|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:}"-' ORIG \!AL | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| { UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| PUBLIC MEETING ON STAKEHOLDER' CONCERNS Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Friday, July 17,1998 Pages: 1 - 159 D 0
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.200M -
| |
| }0 g VlkM ,
| |
| U w::w, : v
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| l DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on July 17, 1998, in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
| |
| The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| * . ..)
| |
| 1 1
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
| |
| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ***
| |
| 4 PUBLIC MEETING ON 5
| |
| STAKEHOLDER' CONCERNS 6 ***
| |
| 7 8
| |
| 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10- Room 2B-3 11 White Flint 2 12 11555 Rockville Pike 13 Rockville, Maryland 14 15 Friday, July 17, 1998 16 17 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
| |
| : 18. notice, at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, 19 Chairman, presiding.
| |
| l 20- i 21- COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
| |
| 22 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 23 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission 24 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
| |
| ! 25 l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L.L_____--___----------_-------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| |
| | |
| .s .).
| |
| 2
| |
| '1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
| |
| 2 SAMUEL COLLINS, Director, NRR 3 HAROLD RAY, Southern Edison Co.
| |
| 4 JOE COLVIN, NEI 5 DAVID A. LOCHBAUM, Union of Concerned Scientists i 6
| |
| EARLE NYE, Texas Utilities Company 7-ZACK PATE, World Association of Nuclear Operators 8 LEONARD J. CALLAN, NRC 9 CORBIN McNEILL, PECO Energy Company 10 FORREST REMICK, Consultant (former Chairman, ACRS) 11 JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary 12 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
| |
| , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters
| |
| , 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| _ ___-__--___ __-___-___-_- _ _ -- - - - - - - - - -A-
| |
| :
| |
| * 3 3
| |
| 1 i
| |
| PROCEEDINGS 2
| |
| [9:33 a.m.)
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen. This meeting this morning has been scheduled to 5
| |
| discuss concerns about the NRC's regulatory program.
| |
| 6 l
| |
| In recent months the NRC has been the subject of a 7
| |
| number of critiques, some of them sharply critical, from 8
| |
| Congressional committees, the General Accounting Office, the 9 nuclear industry and others. Whether or not one agrees with 10 all or most of these criticisms, the NRC is evaluating all 11 of these critiques as input worthy of our serious 12 consideration.
| |
| 13 I have tasked the NRC's Executive Director for 14 Operations, Joe Callan, to prepare information to respond to 15 these critiques, to prepare the agency first to assess 16 objectively both the strengths and the weaknesses of the 17 NRC's regulatory programs and policies; second, to better )
| |
| 18 understand the impact of NRC's policies and programs on 19 those we regulate; third, to consider how effectively we are 20 responding to changes in the regulatory environment; and i 21 fourth, to give open-minded and objective consideration of 22 the views and interests of NRC's various stakeholder.
| |
| 23 The Commission is fully aware that those 24 individuals present at the table this morning are not our i
| |
| 25 only stakeholder. However, the Commission has invited I
| |
| i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters i
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| | |
| i e 4
| |
| 1 these participants to continue a discussion of NRC's 2 regulatory program. I say " continue" because these l 3 individuals present at the table have interfaced with the 4 Commission in a variety of ways over the years and have been 5 actively involved in the issues the Commission has chosen to 6 highlight this morning, and we have chosen the ACRS meeting 7 room today -- and there was a lot of discussion about 8 that -- to foster the atmosphere of a roundtable, 9 notwithstanding the geometry, discussion of the issues 10 before us.
| |
| 11 As to the conduct of this meeting, we have 12 proposed the following areas for discussion: (1) 13 risk-informed regulations and regulatory policies; (2) the 14 reactor inspection program; (3) the NRC enforcement program; 15 (4) the use of performance indicators in the NRC's nuclear 16 plant performance assessment process; and (5) the timeliness 17 of NRC's processes -- that is, if we have time -- I'm 18 kidding.
| |
| 19 [ Laughter.]
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Notwithstanding this proposal 21 of topics, the Commission is interested in having a 22 comprehensive dialogue with the invitees on the nuclear 23 reactor and spent fuel programs in general and will 24 entertain any topic that anyone would care to discuss.
| |
| 25 We will begin by inviting opening statemente from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| s &
| |
| 5 1 each invitee. We would ask that speakers limit their 2
| |
| opening remarks to five minutes and that questions and 3
| |
| comments be withheld until we begin our open discussions. j 4
| |
| We will of course in the course of the discussions 5
| |
| be able to return to cover any information that speakers are
| |
| .6- unable to present as a result of the five minute 7 introduction.
| |
| 8-Following the opening comments we will begin an 9 open discussion.
| |
| 1 10 Now this meeting was originally scheduled to end 11 at 11:30 a.m., but we will continue our discussions as long 12 as we all feel is necessary. Therefore, if our discussions 13 are still proceeding, and I expect they may be, at 11:30 l 14 a.m., we will recess for approximately 20 minutes, both to 15 allow for collective leg stretching and to allow the 16 Commission to proceed with a scheduled public affirmation 17 session.
| |
| 18 We will then reconvene and continue our 19 discuraions.
| |
| 20 That said, the Commission welcomes, and I am not 21' introducing them necessarily in the order in which they are 22 seated at the table, the Commission welcomes Mr. Earle Nye, 23 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive of Texas Utilities L 14 Company. He also is Chairman of the Board for the Nuclear I 25 Energy Institute, which represents over 250 organizations in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i 1
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| 4
| |
| * 6 1 the nuclear industry.
| |
| 2 Mr. Joe Colvin, the President and Chief Executive I 3 Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute -- he has been 4 active in the nuclear associations for over 15 years l
| |
| 5 including a stint at INPO, and his understanding of the 6 industry and the NRC will contribute greatly to our l
| |
| : 7. discussion.
| |
| 8 Mr. Corbin McNeill -- President and Chief 9 Executive Officer of PECO Energy Company -- he has had 10 experience ranging from being a plant manager to being CEO 11 and that.will be very beneficial to our discussion. I 12 To my left, Dr. Zack Pate, Chairman of the World i
| |
| 13 Association of Nuclear Operators. He recently retired from 14 the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, where he was the 15 Chairman and CEO, Dr. Pate brings to this table a very 16 broad view of the nuclear industry from a plant operations 17- as well as a performance measurement perspective.
| |
| 18 Mr. Harold Ray, Executive Vice President of 19 Southern California Edison Company -- in addition to being 20 an NRC licensee, he has been very active in the Nuclear 21 Energy Institute's Working Group on Regulatory Issues.
| |
| 22 Mr. David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer with 23 the Union of Concerned Scientists -- UCS, as it is called, 24 is dedicated to advancing responsible public policies in 25 areas where science and technology play a critical role.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| * d 7
| |
| 1 UCS always has provided thoughtful input to the NRC and we 2
| |
| look forward to Mr. Lochbaum's comments.
| |
| 3 Dr. Forrest Remick, the former Chair of the NRC 4
| |
| Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, of course a former 5 Commissioner of the NRC and now an engineering consultant 6
| |
| involved with the nuclear industry, will give us a unique 7
| |
| perspective on the operation of the agency.
| |
| 8 On behalf of the Commission, I thank not only 9 those of you here at the table, but also members of the NRC 10 Staff, Congressional staff members, and those of you in the 11 public and the press present today or reading this 12 transcript at a later date for your interest and 13 participation in ensuring that the NRC has processes that i
| |
| 14 maintain safety in a fair and a consistent manner.
| |
| 15 The Commission is interested in comments, 16 evaluations, and proposed solutions from all participants, 17 and we look forward to an informative meeting.
| |
| 18 We have made available the room adjacent to this 19 conference room which is to the right as you exit and the 20 Commission meeting room in 1 White Flint as overflow rooms 21 where you can observe the meeting if you so desire.
| |
| 22 Additionally, this meeting is being broadcast to l-23 both buildings here at White Flint and our regional offices, 1
| |
| 24 and at this time we will hear opening statements from our 25 invited guests.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) B42-0034
| |
| | |
| 4- .
| |
| 8 1 I would like to call on Mr. Earle Nye to begin.
| |
| 2 MR. NYE: Thank you, Chairman Jackson.
| |
| 3 We appreciate your invitation to be with you this 4 morning and to be a part of this dialogue to consider 5 possible changes in regulatory structure and process.
| |
| 6 On behalf of t he Nuclear Energy Institute and the 7 nuclear energy industry, I want to comment you, Chairman 8- Jackson, and each of the Commissioners for your progressive 9 approach in undertaking this review and in calling this 10 meeting. Because there is much ground to cover today and it 11 is most important that.we have the opportunity to fully 12 define some of the key issues, I will limit my remarks to a 13 few brief points with which I hope we can all agree.
| |
| 14 First, the electric utility industry is undergoing 15 a period of profound change, not unlike many other elements 16 of our economy. Competition is here and the fundamentals of 17 the business have been irreversibly changed. Nuclear fuel 18 generating units are being subjected to a different and more 19 challenging form of economic standard. In many instances l 20 the availability and the viability of this potentially 21 low-cost non-emitting, highly reliable technology is being 22 challenged.
| |
| 23 Second, the nuclear industry is performing at the 24 highest levels of safety, reliability and effectiveness in 25 its history. I am not unmindful that the Commission has l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| j Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| . 4 l
| |
| 1 sought to be constructive in this regard and I am pleased 2
| |
| that much of what has been accomplished has been through the
| |
| -3 industry's initiatives, and despite this enviable record an 4
| |
| even better record of economic performance will be required 5 in the future.
| |
| 6 )
| |
| A financial analyst with Lehman Brothers, Mr. Jim 7.
| |
| Asseltine, a name not unfamiliar to many of you, said 8
| |
| recently that in the future nuclear units may have to 9
| |
| 1
| |
| ' perform consistently at economic levels now being achieved 10 only by the top quartile of performers. At the NEI 11 conference in May, Jim spoke to-the impact of regulation in 12 this matrix, indicating that the challenge will be to make 13 sure that the Commission can discharge its responsibilities l
| |
| 14 in a way that provides the industry the flexibility to make 15 adjustments in organizational structure and in operating 16 philosophies -- which brings me to my third and final point.
| |
| 17 Strong, effective, and credible regulatory 18 oversight is essentially and not subject to compromise, but 19 safety is not inconsistent with efficiency, nor is 20 regulatory assurance inconsistent with innovation and 21 flexibility. The industry's current level of performance 22 provides, I think, a sound basis for the NRC to make 23 significant improvement in regulatory processes. The 24 Commission has been working hard to incorporate 25 risk-informed and performance-based approaches into the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| | |
| s .
