ML20206F113
| ML20206F113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/06/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8704140131 | |
| Download: ML20206F113 (60) | |
Text
-
I T ORIGINAL
~~
~
C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON STRATEGIC PLAN (Public Meeting)
Location:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
Monday, April 6, 1987
(
Pages:
1 - 46 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 l
~
(
Washington, D.C. 20006
~
'(202) 293-3950 B704140131 870406 1
FR 59%.7 j
D
(
f 1
D i SCLA I MER 2
3 4
5 6
This is an unofficial transcript.of a' meeting of the 7
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on a
4/iG6/S7 In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9
' N. tJ., tJash i ng t on,
D.C.
The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain (7
12 inaccuracies.
IS The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.105, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorize.
23 24 O
e 25
s 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(~
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON NRC STRATEGIC PLAN 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Room 1130 10 1717 H Street, Northwest 11 Washington, D.C.
12 13 Monday, April 6, 1987 14 15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 2:00 p.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman 17 of the Commission, presiding.
18 19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 21 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 22 JAMES K. ASSELSTINE, Member of the Commission l
23 1
24 25 l
s 2
~
4 1
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
f*'
2 J. HOYLE 3
W.
PARLER 4
V.
STELLO 5
H.
DENTON 6
H. THOMPSON 7
E.
BECKJORD 8
P.
BIRD 4
9 R. SCROGGINS 10 J.
FUNCHES 11 j
12 4
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
~
21 22 23 24 25
s 3
0 1
PROCEEDINGS
/~
2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good afternoon, ladies v.nd 3
gentlemen.
Commissioner Bernthal and Commissioner Carr will 4
not be with us this afternoon.
5 We are meeting here today to discuss the strategic 6
planning steering group efforts and to receive a briefing from 7
the senior members of that group on the contents of a draft 8
strategic plan, which was sent to us on the 30th of March.
9 The group has been assisted by Carl Spetzler of 10 Strategic Decision Group, and by former NRC leader, Mr. Ed 11 Case, who is here today.
We appreciate your being with us, 12 Ed.
Carl Spetzler could not attend today's meeting due to a f
13 schedule conflict, t
14 We were briefed last December on the goals and 15 assumptions that the steering group proposed to use in 16 developing the strategic plan.
The Commission expressed 17 general agreement with the December proposal and asked the 18 steering group to add goals for research.
19 The 30 March draft strategic plan includes 20 recommended strategies for achieving the goals the Commission 21 agreed to in December.
22 The steering group is still working on a research 23 philosophy and specific goals and strategies for our research 24 programs.
I understand this will inclu e addressing the 25 National Academy of Sciences' study rec ~ommendations.
i I
1 4
(
1 The Commission will need to separately address the f
2 research component of the strategic plan at a later date.
3 I believe the strategic plan should provide improved 4
guidance for planning of our Agency programs.
In the past, 5
the primary Commission policy guidance has been provided in 6
the annual. planning and policy guidance, the PPG document.
7 Later in the year, the Commission has had to review and 8
approve an Agency budget without the benefit of any long range 9
planning.
10 This year, it's my intention that the Commission 11 approve the strategic plan in the Spring as the first phase in 12 long range planning.
The staff will then prepare a five year f
13 plan and submit it to the Commission for approval in the i
14 Summer.
In approving a five year plan, the Commission would, 15 as part of the process, be approving the programs and resources 16 for the fiscal year 1989 budget.
The staff would then use the 17 relevant parts of the five year plan to prepare our fiscal year 18 1989 budget request, which is required by the Office of 19 Management and Budget by the first of September, 1987.*
20 In the future, it's my intention that the Commission 21 would in the Spring put out guidance to the staff that would 22 reflect Commission specific direction and emphasis for 23 modifying our changing NRC programs.
The staff would then 24 comply with this guidance by submitting for Commission approval 25 the update of the five year plan which woul,d includ,e the
s 5
4 1
programs and budget for the coming years.
'f 2
Before I turn the meeting over to the EDO and 3
steering group, do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 4
opening remarks?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
No.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Mr. Stello, would you 7
proceed, please?
8 MR. STELLO:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll turn the 9
meeting over very quickly to the chairman of the steering Z
10 group, Mr. Denton.
There are a few points that I think are 11 very, very important.
12 As you are aware, in the transmittal memo, I've 7
indicated that we'are not satisfied that we have developed the 13 s
14 research philosophy necessary to respond to the National 15 Academy of Sciences' comments.
I indicated that we were going 16 to do that and had a meeting on March 27th for that purpose 17 and are now in the process of developing drafts which as soon 18 as we get them in reasonable shape, we will get those down to 19 the Commission.
20 I felt it was important for the Commission to have 21 the draft that exists because I think it is in fairly good 22 shape now and did so in advance of getting together with the 23 staff, which we have not yet had an opportunity to do, and 24 would like at least an opportunity to i form the Commission of 25 whatever else may come up from the staf'f me,eting we_have.
I l
l l
- -. - - - - -o-.
N~ ^*
,i s s
6 4
1 think in that staff meeting, where you have the principals of
^r' 2
the Agency get back, like we did when we began this thing, is 1
3 very, very important for'everyone to have an opportunity to 4
understand it, because a strategic plan, in my view, without 5
the support of the leaders and the senior managers of this 6
Agency would not be very useful and we need to make sure that 7
- we have accomplished that step.
8 We have that meeting planned for April 24th and 9
25th, a Friday and Saturday.
We will need to devote two days 10 to it and we will do that over the weekend.
Following that 11 meeting, then we will get back to you, and I think at that 12 point I would be prepared to recommend that I think we now 13 have a strategic plan for the Commission that we could move 14 forward with.
15 With that introduction, I'll turn it over to 16 Mr. Denton to describe the work that we have done and what we 17 have in the document you now'have.
18 MR. DENTON:
Let me introduce the other members of 19 the effort who are here.
Huge Thompson, he succeeded John J
20 Davis; Eric Beckjord; Paul Bird; Ron Scroggins; Jessie 21 Funches.
Also on the team are Jim Keppler and Tom Early.
22 This effort was largely written at the meetings.
We 23 would meet periodically and go through what we should do and 24 then it would be written out.
Jessie gets credit for the j
25 actual putting together of the plan, much o,f it, translating
=
s 7
6 1
our ideas into this document.
I think we all think this is a 2
significant step forward, for a first time effort, I am pretty 3
pleased with what we have done.
I'm sure we need to reiterate 4
that it can be improved, but within the restraints we were 5
operating under, I'm very pleased with this.
6 If you would turn to the first and second page of 7
it, really the strategic planning process, I would just 8
reiterate that we were only doing the top part of the pyramid, 9
that is define the Agency's goals and strategies and specific 10 goals to carry those out.
There is a lot of follow on effort 11 to be done to turn these goals and strategies into programs 12 and budget, as you said, Mr. Chairman.
13 Page two, we have 22'ntified eight major goals.
We 14 have added one since the last time.
I'll discuss all eight of 15 the goals briefly in a moment.
We also added to the plan 16 present approaches that we felt should be continued and didn't 17 think should be chadged.
18 The plan is really based on our collective 19 judgments.
It doesn't have a lot of analyses or analytical i
20 cost / benefit type work on this.
It is really our opinion as 21 to what could be done and maybe in follow on efforts, there 22 should be particular strategies singled out for detailed 23 study.
24 The programs and resources are not within the scope 25 of effort, but I think it is our overall vi,ew that from an t
,s
~
l 8
4 1
overall point of view, the budget wouldn't be significantly
/
2 impacted by the adoption of these goals.
