ML20151C734
| ML20151C734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Durenberger D, Sikorski G HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151C737 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804130149 | |
| Download: ML20151C734 (2) | |
Text
1 ppK
- f
',o, UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3m W A$HING T ON. D. c. 20555 3
e o
'5,..... J March 17, 1988 CHAIRMAN f
The Honorable Gerry Sikorski United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Sikorski:
This is in response to your request of January 14, 1988, for l
clarification of the NRC's position on mandatory relocation of Resident Inspectors and how that position has evolved since the 1983 U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) repcrt, "NRC Needs i
i Alternative to Mandatory Relocation for Maintaining Objectivity of Resident Inspectors."
Based on experience incurred since that report, the agency has now set the desired resident inspector tour length at 5 years.
This is in keeping with a policy of maintaining inspector objectivity, providing for a fresh and vigorous look at reactor operations, and developing a pool of highly qualified inspectors who could eventually brino their field experience back to the Regional Offices and Headquarters.
[
The NRC's concern with maintaining a proper balance between meeting the needs of the agency and the desires of individual inspectors has not changed.
Application of the relocation policy will take into account the personal needs of a resident inspector and will be evaluated by management on a case-by-case basis.
A brief discussion of the evolution of the resident inspector progran and how the NRC has arrived at this current policy is summarized in the following paragraphs.
In 1981, the resident program was expanded from an initial trial program to the assignment of one resident to each site.
This
(
staffing was judged to enhance the agency's safety mission by having the full time presence of an inspector, with site specific l
knowledge, at each reactor facility.
This was a significant j
inprovement over the practice of exclusively conducting
)
inspections by Region-based personnel who could spend only e limited amount of time at the site.
A lingering concern over the program's effectiveness was the possible loss of objectivity by a resident inspector working at a remote location in daily contact with a licensee staff.
Agency policies preclude any social interaction with licensee personnel, which creates both personal and family hardships at the more remote sites.
In response to this concern, the tour of duty was initially limited to three years.
During the initial staffing effort, the nation was experiencing a period of high inflation and rising mortgage rates that affected the ability of government agencies to c.dequately reimburse their employees for '.he increased costs of relocation.
This situation 8804130149 1B0317 COMMS nRCC PDR CORRESPONDE NCE PDR
\\
e i
l l
s i
+ l was a factor in a high turnover rate of approximately 17 percent I
of the inspectors initially assigned to resident positions.
At l
i the end of 1981, the tour length was extended from 3 to 5 years.
l and a 3-step within grade pay increase was granted to address ma,ior problems in recruiting and retaining resident inspectors.
The agency also began to recruit and assign more than one inspector to most sites in order to increase the scope of the L
safety inspection program, aid in maintaining objectivity, and enlarge the pool of experienced resident inspectors.
In 1982, the Executive Director for Operations authorized the i
i Regional Administrators to extend the 5-year resident inspector tour length on a case-by-case basis.
The agency was attempting to t
l balance a long range goal of periodic relocations that were considered desirable against the possibility of a high attrition rate and the associated cost of training replacements.
l
]
In recommending the development of an alternate approach to mandatory relocation, the 1983 GAO report noted that NRC manage-ment should maintain the prerogative to relocate individual j
residents when it is in the best interest of the NRC.
The Commission agrees with this recommendation.
However, with more than 4 years' additional experience since the report, the
)
Commission now believes that 5 years is an optimum time for resident inspector rotation.
This conclusion is largely based on discussions with personnel who have been resident inspectors and i
have since taken other agency positions.
They have commented that
(
ll it becomes difficult to maintain the proper outlook, perspective, i
i and level of performance after being immersed in a licensee's I
i program for this length of time.
We believe that the issue of financial hardship has been addressed with an expansion of the NRC's moving benefits in 1984, addition l
of a home purchasing service contract in 1987, and the continua-l i
tion of the 3-step within grade pay incentive while on site, l
Personnel now going to sites clearly understand that a 5-year tour length is intended, and personnel presently at sites will be l
relocated recognizing personal hardships as well as agency needs.
j j
Resident inspectors also know that the agency strongly desires to bring field-experienced people back into the Regional Offices and 5
4 Headouarters, and that a site tour as a resident inspector can j
significantly enhance career advancement within the argncv.
