ML20196A972
| ML20196A972 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/15/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196A940 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-99-007-C, SECY-99-7-C, NUDOCS 9906230049 | |
| Download: ML20196A972 (4) | |
Text
.
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-007 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS Approved X_
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
ALJ cc~f a
i b,
4 SIGNATURE UU(J ()
1.5, lWl DATE Entered on "AS" Yes V No
- F288FsRee2" i
CORRESPONDENCE PDR i
) @ces to fi
'Ifi'
Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY-99-007 I join with the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners in commending the staff for their efforts in developing the proposed improvements to the reactor oversight process. I acknowledge that the concepts and scope of the changes presented are consistent with the intent of the SRMs referenced in the paper. I regard this as a " work in progress" and want to thank the Nuclear Energy Institute staff and Mr. David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists for their contributions to the new chersight program thus far.
As I indicated at the January 20 Commission briefing on this paper, I am particularly interested in how the staff will propose to close two major " holes" still remaining in the process as proposed. These " holes" are (1) the system for grading inspection findings and for combining inspection findings / indicators with performance indicators for an overall assessment of a cornerstone and (2) the complementary new enforcement process, briefly described by Mr. Lieberman at the recent Regulatory Information Conference. I believe that a further round of public comment will be required when these holes are filled since they are so I
central to the overall ovorsight process. I should note that I am not as sanguine as the staff that it will be straightforward to assign risk-informed thresholds for inspection findings.
With regard to specifics in the proposed process, I make the following comments:
1.
One of the great etrengths of the new process compared to the old should be in the area of public communications. The new process anticipates more frequent public meetings and more frequent public communications.
These should be modeled to the extent practical in the pilot program.
. 2.
. I pointed out at the January 20 Commission briefing that the new process envisions agency-action and regional-action plants. We will not call them
" watch list" plants. I am not at all troubled by the public release of the list of such plants at the annual Commission meeting, it is a natural element of the process and should be no surprise to any licensee or member of the public who follows our quarterly updates of inspection and performance Indicators. Not to release such a list would lead to public communications i
problems and would likely only result in someone in the public mining the available data on indicators and actual plant inspections above core to announce our "de facto" lists for us.
3.
I would recommend that the staff provide licensees (and the public) with fourth quarter assessments prior to the annual NRC senior management meeting (SMM) to aid licensees' efforts to address NRC concerns, to
. provide due process, and to insure against " surprises" coming out of the i
2 l
SMM. I agree with Mr. Lochbaum that " executive overrides" of the objective data at the SMM should be very rare (and very well-documented). Five percent is too high a success criterion.
4.
I would recommend the Commission be briefed annually following the SMM regardless of whether any plants are identified for agency-level action.
Given the transparency of the new process, I can envision public and industry comments at this meeting.
5.
I commend the staff for following previous Commission direction (in the SRM on SECY-98-045) on the need to include positive inspection findings in the assessment process. I recognize that most respondents stated that positive inspection findings should not be factored into the assessment process. But I continue to agree with the commenter who pointed out that
" failure to consider positive findings in those areas would tend to skew the outcome in the negative direction. The assessment process should treat all of the observations that are reported in a balanced manner." Positive inspection findings should continue to be recorded in the plant issues matrix (PIM) and should be weighed in reaching an overall Inspection indicator for each cornerstono.
1 6.
I concur in the continued suspension of the SALP process, provided the
)
staff continues to follow previous Commission guidance on having public j
meetings at least every two years on licensee performance. These meetings can utilize the plant performance reviews (PPRs) prepared in preparation for this years SMM.
7.
I am sympathetic to many of the comments already made about the performance indicators and the action thresholds for performance indicators. The performance indicators for emergency preparedness, security and containment leakage may not be meaningful. The
" unacceptable performance" threshold for unplanned scrams at 25 per 7000 hours0.081 days <br />1.944 hours <br />0.0116 weeks <br />0.00266 months <br /> critical is extremely high. It is defended on the grounds that numerous other indicators would be in the red before such performance
)
actually occurred. I don't find this argument compelling. I am also i
concerned that the white / yellow thresholds more broadly may be too high.
j If I am reading the benchmarking data in Appendix ! to Attachment 2 correctly, there are extremely few yellow band indicators for Watch List or declining trend plants. This implies that there will be very few plants in the J
new " agency action" category under the new oversight process, at least based on performance indicator inputs.
r 8.-
The Action Matrix (Table V, Attachment 1) was the subject of extensive j
-discussion at the January Commission briefing. I believe that many of the l
3 action levels need to be moved left to compart with current agency practice. For example, the Commission will not wait for " unacceptable" performance, especially given the high thresholds for red (and yellow) performance, before beginning regular meetings with senior licensee management to discuss performance.
us a
4 l
i i
l