ML20203D779
| ML20203D779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/01/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | J. J. Barton, Bliley T, Burton D, Chafee J, Inhofe J, Lew J, Murkowski F, Stevens T, Thompson F, Walker D, Young B GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, HOUSE OF REP., OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET, SENATE, SENATE, ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES, SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS, SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902160349 | |
| Download: ML20203D779 (24) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . .
b km UNITED STATES 8
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 4001
- February 1, 1999 cunnun The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations conceming the NRC which were in reports issued by i
j the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resoMng and i
completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, l
1998.
Sincerely, i
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions l
j cc: Senator Robert C. Byrd 1
i
%r
(,) j 9902160349 990201 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
.za. =, ; '. w . :. - -
-[a ns.% UNITED STATES y %, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20086-4001 ;
. . i
%***** February 1, 1999 )
l l
i The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman l Committee on Govemmental Affairs United States Senate !
Washington, D.C. 20510 l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
(NRC) in response to recommendations conceming the NRC which were in reports issued by J
the General Accounting Office. This summary, wh'ch is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, 1998.
I Sincerely,
[ L% r0 Shirley Ann Jackson Enclosutt :
Summey of NRC Actions cc: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman l
4 i
l I
.- .-._=;. ....;. .= .;; :: ; . ,- .m ..;;
. ,~ ; - - - - -.
l l9 i UNITED STATES t
- ' p s\ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
}, g wAsmNGToN, D.C. abMHOD1 ;
- g
- e.... February 1, 1999 l i cnAse4AN !
1 l l
l l
i The Honorable C.W. Bill Young, Chairman Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 3
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations concoming the NRC which were in reports issued by the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resoMng and completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, .
1998.
Sincerely, b
Enclosure:
i Summary of NRC Actions cc: Representative David Obey l
I
_._--..___ _ __._ _..~ _ .
t A UNITED STATES p \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20t&4001
..... Februaty 1, 1999 i
l l
l The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman Committee on Govemment Reform and Oversight United States House of Representatives
. Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l (NRC) in response to recommendations concoming the NRC which were in reports issued by l the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law l 91-510, the ' Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and i completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, ;
1998. 4 Sincerely, MA Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
Summaryof NRC Actions cc: Representative Henry Waxman
.N UNITED STATt!S y \j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
, g <
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20sss-0001 l
4
,,,,. February 1, 1999 CHAIMMN
)
The Honorab!s James M. Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works ,
United States Senate l Washington, D.C. 20510 j
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations conceming tne NRC which were in reports issued by the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and completing the recommendations since our latt summary report submitted on January 28, 1998.
Sincerely, i Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc: Senator Bob Graham i
1
^ ~ ' * -
- . _ :,; .;...; 6 ,;. .
- UNITED STATES g \ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
< WASHINGTON, D.C. Rf 36-0001
,,,,, February 1, 1999 l
l l
l The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power ;
Committee on Commerce j United States House of Representatives !
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law l l
91-510, the
- Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and )
completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, 1998.
Sincerely, !
k f': -
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc: Representative Ralph Hall
... m m _. :_. .- - - ~ ~ -- c--
. 1 j8**%$ UNITED STATES
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-0001 l 5
% ,,,,, February 1, 1999 CHA N4AN The Honorable Tom Bliley, Chairman Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
i l
l am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i (NRC) in response to recommendations concoming the NRC which were in reports issued by i
the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resoMng and j completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, 1998. l Sincerely,
&fL j Shirley Ann Jackson
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions cc: Representative John D. Dingeli e
. ::= - - ^
. . . .. .. . :. ; ~.:: ;,' . . " * -
~ - " -
I UNITED STATES ,
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l g WASHINGTON, D.C. 30006 0001 l
\ e....# Febr'uary 1, 1999 3 CHmM f The Honorable John H. Chafee, Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations concoming the NRC which were in reports issued by the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the "Lefslative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resoMng and completing th6 : >mmendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, 1998. !
Sincerely, L % t ._ ,
I i Shirley Ann Jackson 4 Erdosure:
Summaryof NRC Actions cc: Senator Max Baucus '
. = . ~ -.........a. - - -
l p
[*\ \ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 0001
. e-February 1, 1999 I CHANNAN l
I I
The Honorable Frank Murkowski, Chairman Committee on Energy and Natural Resources - ,
United States Senate l l
Washington, D.C. 20510 j
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing a s'Jmmary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by
', the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law i 1
91510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and !
completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, 1998.
Sincerely, j 1
~
Enclosure:
Summaryof NRC Actions 1 l
i cc: SenatorJeff Bingaman
. l 1
~ _ _ -
o I UNITED STATES
,\
p "
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 30808-4001 5 ! .
t l
- February 1, 1999 l cunmu '
i l
The Honorable David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
Dear Mr. Walker:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)in response to recommendations concerning the NRC which were in reports issued by the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law i 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, l 1998.
Sincerely, j
Enclosure:
Summaryof NRC Actions I
1 L
. . . - . - - w.a. u . a .> . u.. -
/ 1 UNITED STATES
. p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 4001
- t
- ..
- February 1, 1999 CHAMMAN .
l
\
The Honorable Jacob J. Lew Director, Office of Management and Budget Washington, D.C. 20503 1
Dear Mr. Lew:
I am enclosing a summary of actions taken by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to recommendations conceming the NRC which were in reports issued by the General Accounting Office. This summary, which is required by Section 236 of Public Law 91-510, the " Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970," includes progress made on resolving and completing the recommendations since our last summary report submitted on January 28, 1998.
Sincerely, i
Enclosure:
Summary of NRC Actions l l l
- - - - - - - - ~-- - --
=: .x . . :. . . . . . - - -
i t
SUMMARY
OF NRC ACTIONS RESPONSE TO GAO REPORTS :
t
- 1. NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria Need A-2 l' to be Strengthened
- 2. Nuclear Regulation Action Needed to Control Radioactive A4 Contamination at Sewage Treatment Plants
- 3. Nuclear Employee Safety Concerns: Allegation System A6 Offers Better Protection, But important lasues Remain -
- 4. Nuclear Regulation - Preventing Problem Plants Requires A-9 More Effective NRC Action ;
l
?
l l
e f
l A-1 !
i GAO Report - NRC's Decommissioning Procedures and Criteria Need to be Strengthened May 1989 (GAO/RCED-89-119)
Recommendation No. 2 (Chapter 5)
The GAO report recommended that NRC ensure that licensees decontaminate their facilities in accordance with NRC's guidance before fully or partially releasing a site for unrestricted use.
NRC Response of September 26.1989 an# Current Update The NRC agreed. Our response reported that licensees are required to decontaminate their facilities in a safe manner prior to release for unrestricted use. We expanded the scope of our confirmatory surveys to verify that licensees adequately decontaminate their facilities in accordance with NRC's guidance and criteria. Our inspectors and agency contractors have been trained and equipped to perform such verification surveys during closeout inspections to confirm the accuracy of the licensees' surveys. In addition, the NRC committed to revise existing guidance to clarify the scope and rigor of verification surveys conducted to ensure that licensees decontaminate their facilities in accordance with our guidance before the NRC fully or partially releases a site for unrestricted use. This guidance was published for interim use and comment as NUREG/CR-5849 in July 1992, and a rotice of availability was published in the Federal Register (57 FR 33374).
The NRC staff participated in a cooperative effort with the Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a site survey manual that could be used by a!! four agencies. A draft of this document, entitled the " Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual" (MARSSIM), was issued for public comment as NUREG-1575 in December 1996. Based on the public comments received, a final version of the MARSSIM was published in January 1998. The MARSSIM effectively supersedes NUREG/CR-5849. The MARSSIM guidance is referenced in the draft decommissioning guide discussed below.
In March 1997, NRC published a Decommissioning Handbook (NUREG/BR 0241) to facilitate decommissioning of nuclear material facilities in a consistent manner, and in accordance with all applicable regulatory guidance. NUREG/BR 0241 references the following inspection Procedures which were also developed to guide the staff in performing confirmatory surveys during closeout inspections: (1) Inspection Manual Chapter 2605, Decommissioning Procedures for Fuel Cycle and Materials Licensees; (2) Inspection Procedure (IP) 87104, Decommissioning inspection Procedure for Materials Licensees; (3) IP 88104, Decommissioning Inspection Procedure for Fuel Cycle Facilities; and, (4) IP 83890, Closeout and inspection Survey.
