ML20236H401
| ML20236H401 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/06/1998 |
| From: | Diaz N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236H374 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-045-C, SECY-98-45-C, NUDOCS 9807070196 | |
| Download: ML20236H401 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ _
NOT ATIO N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary i
- FROM:
COMMISSIONER DIAZ i
SUBJECT:
- SECY-98-045 - STATUS OF THE INTEGRATED REVIEW OF THE NRC ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR OPERATING COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (SRM 9700238) h Disapproved H(S; Abstain Approved n
/
{
with ts Not Participating Request Discussion j
- COMMENTS:
See Attached Omraents i
1 s
1 SIGNNTURM Q }
1 ReleaseVote /
/
%dm. 6.\\99B DATE \\6' Withhold Vote /
"/
Entered on "AS" Yes No 4
eW%#., *n F
L 5
._ c='icaeoansace eaa L
COMMISSIONER DIAZ'S COMMENTS ON SECY-98-045 - STATUS OF THE INTEGRATED REVIEW OF THE NRC ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR OPERATING COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR REACTORS i commend the staff for itt egnificant effort in responding with a sense of purpose to the Commission's direction for conducting the integrated review of assessment processes (IRAP). The IRAP team made an effort to create an improved and less resource-intensive process, an objective with which I fully agree. In fact, the streamlined information flow (including the sequence of assessment activides) developed by the IRAP team achieves this objective to a large extent. As a positive incremental step, I believe that it is feasible to implement the proposed information flow now, using the assessment tocis that the staff currently has at its disposal.
The major task facing the staff is to develop the mechanics of assessing plant performance and associated actions to achieve the fundamental objectives of the program.
I approve the issuance of SECY-98-045 for soliciting public comments provided the paper is revised to address the following issues.
1.
The obvious showstopper in the proposed IRAP is that the processes for assessing plant performance and for taking associated actions appear to depend on an enforcement foundation. This would introduce an unnecessary bias into the process. It is my opinion that informed enforcement is one of several regulatory tools, not a driving force of asressment activities. Assessment of enforcement actions is usually straightforward, since enforcement is an integralactivin'that already encompasses multiple features of the IRAP information flow as described in tne paper, and it is normally a lagging indicator of performance.
2.
The definitions for the three performance rating categories (green, yellow, and red) are expressed largely in terms of compliance; these definitions should be reformulated in terms of safety, in addition, the use of color coding as a means of depicting plant performance would, given the current state of evolution of our assessment capability, oversimplify the meaning of NRC performance assessments, and could therefore lead to easy misunderstanding or distortion. The definitions themselves should serve as the labels of the various plant performance categories. For example, the three categories could be revised as shown below:
o performance that exceeds operational safety requirements o
performance that meets operational safety requirements (this designation would include plants that may have performance issues requiring additional agency focus beyond the core inspection program).
performance below safety margins and/or operational safety requirements (this o
designation should be reserved for plants that are shutdown under a Confirmatory Action Letter or Order).
Using definitions such as these would better allow for accurate characterization of l
performance and for clearly communicating the meaning of NRC assessments.
l l
1 i
l
1 l
3.
Given the redundancy of the agency's enforcement processes to the proposed assessment l
methodology, duplicatively carrying forward enforcement will undercut the efficiencies that would be realized by the streamlined information flow. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the IRAP to have enforcement-type actions removed from the process, leaving enforcement action, if any, to be brought into the process only as a final measure and taken by the highest levels of the agency. This is not to say that the staff should not consider j
l enforcement history at the various closure points in the process as it develops a full integral assessment of plant performance.
4.
In developing a point scoring system for the PIM, the staff should ensure that the IRAP will be safety focused and risk-informed with minimal compliance orientation by emphasizing the " weight" of safety deficiencies. Such a rating scheme should result in the avoidance of 1
I
" bean counting," and it would not place " paper compliance" over actual operational safety, thereby emphasizing correction of genuine safety problems. Even though the proposed j
template is a useful tool, we still need to have the ability to differentiate between regulatory concerns and safety issues. The population and weight of safety issues should overwhelm any flare-ups of regulatory concerns without a safety nexus Points in a PIM, or" hits" derived from a trend chart, should for now only be triggers for further data gathering and I
analysis, not ends in themselves.
Obviously, the transition to a more quantitative regime would need to be done carefully in order to minimize pitfalls. Hopefully, the teaming process during this transition will converge j
to establish better quantification and reduce subjectivity. However, I believe that today's, j
state-of-the-art is not capable of sound decision-making that is based only on the terms stated in the paper. This contrast between weighing safety issues and making decisions on a strictly quantitative basis is analogous to being risk-informed versus being risk-based.
j 5.
The evolution toward a " negative-only" reporting regime, in which the only good news is an absence of bad news, would not be a step forward. While it may be worthwhile to no longer differentiate among the better plants (those that would have an overall rating of Green in the proposed system), it would be counterproductive to change the NP.C assessments to l
something closely resembling a pass / fail system. In the interest of developing a balanced j
picture of licensee performance, it would be beneficial for the NRC to be able to consider in its assessments those activities that reflect implementation of a robust safety focus, especially when the margin of safety exceeds regulatory requirements.
During the public meetings on the IRAP and resolution of stakeholder comnwnts, the staff should keep in mind that for clarity, transparency, and accountability of NRC regulatory activities, the IRAP should serve to:
assess the safety performance of licensees; assess the clarity, ease of implementation, and effectiveness of NRC requirements; assist NRC management in allocating its increasingly scarce resources; communicate all of these safety performance assessments to all stakeholder; e
foster early licensee implementation of corrective actions; j
foster improved two-way communications between the NRC and its licensees:
help agency senior managers to assess the effectiveness of the NRC inspection program and the other programs that feed the assessments (such as AEOD's performance indicators and trend methodology, enforcement program, allegations program, and so forth); and,
{
1 l
L _ _ - -_
l
l-
[ y, L
establish robust efforts dedicated to making the process less punitive and more self-conective.
L Finally, the IRAP, whiich embodies new assessment processes and the Senior Management Meeting, should reflect that the Commission is accountable for all of it. This accountability should be assured by making the issuance of orders as a result of the annual Headquarters performance 1
f review meeting subject to negative consent by the Commission. J
)
l l
b' e
{
s l
A 1
v C_-__._-_._
___m.
____m_
_