There would be 3
changes made in our approaches, but it's hard to see where it 4
would have an overall drastic impact.
5 As Vic said, we are still working on the research 6
philosophy.
We think we have made a lot of progress there, 4
7 and on the related goals and strategies.
We won't focus on 8
research today.
9 Page three just reiterates some of the major lo assumptions.
I think I covered these the last time with the 11 Commission.
If you look in the paper this time, what we have 12 done is for each goal, we have related these assumptions to 13 each goal, so you can see more clearly what the impact of an 14 assumption is to a goal.
15 Two of these probably are the ones that stand out as 1C being perhaps a different departure.
One is the variation of 17 operational performance among our licensees and the fact that 18 we want to focus on that and the other is the increasing 19 involvement of state and local governments in all of our i
20 activities.
21 Page four are the eight overall goals.
We discussed 1
22 seven of them with you the last time.
We have come a long way 23 in developing specific goals since that time.
For example, 24 the first one to ensure that operating lants continue to 25 operate safely, if you look in the main ~ pap,er, we have tried
. -]
9 1
to put some meat on that skeleton.
What do we mean by 2
" operating safely?"
For operating reactors, we have defined 3
what we think we mean.
We think it means a low frequency of 4
challenges to safety systems, high availability of safety 5
equipment, highly trained and supported operating personnel, 6
timely learning from experience, and a low sensitivity of the 7
design to system challenges.
8 We have tried to spell out what is a safe plant.
9 Then we have identified ten specific strategies that we think 10 if pursued, will contribute toward achieving that goal.
We 11 have done the same sort of thing under each of these eight 12 major goals.
13 With regard to plants under construction, we have a 4
14 number of new and novel approaches to being sure they are 15 finished, built to high quality and they make the transition 16 smoothly.
17 The goal we have added is the very last one, to 18 ensure an independent review of our activities.
We have tried 19 to spell out in there the role of the ACRS and the Boards and 20 other groups in the Agency that provide independent reviews.
21 Page five just sort of hits some highlights of the
\\
22 changes that would occur in the Agency approaches, if you were l
23 to adopt these types of goals and strategies.
{
~
24 The first one we have characterized as being 25 proactive.
What we mean by that is identif.ying operating
l 10 i
j 1
problems early, not wait until the problem happens.
Put in
(
2 place a regulatory framework for licensing, so that we have 3
that in hand.
In fact, doing the strategy is being proactive, 4
namely just developing a strategy so we are not always engaged 5
in fire dri11s and do more planning.
6 A second change would be we are going to reward good 7
performers more and we are going to vary our regulatory 8
approach based on actual performance and potential risk rather l
9 than trying to regulate everyone the same and it would 4
i 10 recognize, for example, in maternal licensees, that some 11 activities are more hazardous or represent more risks and we I
12 should focus on those more than perhaps others, 13 Provide incentives for good performance and g
i 14 improvements, incentives for standardization, for example.
15 Provide roles for licensees to pursue excellence more.
We 16 have several ideas in here for that.
- 17 Focus on research and what research needs to do, 18 trying to improve public understanding of our role and our 1
19 importance in protecting the public health and safety.
20 Allocate our resources more along risk bases and internally, 1
21 align our resources to those sorts of determinations.
l 22 I think in some areas it would mean a change in our 23 direction if these were adopted.
24 To kind of illustrate one of t em, let's go to page 25 six, for example.
~
l 1
o 11 6
1 The main features for the goals for reactors and t'
2 non-reactor operations, and what are our goals for operations 3
in general.
4 The approach we've taken conceptually is that we 5
really ought to establish better standards and measures of 6
performance in operation.
Let's decide for ourselves, how do 7
we want to measure performance, and then let's identify when 8
there is a. potential for, based on these indicators, of future l
9 accidents or incidents and preventive actions before they come 10 before us.
We're always looking back in our files and finding 11 footprints for things that we were not able to recognize 12 originally.
13 MR. STELLO:
Harold, let-me interrupt you.
You 14 used the word, indicators, and recognizing a sensitivity of 15 that word, it could mean a specific list of four or five 16 performance indicators.
I think the context in which Harold 17 is using it is the broader indication, using all of the 18 knowledge that we have of trying to understand performance.
3 19 And then, based on whatever we get out of that, cnd then 20 trying to move forward.
But not any narrow specific one 21 program.
I don't want to get into suggesting that that's it.
i i
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Right.
j 23 MR. DENTON:
And that's why our first bullet was, 24 establish standards and measures, not t say we've got it 25 already in hand, but whatever measures ~we want to use.
And
/
z..-.
12 1
you can see the other plans in that area is to provide
(
1 2
incentives and disincentives based on performance.
3 Going to page seven, for example, we developed 1
4 strategies for plants under construction, and we think we have 5
a number of ideas there that would prevent some of the problems 6
we've had in the past and make the transition better.
7 We have strategies for future licensing.
And, for
- i 8
example, with standardization, how we could encourage through 9
incentives, standardization; and put in place a program for
]
10 handling high level, low level waste.
11 Page eight talks about those goals and strategies 12 for our own internal operations, and ideas for promoting
{g 13 corporation with state and local governments where we both 14 have an interest and responsibilities.
15 Inform the public much better about the actions that 4
16 we're taking.
these sorts of goals are very important.
I've 17 been told or I guess the committee has been told, for example, 18 that the public generally can't understand the letters that we 19 issue to licensees, you know, following the legal, the 20 technical jargon, that whenever we take any regulatory action 21 we should have along with it something that explains it in 22 laymen's terms exactly why it's important, what we're doing, 23 and that sort of simple things we can d to ensure the public 24 understands what it is we're doing.
25 Finally, the last page, I just"wan,ted to c_over the
.-u.
0 13 s
1 next steps.
I think you've covered them mainly, Mr. Chairman.
,~
1 2
It's to complete the effort on research.
NRC has come a long 3
way on that one, along with the rest of the committee here, 4
have this big meeting with all the managers and incorporate 5
their views and attempt to get a consensus view on this 6
document, and then return it to the Commission.
~
Where to go next, this is obviously just the first 8
step; and the next steps would be to reiterate on this as the 9
environment that we're working in changes, and perhaps pick 10 out particular aspects of it for more in-depth studies.
11 This is sort of a quick summary.
I didn't want to 12 just give a book report on the plan itself since it's all 7
13 there.
But since we've got all the members here we could 14 discuss any aspects that you wanted to focus on.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right, fine.
16 Comments by fellow Commissioners?
17 Mr. Roberts?
18 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
No.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Commissioner Asselstine?
20 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Maybe just a few, mostly a 21 couple of questions.
22 Harold, I noticed in Vic's cover memo one of the 23 points you noted or Vic noted was that typically one of the 24 things that the strategic planning does is look at a range of 4
25 assumptions and different alternative s~trat,egies.
You said c-,.-,,m.
4.--.
-ew-
-~.
14 s
1-you didn't do that in this case.
And I guess I was curious 2
why you didn't think that that kind of an approach would be 3
used here or is that something you have in mind down the road?
4 MR. DENTON:
It's more down the road.
As I 5
mentioned, this was really sort of written in the course of 6
meetings that we had, and during the meetings we would decide.
7 So, it wasn't a lot of work between meetings, and it would take 8
a lot more effort to do alternatives and develop position 9
papers on each one.