! hope this has been respensive to your inquiry, i
Sincerely, j
- 4. I h, J.
j t,ando W.
1 l
3
_=
[@tt0y UNITED STATES I
o 3
',)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w Asm NGTON. O. C. 20$$5
.l f
%, +.... s March 17, 1988 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Dave Ourenberger United States Senate Washington. 0.C.
20510
Dear Senator Durenberger:
This is in response to your request of January 25, 1988, for clarification of the NRC's position on mandatory relocation of Resident inspectors and how that position has evolved since the 1983 U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) report, "NRC Needs Alternative to Pandatory Relocation for Maintaining Objectivity of Resident Inspectors."
Based on experience incurred since that report, the agency has now set the desired resident inspector tour length at 5 years.
This is in keeping with a policy of maintaining inspector objectivity, providing for a fresh and vigorous look at reactor operations, and developinq a pool of highly qualified inspectors who could eventually bring their field experience back to the Regional Offices and Headquarters.
L i
The NRC's concern with maintaining a proper balance between meeting the needs of the agency and the desires of individual inspectors has not changed.
Application of the relocation policy will take intc account the personal needs of a resident inspector and will be evaluated by management on a case-by-case basis.
A i
i brief discussion of the evolution of the resident inspector program and hcw the NRC has arrived at this current policy is j
j summarized in the following paragraphs, i
in 1981, the resident program was expanded from an initial trial program to the assignment of one resident to each site.
This i
staffing was judged to enhance the agency's safety mission by having the full time presence of an inspector, with site specific l
knowledge, at each reactor facility.
This was a significant l
improvement over the practice of exclusively conducting inspections by Region-based personnel who could spend only a limited amount of time at the site.
A lingering concern over the program's effectiveness was the possible loss of objectivity by a a
j resident inspector working at a remote location in daily contact with a licensee staff.
Agency policies preclude any social interaction with licensee personnel, which creates bnth personal and family hardships at the more remote sites.
In response to 4
this concern, the tour of duty was initially limited to three l
years.
During the initial staffing effort, the nation was experiencing a l
l period of high inflation and rising mortgage rates that affected the ability of government agencies to adeouately reimburse their i
employees for the increased costs of relocation.
This situation i
l l
l l
1
-?-
y was a factor in a high turnover rate of approximately 17 percent of the inspectors initially assigned to resident positions.
At the end of 1981, the tour length was extended f rori 3 to 5 years, and a 3-step within grade pay increase was granted to address major problems in recruiting and retaining resident inspectors.
l The agency also began to recruit and assign more than one l
inspector to most sites in order to increase the scope of the safety inspection program, aid in maintaining objectivity, and enlarge the pool of experienced resident inspectors.
In 1982, the Executive Director for Operations authorized the Regional Administrators to extend the 5-year resident inspector l
tour length on a case-by-case basis.
The agency was attempting to balance a long range goal of periodic relocations that were considered desirable against the possibility of a high attrition rate and the associated cost of training replacements.
i In recommending the developmont of an alternate approach to mandatory relocation, the 1983 GA0 report noted that NRC manage-ment should maintain the prerogative to relocate individual residents when it is in the best interest of the NRC.
The Commission agrees with this recommendation.
However, with more than 4 years' additional experience since the report, the Commission now believes that 5 years is an optimum time for resident inspector rotation.
This conclusion is largely based on discussions with personnel who have been resident inspectors and
[
have since taken other agency positions.
They have commented that it becomes di Uicult to maintain the proper outlook, perspective, and level of performance after being immersed in a licensee's program for this length of time.
)
l We believe that the issue of financial hardship has been addressed i
with an expansion cf the NRC's moving benefits in 1984, addition of a home purchasing service contract in 1987, and the continua-tion of the 3-step within grade pay incentive while on site.
l Personnel now going to sites clearly understand that a 5-year tour l
length is intended, and personnel presently at sites will be 4
relocated recognizing personal hardships as well as agency needs, j
Resident inspectors also know that the agency strongly desires to j
bring field-experienced people back into the Regional Offices and j
Headouarters, and that a site tour as a resident inspector can j
significantly enhance career advancement within the agency.
I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry.
Sincerely, j
O/. W 4 h, p.
I j
lando W.
l l
i 3
.. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _