ML20237A080
| ML20237A080 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/07/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Callan L NRC |
| References | |
| FACA, NUDOCS 9808130079 | |
| Download: ML20237A080 (4) | |
Text
l T............. _.. _........
l e
RELEASED TOTHE PDR e %[%
UNITED STATES j
(
e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- e EL)
S g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055MK)01 Bj date initials a., %
fa
/
August 7, 1998
- .+
CHAIR"AN j
i MEMORANDUM TO:
L. Joseph Callan FROM:
SUBJECT:
RESPONDING TO ISSUES RAISED WITHIN THE SENATE l
AUTHORIZATION CONTEXT l
l On July 30,1998, the Commission appeared before our Senate Subcommittee on i
Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety to discuss nuclear safety regulatory issues and the programs of the NRC. Feedback in the form of statements and questions from the members of Congress during that hearing reveal a perception that NRC requirements and expectations are not clear, and that the NRC has created an atmosphere of regulatory uncertainty. Concems were raised about the predictability, objectivity, and timeliness of NRC decisions. Concerns were also raised about the focus of NRC activities, quality of NRC-licensee interactions, the implementation of NRC programs, and the size of the NRC staff.
I Most of these concerns appeared to be focused on the reactor oversight program and, more specifically,in the following seven areas: the inspection and performance assessment processes; the enforcement program; license renewal; license transfers; the transition to a risk-informed, performance-based framework; the NRC organizational l
structure and resources; and other specific areas requiring timely decisions. The NRC j
already has ongoing improvement initiatives in many of these areas; but, they will need to be adjusted and accelerated.
It is clear that the Congressional Committee members expect the NRC to accelerate ongoing improvements and to immediately make additiona!, significant changes and improvements in these areas. To satisfy the Congress we will need to demonstrate that
{k we have achieved outcomes in a number of key areas. This will require the exercise of our planning process and the implementation of changes in the way we conduct business at the working level here in headquarters and in the field.
I specifically am requesting you to identify, define, and prioritize those areas which l
support our long term performance goals and which will receive near-term attention. f [,
This set of r.ctivities should be based on what is already underway and should cr concentrrae on areas where considerable progress can be made. It is important that a manegeable set of high priority areas be identified for short-term action and that the desired outcomes you aim to achieve are clearly communicated and understood from the top to the working level in the affected organizations. You should increase the 9808130079 980807 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
d 5
2 threshold for commencing new initiatives. With regard to this effort, it is better to do a few things well. If necessary, you should slow or stop work on certain other activities and redirect resources to ensure we complete these high priority tasks.
As an Attachment, I have identified a number of candidate issues provided by the Commission that you should consider as you formulate your plans. The first six l
categories are broad areas in which the Commission believes improvement efforts must be focused. The seventh category, " Specific Areas Requiring Timely Decisions",
involves specific activities that should be completed within a six-month time frame.
l l
l request that your plans reflect milestones and deliverables on two separate time lines:
3-6 months, and 6-12 months. Any needed adjustments to ongoing work, or any new l
tasks should be accommodated within the planning framework that has been put into place over the past two years. Arthur Andersen can/should be asked to help, l
particularly in process / planning areas. In the !cnger term cie will need to consider more profound changes, with broader initiatives involving complex integration over several years.
Policy issues should be elevated promptly to the Commission for decision-making.
I
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan CFO CIO SECY OGC l
l l
i l
l I
I
e Attachment Proposed High Priority Areas for Action
- 1. Inspection and Performance Assessment Process IRAP Industiy's
- Framework for Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Regulatory Oversight Program" NRC's risk informed baseline core inspection program performance indicators Define / clarify key terms (e.g., safety, design basis)
- 11. Enforcement Program NRC-licensee documentation and disposition of non-risk-significant violations Severity LevelIV violations NRC definition and treatment of risk-significant escalated violations Industry Enforcement Process Proposals 111. License Renewal Calvert Cliffs and Oconee generic process improvements IV. License Transfers TMI Unit 1 l
generic process improvements including rule-making i
t l
V. Transition to a Risk-informed, Performance-Based Framework i
evaluation of industry proposals and rulemaking petitions L
i pilot applications, including ANO broad scope pilot l
plant-specific approvals l
FSAR update guidance l
l VI. NRC Organizational Structure and Resources achieving 8:1 staff-management ratios reorganization - restructuring line organization (e.g., AEOD/ events assessment) increased staff responsibilities l
l l
Vll. Specific Areas Requiring Timely Decisions 1
decommissioning decisions (e.g., Trojan reactor vessel, Maine Yankee)
AP 600 final design approval dual purpose cask approval Kl proposed rule-making i
iSTS conversion schedule l
revised source term proposed rule-making 50.59 proposed rule-making I
I i
l