But I think in the future it might be well 10 to pick out some issues and do that sort of detailed analysis 11 on it.
+
12 This is really the staff's opinions, and is not what 13 I call a typical corporate strategy, strategic plan where 14 there are volumes to back up the selected strategies.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I didn't have a great deal 16 of difficulty with most of your assumptions, but it does 17 strike me that if you change some of those you rather 18 dramatically <er the course of the rest of the document, and 19 certainly in terms of what we ought to be doing over the next 20 severrl years.
21 MR. DENTON:
It's a somewhat inflexible plan.
I 22 think our consultant is pleased with it.
He thinks we've gone 23 about as far as we can go in this round.
But he'd like to see 24 a lot more of those kind of alternatives studied, as more 25 contingents is provided; and perhaps, i'n th,e next effort that
)
..m
i-l 15 i
1 could be do'ne.
,e l
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On operating reactors, 3
both accident, prevention and mitigation, I had a little 4
difficulty in getting a sense from the plan on what is new in 5
that particular area.
When I got to some other areas, 6
materials licensing area, the reactors under construction, it 7
jumped out me pretty clear what was different than what'we 8
were doing now.
But in the operating reactor area, a lot of 9
it seemed to be just a continuation of the current kind of an lo approach.
Could you sort of give me a sense for where you 11 think there are new initiatives and new ideas embedded in the -
12 plan that might represent a difference, perhaps a fundamental i
13 difference from the way we've approached regulation of I.
14 operating reactors at the present time.
15 MR. DENTON:
I think you've characterized the 16 operating reactor accurately.
A lot of the -- this does not T
17 have significantly new ideas in it; it's more the, I think the 18 focus in the organization of activities presently under way, 19 like to develop really good measures and' standards of 20 performance.
That might require research efforts; it might 21 require ongoing -- but once we get those in place, then begin 22 to use that, and then to provide these incentives.
23 So, I think they're all ideas which are kicked l
24 around.
It might be adopted by one part of the organization 25 or another, but these are meant to be agency goals now, and
16 1
then we could allocate resources to be sure we're really doing
~'
/
2 this at an agency level.
3 In some areas like plants under construction you saw 4
more new ideas.
But here, after a lot of discussion, we think 5
this is the way to go toward handling operating plants.
6 MR. STELLO:
I would add, I think while we, you-7 know, we tend to pay a lot more attention to operating 8
reactors, so when there's a good idea or something useful, we 9
tend to try to grab on it quickly and at least do something on 10 it.
But we have just begun a rather large number of areas, 11 sitting back outside the process and systematically trying to i
12 go through and say, do we have any particular problems with 13 any plants, if so, what are they and what do they mean?
We've
(
14 just really begun that in the last year or so.
We really 15 haven't been doing that.
We're learning a great deal.
And I 16 think that the first idea of developing standards and measures i
17 of, you know, how to even make those judgments.
We're groping 18 and we're going to be developing, and we're in the process of 19 developing; this is going to take time.
The safety goal, you 20 know, how to really apply it?
How to use PRA?
21 We're just in the process, in my view, of making a 22 transition, really looking at insights from PRA technology to 1
23 understand, what are the kinds of emphasis you ought to put 24 on, I don't want to repeat my speech, prevention versus 25 mitigation.
When you have prevention, when,you think you can
17 1
get, you know, a factor of 10 improvement in reduction in f"
2 risk, maybe the percentage is kind of improvement by 3
emphasizing mitigation, and how to go about that.
We're just 4
beginning.
5 There's an awful lot to do.
But the general 6
guidelines, I think, have been around in the last six months 7
to a year, -of putting them in, but there's a great deal of 8
work to do to sharpen those.
9 MR. DENTON:
I think we found there wasn't a uniform 10 agreement about tilting towards good performance.
Some people 11 really do believe you should have a level inspection program, 12 and that we're not smart enough to tilt; others believe that 13 we should tilt.
So, in a sense, this is an attempt to write f
14 it down or make a proposal, and have it considered.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I think the part on the 16 operative reactor side, I found most intriguing was the list 17 of the items, the qualitative items that you were looking 18 for.
And then, the follow-up with that first item on page 19 five of trying to nail down the standards and measures for 20 performance for satisfying those elements.
21 And I guess if I've been looking for something in 22 this process it's that kind of an effort.
Something that 23 would give us measure that we were shooting for, so that you 24 can judge whether the programs that we n w have in place or 25 achieving the kind of result that we waht.,
18 1
I guess I'm still sort of waiting to see that
(
5 2
effort.
I gather that's the one that follows on, one of the 3
ones that follows on from this one.
i 4
It does seem to me that what we ought to be looking 5
for are things like error in maintenance, for exanple.
We i
6 know personnel errors in maintenance area are high.
We know 4
7 that equipment reliability isn't very good, particularly in, 8
some plants; maintenance is an area of weakness.
9 And I guess what I'm wondering is, out of this will 10 we get some kind of a target where we can say, this is the 1
11 measure that we're going to use over the next five years or 12 whether our own efforts and the industry's efforts really are 13 working, whether they're accomplishing the objectives we 14 want.
I have a little difficulty in tying in a plan to say, 15 what we're really going to do is to pursue these programs
}
16 rather than say, we're going to pursue whatever we need to do 17 to reach this kind of an objective in terms of the level 18 performance.
And that's what I'm wondering, is that what 19 you're moving towards in terms of setting of those specific 20 goals?
21 MR. DENTON:
I'd like to use our consultants jargon, 1
22 what do you want?
And so we tried to address what we wanted i
23 without knowing what programs would provide it.-
So, we didn't 24 really make a judgment as to what standards and measures 25 should be.
But we said, the agency nee'ds t,o define standards l
O i,
19 1
and measures of good performance, and that might take effort I
! ~
2 by research, it might take ARD, you know, any activity.
But r
3 we thought that's really the first effort.
4 So, our want is good measures of performance, 5
whatever that is.
So we thought the next level would be up to I
6 Vic to set in place programs that would satisfy those wants.
7 So, we didn't attempt to try to decide what program it would 8
satisfy.
But these we thought would be agency wants, trouble 9
free operations, and operations which would have low 10 frequencies by those sorts of measures.
11 And so in that sense we didn't attempt to program J
12 the agency as to how to satisfy those wants, if I'm being 13 clear.
14 Maybe someone else would want to jump in on this, 15 feel free.
16 MR. STELLO:
I think the simple answer is, we're 17 shooting to get what you're looking for,'but I think we've 18 been working at it long enough to know it's not going to be 19 something we're going to get there quickly.
If we're committed 20 to work on it and get agreement to work on it, which in my
]
21 view, is a big first step.
l 22 It will be interesting to see if we can involve, for i
1 23 example, a system of regulation where we don't try to regulate 1
24 the whole industry, but rather when we' e having particular 25 problems at particular plants, point to'the, specific need for
O 20 1
regulation at the particular plants that we're having t
2 difficulty, which is, if you will, a reward for good plants as 3
well.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Well, that's it partly.
5 MR. DENTON:
It is a different approach, though, l
6 then saying, meet the regulations.
I mean, we could have the 7
strategy that said, meet -- and I think for a long time that 8
was the agency's strategy.
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
4 l
10 MR. DENTON:
Meet the Commission's regulations in a 11 sense.
And I think we've gotten a little above that standard 12 now in looking at these performance ideas.
j 13 But the plan is something we thought is something 14 that could stay in place for several years.
It wouldn't have 15 the detail in it that would change as more knowledge becomes 16 available and that sort of thing, but something if you adopt 17 would point a direction for the agency for a few years.