To provide clear criteria for licensees to use in the decontamination of their facilities, the NRC issued a final rule on radiological criteria for license termination for licensees other than uranium recovery licensees on July 21,1997 (62 FR 39058). This rule contains acceptable levels for release of a site for unrestricted use, as well as requirements for release of a site with restrictions on future use.- The rule also contains requirements for public participation in the license termination process. To ensure finality for sites cleaned up to these NRC or equivalent A-2 l I
1
i .
Agreement State standards and thus to provide further incentives to licensees to meet those standards, the NRC proposed amendments to CERCLA (Superfund) re-authorization legislat'en 7 l
that would recognize NRC's or an Agreement State's standards as being adequately protective and sufficient to allow license termination and release of decontaminated sites.
1 A separate rulemaking effort to promulgate radiological criteria for license termination for l uranium recovery licenses is currently underway. The final rulemaking plan is expected to be l provided to the Commission in February 1999. Criteria for mill tailings disposal and soil cleanup are contained in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A.
l The staff issued draft guidance for licensees to demonstrate compliance with the final rule in August 1998. This guidance was issued for use and comment for a two-year period.
Concurrent with the review period, the NRC staff is developing a standard review plan that describes how NRC will review applications for license termination. During this time the staff will meet regularly with the public to receive comments on the draft guidance. At the end of the two year period, the staff will revise the guidance and issue it in final form in July 2000.
While NRC will be revising its guidance over the next two years in response to public comments and public workshops held on this topic, the regulations and guidance in response to this
! recommendation are in place and being used to decommission NRC-licensed facilities.
l This GAO recommendation is closed with respect to NRC licenses other than uranium recovery licensees, for which NRC is in the process of finalizing license termination criteria specific to these licensees.
1 l !
I l
l i
A-3 i
l
F . i GAO Report- Nuclear Regulation l Action Needed to Control Radioactive Contamination i at Sewage Treatment Plants j
- May 1994 :
(GAO/RCED-94-133) l j
Recommendation No.1 Determine the extent to which radioactive contamination of sewage sludge, ash, and related byproducts is occurring.
NRC Response of August 22.1994 and Current Undate The NRC is continuing to evaluate the extent to which radioactive contamination of sewage sludge, ash, and related byproducts is occurring. Initial results of NRC inspections and research analysis conducted in the mid- to-late-1980s indicated that the problem was limited to only a few treatment plants that served licensees engaged in certain well-defined activities. As a result, NRC regulations (10 CFR,Part 20) were revised in 1991 to prohibit the discharge of liquids containing radioactive waste materials that tended to settle out of the sewage water.
In addition to the changes to our regulations, in 1993 we initiated additional studies to understand the complexities of radioactive material reconcentration, such as the possible effects of implementation of state-of-the-art sewage treatment technologies on materials that, under traditional treatment methods, did not reconcentrate. In a letter dated October 11,1994, NRC and EPA notified water and radiological officials of all States of the potential for reconcentration of radioisotopes in sanitary sewer systems.
Currently, the NRC is working with EPA and other interested parties to develop a national approach for ensuring the protection of treatment workers and the public. Through the .
Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards,' NRC and EPA are currently developing a national survey of sewage treatment plants to assess the extent of radioactive contamination in sludge and ash. A pilot survey of nine facilities is complete, the full survey received OMB clearance in June 1998, and questionnaires will be sent to sewage treatment plant operators in early 1999.
In addition, NRC and EPA are developing guidance on radioactive material in sewage sludge and ash. NRC and EPA made a preliminary draft of the guidance document available to the public in May 1997 and are revising the document to reflect public comments.
The NRC received a number of comments in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register in February 1994, soliciting information and suggestions in the area of sewer disposal of radioactive materials. The NRC staff is evaluating these responses, as well as information obtained from contracting efforts to evaluate the
" potential for radioactive material to concentrate in sewage sludge. The staff will develop a more A-4 e . . _ _ .. _ _ _ _ ._
realistic model to evaluate the sewer pathway after results of the sewage survey are available.
The staff will determine whether revision to Part 20 is needed after completion of the modeling work.
This GAO recommendation remains open.
Recommendation No. 3 Establish acceptable limits for radioactivity in sludge, ash, and related by-products to ensure the health and safety of treatment workers and the public.
NRC Response NRC agrees that it is important to have acceptable limits for radioactive materials in sludge, ash, and related by-products. We will continue to work with EPA and sewerage operators to develop a national approach to this issue and ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety. The current EPA standards for sewage sludge (40 CFR 503) do not include radionuclides.
The NRC solicited comments on policy issues associated with the release of radioactive materials to sanitary sewers (see 59 FR 9146). In addition, modeling efforts have just begun to evaluate the possible pathways of migration of contaminants in sludge and ash. We also intend to address the possible uses of the slightly contaminated sludge and ash in commercial products such as fertilizers and the dose effects of these uses.
In any rulemaking activities associated with release of radioactive materials to sewers, the NRC will consider the various pathways whereby the public could receive a radiation dose, including doses due to exposure to radioactivity in sludge and ash. The NRC will consider rulemaking for the disposal of radioactive material by licensees into the sewer system after completing its analysis of the results of the NRC/ EPA sewage survey, which is currently scheduled to be completed in 2000.
This GAO recommendation remains open.
A-5
.- . : . _.. = : n.ru - .u . ; ; - = - -
GAO Report -_ Nuclear Employee Safety Concems:
Allegation System Offers Better Protection, But important lasues Remain March 1997 (GAO/HEHS-97-51)
The General Accounting Office (GAO),in its report ' NUCLEAR EMPLOYEE SAFETY CONCERNS - Allegation System Offers Better Protection, but important issues Remain," made specific recommendations for improving the timeliness of the Department of Labor's allegations processing, the NRC's ability to monitor the allegation process, and the NRC's imowledge of the work environment at nuclear power plants. The recommendations and the NRC's responses are provided below.
Recommendation 1 To improve the time'iness of Labor's processing, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor establish and meet realistic timeliness standards for all three steps in its process for investigating discrimination complaints by employees in the nuclear power industry.
NRC Resoonse:
DOL's comments on the draft legislation that would establish realistic timeliness standards have been incorporated and the final draft is in the NRC concurrence process. The final draft was submitted to the Commission for approval on December 31,1998.
This GAO recommendation remains open.
Recommendation 2 To improve the NRC's ability to monitor the allegation process, we recommend that the Chairman, NRC, complete the implementation of the NRC review team's recommendation to establish and operate the revised Allegation Management System (AMS) in all organizational components within the NRC. We also recommend that the Chairman, NRC, and the Secretary of Labor coordinate information on the status of cases at Labor.
NHC Resoonse:
We believe the AMS currently performs the functions recommended by GAO. A recent upgrade to the software provides for linking allegations to related escalated enforcement actions. Additionally, the NRC staff that has a need for the information have been provided access to the data base. The upgrades to the information systems used by the Offices of Enforcement and inv'estigations to improve the efficiency of sharing data are continting as budget and resources permit.
i With regard to the recommendation that NRC and DOL coordinate information on the status of
! complaints at DOL, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) continues to provide a list of complaints filed, along with current status, on a quarterly basis. NRC uses the list to verify that we are aware of the complaints filed and current status, and that the
+
A-6
. -. ..~. . - . . .
complaints are being tracked in the AMS. DOL continues to provide the NRC with copies of all decisions issued by the Administrative Law Judge and the Administrative Review Board.
Since OSHA numbers their cases, the NRC is able to track complaints filed with DOL as they progress through the DOL process. A Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and the Department of Labor to further cooperative efforts was executed in September 1998 (67 F.R. 57324). ,
l This GAO recommendation is considered closed.
Recommendation 3 To improve NRC's knowledge of the work environment at nuclear power plants, we recommend that the Chairman, NRC, ensure the implementation of recommendations to provide information on the extent to which the environment in nuclear power plants is favorable for employees to report health or safety hazards without fear of discrimination. This would include recommendations on tracking and monitoring allegation cases and settlements, routinely providing feedback forms in allegation case close out correspondence, systematically following up on chilling effect letters, and using a survey or other systematic method of obtaining information from employees.
NRC Resoonse:
The NRC is currently tracking, monitoring, and trending allegations for the purpose of providing insights into the freedom of employees at nuclear power plants to raise safety concerns both to their management and the NRC without fear of retaliation. The AMS is used to track, monitor, i and trend settlements that occur during the DOL process and chilling effect letters issued by the l NRC. l I
With respect to including feedback forms in closure correspondence, the feedback forms were mased to another random sample of allegers in December 1997. The staff has analyzed the l' responses and is considering options and evaluating the resource implications of those options, given recent and future budget restrictions. The staff received 44 responses, a response rate of 29%. Of the 44 responses,27 (61%) were positive and 17 (39%) contained negative comments. Among the negative comments, untimely action by the staff was mentioned by four respondents, but was no longer the most frequent complaint.' At the time of this survey, the average time to close allegations had been reduced to 145 days for those involving only l
technical concems and 354 days for those involving wrongdoing. The most frequent complaint was that allegers either disagreed with or took issue with the agency's technical findings, the quality of the inspection or investigation, or the ultimate resolution of their allegation. This response is not unexpected since the staff only substantiates 35 to 37 percent of the allegations i
recolved. No respondent expressed a concem about an inappropriate disclosure of their identity. The staff plans to submit options and recommendations to the Commission for consideration in February 1999.
With respect to recommendations for evaluating the environment at licensee facilities, the staff submitted a number of options to the Commission in SECY 98-176, " Proposed Options for Assessing a Licensee's Safety Conscious Work Environment." The options ranged from NRC ;
developing and administering a survey to discontinuing any effort to assess license work environments. On September 1,1998, the Commission informed the staff that it had selected A-7
. .._ , . ,, , 3, , c ,._
r l
l an option that is essentially the status quo, assessing licensee work environments using current tools on a case-by-case as needed basis. The Commission agreed with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the Union of Concemed Scientists (UCS) that the necessary mechanisms are already in place to ensure that licensees maintain a safety conscious work environment.
However, the Commission believes it is important to have the modest assessment capability provided by this option.
The GAO recommendations related to tracking and monitoring allegation cases and settlements, systematically following up on chilling effect letters, and using a survey or other systematic method of obtaining information from employees are closed. The GAO recommendation related to routinely providing feedback forms in allegation case closeout I correspondence remains open.
i l
l
)
l 4
1 1
i A-D
_,_.7
.,7 4
GAO Report - Nuclear Regulation - Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC Action May 1997 (GAO-RCED-97-145)
The General Accounting Office (GAO), in its report " Nuclear Regulation-- Preventing Problem Plants Requires More Effective NRC Action," recommended several actions for the U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in order to develop strategies to more aggressively act on safety deficiencies when they are discoered. These recommendations, and the NRC's ,
responses to them, are provided below.
Recommendation 1 Require inspection reports to fully document for all plants the status of the licensee's actions to address identified problems under NRC's corrective action requirements, including timetables for the completion of corrective actions and how NRC will respond to nonconformances with
- planned actions.
NRC Response:
During the review of the NRC's processes for strengthening the inspechon of licensees'
. corrective action programs, the NRC received additional input and feedback. The input from various stakeholders and a subsequent congressional hearing indicated other factors, including an overall performance improvement by the nuclear industry, should be considered.
Consolidation of these comments resulted in a delay of the June 30,1998 implementation date of the original NRC commitment to strengthen its processes for assessing the effectiveness of j the licensees' corrective action programs.. A proposed interim change to the enforcement program resulted from the stakeholders' comments that gave credit to the licensees' corrective l action program by not citing violations of very low or no risk significance (Severity Level IV) provided certain criteria are met.' The interim change would reduce unnecessary burden from the licensees by not requiring a response for these violations. The proposed change will also 1 eliminate the poMntial for inappropriate prioritization of corrective actions for violations cited by ;
the NRC that may have very low safety / risk significance over that for issues of higher l significarice in the IEensee's corrective action program (cited violations of NRC requirements require a 30-day responssfrom the licensee that must describe the corrective actions). The proposed policy change was approved by the Commission in January 1999.
Consistent with the above change, an inspection program change has been developed for ,
implementation by the beginning of CY 1999. The interim change strengthens the inspection of licensees
- corrective action programs by requiring a more frequent review. A risk-informed sample of NRC and licensee identified issues will be reviewed periodically to ensure the i licensee has taken appropriate corrective actions. This review is in addition to the programmatic review performed via inspection Procedure 40500 at two year intervals and inspection of the licensee's corrective actions for a cited violation. The revision also emphasizes verification that licensees implement corrective actions on a schedule ;
commensurate with the risk and safety significance of the issue. The above change is interim. 1 in addition, the NRC has undertaken an integrated review of its current inspection, enforcement and assessment process. The Commission was briefed on this process, which is expected to A-9
_. =_...u_ .... .
A result in a consolidated risk-informed, performance-based program, on January 20,1999. The Commission's final action on this new program will be taken following a public comment period on the staff's recommendations.
In the area of managing commitments made by licensees to the NRC, the staff is developing guidance for determining the appropriate placement of the information within the various licensing basis documents associated with licensed facilities (i.e., the license or technical specifications, the updated FSAR, program description documents, or docketed correspondence without formal regulatory controls). The insights gained from several activities, including audits of licensees' commitment management programs at eight reactor facilities, were used to determine that no changes to NRC policy or regulations are warranted. In addition, the staff has undertaken discussions with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to determine what changes in their guidance document, " Guideline for Managing NRC Commitments," might be mutually beneficial for licensees and the NRC staff. The staff informed the Commission of its efforts in this area in a report dated September 28,1998 (SECY-98-224," Staff and industry Activities Pertaining to the Management of Commitments Made by Power Reactor Licensees to the NRC").
In previous correspondence, the staff emphasized changes in commitment management processes to address perceived problems with the enforceability of commitments made by licensees and ways to ensure that important commitments were made into legally binding requirements. The audits of licensee programs did not identify significant problems with the implementation or maintenance of commitments made to the NRC staff but found that some licensees were treating too much information related to routine corrective actions as commitments to the NRC staff. Such over-classification of ancillary information could unnecessarily divert both licensee and NRC staff resources. As a result, the staff has revised its plans in this area to focus on improving the definitions used in the area of commitment management and to ensuring the appropriate placement and associated controls for licensing basis information. The staff is coordinating its activities in the commitment management area with other initiatives related to managing licensing basis information (e.g., the updated final safety analysis report) and improving the incorporation of risk-informed / performance-based insights into the regulatory process.
The staff plans to complete its interactions with NEl and other stakeholders and prepare internal guidance related to the control of licensing basis information and commitment management by September 1999.
This GAO recommendation remains open.
Recommendation 2 Make licensee respo~nsiveness to identified problems a major feature of the information provided to the participants of the Senior Management Meetings (SMM), including how NRC will respond if problems go uncorrected. For example, NRC should describe the range of sanctions that it will impose on the licensees on the basis of the potential seriousness of their failure to resolve problems within a predetermined time. These sanctions should range from assessing fines to im ofuntary shutdown of the plant.
A-10
NRC Response of August 18.19S7 gnd Current Update:
The NRC agrees that the licensee's responsiveness to identified problems is a critical
. performance criterion. The current NRC inspection and enforcement programs have well-established requirements that focus on this criterion. (See the response to GAO .
recommendation 1.)
The staff has recently strengthened the corrective action evaluation criteria found in the " Staff Guidelines for Restart Approval" (inspection Manual Chapter 0350), which is the guidance document used by the staff in ' assessing plants that are in an extended shutdown as a result of performance issues. In addition, it should be recognized that the NRC's Enforcement Policy
'already identifies sanctions for licensees that fall to resolve problems within a definitive period.
The Enforcement Policy also provides for matching sanctions for a violation to the safety and regulatory significance of the violation and establishes a graduated system of sanctions that include noncited violations, notices of violations, civil penalties, and orders to modify, suspend, or revoke s license. The NRC clearly imposes more substantial penalties for more significant
' problems. In determining the' significance of'a problem and the appropriate enforcement sanction, the established process also takes into consideration (1) the licensee's previous opportuF'y to identify and resolve the problem and (2) the length of time the problem remained unresolved because of the licensee's failure to take corrective actions.
In an effort to further improve the SMM process, the staff issued SECY-97-122, " integrated Review of the NRC Assessment Process for Operating Commercial Nuclear Reactors," on June 6,1997. This Commission Paper responded to several previous SRMs that directed the ~
staff to improve the objectivity, accuracy, and efficiency of the current assessment process and to evaluate the efficacy of defining and formalizing a unified licensee performance assessment program that integrated the various separate processes being utilized. Also, in parallel with the staff development of the Integrated Review of the NRC Assessment Process (IRAP) proposal, the industry developed an independent proposal for improvements to the assessment process.
This effort was led and coordinated by the Nuclear Energy institute (NEl), and resulted in a proposal that was fundamentally and philosophically different from the IRAP proposal.
In response to the NEl proposal, Commission comment on the IRAP proposal, and input from the July 17,1998, Commission meeting with public and industry stakeholders and the July 30, 1998, hearing before the Senate, the staff developed recommendations for improvements to the regulatory oversicht processes. All activities were fully coordinated and integrated and consisted of broad participation with members from private industry, NEl, Union of Concemed Scientists, other stakeholders, all four NRC regional offices, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Enforcement, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data.
As a result, a technical framework task group was formed to develop a revised regulatory oversight structure and to identify the performance indicatcrs (Pis) and appropriate thresholds that could be used to measure performance. Further, an inspection task group was formed to develop the scope, depth, and frequency of a risk-informed baseline inspection program that would be used to supplement and verify the Pls. Finally, an assessment process task group was formed to determine methods for the integration of Pi and inspection data, develop criteria for NRC action based on assessment results, and determine the best methods for the A-11
)
improve the enforceme.nt process were coordinated with these other three task group 6 to ensure that enforcement process changes were properly evaluated in the framework structure, and that changes to the inspection and assessment programs were integrated with changes to the enforcement program.
On January 8,1999, the staff issued a paper (SECY-99-007) to the Commission, which provided recommendations for improvement to the inspection, assessment, and enforcement processes and presents a transition plan for implementation of these recommended changes.
The Commissiun's final action on this new program will be taken following a public comment period on the staff's recommendations.
This GAO recommendation remains open.
Recommendation 3 Require that the assessment of management's competency and performance be a mandatory component of NRC's inspection process.
NRC Response:
NRC agrees that the performance of the licensee's management is an important contributor to the licensee's operational safety performance. Therefore, in response to the GAO report and as part of the NRC's effort to improve the Senior Management Meeting process, the staff investigated the development of management performance assessment tools for improving the current plant performance evaluation' methodology. This effort included two 1-wesk-long workshops in August 1997 and December 1997 involving NRC staff and experts from the research community. While the consensus of the workshop parti::ipants was that management and organizational factors do influence human performance and hardware operation, it was also decided that a management assessment based on the current inspection program data would not likely result in a leading indicator of plant performance nor in a comprehensive and direct assessment of licensee management performance.
On March 26,1998, the staff issued a paper (SECY-98-059) to the Commission in which it proposed five options for assessing the performance and competency of licensee management and delineated associated policy issues for the Commission's consideration and comment.
After considering the options contained in SECY-98-059, the Commission approved only those elements of the staff's option associated with the current staff practice of inferring licensee management performance from performance-based inspections, routine assessments, and event followup. The Commission also determined that efforts to develop leading indicators of performance should not use licensee management performance or competency as an input, and that the inspection program should focus on performance-based inspection findings. In addition, the Commission approved the elimination of any Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 resource expenditures specifically directed toward developing a systematic method of inferring management performance and ' disapproved any use of FY 1999 or FY 2000 resources for these purposes.
As a result, the NRC staff is currently implementing the inspection program as outlined, in part, which requires no additional inspection effort or resources above those required for A-12
\
l
implementing the original inspection program. The NRC staff will continue its practice of conducting performance-based inspections and, in the future, risk informed performance based inspections by observing the conduct of operations, the material condition of the plant, the performance of licensee personnel, the quality of engineering work, and the licensee's performance in problem identification and resolution. The NRC will continue to examine operational events to identify root causes, such as human error, design deficiencies, and administrative controls. The process for assessing plant performance will continue to be based on inspection findings, enforcement actions, operational events, and performance indicators. It has been and will remain the NRC's practice to conduct performance-based inspections in all areas of facility operation and design and, on the basis of the inspection results, to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the licensee's management.
This GAO recommendation is considered closed.
I l
1 I
l 4
l A-13
+
h*e e + -- -,-e