / Culture SurveillanceTesting Severity Level IV Enforcement Consistency l
REAS Training of Inspection Staff Inspection Program Plant Assessments SurveillanceTesting I
i 8
i c
d PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS ll I
Optimum balance of site and in-office activities l
extensive preparation and review i
utilize highly experienced reviewers build upon experience from Millstone anc MaineYankee j
efforts comparison made to relevant results of normal programs e
(e.g., inspection, enforcement, training) will involve review of a selected set of issues at 2-3 plants t
licensees will not be individually billed under Part 170 i
e may include innovative methods j
9 f
l l
l l
i i
HANDLING REGULATORY I
~
EFFECTIVENESS FINDINGS Findings of health and safety impact will immediately j
be given to the region and licensee Causes and recommendations will be provided Findings will be provided in a report from the REAS to the DEDO for Regulatory Effectiveness l
DEDO will transmit the findings to the DEDO for Regulatory Programs
'l The DEDO Regulatory Programs will issue action to j
the program office t
f The EDO will resolve areas of disagreement l
REAS will follow-up on adequacy of closeout j
to 4
I h
i
- Regulatory (REGMATl Matrix AssessmentTool l
t
- Develop workplace environment and safety attitude assessment tool AEOD
- Lead for compilation of performance information j
- Provide input to REAS of assessment areas and j
potential regulatory effectiveness findings l
i
- Conduct case studies of regulatory issues i
11
}
i ROLE OF DEDO OFFICES (CONTINUED)
\\
- Develop insights of licensee and industry performance from enforcement j
- Develop regulatory effectiveness insights from l
enforcement i
Ol
- Develop insights on licensee and industry performance from investigations
- Develop regulatory effectiveness insights from j
investigations i
2 t
?
a IMPLEMENTATION PLAN i
Assemble Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment Staff F-Develop a Commission policy statement t
Develop a draft Management Directive J
Implement programs to collect performance i
information i
Develop a regulatory matrix assessment tool l
i t
I, I
r 13
{
i h
I l
f i
.(
i l
lMPLEMENTATION PLAN (CONTINUED) r e Establish process for public and industry input to Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment Staff l
e Develop a prioritized list of regulatory effectiveness j
assessment areas Begin assessments i
e R_
f 14 f
m
i i
I i
i i
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
)
Infrastructure - 7 FTE in FY 98 and 8 FTE in FY99 l
(SES manager,6 technical staff,1 clerical) l h
Full implementation - Additional 8.5 FTE 1
l 1
- $1300K I
i t
t h
I t
15 s
. - _ = _ - _ _ _.
_