And 18 then reiterate it occasionally to make sure it's current.
i 19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I guess maybe part of what 20 I'm looking for is some indication of how your wants relate to 21 what we have now.
For example, five years from now are you 22 going to be happy, are you going to believe that this plan did i
4 23 everything you thought it was going to do, if we're still 24 seeing the same kind of rate of serious operating events at 25 the plants in this country; we're still'see,ing error rate;
o 21 l
1 we're seeing maintenance performance; we're still seeing the t'
2 kind of equipment on reliability problems that we're seeing 3
today in the area of maintenance performance; we're still 4
seeing t'he level of human performance, and contribution to 5
management in serious operating events that we're seeing today 6
or whether you want to see something that's moderately better, 7
substartially better, traumatically better than what we're 8
seeing now.
9 MR. STELLO:
If in five years, is what you've 10 described, my answer would be, we do not implement this plan.
11 (At 2:26 p.m. Commissioner Roberts left the room.]
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
13 MR. DENTON:
We think this plan, if implemented, 14 will improve performance.
We didn't put numerical goals on 15 it.
But we really didn't spend a lot of time discussing how 16 to do item one.
I mean, there seemed to be a consensus of 17 opinion, I'd say that it was an area that could be improved 18 and would lead to safer operation.
But the specifics of how 19 to do it, we thought it was within the grasp of today's 20 technology to work on it.
21 We were able to rationalize this with the individual 22 program offices, and they will eventually decide how to do 23 one.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is that something that 25 would be worthwhile, say, to have NRR do fo,r reactors?
Even
0 4
22 1
if you can't do it quantitatively, at least some qualitative f'
.2 judgment about how they ready this plan, what it is they 4
3 expect to be able to accomplish over the next five years in 4
some of the areas that I mentioned.
5 MR. DENTON:
I think you could only do that in a i
6 qualitative -- it's awful hard to sit down and set specific i
7 numerical guidelines for those kinds of things, but in a 8
qualitative sense, you're looking for improvements, and we're 9'
starting -- we have the systems now in place to start -- to 10 move in that direction.
l l
11 For example, we're going to have -- one of the goals 12 is an independent assessment capability which is -- one 13 element is a cadre of people who can go out and send an l(
i 14 inspection unit, a completely independent assessment of the 15 problem and an understanding of the problem, independent of 16 the whole process.
17 Those are the kinds of things that I think are very, j
18 very important, to get that elusive quality of performance 19 that we're trying to make the assessment of.
It's one l
20 particular aspect.
21 But except in a qualitative sense to make the l
22 judgment, these words were designed and aimed at improvement.
l l
23 I think it would be extremely difficult now.
Maybe in a i
l 24 couple years, you could make some sort of judgment about i
25 goals.
Quantitatively it would be almo'st i,mpossible.
e 23 1
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I take it the accident
^
2 mitigation measures, also like prevention, are basically 3
what's underway now in terms of --
4 MR. DENTON:
I think they were -- the first and 5
second were fairly well developed, and we ended up being 6
satisfied,'a little different focus, though, in lumping of 7
these activitigs together.
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes, okay.
9 On the operational readiness side, I guess I'd like 10 to hear just a little bit more of what you have in mind on 11 the QA area and then the certification of proper completion of 12 construction and understand how those differ from what we're 13 requiring today on page 8.
f i
14 For example, on the CEO, is the idea there to boost 15 that up higher, that certification up higher in the company, 16 to really make the CEO more involved and more accountable for 17 that decision that, in fact, everything is done and done 1
18 properly and that they're ready to go, or am I reading too 19 much into that one?
20 MR. DENTON:
No.
We had had once before an effort a 21 number of years ago that we required the CEO to write in and 22 say that the plant had been constructed in accordance, but we 23 didn't really push an attempt to define how broad an effort he 24 made to find that.
1 mean, did he just ask somebody, or did 25 he do a thorough review?
~
24 1
This is an attempt to put the burden of making what f'
2 I call a probative finding on the CEO and to reduce the need t
3 for teams of NRC inspectors to have to go check behind it for 4
the adequacy of it.
So you'll find this whole thing here is 5
to put more burden on the Licensee, so that Comanche Peaks and 6
TVAs and so forth are done more without requiring the effort 7
we're pow putting on them.
8 Does anyone want to pitch in on A or B?
But this is 9
an area that we do -- we think would put more effort on the 10 Licensees than we presently do.
11 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Is this more of a forward 12 looking kind of a plan for the next generation, or are you 13 really talking about the whatever it is, 18 or so plants that 14 are still under active construction?
15 MR. DENTON:
More forward looking, because it's --
16 we thought by the time this got approved, that most of the 17 plants would be really far along, but maybe parts of it could 18 be picked up.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
20 Page 9, the item of the extended operational period, 21 is that something that you have in mind for the 18 plants 22 under construction, and if so, I guess what I'm wondering is, 23 how would that actually work?
Are you talking about an 24 intermediate power level above the 5 per ent level, or are you 25 talking about more extended operation? -
25 1
MR. DENTON:
Well, you're being more specific, 2
Commissioner, in all of these than the Task Force was.
s 3
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Well, I'm trying to 4
understand what you had in mind.
5 MR. DENTON:
These were our wants, once again, not 5
6 how to achieve them.
But looking at it from our standpoint, 7
the 5 percent license didn't give you enough look.,
8 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
You can't work most 9
of the equipment.
10 MR. DENTON:
To get a full judgment made.
And we 11 thought, then, as a want, in order to reduce the potential for 12 operating events when companies make this transition from 13 construction to operation, that how you get here, whether it's 14 rules or whatever, that we ought to see more operation and 15 then maybe come to the Commission.
16 So we didn't stop and think, who should it apply to i
17 and where would it go.
But the idea was that before the 18 Commission authorized a really high-power operation, really I
1 19 test all the primary and secondary, be sure all the procedures 20 are there, staff is fully working, and perhaps get more than 21 we get at 5 percent.
22 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
23 MR. DENTON:
And it wasn't any more complicated a l
24 thought than that, and details to be left to the student who i
25 follows on to decide how to implement that, concept.
26 1
MR. PARLER:
Of course, a number of years ago, 2
people had that problem also.
That's why -- one of the 3
reasons why the provisional operating license was invented 4
about a decade and a half or so ago.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
Of course, we've 6
still got plants that run for 17 years --
7 MR. PARLER:
I didn't want to get into that, sir.
8
[ Laughter.]
9 MR. DENTON:
But I think, obviously if you're going 10 to implement these and if they're adopted by the Commission, 11 then you have to have a program developed that would be 12 responsive to that, and we didn't go into that.
13 g
But we, after discussing that, we thought in the 14 long run it would be good for the Commission, and it would 15 minimize the potential for authorizing a plant and then 16 finding immediate problems thereafter.
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
Is this one that 18 you had in mind as more of a near-term thing, rather than next 19 generation plants?
20 MR. DENTON:
We really didn't look into the 21 practicality of doing it.
In other words, we really generated 22 these as wants, and then didn't try to say when could it be 23 applied.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
Although ideally, 25 if you think only in terms of a next ge'hera, tion for the scope O
,m__
,, ~,. -,, - - -.
cm... -.,... - -
r. ---
27 1
of this plan, it wouldn't have any effect.
We aren't going to 2
get another generation of plants in five years.
3 MR. DENTON:
Yes.
The implementation of all of 4
these, we just didn't really deal with, because we were 5
uncertain as to the final content of the plan.
6 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
I take it on the, 7
operational readiness, that last bullet on page 9, again it's 8
the general concept without a lot of the details.
You're not i
9 necessarily taking the readiness review kind of approach to 10 things.
11 MR. DENTON:
Which item on page 97 12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
The last bullet, initiate 3
13 a program requiring special Regional / Headquarters NRC team I k 14 inspections before licensing to assess the operational 15 readiness of the utility.
16 or is that sort of a continuation of what we've been 17 sort of informally moving towards the past few times?
18 MR. DENTON:
It's what we've been informally, but we 19 thought we'd add some formality, because it's done now to 4
20 varying degrees.
21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Okay.
On page 10, on 22 standardization, I know I've briefly talked about this in the 23 past, but the concept of DOE-sponsored design competition, againwasthereanymoredetailedthinkIngintermsofwhat I
24 i
25 that would involve, what it would lead to?, Would the idea be
~
e.-
-.--,._.my.
28 1
that you really would focus on getting just a few -- one or
(
2 two, perhaps, or three standardized designs that would come 3
out of that kind of an effort?
And is that sufficiently 4
different from what DOE is now doing or what's being done by 5
the industry on its own, that if we adopt something like that, 6
that a fair amount of work would have to be done,to bring 7
about that kind of an initiative?
8 MR. DENTON:
I think that initiative would require a 9
lot of work, and the idea on it, I think, grew out of what the 10 DOD does, for example, in procuring aircraft engines, that why 11 not have a design competition and say, "We want a design, the 12 most reliable, economical, safe, easy-to-maintain, long-life f
13 plant," and get somebody in the Federal Government to put i
14 forward the money to sponsor that design competition, have it 15 reviewed by all the applicable agencies -- Commerce, Labor, 16 DOD, State -- and then select a design or two designs or 17 whatever would be practical, and that would be the U.S.' best 18 effort.
19 COMMISSIONER AGSELSTINE:
And then everybody can 20 build that.
21 MR. DENTON:
And then everybody could build it, and 22 it would have kind of -- every agency -- and I think one 23 reason the committee adopted that view s, that's really
~
24 what's done in many countries now.
You just don't see it done 25 that way.
But often countries do have~an i,nternal design
29 I
competition.
They select their national design, and that's
/
2 the one that they build.
3 And then I think our thought was, anyone could go 4
build that plant that wanted to bid on it, if the utility 5
bought it.
6 But it's just one -- we felt that standardization 7
needs some initiatives, so we were trying to find initiatives 8
to move towards standardization, because I think our concern 9
was that without some initiatives like the ones we've put 10 here, it just won't move that way, and we'll continue to have 11 a custom plant here and a custom plant there.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Yes.
13 MR. DENTON:
Anyway, I'm doing all of the talking.
14 Perhaps any of you would want to give your own view on these 15 matters.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I mean it did strike me 17 that that idea, in particular, was kind of a -- if not 18 revolutionary, at least evolutionary from the kind of approach i
19 we take for standardization in this country and much more 20 towards the kind of approach that the French use fairly
}
21 effectively.
22 MR. DENTON:
I think for probably $20 or $25 million 23 or so, which sounds like big money, but in terms of what this 24 country spent trying to develop and improve reactors, it's 1
25 small, a Federal Government-sponsored c'ompe,tition could be I
D
30 1
done, and in several years pick some designs that ought to be t'
2 considerable improvements in many respects over the present 3
ones.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Actually, I guess my 5
question is more in the reactor area.
There were two of the 6
goals on page 13 that struck me,as quite useful.
One was 7
minimizing exposure to the public and reducing to as low as 8
practical e'xposure to workers.
The second was minimizing 9
releases.
10 I wondered whether those ought to be goals applicable 11 in the reactor area as well, or at least explicitly stated 12 goals in the reactor area.
13 MR. DENTON:
We tried to make them parallel but I 14 guess they are more implicit in the reactor one and the 15 material ones, since they usually don't have the potential for f
16 large public exposure, we tend to quote from these terms.
17 Jessie, do you remember why we differentiated those?
18 MR. FUNCHES:
That's correct.
The thought,that was 19 implicit in reactor goals, you would achieve those two items.
20 Here, you were focusing more on low risk.
21 MR. THOMPSON:
On page six, the reactors, they have 22 emergency response to minimize exposure to the public.
The 23 thought was there.
In my area, you really are focusing on 24 more higher probability, kind of low ris type of events, 25 whereas the focus on this one tends to be m, ore to the high
.. - - +, -
.m.
31 1
risk, low probability.
1 2
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That brings to mind one 3
other question on the reactor one, on page six.
The first 4
bullet, and you mentioned the second bullet on emergency 5
response minimizing exposures, the first bullet is the containment of mitigat, ion systems which provided low 6
]
1 7,
probability for the largest of these for radioactive, 8
materials.
Is that intended to be any different than I think l
9 the statement that we made to Congressman Markey last year, 10 that there should be a substantial assurance that the 11 containment will mitigate the consequences of a core melt 12 should one occur in order to assure low risk to the public, or i
i 13 is that basically just a reformulation of the same concept?
14 MR. DENTON:
We wrote it as our want, without trying 15 to compare it to previous statements.
We said as a committee, 16 we would want a low probability.
17 MR. STELLO:
The Commission's safety goal addresses j
18 this issue now.
It says that the significant release of 19 materials ought to be low probability.
I think those all 20 taken together are dealing with the same issue.
4 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In terms of large release, 22 do you have in mind a specific definition for that?
Are you 23 thinking again in terms of releases that cause a fatality to 24 the public or are you talking about a broader --
l 25 MR. STELLO:
I think we ought to r,eserve -- if I i
D
u&
J 32 l
1 remember right, it took an awful long time to deal with that t
2 last time.
s 3
COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
It's still unsattled?
4 MR. STELLO:
Yes; that's my point.
5 MR. DENTON:
We really didn't try to deal with 6
issues which were being dealt with in other forums.
1 j'
7 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
On page 14, in the 8
materials area, on non-radiological risks, again, is that an l
9 issue that ought to at least be addressed in some way in the 10 reactor area?
I know we have surfaced it as a result of the i
11 Surry question, who has responsibility for occupational risks,.
12 non-radiological occupational risks and how to deal with it.
' r 13 It seems to me when we sort that out, that may be a 14 candidate in the reactor area.
15 MR. DENTON:
That's a good comment.
I think when we 16 started writing this, the Kerr-McGee event had happened but I
17 not Surry.
18 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That's right.
19 MR. DENTON:
We intended to flag it more in the j
20 materials side.
I think we want to have a presence in anything 21 involving what we license and how we say that, that's a good 4
22 comment and we will consider it.
23 MR. THOMPSON:
Certainly in our area, that is a
}
24 major risk to the plant operations.
I think it is appropriate 25 at least in our area, and it may be as hppr,opriate in the i
33 1
reactor area.
I think it is one of the things that we should t
2 be sensitive to.
3 MR. DENTON:
We were aware of the fact that chemical 4
risks might be more important than the radioactivity aspects.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I wasn't sure I quite 6
understood what an integrated approach to waste management 7
- was, 8
MR. DENTON:
What page?
9 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Page 19.
You broke that 10 out as a separate item from the high levels program and the 11 low level' waste program.
It didn't come across as entirely 12 clear to me, the point you were trying to emphasize.
13 MR. THOMPSON:
I think I'm right in this.
The 14 integrated approach means we are.really tying into the 15 activities, both the generation of the waste, once it is on 16 site and then as it moves into the intermediate disposal, 17 sometimes we consider DOE has a multiple retrievable storage 18 system, which may be an integrated part where they may in fact 19 have some packaging / handling activities associated with it 20 prior to going to its ultimate disposal.
21 We are saying tnere are a number of steps in there 1
22 and they all have to fit together, as to how the final disposal 23 option that we find adequately protects the public health and
\\
24 safety.
That concept, I believe, was the integrating of all 25 those aspects.
~
i 1
,1
-. - -. =
34 1
MR. DENTON:
I think another concept that was 7"
2 discussed in that area is the fact that we are generating and 3
storing waste today.
We don't want to ignore the fact as we 4
debate where to store it next.
I think there is some feeling 5
that we can safely debate storage options say for fuel or low 6
level waste, but the fact is it is being generated every day.
7 We felt that our approach.to the waste should recognize that 8
waste generation is occurring and that we don't have forever 9
to come to some decisions about what to do with it, without it 10 over flowing, whether it is going to be stored on site or 11 where.
12 It was really to take a broad look at waste 13 generation.
On the one hand, you can't ignore the fact that 14 we are generating it, that approach, how it moves through the 15 system.
16 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I missed it when I was 17 going through
e paper but there was a comment on 18 de-commissioning and I don't remember where it was but it 19 caught my eye earlier, that the sort of sense I got from the 20 paper was we are probably not going to be de-commissioning any 21 large plants until after the year 2000.
There doesn't seem to 22 be a great deal of urgency.
23 One issue that strikes me that was sort of lost 24 track of in that argument is this business about coming up 25 with the money to deal with the de-commissi,oning problem.
35 1
1 guess I would urge you to take a look at how much 2
comfort you can take in not having to de-commission a plant in 3
the near-future for the purposes of how fast we ought to get 4
our regulatory job done.
It does seem to me that with the 5
plants operating now that ideally what you would want to do is 6
collect the money from the people benefitting from the power 7
being produced by the plant to pay for de-commissioning of 8
the plant down the road.
I guess I was a little bit concerned 9
to learn a couple of weeks ago that it may literally be years 10 before we get an answer to the question of how clean do these 11 sites have to be, what kind of standard are we really looking n
12 for.
I gather this is another one of those NRC/ EPA 13 jurisdictional questions, where EPA may not be on a very fast 14 track and that may be sort of a key feature in getting any 15 kind of de-commissioning rule in place and understanding what 16 it is we are really trying to achieve.
17 MR. STELLO:
We are moving independently on that, in I
18 terms of the financing.
That is being done.
That has always' 19 been the case, recognizing that problem has been there, but we 1
20 are still going forward with the rule.
I 21 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Until you know what 22 residual examination levels -- you make assumptions.
23 MR. - STELLO:
We make assumptions and put that into 24 what it has to be in teras of the cost, based on our best i
25 understanding.
We felt the need to do that,without_ waiting
36 1
for further rule making from EPA.
2 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
All right.
The sense I 3
had was there was a little more comfort in this isn't'a real 4
urgent problem, we have the time to deal with it.
That's at 5
least what came across.
6 MR. STELLO:
No, we are not waiting.
7
, COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Good.
Research, I guess 8
I'm not going to say much of anything on.
I think you are 9
absolutely right, that whole section has to be looked at in 10 the context of the National Academy of Sciences' report.
11 MR. STELLO:
We will get back to you on that.
12 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I believe that is all I 13 have.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
All right.
Thank you.
15 Let me make a few comments.
First of all, I think 16 this is a very important effort and I appreciate the work of 17 the staff and the leadership that has gone into this project.
18 It does lay a foundation for the first time, I believe, that 19 the Commission has undertaken something like this, and it is 20 very important.
21 It tries to define goals, strategies, 22 objectives. They are not always as easy as some think they 23 are.
I appreciate that, too, and I think my fellow 24 Commissioners do, too.
25 We want a valuable product, as val,uable as we can l
o 37 1
make it.
We recognize it is the first effort.
It does lay a 2
foundation for moving forward with events of the five year 3
plan, which we think is important.
I guess it allows the 4
Commission as I perceive the effort, when we get this program 5
in place, to give you specific guidance and direction, if we 6
don't like some of the programs and plans that are going on, 7
, We can modify them a lot easier than we have been able to in 8
the past, in my judgment.
9 Of course, that is what is behind it all, so we can 10 provide the direction and guidance that I think is our 11 responsibility to provide to the staff.
12 The logic process of what we are doing to me is 13 extremely important.
I think if we do construct it carefully i
14 that we will have some planning and some programming and 15 budgeting that will be responsible management.
16 I noticed earlier you said the staff review would 17 take place the 24th and 25th of April; is that correct?
18 MR. STELLO:
That's correct.
19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
During that time, I would just like 20 to make sure that those members of the staff, those senior 21 members who have not been involved specifically as you at the 22 table here have directly, really appreciate the significance 23 of what has taken place, and to the extent that the next step 24 is where they are going to be really in olved.
They were 25 involved generally at first.
.--r,
,..-.,-=-.m
.-,----.-.-m,,y..,%,,.-,--
38 1
MR. STELLO:
Intermediately, we have briefed, r-2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
I know you have.
The next time you 3
are going to present this to them and we are going to get into 4
many of the things that Commissioner Asselstine has discussed 5
here today, very important issues, but there is going to be 6
the proof of whether we really did a good job with this 7
' strategy and plcaning, because the next step is going to be 8
their involvement in the specifics of their programs.
9 For example, if we have done a good job with this 10 strategic effort, all the programs that might be brought up 11 '
should be covered by our plan and strategy.
If they are not, 12 there is something wrong somewhere, either our strategy wasn't
~
13 any good or the program does not justify it.
There is the i
14 link and it is very important they appreciate it.
15 As they review what you are going to present to them 16 on the 24th and 25th, it is important in my view that they 17 recognize that when they come in and present their program to 18 Ron Scroggins, that they better wel'1 be able to say, here is 19 why we are doing this, it is in line with this strategy or 20 this plan.
i 21 That to me is important.
I hope they will appreciate 22 that, because the programming and the budgeting that falls out 23 of this is really where we get the specifics.
24 I guess most everybody realizes that we are taking 25 on some very big projects at the moment in the Agency.
We are 4
5
39 o
l 1
reorganizing and we are moving ahead in a very responsible 2
way.
It's a big effort.
We are moving ahead with 3
consolidation, rather painstaking, but it is moving.
The 4
building is being built and modifications are being made, 5
plans are being made.
That is going forward.
We are doing 6
this rather important planning effort that you all have been 7
involved in, all at the same time.
Those are three big 8
initiatives that are important.
I suppose if we want to do 9
them logically, we might have done them in series, or we might 10 have done this planning process first'and then waited and then 11 next we would have done the reorganization and then the 12 consolidation later on.
13 We don't have time.
They are all coming together.
14 We really appreciate the extra effort and extra burdens placed 15 on the leadership of the staff to involve themselves in all 16 these programs.
17 One specific thing that is important to me in 18 putting together a program like this, the two most important i
19 things probably of many organizations are the people and the 20 dollars.
That's why you are on this committee, Paul Bird, and 21 Ron Scroggins.
22 Would you tell me just very briefly, Paul first, 23 perhaps, how you have been able to interface in the strategy 24 and the planning in order to accommodate what the Commission I 25 know wants to do as far as for example, EEO, programs, and
40 1
people programs, career development and those kinds of things?
~
(
2 Maybe we are not specifically at that point yet, but if we are 3
not, we are awful ' lose.
They are going to be coming next if c
4 you haven't built something in.
5 As we move into the reorganization, you have heard 6
this before, you have heard Vic Stello say and you have heard 7
me say and the other Commissioners, too, that we want to l
j 8
ensure for example, that we do every effort we can to improve 9
our minority programs, Federal women programs, the people 10 programs, career development and all that.
In other words, we 11 want to take advantage of our reorganization to strengthen our-12 people programs.
To me, it just makes sense because when you 13 strengthen your people programs, you strengthen your
, f 4
i 14 organization.
People are your greatest strength in any 15 organization.
16 What have you been able to do to make sure that we 17 emphasize the value of our people to this strategic planning
~
18 process?
19 MR. BIRD:
I certainly think that section of this l
20 particular paper that talks about effective management
)
21 encompasses some of the ideas that we have been able to agree 1
22 upon in terms of how the people in the organization will 23 actually be involved in carrying out these particular goals 24 and objectives.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Are you satisfied,that there is I
41 1
enough emphasis on the part of all our senior managers on the 4
2 people programs and the people aspects of our planning process?
3 MR. BIRD:
In the course of the discussions, I think 4
as a group we came to the conclusion that perhaps this whole 5
document could be written around effective management and 6
people oriented sections, that all of this is going to come to 7
past because the people here are attached to these goals and 8
objectives, that they know what they are and they see an 9
unified organization that is moving forward.
10 I think there is a tremendous value in addressing 11 this the way we have, and the programmatic side of it is 12 certainly represented well here.
Then in order to get those l
programmatic goals accomplished, we have to have the people 13 14 aligned to do it.
You have to have a motivate'd staff that is 15 dedicated to these objectives.
16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
You think we are moving in that 17 direction?
18 MR. BIRD:
I certainly do.
I think this is a good 19 starting point to have people actually see what those goals 20 and objectives are and how this ties together in an unified 21 organization.
22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Please keep that in mind.
I know i
23 Mr. Stello will and he will help you when you get the other 24 group together.
It is important that we do that.
i 25 I would like to ask Mr. Scrogg' ins, you hav.e the
~
42 1
money bags part of it, and next to the people, the dollars are
,..~
2 the most important in my judgment.
Are you satisfied that the 3
strategy and planning process has worked out so far?
That is 4
why you are on this committee.
It leads right into your 5
business, the programming and budgeting.
6 Are you satisfied that it is working and will 7
provide a foundation of strength perhaps for the five year 8
plan?
9 MR. SCROGGINS:
Yes, I certainly do.
In fact, all 10 along in this process, as you well know, we have been in 11 parallel, looking at how we might possibly want to restructure 12 the five year plan, restructure our whole process to better 13 defend, justify and-explain what our programs are.
One of the 14 things we have been trying to do through the whole process is 15 look at the parallel aspects of what has been going on in the 16 whole planning process, so that it leads directly into what I 17 will call the formulation and description, which is the next 18
' phase.
19 In fact, as you know, we have proposed a rough new 20 structure, a direct parallel, on the five year plan process, 21 as we see it coming up and what has been done here on strategic 22 planning.
I think we have indicated properly if done well, we 23 think the structure certainly is there for that, that if we 24 have programs that don't logically flow out of what our goals 25 and strategies are in the Agency, then'that, raises serious l
43 1
question as to whether or not those programs should be
("'
~
2 continued or continued in the direction and,the way in which 3
they are being done.
4 In a sense, what we are looking for is the overall 5
conformity and in effect, we have a basis for the programs 6
that we have and a basis to change them.
I think this is what 7
we are really looking for, some new changes, the ability to 8
prioritize better, given the importance of the goals, and 9
there have been some ideas also brought in here to realize 10 that it is not going to be that easy but the idea as we 11 allocate our resources, as we try to establish priorities, we 12 recognize we can never be totally quantitative en the resource 13 side because we have some resources we have to expend because 14 they are required by law or whatever and you have to do 15 certain programs to meet those needs, and it is very difficult 16 to prioritize, for example, the importance of high level waste 17 areas versus reactor safety.
18 The answer is obviously they are all very important.
19 I think if done proper'ly and looking at the concepts of risk, 20 greatest impact on the public health and safety, which is what 21 our intent is, I think we can come up with a much better way of 22 in effect justifying to ourselves that we hase done the best 23 job we can with the limited resources we have, of putting them 24 where we think they are going to do the ost good.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
Good.
Thank you.,Let me just say I
4 44
+
1 would like to thank all the steering group.
Jessie, I know 2
you have carried the brunt of the administrative part of it.
3 You have done a real fine job.
I know your colleagues would 4
want me to thank you publicly for that and I certainly do 5
that.
6 Atso, I think I'd like to thank Lloyd Donley, who is
)
7 on my staff and has been working so hard on it.
I frankly 8
want to thank my fellow Commissioners who are here today and 9
those who are not also and their staffs who have also been 10 working so hard here at the Commission Headquarters on this 11 very first really effort on this program.
I recognize it is 12 kind of something different.
I 13 Ed Case, I want to thank you very much for your 14 support and your interest and your solid contributions to this 15 effort.
16 It is something new.
I think all of you are to be 17 commended who are involved in it.
It is a first effort.
It 18 certainly will not be the final effort.
We will build on it 19 from the firs't effort.
I do think it certainly has promise to l
20 help us do a better job.
~
21 I would hope that we will continue to meet the dates 22 that you have set for yourself.
I recognize that the budget 23 has to continue rolling along.
I hope we will be able to keep 24 this five year plan on track.
I would h pe my fellow 25 Commissioners would agree with me that 'we h, ave to proceed with i
45 e
1 the draft plan and continue building towards the five year 2
plan as the next step and,to remember that we are trying to 3
build a solid foundation for the future that will really help 4
us plan and do our job better and focus on the specifics as we 5
are going to get into very soon.
6 Each year, the Commission will be able to indeed 7
provide some guidance in the Spring time, right about now, 8
that you will be able to go back and build your budget on, 9
refining the five year plan rather than rebuilding it every 10 year from now on.
Hopefully, we will be able then to give you 11 the specific guidance on some of the specific things 12 Commissioner Asselstine has raised today, and that my other 13 fellow Commissioners have in mind from time to time, so we can
\\
14 give that to you now and you can build your program for next
~
15 year and then when you come back to us in the summer time, as 16 the usual schedule is, we will be able to look and find what 17 we have asked you to put in there and review it in a much more 18 intelligent and responsible manner.
19 That's what we are trying to do.
I think we are 20 making considerable progress.
I again thank all of you who 21 are involved in this very important initiative.
22 Any other comments or questions from my fellow 23 Commissioners?
24 (No response.]
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We stand adjou~rned,.
i
l 1
46 e
1
[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m.,
the meeting was adjourned.]
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 i
16 17 i
i i
18 l
19 20 21 22 23 9
24 25 e
s 1
2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
~
3 4
This is to certify that the attached events of a 5
meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
6 7
TITLE OF MEETING:
Briefing on NRC Strategic Plan (Public Meeting)-
8 PLACE OF MEETING:
Washington, D.C.
9 DATE OF MEETING:
10 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken
{
13 stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events.
17 18
__ _9_CL* ___ cit"________________
Joan Rose 19 20 21 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
i 23 24 25
'I t
,.,.-,---,,,,v-.,
~w.
1 BRIEFING TO COMMISSION ON DRAFT NRC STRATEGIC PLAN 1
BY; STRATEGtc PLANNING STEERING GROUP APRIL 6, 1987 l
i
i SYt'eXc tiG'C PLAhlNENG PROCESS k
NRC AsiSSION STRATEGIC N
?LA?JNING GROUP
) (
RESPONSIBILITY N
OVERAll. GOALS
> uSSurymVIGNS i
J l
SPECIFIC GOALS
]
AND STR ATEGIES a
l
) f Foi.LdW-ON ACTION PROGRAMS EFFORT l
I f
{
BUDGET V._
1
~
i STRATEGIC PLANNING APPROACH IDENTIFIED EIGHT MAJOR GOALS FOCUFED ON POTENTIAL CHANGES TO TODAY'S APPROACllES TO ACHIEVE MAJOR GOALS ADDED APPROACllES THAT Sif0VLD NOT BE CHANGED PLAN RCPRESENTS COLLECTIVE JUDGMENTS OF SENIOR MANAGERS NO DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ASSUMPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES TO IMPLFMENT STRATEGY NOT WITHIN SCOPE OF THIS EFFORT PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES WILL DE DEVELOPED IN NEXT PHASE OF FIVE-YEAR PLAN
,DEVELOPEMENT RESEARCl4 GOALS AND STRATEGIES ARE BEING ENHANCED TO INCLUDE:
RESEARCil PilILOSOPliY RELATED MODIFICATJON TG 7 9 5 AND STRATEGIES 2
SilMMARY OF MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS END OF AN ERA 0F LICENSING NEW REACTORS CONTINUATION OF A RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER OF OPERATING REACTORS AND.NON-!?EACTOR LICENSES CONTitiUATION OF A RELATIVELY UNCllANGED SAFEGUARDS ENVIRONMENT VARIATION Ill OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF NRC LICENSEES EMPifASIS Ot! WASTE MANAGEMENT DECINNiflG OF POSITIO' LING FOR FUTURE LICENSING ACTIVITIES INCREASING INV01.VEMEflT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES IN NRC-REGULATED ACTIVITIES O
4 1
1 3
l OVERALL G0ALS Et!SURE T!!AT CURRErlT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OPERATE SAFELY ENSURE T3IAT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE DESIC AND ARE READY FOR SAFE OPERATION PREPARE FOR FliTURE REACTOR LICENSING ACTIVITIES ENSURE Ti!AT Tile CURRENT AND FUTURE USES OF NUCLEAR AND RADI0 ACTIVE' M HAVE ADEQUATE SAFEGilARDS ENSURE THAT PHJCLEAR WASTE IS SAFELY MANAGED ENSURE TilAT RESEARCH PROVIDES THE TECHNICAL BASES FOR TIMELY AND SOUND REGULATORY DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF NRC LICENSING AND INSPECTION ACTIVITIES i
ALLOCATE NRC'S CAPITAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES AND DIRECT THE AGENCY'S A i
CONTRII1UTE i!OST EFFECTIVELY TO THE MISSION OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SA AND TO ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FULLY INFORMED OF SAFETY-RELATED MA ENSURE INDEFENDEilT REVIEW OF NRC ACTIVITIES 4
3
CilANGES IN AGENCY APPROACHES FOR ACHIEVING C0ALS
^fi O'.PHARIS ON llEltlG PROACTIVE RATilER THAN REACTIVE (10RE DIFFERENTIATION IN REGULATORY APPROACH ON THE BASIS OF PERFORfW!CE AND PoTFH11AL RISK ENHANCED INCENTIVES FOR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS IN LICENSEE OPERATIONS l
MORE ACTIVE POLE OF LICENSEES IN PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE i
IMPROVED AND MORE TOCUSED RESEARCH IN SUPPORT OF THE AGENCY MISSION ENilAMCED PlJ".Ltc UNDERSTANDING OF THE NRC AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN PROTECTING SAFETY, THE COMMON DEFENSE AND SECURITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT IMPROVED ?,l. LOCATION OF AGEi!CY RESOURCES RELATIVE TO RISK DETERMINATION IMPROVED UTILIZATION AND ALIGNMENT OF NRC HUMAN RESOURCES 9
5
o
[1AJOR FEATURES OF G0AL AND STRATEGIES FOR REACTOR AND NON-REACTOR OPERATIONS ESTABLISH STATIDARDS FOR, AND MEASURES OF, PERFORMANCE l
IDENTIFY WHEtt THE POTENTIAL FOR EVENTS AND ACCIDENTS INCREASES AND TAKE PREVENTIVE ACTIONS ENCOURAGE EXCEL.LENCE IN LICENSEE PERFORMANCE BY PROVIDING INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES CONTINUE TO RECOGNIZE THE UNCERTAINTY IN ACCIDENT PREDICTION PRov!DE REGULATORY PROGRAMS COMMENSURATE WITH RISKS e
9 0
6
~
am Y
e MAJOR FEATURES OF G0AL AND STRATEGIES FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE LICENSING CONTINUE TINELY REVIEW AND LICENSE DECISIONS FOR REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH EMPHASIS ON:
00ALITY OF CONSTRUCTION TRANSITION FROM CONSTRUCTION TO OPERATION PREPARE NOW FOR FUTURE REACTOR LICENSING ASSOCIATED WITH:
LICENSE EXTENSIONS I
DECOMMISSIONING STANDARDIZATION ADVANCED REACTORS 1
PUT IN PLACE REGULATORY PROGRAM FOR HIGH-LEVEL AND LON-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT 7
i
o c
e MAJOR FEATURES OF GOALS AND STRATEGIES FOR INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL OPERATIONS PROMOTE A COORDINATION WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PROACTIVELY INFORM PUBLIC IMPROVED PRIORITIZATION AND PLANNING OF AGENCY'S PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANAGEMENT DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN A HIGHLY TRAINED AND MOTIVATED STAFF CONTINUE INDEPENDENT NRC SAFETY AND JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT e
e I
8
^
NEXT STEPS STRATEGIC PLAN ENHANCE RESEARCH SECTION i
CotiSIDER ALL NRC MANAGERS' VIEWS SUBMIT FINAL STRATEGIC PLAN TO COMMISSION COMPLETE NEXT PHASE OF FIVE-YEAR PLAN INITIATE WHILE STRATEGIC PLAN IS BEING FINALIZED I
I a
)
9 i
M%%%WGM'((%ATMWGt.'Rg(WgtWgtpVptgt'gt;;(tynygygygyggygygggggg,g,,
TRANSMITTAL T0:
N Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips
.i ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room Y!987 DATE:
3 SECY Correspondence & Records Branch h:
FROM:
o 33:
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting 3 ll document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and l
3 j j; placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or 3 ll required.
hetLkeMc. 9 (w 3
- t. d %.
on Meeting
Title:
3 :!
3 :
$ i Meeting Date:
'il Gh'1 Open Closed 3 :
3 :
L' 3
3 3 l Item Description *:
Copies Advanced DCS i
3:
f to PDR Copy di 3:
3:
3!
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 uJ / U wormb l
- li' 3 ::
- 2. D c d h ALIlC. O ra_k.eE,tc.-
l l
5 l
T \\
.s 6 M M3old?
3 3.
E Y:
3 4.
3:.
3 i
5.
l 6.
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY papers.
l d)M Yl h
Ihl lbhl hlk hhkklh
..