| |
| 10 1 . regulatory process, and the industry has invested heavily in 2 this work to make safety regulation more efficient, but I 3 think we all would agree that the potential benefits have 4 largely eluded us as yet.
| |
| l 5 Accordingly, I am very appreciative of the efforts 6 and willingness of Chairman Jacksen and the Commissioners to 7 open this dialogue with stakeholder and to undertake to 8 make significant and meaningful improvement in the l
| |
| )
| |
| 9 regulatory process of the NRC.
| |
| 10 For this meeting and the subsequent deliberations 11 and initiatives, I commit that the industry will be 12 responsive and will be forthright, that we will be candid
| |
| -13 and constructive. With you we. commit every effort to 14 achieve meaningful enhancement of the regulatory process, 15 and I would thank you very much.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Nye.
| |
| 17 Let me call, if I may, on-Dr. Pate. Zack?
| |
| 18 DR. PATE: I would like to add my commendation to 19 the Commission f.e putting together this forum for 20 discussion of the issues the Chairman outlined. In the 21' not-too-distant future we will reach the 20th anniversary of ;
| |
| 22 the Three Mile Island accident, and I think that gives us 23 good thought -- a good opportunity to pause and to think 24 about putting the post-TMI era behind us, not to forget the 12 5 lessons learned but to move forward to a new era that Earle 1'
| |
| i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 J
| |
| | |
| i 11 1 Nye has described.
| |
| 2 My view of the plants in the U.S. are an order of 3
| |
| 3 magnitude safer than they were at the time of Three Mile 4
| |
| Island, or orders of magnitude safer, and that gives us a 5 chance for taking a fresh approach.
| |
| 6 My comments this morning will focus on what I 7 describe as a longstanding disconnect between the 8 expectations of the Commission or the EDO or other senior 9 off.icials at NRC and what actually happens in the field at 10 the utility and plant interface.
| |
| 11 Headquarters and regional personnel routinely, 12 every day, indeed every hour, impose requirements on the 13 plants that the Commission or the EDO or other senior 14 managers would not support if in each instance you knew what 15 was happening. Time and time again over these past 18 years 16 that I have been observing, when such examples are brought 1 17 to the attention of an individual Commissioner or the EDO, i 18 you find the situation to be just as unreasonable as I do, t
| |
| 19 but this continues.
| |
| 20- The Tyler Sperrin study, conducted some four years 21 ago, illustrates this problem quite clearly, even 22 dramatically. More on this in a minute.
| |
| 23 I am now in my third career. My first career of 24 over 20 years was in the Navy. In the Navy we had an 25 expression called " watch your whites" or " cover your ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 12 1 whites" -- if you weren't careful on board a ship or in a 2 shipyard you could get grease or oil on your sparkling white 3 uniform, but over time this expression came to have a second 4 meaning. It came to mean to keep out of trouble.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Colvin's slide. Thank you.
| |
| 6 No, it's not -- is that?
| |
| 7 MR. COLVIN: No, that is not my slide, Madame
| |
| : 8. Chairman. _It's entitled, " Industry Goals for the Regulatory 9 Environment." Great.
| |
| 10 What I wanted to do was to speak for a minute, as 11 I said, on these over-arching issues. And I think that we, 12 as the industry, share similar goals.with you, as the 13 regulator, on what we need to ensure that we have a proper 14 regulatory process in. place. And I think these points 15 illustrate that.
| |
| 16 We do need a' credible regulatory agency as viewed 17 by the public, by the Congress, by the industry. We need to 18 have mutual trust and confidence in the regulatory process, 19 and I think we need to work -- our goal is to have a 20 non-adversarial relationship. We certainly need 21 consistency, predictability and stability in the process.
| |
| l' 22. We desire full recognition of the industry
| |
| '23 improvement activities by the agencies and I think a clear 24 definition of the roles between NRC and the industry where 25 we have a cc7 mon mission, which in fact is the safety l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t-r
| |
| | |
| .- 4 13 1 mission of the agency and the industry.
| |
| 2 Next slide, please.
| |
| 3 There are some perceptions I did want to just take 4
| |
| a moment on to share with the Commission, and with the 5
| |
| participants, from the industry as the regulatory process 6 exists today. An increased number of rules and regulatory 7 actions. Some regulatory actions we believe circumvent the 8 rulemaking processes. We see that the advice of experts an'd 9 other advisory bodies is not fully utilized. We see the
| |
| ; 10 acceptable regulatory standard as a changing target above L
| |
| 11 what is compliance with the rules. The basis of many 12 actions appears to be opinion or re-interpretation or i
| |
| i 13 interpretation of what is required.
| |
| 14 We see some examples of bulletins and Generic 15 Letters misused. We see that a lot of the requests that 16 take place really have little regard for some of the real 17 impact on management, people or costs.
| |
| 18 We see the -- I'm sorry, the next slide, please.
| |
| L 19 Inconsistency between headquarters and regions. An increase 20 in inspection efforts and in resulting impact on the plaats.
| |
| 21 Some injection into management decisions and the mar.agement i
| |
| 22 issues.
| |
| 23 And, basically, the last issue is not responsive 24 to some of the changes that are needed in the industry.
| |
| 25 Now, I show these slides really because they ANN RILEY & ASFOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court F.eporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| s .
| |
| 14 1 depict -- these last two slides, I think, in my view, depict 2 at a high level some of the problems that have continued to 3 exist in the regulatory process over many years, and I would 4 be. remiss if I didn't tell you tnat these were the slides 5 that I used before the Advisory Committee on Reactor 6 ' Safeguards and later with the Commission in August of 1989.
| |
| 7 And I think they are illustrative of the nature of the 8 problems that we need to address and I think we have the 9 opportunity to address with this forum.
| |
| 10 I have participated in five previous initiatives 11 of similar nature with five previous Commissions, and, 12 unfortunately, although we have made quite a bit of change, 13 we really have not made the change needed, or what I would 14 characterize as the real change needed to move forward in
| |
| ~
| |
| 15 this regulatory environment.
| |
| 16 I am optimistic that today that we have a new 17 opportunity, and that comes about from the leadership of 18 this Commission and the dedication, and we are ready'to 19 support that.
| |
| 20 I think there are two other issues which are 21' really factors which add to that which give me the 22 confidence that we will be able to make these changes. And 23 that first issue, Mr. Nye has talked about, and that is the 24 issue that there is a change needed to be ready to regulate 25 this mature industry through the transition to competition ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| | |
| 15 1 and into the 21st Century. I mean that change is absolutely 2
| |
| necessary because we cannot continue going -- regulating the
| |
| .3 business that -- the business is changing and we need to 4
| |
| change the way we regulate it and still maintain public 5 health and safety.
| |
| 6 And I think the second point, which is also very 7
| |
| important, is that we have today an increased recognition of 8
| |
| the important role that nuclear energy plays in the United 9
| |
| States, that is coming about in the policy arena, policy 10- makers and certainly with the United States Congress. And 11 there is an-increasing amount of Congressional interest in I 12 these activities, and I think that is very constructive, and 13 we-have a good opportunity to take advantage of both of 14 those factors, along with the Commission's leadership, and 15 we look forward to participating in this discussion.
| |
| 16 Thank you, Chairman.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
| |
| 18 Dr. Remick.
| |
| 19 DR. REMICK: Thank you very much, and I want to 20 join in congratulating the Commissioners on holding a 21 stakeholder meeting, and I appreciate having been invited.
| |
| 22 I have had a wide variety of interactions with the 23' NRC and its predecessor agency, the AEC, o'ver a period of ;
| |
| 24 about 42 years, so I do feel I bring a somewhat unique 25 perception to this meeting.
| |
| j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I
| |
| | |
| 16 1 I have seen the agency extensively from the inside 2 and from the outside, and I feel very much at home in this 3 agency and with its people. I have the highest respect for 4 the NRC, its important mission and its people.
| |
| ; 5 But I also have some differences and concern about l
| |
| 6 the. agency's direction and its future. There are a number 7 of things that I considered saying to you today, but I 8 believe there are others at this table who might best 9 address many of those points. But there are some things 10 that maybe I am in a best position to say' . Therefore, I 11 wish to share with you some perceptions of the NRC today.
| |
| 12 To conserve time, I'll go to the bottom line in a 13 direct and perhaps blunt manner, sharing with you what I see 14 from my perspective, and when I say "you," I mean the agency 15 in general. However, because of my past relationship with 16 .the NRC, it gives me some discomfort and pain to be so blunt 17 in a public forum,-but I take your interest in hearing from 18 'your stakeholder as sincere.
| |
| 19 Further, to the best of my knowledge I have.no ox 20 that might be gored. My comments are meant to be 21 constructive and are provided with respect for you and your 22 various positions.
| |
| 23 Much of what I read that you say as a collegial 24 Commission, I can agree with. But to be blunt, the 25 Commission does not know in detail how the agency's programs ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 .
| |
| | |
| 17
| |
| .1- are being performed in the field.
| |
| And after all it is said 2 that performance is what performance does.
| |
| [ As a result, you 3
| |
| have lost some credibility and are losing credibility on the 4 Hill. You are being seen more and more as an agency with 5
| |
| problems, thus, you are being seen as a problem agency.
| |
| 6 The over-emphasis on blind adherence to strict 7 compliance, with very confusing regulations, and strict l
| |
| 8 j
| |
| i compliance with documents never intended for that purpose, 9 is in some cases diverting plan personnel's attention from
| |
| ! 10 more safety-related activities.
| |
| 11 l
| |
| Direction to the staff to write up anything they 12 see that appears to be wrong, whether or not it falls under 13 the regulations, is not only questionable, but wasteful.
| |
| 14 It is my fear that rather than maintaining or 15 increasing nuclear power plant safety, this trend may be 16 resulting in reduced attention to safety. As a result, you 17 are losing credibility with many of your licensees, who, in 18 return, are losing respect for the agency and its regulatory 19 process. You are seen as having lost focus and perspective 20 on what constitutes safety and adequate protection of the 21 public, and are striving instead to duplicate industry's 22 initiative of seeking excellence in plant operation.
| |
| 23 You speak of striving to be risk-informed, and you 24 speak of the need for performance-based regulatory 25 implementation, but little impact is seen in the field. In t
| |
| I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| | |
| e .
| |
| 18 1 fact, there appears to be great reluctance to accept 2 risk-informed insights as justification for considering 3 change. Further, you are seen as neither being fully 4 committed to the various pilot programs that have been 5 undertaken or underway, nor implementing or taking advantage 6 of the results.
| |
| 7 The Commission is seen as a highly bifurcated 8 body, not a unified, collegial body. Rumors of in-fighting 9 are rampart, both internal and external to the agency. As a 10 result, many of the staff are perceived as being hunkered 11 down and afraid to make decisions, and reviews and decisions 12 are seen to languish with numerous further requests for 13 additional information seen as delaying tactics. This, I 14 believe, is the basis for industry's concern over timely 15 license renewal reviews.. The morale of some staff is low 16 and a number are seen as biding their time to retire or wait 17- for change. The agency has lost much technical expertise-18 and regulatory knowledge and memory, and I can also say that 19 for the national laboratories that 'you use extensively.
| |
| 20 The agency is highly intrusive into the day to day 21 activities of licensees. Little, if any, change or relief 22 is seen based on improved plant safety and operation. For 23 better, but also for worse, this intrusiveness in large part 24 drives what goes on at the plants on a day to day basis.
| |
| 25 The intrusiveness is largely based upon highly subjective ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| . 4 19 1
| |
| criteria which NRC residents, and regional and headquarters 2 personnel would like to see done at the plants and i i
| |
| 3 frequently with the best intent. But finding the l 4 relationship to public safety, or to the Commission's l
| |
| 5 regulations is frequently difficult to see.
| |
| l The influence I l 6 of and the discipline prescribed by the Backfit Rule is not j 7 evident in this subjective ratcheting.
| |
| 8 The influence of subjective SALP ratings, or of' 9
| |
| subjectively being placed on a Watch List play a large part 10 in what drives many day to day activities at plants whether 11 or not the activities have a safety nexus. The subtle 12 threat or fear or adverse SALP scores or being placed on the 13 Watch List are an effective means of getting licensees to 14 make changes that the staff wants.
| |
| i Many such changes would 15 not meet the criteria of the Backfit Rule or be solidly 16 anchored in the Commission's regulations.
| |
| 17 For example, the use of Confirmatory Action 18 Letters has grown by leaps and bounds recently, and these 19 are viewed as convenient techniques to obtain changes that 20 the staff wants done, while getting around ths Backfit Rule, 21 the regulations and the Commission. And if you doubt this, 22 I urge that you read all the CALs issued in recent months 23 and ask the following about the actions being, quote, 24 " confirmed."
| |
| 25 What is the relative safety significance of the f
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| L__________.______________________.______________.__.____.__
| |
| | |
| 20 1 individual actions being, quote, " confirmed"? Are the 2 actions, in effect, new requirements? Where are the actions 3 specified in the regulations? Do the actions meet the 4 criteria of the Backfit Rule? Is the letter truly, quote, 5 " confirmatory," or has it been previously written and is 6 being imposed?
| |
| 7 If the actions being confirmed are not safety 8 significant or not specified in the regulations, what place 9 do they have in a Confirmatory Action Letter? And I can say 10 the same thing about some of the Confirmatory Orders of 11 recent date. It would also be an interesting exercise to 12 read a large sampling of Inspection Reports or sit in on 13 inspection exits and ask some of the same questions about 14 matters being addressed.
| |
| l 15 Now, I think I have said more than enough to help 16 kickoff this discussion. Much of what I have said, I am i 17 sure you have heard before. But what you as an agency do 1
| |
| 18 about it is what is important. And I thank you very much.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| 20 Mr. McNeill.
| |
| 21 MR. McNEILL: Thank you very much, Madame 22 Chairman. I really do appreciate the opportunity to 23 participate in this forum and really commend the Commission 24 for providing such a forum for discussion.
| |
| 25 Although I didn't plan it this way, I think some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| . 4 i
| |
| 21 l l'
| |
| of you in the room know that just this morning we, as PECO 2
| |
| . Energy, and our partner, British Energy, made an 3
| |
| announcement that Amergen, which is our partnership company, 4
| |
| has signed a Letter of Intent to purchase Three Mile Island
| |
| {
| |
| 5 Unit 1, which after about 90 days of due diligence review, 6-we would then expect to file the appropriate regulatory 7 filings for the license transfers.
| |
| 8 I believe that this event really does signal the 9
| |
| beginning of a major restructuring of our nuclear power
| |
| :00 industry and that is reinforced by the fact that, as we have 11.
| |
| gone out and discussed our concept with other owners, 12 clearly, there is an expectation that there will be
| |
| -13 -significant consolidation within the industry. And don't 14 underestiumte the strength of this movement. I think the
| |
| .15 economics that Earl Nye has described in terms of 16- competition are a very, very strong force that will begin to 17 move'the industry along and, although that course can be 18 shaped somewhat, I don't think that there will be a reversal 19 of it. l 20 I personally believe that a lot of these changes 21 are good, that they will in fact continue to improve safety.
| |
| 22 Many people think that these kinds of deregulations are in i 23 fact going to detract from safety, but I frequently point to 24 the airline industry, which has now been deregulated some 20 25 years or so, where, in fact, there has been improved airline 1
| |
| i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ,
| |
| l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 .
| |
| | |
| '22 1 safety. Almost every year we have seen significant 2- improvements over that full 20 years.
| |
| 3 We are also going to eliminate inefficiencies 4 through improved processes and performance, which I believe,
| |
| .5 and I will discuss a little later, in fact, produce better 6 results. The. pressures for; speed, time, profit, in fact, if 7 done correctly, will improve the overall efficiency and 8 performance of our industry.
| |
| 9 However, full success will only come through an 10 efficiently integrated industry, which includes the 11 regulator. We are an industry that has already changed 12 appreciably as we have moved from a design, construction 13 based industry to an operations based industry, and where '
| |
| 14 the regulator's role has shifted more toward monitoring of 15 operation.
| |
| 16 But many of the existing practices that we utilize
| |
| ~
| |
| g 17 in the field today were derived from processes that had 18 their genesis in the design licensing, construction 19 licensing and review. And it is not clear to me that that 20 is an appropriate basis for an ongoing operating regime that 21 we see, in fact, in the industry today. 'We now have nearly 22 40 years of experience and I think that it is time that we 23 . consider revamping the regulatory scheme.
| |
| 24 Revamping should include consideration of new 25 methodologies such-as risk-informed, performance-based l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 23
| |
| .1 ' regulation, as embodied in the maintenance rule. But it 1 2 \
| |
| must also include consideration of the elimination of '
| |
| 3 methodologies that are ineffective, inefficient or produce 4
| |
| unintended negative behaviors such as those highlighted by !
| |
| 5 Dr. Pate.
| |
| 6 In addition to introducing methodologies, as I 7
| |
| have mentioned before, we also need to increase our speed.
| |
| 8 And this may seen counter-intuitive, but I think it is 9-necessary to recognize the fact that concentration on speed,
| |
| ; 10 in fact, provides an impetus to create processes that have ;
| |
| 11 little room for error, that demand a discipline.
| |
| i i
| |
| 12 For example, one of the elements of improved 13 performance in our industry over the last several years has 14 been shortened outage lengths, and we have done that, 15 accomplished that by improving the quality of our work, by 16 improving the coordination of our work groups, and driving 17 for speed and accomplishment. We have actually done that, I 18 think, by continuing to concentrate on safety and 19 maintaining safe plant configurations. Speed and safety are 20 not mutually exclusive. We know that it can be done from 21 our experience.
| |
| -22 While our industry must continue to demonstrate 23 high levels of performance and safety, we need to make sure 24 that the same kind of performance exists in our regulatory 25 regimes. We have seen success in adopting the maintenance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l )
| |
| l 24 1 rule, and Joe Colvin has just briefly outlined, and Harold 2 Ray will continue to expand on the framework of a revised 3 regulatory oversight process. And I believe that the 4 industry, from its regulators through its suppliers and 5 OEMs, through to our operators, and whether they are going 6 to be utilities, true utilities, or generating companies, 7 through to our customers and on to the environment, will be L 8 well served by consideration of some regulatory regime.
| |
| 9 Thank you.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
| |
| 11 Mr. Ray.
| |
| 12 MR. RAY: Thank you, Chairman Jackson, for this 13 opportunity. I hope I can represent my fellow chief nuclear 14 officers, distinguished member, of which General Hanlon, I 15 see is in the audience, and he can certainly speak for 16 himself at the appropriate time.
| |
| 17 If I could start with overhead 1, please. Let me 18 see if we've got into the right set here before I begin.
| |
| 19 Yeah. First I'd like to talk about the need for 20 objective priorities throughout the regulatory process. I 21 perceive that there's a widespread of not universal 22 agreement on all sides that nuclear safety would be enhanced 23 by more. objective prioritization of available resources.
| |
| 24 I say this notwithstanding that I also believe 25 that the level of safety achieved in the industry today is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| (.
| |
| 1 I
| |
| 25 1
| |
| entirely acceptable, but we all know that while we may be 2
| |
| l able to do anything well, none of us can do everything well.
| |
| ! 3 Because we cannot yet consistently discriminate in 4
| |
| importance among the things which are subject to regulatory 5 interest, we too often dissipate our resources on what is 6 easy, but frequently unimportant, and fail to address what 7
| |
| is difficult, but frequently far more important to safety.
| |
| 8 On the subject of dissipation of resources, at the 9
| |
| risk of tempting fate and recognizing that anything I say 10 about my plant will, by definition, be self-serving, let me 11 nevertheless give a concrete example, if I may.
| |
| 12 As the Commissioners may know,' San Onofre is one 13 of those licensees which manage plant risks to a real time 14 all mode plant safety monitor. We use this in addition to 15 programs which comply with regulatory requirements.
| |
| 16 Management bonuses are tied in part to the 17 computed core damage frequency. By contrast, neither SALP 18 nor INPO rating figure into the management bonus program.
| |
| 19 We believe this promotes a strong safety culture 20 at San Onofre which is based on good understanding of what 21 contributes to risk.
| |
| 22 We also believe this is reflected in conservative 23 operating practices from a compliance viewpoint. It has 24 been over six years since any of the three units received a 25 civil penalty.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 26 1 However, in seeming contrast to this, San Onofre 2 has often been either the highest or among the highest 3 plants in the country for the number of non-compliances 4 issued, including plants on the watch list.
| |
| 5 Why is this? I believe the record is clear, 6 including as described in the SALP reports and meeting 7 discussions.
| |
| 8 I'm a long -- lifelong believer in the use of 9 detailed, prescriptive procedures for the conduct of work 10 where the probability of error may be small, but the 11 consequences may be large.
| |
| 12 I also believe in the value of programs which, 13 although they may be complex, have the virtue of making it 14 more difficult to propagate an error, once made.
| |
| 15 A natural result of this is that it is easy to 16 assert on any given day that someone somewhere failed to 17 literally comply with a program or procedure.
| |
| 18 Since January, 1997, San Onofre has receive 21 19 cited and 22 non-cited violations for failure to strictly 20 follow procedures. In only a few cases did these 21 non-compliances have any safety significance whatever in our 22 view.
| |
| 23 Now do I approve or even passively tolerate 24 procedure non-compliances? No , I do not.
| |
| 25 Is it a violation of regulatory requirements?
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 .
| |
| | |
| 27 1 Yes, it is.
| |
| 2 Do I think the NRC should ignore any violation of 3 requirements? No, I do not.
| |
| i l
| |
| 4 But, finally, was it an appropriate use of l
| |
| 5 licensee and regulatory resources to process a total of 43 6 violations including identification and verification of 7 correction action to prevent occurrence?
| |
| 8 No. I certainly do not.
| |
| 9 Instead, I believe we should be able to address 10 procedure non-compliances ourselves, unless some objective 11 measure were to demonstrate that it was a reflection of 12 fundamental deficiency in the safety culture which 13 threatened to result in deficiencies in plant operation and 14 significant safety risk.
| |
| 15 This is an example of valuable resources being 16 dissipated on the easy regulatory intervention and issues of 17 procedure compliance, with little or no safety significance 18 instead of coming to grips with how to implement the 19 available technology, to focus on real safety issues, 20 namely, the quantification and minimization of the risk of 21 core damage, oiling in the core, large early release or 22 whatever.
| |
| 23 Now I'd like to also touch on the importance of 24 consistence policy direction to change. We conclude this 25 overhead by observing something I'm sure we all know.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 28 1 In any large institution, mine included, 2 successful achievement of change demands consistent policy 3 direction, applied over what seems at least to be a long 4 time. And it is the inability to maintain this consistent 5 direction and the need to capture quick rewards whenever you 6 can. It is the reason the staff always wins in the end, or 7 almost always.
| |
| 8 The Commission must adopt a policy direction and 9 maintain it over a significant period or the spring rebound 10 as soon as the force is removed or redirected by some new 11 crisis.
| |
| 12 The change required to implement risk informed 13 regulation, as you Commissioners know all too well, is a 14 prime example of the difficult challenge which will never be 15 met so long as we continue to dissipate resources on what is 16 easy.
| |
| 17 May I have my second overhead, please?
| |
| 18 My fourth point is that safety and compliance can 19 be demonstrated to be congruent. It's the objective, 20 determination and priorities, which we indicate, can 21 demonstrate congruence between what is done in the name of 22 compliance and what is required to efficiently achieve an 23 acceptable assurance of safety.
| |
| 24 But the quest for perfection in the process is the 25 enemy of the assurance of adequate safety, would be my ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 29 1 hypothesis. Thus far, I can only say that the normal 2
| |
| bureaucratic incentive to seek perfection in the process is 3
| |
| indeed proving to be the enemy of our ability to assure 4 adequate safety with acceptable efficiency.
| |
| 5 Without attempting to provide examples at this l
| |
| l 6 point, owing to the lack of time, this problem is manifest l 7 in the seeming impracticality of agreeing on a reasonable 8
| |
| path for implementing probability models and regulatory 9 space.
| |
| 10 We see it also in what the industry experiences as 11 the excessive time required thus far to implement individual 12 risk-informed incentives for regulatory changes.
| |
| 13 The kind of explicit policy direction that the 14 Commission has provided with respect to 10 CFR 50.59 is 15 going to continue to be required if we are to be able to 16 move ahead in developing objective tools for assuring 17 nuclear safety.
| |
| 18 And, finally, on the point of latent regulatory 19 ambiguity that I feel must be addressed. 10 CFR 50.59 is an 20 example of where regulatory ambiguity was allowed to exist 21 for a long period to the point that when the Staff moved to 22 enforce its interpretation, it was clearly viewed with 23 justification as a significant change by the industry. The 24 true purpose and function of the FSAR and the definition of 25 design bases with respect to safety margin are other ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 30
| |
| .1 examples.
| |
| 2 As you know, the buck stops here, with you, on 3 these matters, and licensees should be able to depend on 4 consistency of interpretation by the agency as revealed in 5 its practice until and unless a formal change process is 6 followed. But I want to hasten to acknowledge that the 7 -Commission has recognized situations where perceived 8 ambiguity exists, has undertaken to provide clarification, 9 meanwhile granting the industry a period to adjust.
| |
| 10 Nevertheless, as I think Mr. Colvin mentioned, the 11 industry does feel that changes are occurring without, in 12 all cases, following the Commission's own process for 13 change.
| |
| 14 My third and last overhead, please.
| |
| 15 Again, quite coincidentally, and without knowing 16 what Corbin was going to say at all, I want to end on the 17 new challenge for regulatory process which he so well 18 illustrated.
| |
| 19 I would maintain the majority of licensed power 20 reactors will not be in cost-of-service rates within five 21- years My company is licensed at two sites, San Onofre and 22 Palo Verde. There are four owners at one and six at the 23 other.
| |
| 24 In the case of Palo Verde, there are six separate 25 rate-setting jurisdictions in four states, and this is not ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 31 !
| |
| 1 unique.
| |
| 2 I could go on, but looking at time, let me just --
| |
| 3 and given, as I say, that Corbin has already made the point i
| |
| 4 much better than I can, in any event, let me just say my 5 last two points.
| |
| 6 The sale or transfer of ownership to non-electric 7
| |
| owners will accelerate, and the point has been well made 8 already.
| |
| 9 Finally, NRC actions to prepare for this change 10 need to continue to expand, and let me conclude with what I i
| |
| 11 mean by that. I want to acknowledge that the Commission has 12 moved in response to this change, and the industry has 13 responded, we hope, in support.
| |
| 14 Thus far, we have addressed financial l
| |
| 15 qualification, both for decommissioning and now for 16 operations. !
| |
| The Commission has also considered related '
| |
| 17 issues such as grid reliability, but I would urge you to 18 continue to give attention to this important area and i 19 determine if there are other issues which need to be 20 addressed.
| |
| 21 I was recently at an energy forum in which a 22 former Commissioner, not present in this room, opined that 23 the fundamental precepts of reactor regulation may be 24 inconsistent with the concept of a merchant nuclear plant.
| |
| 25 I don't think they are, but I would hate to find out after ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 32 1 the fact.
| |
| 2 Rather than repeatedly remind ourselves that we do 3 not know how restructuring will turn out in detail in every 4 location, I suggest the Commission simply create a straw man 5 merchant plant, and ask themselves if they are fully 6 prepared to grant a license for operation.
| |
| 7 Thank you.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
| |
| 9 What we decided was that those of us internal to 10 the Commission would not necessarily make opening statements 11 in the interest of time, but in addition because we are 12 primarily here to listen and to have our dialogue through 13 the back-and-forth we hope to have, but I do want to offer 14 my Commission colleagues the opportunity to make any initial 15 remarks they may~wish to make. Otherwise, we can launch 16 into our discussions.
| |
| l 17 Commissioner?
| |
| 18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you. I was not ready )
| |
| I 19 for any prepared remarks, but I do want to go back to l 20 something that is kind of overriding theme, and that is the 21 issue of how do we regulate versus how should we regulate, j 22 and I'think that is the bottom line.
| |
| 23' There is an issue that keeps coming up, and I 24 think Mr. Ray referred to it. It's the issue of risk i 25 information and then I think Mr. McNeill called it risk l l
| |
| I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| )
| |
| | |
| 33 1 information performance base. I want to repeat myself, that 2
| |
| it is important that we understand that these things are not 3
| |
| tied together all the timer.that the issue of tying 4
| |
| risk-informed with performance base makes it difficult, 5 makes it expensive to implement, and that there are benefits
| |
| ]
| |
| l 6 in becoming risk-informed that are beyond what the use of l 7 the tool in itself means. ]
| |
| 8 Let me take a minute on that. Risk information, 9
| |
| more than actually a tool'to determine when something should l 10 happen or not, can and maybe should become a regulatory l
| |
| 11 philosophy in which an envelope of safe and adequate 12 operation can be bound by risk information and what we know 13 today. If we try at the present time to add 14 performance-based like we did in the maintenance rule or 15- Appendix J, that is very resource-intensive, and the 16 ' industry, I know, is resistant to anything that is very 17 resource-intensive, maybe for the reasons that we don't know 18 what the economics of the industry are.
| |
| 19 However, the issue of how is risk information used 20 needs to come between the industry and the NRC to some 21 resolution in a reasonable period of time, and I suggest 12 2 that the first step.is to just really separate what 23 performance-based regulation is from what risk information 1 l
| |
| i 24 is, because as long as you tie them together, you are making 25 it more-difficult, more resource-intensive. It is vital l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 34 1 that this point, as we go forth, be brought to some 2 conclusion in a reasonable period of time because if not, we 3 keep spending resources and talking about it without getting 4 it to conclusion.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
| |
| 6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: My first comment will be 7 I hope we let Joe --
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I plan to.
| |
| 9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- in the second talk, 10 because I think.there are several things that have been said 11 that they need to talk about.
| |
| 12 The second point is I do think that one of the 13 themes that comes across about the need for greater speed on 14 the part of the regulator in a decommissioned, regulated 15 industry is on the mark. I think in an all-hands meeting, 16 in my second month on the job, an internal all-hands meeting 17 we have on the green out here, I made the point that the old 18 model of a ponderous industry dealing with ponderous state 19 utility commissions and a ponderous regulator was not going 20 to be viable for very.much longer, and yet what we need is 21 -- probably mostly us, but we need some help in figuring out 22 to speed up our various processes,_our processing of license 23 amendments, our processing of rules, our processing of other 24 items that come before us.
| |
| 25 The one case that Mr. Pate, I do want to comment ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 35 1
| |
| on, because you did.say at one point that we oftentimes, 2 when things come to our attention, we disagree with the 3
| |
| Staff, that the famous or infamous license amendment request 4
| |
| to change the titles unfortunately at North Anna or Surrey 5 -- I'm not sure which~-- the trouble there was, as I 6 understand it, and the Staff can expand, they had not 7
| |
| . removed from the administrative section of the tech specs 8
| |
| these titles, and so a. tech spec amendment was required 9 under the current rules. Should a tech spec amendment be 10 required in order to change the titles? I think the 11 Commission and the Staff would be unanimous in saying no, we 12 have got to figure out how to change the rules so that 13 something like that isn't required. But, unfortunately, the 14 plain English of the rules in that circumstance requires it.
| |
| 15 Apparently the Staff, several years ago, had -- and as 16 people implement and approve standard tech specs, they are 17 getting'all that stuff out of the tech specs, but you~end up 18 with this old framework, this old prescriptive deterministic 1 19 framework hanging around, driving us to do some things that 20 are trivial, and we don't know, in all honesty, how to get l 21 to this risk-informed-performance-based-as- we-can-get-it l 22 framework that's perhaps epitomized in the maintenance rule.
| |
| 23 So I'd be interested -- examples like that point 24 out the problems with the old framework, and yet do we say
| |
| : 25. despite the rule, that you don't have to apply for a tech ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 36 1 spec change here, or do we -- I mean I don't know what the 2 answer is there, but we ran it down - Joe Callan and Sam t
| |
| 3 can talk more about it -- but it isn't worth a lot of talk.
| |
| 4 It is a good example of the old framework requiring l
| |
| 5 something that is silly and requiring Staff review that 6 shouldn't -- it should be secretarial, processing that 7 amendment. But yet we have this framework on the books, and 8 I don't know how to get it off the books without a massive 9 rulemaking procedure following the Administrative Procedure 10 Act that gets it off the books. So that's my --
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm going to come back to that, 12 but let me let Joe and then Sam make a few comments, if you 13 would care to.
| |
| 14 MR. CALLAN: With the same disclaimer that 15 Commissioner Dia made, that we didn't prepare any opening 16 comments. I'll just say -- I'll make three quick points.
| |
| 17 One is -- and this may surprise you all -- but I 18 would say the vast majority of the issues raised today, as 19 well as the issues that we have rea'd about, resonate very 20 strongly with the Staff in a positive way. Certainly all 21 the senior Staff and mid-level managers. The Staff is ready 22 for change. The Staff is receptive.
| |
| 23 Having said that, I think it's important to 24 remember that myself and all the senior Staff in the NRC 25 served our apprenticeship, as most of you did, during a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 37 1
| |
| period that was quite a bit different than today. And many 2 of the senior Staff, myself, for example, made a career out 3
| |
| of going from one problem situation to another problem 4 situation to another problem situation. So our life 5
| |
| experience has shaped us in a way to be somewhat jaundiced, 6
| |
| skeptical in our view, and we recognize that the industry 7 has changed dramatically since that period, and our views 8 are changing, but indulge us a little bit in the fact that 9 we are who we are because of our life's experience.
| |
| 10 And finally, this is a point that Dr. Pate made, 11 and several others touched on it, I am acutely aware of the 12 fact that much, much of the mischief occurs at the level of 13 the 180 or so residents we have out in the field and the 14 70-plus plant managers, operations superintendents, 15 maintenance manag'ers, every day, every week, at the 16 implementation level. .
| |
| .17 So what's elegant with us in this room, an elegant 18 solution here or an elegant solution in a Commission i
| |
| 19 meeting, may not be elegant if it can't be implemented t
| |
| l 20 properly.
| |
| I 21 So we have to be mindful of that. I think that's 22 a very critical issue. We have to come up with processes 23 that are robust and, again, to play off Dr. Pate's approach
| |
| (
| |
| 24 to using a Navy metaphor, we also had a Navy metaphor in my 25 experience where we talked about processes or activities ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| | |
| 38 1 being sailor-proof. Processes that are robust enough to be 2 implemented at the lowest level consistently day in and day 3 out.
| |
| 4 So I think we need to always be aware of that.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Co,' lins?
| |
| 6 MR. COLLINS: Thank you. I am going to be very 7 brief.
| |
| 8 My view is that the Office of NRR is receptive to 9 these issues, as has previously been stated. Some of them 10 perhaps have a history, historical in context, but still 11 pertinent as we do business today. I think it's a 12 beneficial dialogue, self-examination is good at any point, 13 not only for the industry, but also for the NRC and its l
| |
| 14 offices.
| |
| I 15 I would make acomment that a lot of the l
| |
| 16 conversation is directed for various reasons and perhaps not 17 inappropriately in all cases to the individuals in the 18 field. I'd just like to make a comment that I can't 19 disclaim knowledge of what goes on the field. I was a 20 resident inspector, I was a senior resident inspector, I
| |
| ! 21 have managed all three divisions in one region office and 22 assisted Bill Kane in Region I. I feel like I have a good 23 handle on what goes on in the field. It's easy for us to I
| |
| 24 cast down to the implementors. In fact, if you read an LER, 25 most LERS indicate personne] error. They don't talk about ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| l Court Reporters
| |
| ! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 39 1
| |
| management systems; they don't talk about senior managers at 2
| |
| the plants, or senior vice presidents and their involvement 3 in'the processes. We point to the people who do the work.
| |
| 4 I would like to acknowledge that most, if not all, 5
| |
| individuals that I have been associated with in the field do 6 their work honorably; they do it based on good intentions 7
| |
| for guidance; and it's our managers' job to provide that 8 guidance and provide the oversight. And I would just like 9 to acknowledge that.
| |
| 10 With that, I would echo what Joe indicated and 11 that is there is a lot of work going on presently; some in.
| |
| 12 the areas we have mentioned; some in other areas. Work in 13 progress is a promise, but I'm here to tell you that our 14 office is expending a lot of time on these areas. More 15 recently, perhaps, but also historically, since Joe and I 16 have been here, we have been self-examining not only how we l 17 do work, but what the products are and if they are !
| |
| i 18 serviceable for the industry and what their impact is. And 19 I see this effort as a good dialogue to continue that, and I l 20 look forward to what comes out of it.
| |
| l I
| |
| i 21 That's all.
| |
| ! 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| 23 There is always a challenge in a discussion like 24 this. We all have our lists of -- litany of items that have
| |
| )
| |
| 25 particularly bugged us over the years and/or formed examples ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 40 1 of what is fundamentally wrong with the regulatory process 2 The challenge becomes how does one begin to create some 3' order out of the chaos, and move forward in good faith, and 4 in that regard, I thought that it would be useful in terms 5 of how we proceed for us to try to give some structure to 6 our discussions, along the lines that I discussed. But 7 there is a fundamental question on the table having to do 8 with how we manage our programs that I think we have to 9 discuss. Perhaps it's threaded through all of the other 10 topical areas, but I would like to ask you to just kind of 11 keep the following overarching questions in mind, and that 12 is, what are the key opportunities for change for the NRC, 13 to.see if we can be solutions-oriented. Has the industry 14 availed itself of opportunities for change, and are there IF Others, either on its own or working in partnership with the 16 NRC, that make sense. What commitments then from the NRC 17 make sense, and what commitments are needed from the 18 industry in order for our commitments to make sense.
| |
| 19 I will give you an example, two examples that lead 20 me to ask those questions. The first was the one having to 21 do with the example that was raised by Dr. Pate and that 22 Commissioner McGaffigan spoke to, namely the issue about the 23 name change for an officer in a plant requiring a tech spec 24 amendment, and whether or not there is a need for rule 25 change or some such in order to be able to sweep that kind ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
| |
| .(202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 41 l' of thing away.
| |
| 2 Now my understanding was that the tech spec 3
| |
| improvement program, namely the adoption of improved 4 standard tech specs, was supposed to be a mechanism for 5
| |
| addressing that. kind of issue and to have in one fell swoop 6' an opportunity for a plant to have a tech spec, set of tech 7 specs that would not have this kind of trivia, and then the 8 . question-becomes, what happened then if in fact we are still 9
| |
| left with a' situation where this kind of situation occurs.
| |
| 10 And is the difficulty there having to do with the scrub not 11 having been complete enough at the time, if that's been 12 done, for the particular plant in mind, or is it some 13 failing on our part. So that's what I mean when I say have 14 we all availed ourselves of the opportunities, because 15 things that'are short of having to in fact have rule changes l
| |
| l- 16 or even statutory change in order to make -- because if 17 that's where we are, then I think we are in tough shape.
| |
| : 18. And the second question about what kind of 19 commitments make sense from us and what kind of commitments l 20 make sense from the industry, that question is spurred by 1
| |
| 21 the following two linked issues, and that is:
| |
| )
| |
| ! 22' Does risk-informed purely mean burden relief, or i.
| |
| L 23 are we willing to let the chips fall where they may in terms 24 -of focusing where the risk significance is greatest. And {
| |
| 1!5 the second, because I know that there's been some i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 )
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 42 1 skittishness about using certain quantitative assessment L 2 methods -- and I think risk-informed means we are not going 3 to use them strictly and alone, but there's been some j 4 skittishness because there's a feeling that the state of the 5- art has not advanced far enough with respect to, say, 6 probabilistic risk assessment, Mr.' Ray's robust use of it in 7 managing his facility notwithstanding.
| |
| 8 So a' question which my colleague,. Commissioner 9 Diaz, in fact has raised in the past, and that is what kind
| |
| : 10. of commitment to PRA quality or certification is the
| |
| .11 industry willing to make, but concomitant with that,.what 12 does that mean in terms.of what we think is necessary and-13 how do you get to some place that makes sense.
| |
| 14 So that's why those questions occur to me, and I
| |
| 15 that is have we all availed ourselves, whether we are 16 talking about the NRC or the industry, of-the opportunities 17- for change, short of massive or new programs, if there 18 already is'a question of pushing to completion some of what 19 already has been underway.
| |
| 20 And then what kind of. commitments are necessary or 21 make sense, from us, and from the industry, the ones that 22 have to match in order for us to move-ahead?
| |
| 23 So with that statement, I was thinking, why don't 24- fwe begin with discussing risk-informed, performance-based 25 regulations and regulatory. processes. We all know that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 43 1 early regulations were prescriptive, they were established 1 2
| |
| on a deterministic basis, they had conservatism built in, 3 some in the light of current day being perhaps too 4 conservative. We have the defense-in-depth philosophy which l 5
| |
| is a cornerstone of the way the industry grew and the way we i
| |
| 6 regulate in this country, but the Commission, at least in 7 . theory, has made a commitment to incorporate the use of risk 8 insights as much as it can and as broadly as it can in its 9 regulatory processes. At the same time, there does seem to 10 be some differences of opinion vis-a-vis performance-based 11 regulation, both what it means and how much sense it makes 12 for the industry today. Does it merely mean a results 13 focus, or does it mean some more involved requirements or 14 set of activities? And I think we need to try to come out .
| |
| ! 15 somewhere.
| |
| 16 And so I am going to begin by asking Mr. Ray, who 17 talked about managing his facility, and then ask Joe Colvin, 18 if he would, to start us-off with that. But as we talk l
| |
| 19 about issues, I am interested in solutions, and I think if 20 we could do that.
| |
| 21 MR. RAY: Thank you, Chairman Jackson, and I will 22 try and keep it brief. There were a lot of things there to 23 possibly invite comment, and I will try and keep on a narrow l 24 track.
| |
| 25 Although I think I did use risk in my comments, I JdRT RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
| |
| | |
| 44-1 tried to avoid the tension that Commissioner Diaz raised by 2 talking about an objective basis for allocating resources.
| |
| 3 I think Sam Collins' point was one I'd like to tee 4 off from, and that is do we have the resources -- you used 5 the word massive, Commissioner Diaz talked about it being 6 resource-intensive' work -- to change the basis upon which,we 7 regulate. But Sam mentioned how he had been out in the 8! field,.and was now here in the headquarters office, and I 9 happen to be acquainted with quite a lot of people, as long 10 as I've been around, who have.made that same change.
| |
| 11 I would say the agency does have the resources 12 necessary to undertake the kind of change that can only be 13 produced by rigorous, objective methodologies,. risk-informed 14 being the way that we describe it.
| |
| 15' It isn't a trivial thing. I had the experience of going 16 -down and getting all my chief nuclear officer -- colleagues 17- together in Florida.a couple of years ago to get a 18- commitment to;the industry's substantial effort to require 19 -- to produce that.
| |
| 20 I think in times past, you and I have talked about 21 a paper that we produced, got endorsed by everybody raising 22 .their hand and supporting it, and in that paper,. it speaks l23- to this issue of the substantial commitment that would be 24 required by the industry in order to undertake this task.
| |
| 25 After that, though -- and this goes to the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 45 1
| |
| comments I made about the perfection being the enemy of the 2
| |
| . good. 'We got an indication of what, simply put, I'd say is 3
| |
| we'd have to relicense every plant in the country to' 4
| |
| incorporate a PRA model that met a very rigorous set of 5 standards.
| |
| 6 And.I understand why the' staff comes out at that 7 point. That is a natural result of asking, "What are the 8
| |
| requirements that should apply if you are going to use risk 9 in regulation of these plants."
| |
| 10 Well, the answer is going to be that is probably 11 impractical.
| |
| '12 I'll conclude by simply saying, Jim Jackson, I
| |
| : 13. believe -- I'm convinced the high capability that this 14 Commission has to deal with that tension, that balance 15 'between what is an acceptable model upon which to base a 16 risk informed regulation.
| |
| 17 The guidance can be provided to the staff that 18 will overcome this dilemma that we face today. It also 19 manifests itself, as I said., in when people bring forward an 20: initiative, a very narrow initiative on ISI or diesel 21 testing or whatever. It runs into this same phenomenon.
| |
| 22 And, again, I don't mean to sound critical of the 23 staff. I understand how the staff operates. Even many 24 years, I was part of the staff.
| |
| 25 So I think that the solution lies largely in the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 46 1- policies that are within your ability to adopt. The 2 industry has pledged to support that. It will take 3 resources that I think exist today, but will have to be 4 redirected to do that, and it will take a consistent 5 position being maintained by the Commission for a 6 considerable period to get it done.
| |
| 7 It's not an easy task, and I don't mean to suggest 8 that it is. It does have to be sailor proof, as Joe said.
| |
| 9 I think it can be made so. And if I say anything more, I'm 10 going to get down into too much detail, so I'll just -- I'll 11 stop right there, which is giving you my conviction that it 12 can be done. The resources exist in the agency. The 13- industry has committed itself to do it, and it -- it is 14 possible, I think, for us to make that -- reaffirm that 15 commitment here now, and go forward on that basis.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, let me ask you a 17 question. I mean the Commission has a PRA implementation 18 plan,, and there were the various industry pilots, braided, 19 QA, tech spec'd changes, ISI, IST. And then the regulatory 20 guidance documents that have come out.
| |
| 21 Are any of the initiatives that the Commission 22 currently has underway or had underway moving down a line to 23 help us in this regard, or is it a question that it's not an l 24 --
| |
| that it needs to be. accelerated, or there are different 25 things that need to be done?
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 h
| |
| | |
| 47 1
| |
| I mean this is what I'm interested in trying to 2 get some understanding of.
| |
| 3 MR. RAY: The plan, I believe, is appropriate and 4 will achieve success. It is going to take involvement by 5 the Commission. It is going to make -- it is going to 6
| |
| require you all to make the kind of decision I referred to 7
| |
| when I said, "Look, 10 CFR 5059 does not mean there can be <
| |
| 8 zero increase in risk." l l
| |
| 9 Only-you could make that decision. Nobody else 10 here in this agency could make that decision.
| |
| 11 You've made it. I applaud you for it. It is 12 self-revealing what " minimal" means. I understand that.
| |
| 13 But the important thing was that you said it isn't zero.
| |
| 14 And you're going to have to be engaged in this 15 process, too, the structure and outline of it is, as you 16 say, before you. It's been adopted, and I think it can be 17 successful, but it will not happen by itself.
| |
| 18 Frankly, having participated in code writing 19 groups and so on in the years past, as Colvin mentioned, we 20 built these plants. We put them into operation in a 21 different era, but it was an era in which the agency and the L 22 industry worked together'to produce standards that were 23 acceptable to both parties.
| |
| i 24 I think that is needed here. This current process 25 is less than efficient that we have, because I don't think l i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 48 1 it produces enough engagement on operational issues that are 2 the drivers of what should be our focus, and, again, I don't 3 want to monopolize the time.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I'm going to help you to 5 monopolize it before I get to Mr. Calvin.
| |
| 6 When you say the current processes are not 7 efficient, what do you mean by that?
| |
| 8 I mean what needs to change?
| |
| 9 MR. RAY: I don't think that we have the kind of 10 engagement between the industry and the staff that we've had 11 in the past.
| |
| 12 We do not have a code-writing group, for example, 13 that would produce a deliverable product that addresses this 14 issue. What we have is an exchange of positions back and 15 forth. And it is very -- each of us tends to react t.o-the 16 other. We. don't work together to produce something that is 17
| |
| [ acceptable and then stands the scrutiny of public 18 . examination,-as, for example, the SME code does.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Joe, do you have any comments 20 you want to make on this?
| |
| 21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I do.
| |
| l 22 CHAIRMAN. JACKSON: Let me just --
| |
| 23 MR. CALLAN: I'll defer to Commissioner Diaz.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No. I'm not going to let him 25 off the hook.
| |
| I-Juni RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L
| |
| | |
| 49 1 MR. CALLAN: I think Harold's point about the fact 2
| |
| that we -- there's.too much posturing going on, and we see 3 it -- we've seen it recently in the 10 CFR 59 arena, our 4
| |
| quest for arriving at an improved assessment process.
| |
| ~
| |
| 5 But I think it's improving. I think recently in 6 the last several months, I think we've developed a better 7 relationship with industry groups such as NEI and it's 8 improving, but it hasn't been a-good record. I admit that.
| |
| 9 I'm not -- I don't go back-far enough to remember
| |
| : 10. co-groups, so I'can't address that. That''s before my time.
| |
| 11 MR. RAY: That's the price I pay, I guess.
| |
| 12 MR. CALLAN: That's right.
| |
| 13 MR. MCNEILL: I think you need to put these in 14 perspective, and I think maybe the PRA is a good example.
| |
| 15 I'm not a' historian of this, but my recollection 16 is that somewhere in the late eighties or very early 17 nineties, we began to discuss -- and when I say, "we," it 18 was the collective industry including the regulator.
| |
| 19 And some pilots came out. Pretty soon, everybody 20 had to produce one. There was an issue around submitting 21 them for review and your analysis and where there were any 22 specific risks within your plant.
| |
| 23 And out of that became a better understanding of I 24 some of the value'and use of a PRA that went beyond its !
| |
| 25 original intent, which I -- when it was prescribed, it was i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 50 1 around are there any unidentified specific risks on a 2 plant-by-plant basis.
| |
| 3 And I think we were -- because of the nature of 4 the development of the models, there were differences of 5 opinion, not only on how to do it, but to what level of 6 detail it needed to be done.
| |
| 7 And that, in a historical perspective, is probably 8 not bad because you were able to get a synergism of the 9 different viewpoints that may have now arrived at a better 10 basis for determining what you want on an ongoing basis, you 11- know, in terms of model detail and things of that nature, 12 than you would have gotten if somebody had sat down and 13 said, "Right here from the start, here is what I want,"
| |
| 14 because this was really untested methodology."
| |
| 15 Well, we now have come to the point where my sense 16 is that we have enough data to provide in more detail 17 explicit framework.
| |
| 18 What challenges does that present? Well, maybe 19 there are some people that have not done it in that manner.
| |
| 20 It's going to cost them money to go back and redo it, as an 21 example.
| |
| 22 And I think that history provides a real 23 justification for potentially looking at what Commissioner 24 McGaffigan, in his remarks, stated because I can give you 25 examples of barrier analysis, the cultural issues that
| |
| ! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 51 1
| |
| reflect some plants, and I think that Joe Callan has pointed 2 out what I think is a very'important issue for the NRC.
| |
| 3 1
| |
| Just as our histories in the utilities business 4
| |
| came out of the original design construction operation, 5
| |
| married to some extent with the Navy background that many of 6 us have, the NRC has developed a culture of its own.
| |
| 7 And if you're going to make a dramatic change, one 8 of the things that we have found is that you cannot do that 9 without an emphasis on cultural change, which is a somewhat 10 different activity than just rewriting regulations and 11 things of that nature.
| |
| 12 I mean there -- and if you don't do that, you end 13 up with organizational dichotomy that really is conflicting, i 14 as you go forward.
| |
| 15 And the point that I was trying to -- we now have 16 40 years of experience. The industry is on the verge of a 17' different change.
| |
| 18 Is it not time to sit back on a broader scale,
| |
| : 19. . work on a~long-term basis to, in fact, restructure the way 20 we regulate the-industry?
| |
| 21 And it's not a,short -- it's n0t something you can 22 .do in a year or two. And it's something that has to be 23 adcpted.
| |
| 24 I would offer to you that if I'm correct, and I 25 think Harold shares this view and there are many others that y
| |
| l 3U02 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| E Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite-1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 52 1 share the. view on consolidation -- that, in fact, it will be 2 easier.
| |
| 3 Part of the problem -- I don't want to -- a lot of 4 the problem is the fact that diversity of the ownership 5 interest across the industry makes it difficult for us to 6 commit to collectively. And as you reduce the number of.
| |
| 7 operators.of plants, you are going to have stronger 8 commitments from fewer people.
| |
| 5' You are also going to run, I think, into more 10 challenges around smaller items. In other words, the NRC
| |
| .11 can take advantage of our inability to come to a collective 12 viewpoint within the industry on something, and you may find 13 yourself in court someday because three of us have gotten 14 together and said, " Hey, this is inappropriate for you and 15 we -- three of us can get together pretty quickly and have a 16 lot of economic power to go and do things.
| |
| 17 Now I don't say that in a threatening manner. I 18 think that's a reality of a smaller or consolidated industry 19 as we go forward.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Diaz?
| |
| 21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yeah. I'd like to go back to 22 the focus of your initial thing, which is -- was risk 23 information and the zero factor. And let me see if I can, 24 you know, put them together.
| |
| 25 The zero factor in 5059 is just an indication of a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 53 1 larger zero factor that exists in this agency, and that zero 2 factor is reflected in many ways that we operate it -- and, 3 you know, especially when somebody tries to. conserve and 4 preserve not only the status quo, but preserve the design I
| |
| 1 5 basis or preserve something. And many of those things are 6 legalistic in nature.
| |
| 7 And this agency need to be a technical legal 8 agency. It cannot be purely legalistic.
| |
| 9 The risk information goes at the heart of the zero factor.
| |
| 10 If we have risk informed regulation, truly and l
| |
| 11 completely, the zero factor disappears because this has no l
| |
| 12 longer reason to exist.
| |
| 13 And that is the reason that I have advocated and 14 will continue to advocate risk information. It is not 15 because it's just a tool or because it gives you a meter.
| |
| l 16 It's becat se it goes at the heart of the question.
| |
| 17 We really cannot accept a zero factor or zero 18 change or zero deviation. What we should access is actively 19 managed risk by the utilities and actively managed risk by 20 the agency. And that can only be done when we start with 21 risk informed regulation.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I want to get to Joe. I know, 23 Dr. Remick, you wanted to speak, but I think, Joe, yours is 24 probably a longer, and I'm assuming yours is a shorter 25 remark. And if I'm wrong, I'll have to switch you over.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 54 l
| |
| l 1 MR. RAY: Okay.
| |
| l 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let me let you make a quick 3 remark.
| |
| 4 MR. RAY: Okay.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And then I'm going to give the 6 floor --
| |
| 7 MR. RAY: I want to go to your point about --
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- to Joe.
| |
| 9 MR. RAY: -- risk informed, and what kind of a 10 -commitment from the NRC and what kind of a commitment from 11 the industry.
| |
| 12 Back in a different forum, not too long ago, I was 13 asked the question, "Could Part 50 be made risk informed?"
| |
| 14 And I said, yes, I thought it could but I was not smart 15 enough to know how to do it as a whole.
| |
| .16 But I spoke very positively about the commitments 17 that industry has made on a number of pilots, and you 18 mentioned some of them, QA, grade QA, IST, ISI, some of the 19 ones on hydrogen recombiners, the diesel start and load time 20 and so forth. I thought this was the way to do it.
| |
| 21 You take some specific things, and the industry 22 has made tremendous commitment of resources to look into 23 these. How could you use things like safety goals and PRA's 24 and come up with an answer.
| |
| 25 Give some insight, risk insight, based on the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ u
| |
| | |
| 55 1
| |
| PRA's and so forth, on regulations that might be changed.
| |
| 2 But what I have not seen -- these things -- these 3
| |
| are some of the examples of decisions languaging, in 4
| |
| general, that I addressed where continuous request for 5 information.
| |
| 6 And I use as a precedent, back when I was on ACRS, 7 there was a program called, "SEP, and I forget if that was 8 Safety Evaluation Program or systematic evaluation of a 9
| |
| program, but it was a question of do the early plants meet 10 the intent of current regulations which had changed 11 dramatically.
| |
| 12 And there was a case where that project, from the 13 perspective of an ACRS member, I thought was very well 14 managed by somebody who took the ball, made very, very 15 difficult decisions, and you did not have these layers and 16 layers and layers of concurrence, and people questioning an 17 indecision on coming to some kind of decision. Some of the 18 decisions maybe not have been exactly correct, but decisions 19 were made.
| |
| 20 And I think what the Commission needs -- I don't 21 see the Commission -- and I'm going to speak of the Agency 22 -- is taking full advantage of the insights of those various 23 pilot programs are going out and making the best of it, and 24 seeing how one might approach Part 50 and making it more 25 risk informed, a bite --
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 56 1 MR. MCNEILL: What's your best --
| |
| 2 MR. RAY: -- a bite at a time.
| |
| 3 MR. MCNEILL: -- successful, and how do we emulate 4 that success?
| |
| I \
| |
| l 5 MR. RAY: Okay.
| |
| l l 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| 7 MR. RAY: You're welcome.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Joe?
| |
| 9 MR. COLVIN: Chairman, thank you.
| |
| 10 I'd like to -- I'd like to digress for one second 11 just to make a point, and I promise I will come right back 12 to --
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's all right.
| |
| 14 MR. COLVIN: -- risk informed.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You can talk now because we 16 took all your time.
| |
| 17 MR. COLVIN: Oh, thank you.
| |
| 4 18 I think that we need to -- as we go through this 19 6ialogue, we need to think about the concept of the old 20 cliche of not throwing out the baby with the bath water.
| |
| 21 And I think that if we -- and I'll make a couple of points, 22 and I'll get back to your real question.
| |
| 23 I think there are some steps that we need to take 24 and can be taken fairly immediately and without changes to 25 regulation requirements that are characterized under ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 57 1
| |
| enhancing the credibility of the regulatory process. And I 2 think we need to go back to the -- to some of the basics in 3 that, and I'll just pick up on Forest Remick's comments 4
| |
| about confirmatory action, one of those things.
| |
| 5 I think that if you look at a rigorous application j 6 of what is currently required under the context of rules, l
| |
| 7 requirements, law, tech specs, licensing. It's the things 8 that are binding on a licensee, and then look at the other 9
| |
| things that the -- the products or vehicles the agency uses 10 to manage, cajole, arm twist the license to do things, 11 confirmatory action letters, generic letters, bulletins, 12 confirmatory orders. You go down that whole list which are 13 not a -- do not have a legal basis in the context of the 14 regulations.
| |
| 15 And a rigorous application of those by the staff 16 and by the industry would, in fact, be a very positive step.
| |
| 17 I think the rigorous application of the backfit rule, or 18 certainly the consideration of what you are trying to 19 achieve, vis-a-vis that, in all the decisionmaking, if, in 20 fact, that was the goal, the threshold that the staff or the 21 department or division or whomever, would look at, I think 22 we would -- we would enhance the credibility and we would 23 raise the level up to things which are really important to 24 safety and not in the grass. And I think that -- that would 25 focus our resources.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 58 1 I think that we're -- and I have some other 2 examples, but I'd like to go back to your question.
| |
| 3 I think in a sense, we have an excellent example 4 of how to proceed in the context of risk informed 5 performance based regulation. There's been a lot of work 6 done, and that is clearly the maintenance rule.
| |
| 7 Now we' don't have a clear understanding between 8 the Agency, the industry, the staff, the plant maintenance 9 superintendents of what we mean by that, and I think the 10 first step in that process would be to come to some common 11 agreement at a very high level of what we mean collectively.
| |
| 12 I think the second step in that would be then to 13 look at --
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Excuse me. When you say, 15 " common," you mean common agreement rate with' respect to the 16 implementation of --
| |
| 17 MR. COLVIN: What is it that we expect of the 18~ maintenance rule.
| |
| .19 We have a maintenance rule that has a risk 20 informed section. I mean basically we go through and 21 through a process that uses the best tools that we have 22 available, whether that's PRA, PSA, expert groups or other 23 issues, to define what are the system structures and 24 components that are important to safety and that we need to 25 manage, and we~need to place more attention.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| , . )
| |
| 59 1
| |
| And we have a process in that that tells you how 2
| |
| to deal.with those, how to identify them, how to monitor
| |
| -3 them, how to set goals and reliability and availability. We 4 have all that in progress, okay. And we have a vehicle by 5 which to do that.
| |
| 6 And we then look at the performance of those 7 systems.
| |
| 8-I think we need to define the risk side. I mean I 9 agree with Commissioner Diaz and the other comments that 10 you've made. Risk and performance based are not the same 11 thing, and we need to have a clear understanding of what 12 they are.
| |
| 13 But then we have to have an expectation of what in 14.
| |
| l
| |
| -- what is the end state or the desired result. And I would 15 l submit we do not have that within -- there is -- within the
| |
| , 16 expectation of the inspector or the expectation of the i 17 maintenance superintendent, or perhaps all of us.
| |
| 18 I think that --
| |
| so I would submit, we need to come
| |
| ! 19 to grips with what are we trying to achieve through that 20 process?
| |
| 21 MR. MCNEILL: The practicality of that is that we
| |
| ! 22 are still in the inspection of the implementation. We are i
| |
| 23 not-yet reviewing the outcome.
| |
| 24 MR. COLVIN: That's exactly right. We're not 1 25 looking at the --
| |
| 1 I
| |
| l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters !
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 !
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| | |
| 60 1 MR. MCNEILL: Nobody is --
| |
| 2 MR. COLVIN: --
| |
| outcome of performance --
| |
| 3 MR. MCNEILL: Nobody has year -- although the 4 plant's monitoring their own performance through this to 5 find what is acceptable or unacceptable.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
| |
| 7 MR. COLVIN: And I would just say that the next 8 step in that process, I think, is to then take and look at 9 that maintenance rule and the process and the output and 10 decide what is currently'being done as required by other 11 regulations and other regulatory positions that are now 12 unnecessary and not required because we have this as our 13 product.
| |
| 14 And I think that just --
| |
| one last comment.
| |
| 15 We have spent many years in these issues. It's 16 taken four years. We're still working on reg guides and 17 ISI, IST and graded QA.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I thought those were 19 promulgated?
| |
| 20 MR. COLVIN: Well, it's taken four years to get 21 those. We got a -- we've got a situation where we've tried 22 to have a pilot project on a whole plant risk, and we're 23 really wrapped around the axle of one example which was made 24 by somebody many years ago that we would do post-axial and 25 hydrogen sampling, and 30 minutes after true.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| L.-. _ _ 7 61 1
| |
| We'd'like to make it 90 minutes. We can't get 2 beyond that simple example to really figure out how to make L3 this work.
| |
| 4 l
| |
| 'And I think the reason goes back to setting the 5
| |
| goals that.the Commission needs to set, putting the proper
| |
| '6' people in a. room and letting them_go figure it-out with a
| |
| -7 common goal and objective. They have a common end point.
| |
| 8- Juud I think that's what been missing.
| |
| 9- .We get the staff positioning, as Harold points out
| |
| '10 back and forth. I think we need to take advantage of 11' figuring out a new way to bring the resources together.
| |
| 12- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Lochbaum.
| |
| 13 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yeah. -I just have a brief' comment
| |
| ; 14 on risk informed regulation.
| |
| 15: To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, risk informed 16 regulation- we don't even know what risk is.
| |
| And as an
| |
| -17 example, I'd' cite a report that-was submitted this week by 18 .the owner of Big Rock Point who informed the NRC that-they 19- discovered that the pipe -- the discharge pipe from their 20 sodium pentoborate had a boring tank that was severed.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thirteen years. Right.
| |
| :22 MR. LOCHBAUM: One-third of that plant's life, 23 that safety function would not have been performed.
| |
| 24- I haven't been to the PDR yet, but I'm sure that 25- that plant's IPE does not-show the reliability of that l
| |
| l 1
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j Court Reporters
| |
| ! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite'1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I i
| |
| | |
| 62 1 safety function to be zero, if that's what the reality was.
| |
| 2 And that's not the only example. Jim Riccio has 3 been collecting outside design basin reports for the last 4 two years. I don't think that stack is a couple of inches l
| |
| 5 tall right now.
| |
| 6 Not all of those rendered the safety system 7 inoperable, but a disturbingly high number of them did, yet 8 the IPE's for these plants show that these systems are 9 highly reliable, but that's not reality.
| |
| 10 We need to narrow the gap between what the IPE's 11 say and what reality is before we can do any real risk 12 informed regulation. i 13 MR. RAY: May I respond to Mr. Lochbaum?
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes.
| |
| 15 MR. RAY: I guess my only point in the example you 16 cited, which I know nothing about it, other than what you 17 said, would be, notwithstanding that, the IPE, given the 18 right direction, could have sent people to look at that 19 important and critical component in terms of verifying its 20 integrity, rather than dissipating the resources of both the 21 licensee and the agency in the areas that were not as 22 important as that obviously was.
| |
| 23 So there is a benefit, notwithstanding this 24 experience.. and, in fact, perhaps it tends to underscore the 25 importance of knowing what's important so you can then focus ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| t . .
| |
| 63 l 1 your attention on it. '
| |
| 2 MR. LOCHBAUM: May I respond to that?
| |
| 3 I think I --
| |
| 1 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Would you pull the microphone 5 down? Thanks. ;
| |
| 6 MR. LOCHBAUM: I think PRA's -- avenues to 7 prioritize work that needs to be done at plants, and I've '
| |
| 8 seen that done at a number of plants very successfully.
| |
| 9 You need to focus attention on the more 10 significant items. l So I would agree wholeheartedly with j 11 that. I've seen it done and it works very well.
| |
| 12 But at the same time, e there are misses -- and 13 these are misses -- we have to re .s.>.e that that is 14 reality and factor that into what we're doing before we can 15 proceed, and just because we have a mathematically correct 16 model, that's not the whole complete picture.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yes?
| |
| 18 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN: I'd just follow up on 19 this interchange.
| |
| 20 How did -- if we had a risk informed regulatory
| |
| \
| |
| 21 framework as opposed to a deterministic regulatory 22 framework, how -- that's what we had at Big Rock Point and 23 it didn't catch it, either.
| |
| 24 So I think what Mr. Ray is saying is that you'd .
| |
| 25 have a higher probability of catching the problem you're ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 64 1 describing, which I know nothing more about than what you 2 said either, but if you had a -- a more risk informed 3 framework.
| |
| 4 We had a framework. The licensee didn't catch it, 5 obviously, our staff didn't catch it, and so the question 6 for the Commissioner is, which framework-should I be working 7 toward?
| |
| 8 Should I be -- just because there are misses, does 9 that mean the risk informed framework is not worth working 10 toward?
| |
| 11 MR. LOCHBAUM: No. I think you can use risk 12 informed regulation or risk results to figure out which 13 systems you need to focus your attention on, but those have 14 already been done for these plants, and they're still 15 finding problems in those high-risk systems.
| |
| 16 So how are we to determine what those high-risk 17 systems are. We haven't solved the problem. That system 18 was tested in the last 13 years, and it passed every test 19 apparently.
| |
| 20 So why -- we knew that was a high-risk system at 21 that plant. We tested it frequently. We didn't catch it, 22 so I don't know what could have been done differently. But 23 .that isn't the way to do it.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Joe, do you have a comment?
| |
| 25 MR. CALLAN: Well, I know more about that episode ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| | |
| I 65 1
| |
| than'what he said, and -- but I agree with everything he f 2 said'regarding the episode. We just --
| |
| I just briefed the 3 Chairman on it a couple of days ago.
| |
| 4' But I agree with Commissioner McGaffigan's point 5
| |
| and I guess Harold Ray's point that a risk informed approach 6
| |
| .woul'd increase our -- increase'the probability that either l
| |
| 7 l or both the licensee or the NRC would focus on that system 8
| |
| and do the necessary verifications to identify the problem.
| |
| 9 MR. CALLAN: I think what you are talking about,
| |
| -10 l Dave, is perhaps over-reliance on IPE to base a regulatory 11 judgment -- in other words, to modify that system for i
| |
| l 12 example or modify;another mitigative system because you have 13 such a high confidence in the functioning of that system.
| |
| l 14 That is slightly a different situation than what we are l
| |
| 15 talking about, which is to use risk to focus and allocate i
| |
| l 16 resources.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, actually, I have a 18 question that follows on from what you just said, Joe, and 19 what Commissioner McGaffigan just asked.
| |
| 20 That is, if the system is as risk-significant as,
| |
| -21 you know, you have told me it is, how did it get missed and 22 what does that say about how risk-informed, how much of a 23 risk-informed inspectable population we have at the plants ,
| |
| 24 or that we have.our inspection -- I don't want to get into 25- inspection yet per se, but in terms of Commissioner ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 66 1 McGaffigan's question about would risk-informed regulation 2 have helped us at least to identify that this was a system 3 that warranted a deeper look than apparently it got -- what 4 do you have to say about that?
| |
| 5 MR. CALLAN: We are doing a lessons learned, 6 obviously, because at least superficially our reaction is 7 that our inspection procedures, which are moderately 8 risk-informed, should have directed inspection resources at 9 some periodicity to walk down that system.
| |
| 10 MR. COLLINS: It's an internal line.
| |
| 11 MR. CALLAN: What?
| |
| 12 MR. COLLINS: It's an internal line.
| |
| 13 MR. McNEILL: Can I? Let me offer just a little 14 ' differing view on this.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Wait --
| |
| I missed that 16 interchange. Excuse me.
| |
| 17 MR. COLLINS: I believe that line is an internal 18 line that is not inspectable unless you get inside the tank 19 and that was not done routinely in order to observe that 20 particular break.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
| |
| '22 MR. COLLINS: So it is a little less applicable 23 perhaps to routine licensing inspection or NRC oversight, 24 but clearly there are lessons learned for hidden issues 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, thank you.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l 67 1 MR. McNEILL: And my point is that I am not so l
| |
| 2 sure that inspection is the appropriate -- it may in fact be 3 testing and demonstrable results from testing. One of the 4 lessons we have learned in the Navy is that there are --
| |
| 5 there were many things that if tested once may not be '
| |
| 6 observable over an extended period of time and you had to go 7
| |
| back periodically and revalidate the system operation by l 8
| |
| test, demonstrable test, with proven results because you 9 didn't have the kind of visual monitoring that apparently is 10 not available in this particular circumstance.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, it strikes me that there 12 are two things that can be said.
| |
| 13 One is I agree with whoever made the comment -- I 14 think there are two pieces to it. One has to do with what a 15 risk-informed approach directs you to pay attention to and
| |
| .16 the other is if you are making specific judgments based on '
| |
| 17 whatever assessment methodology presumes a certain status of 18 something in the plant, does that something in the plant in 19 fact have the status that that judgment is based on, and so 20 those are two separate issues, but in fact this -- Corbin, 21 your point brings me to one of my earlier questions, which 22 is what does risk-informed really mean in the sense that 23 somehow -- you know, whatever the lessons learned will be, 24 in the end the bottom line is that the licensee wasn't aware 25 of this severing of this line for 13 years, nor were we, so I
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 68 1 the question becomes if -- theoretically if out of some IPE 2 or PRA analysis or some other kind of way of doing a risk 3' assessment one had indicated that this was a very critical 4 line in the plant which required some periodic going in and 5 looking at it, which might not have been built into how the 6 licensee did its business if it wasn't something that was 7 easily observable in the normal course of events, that by 8 definition implies perhaps some additional effort, some 9 additional resource commitment.
| |
| 10 That is why I raised the issue about what does 11 risk-informed mean? Does it mean that the chips fall down 12 on both sides -- as opposed to taking away attention from 13 what is trivial, it can also mean that if something is 14 deemed by a risk. assessment to be more important than you 15 thought it was, or very important, that then you may have to 16 take some extra steps -- which means resources.
| |
| 17 MR. McNEILL: In this case --
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: To go in and do something about 19 it.
| |
| 20 MR. McNEILL: In this case, you know, a four-year 21 internal inspection or a --
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Whatever, right --
| |
| 23 MR. McNEILL: -- four-year flow test may be the 24 appropriate thing that has to be done --
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right --
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 69 1 MR. McNEILL: -- on that kind of a system.
| |
| 2 MR. RAY: I just, I want to raise an objection 3
| |
| whenever we are talking about it is going to take more.
| |
| 4 I don't think it takes more.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
| |
| 6 MR. McNEILL: Collectively more.
| |
| 7 MR. RAY: I think it's better prioritization is 8 the way I like to think about it --
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Sure.
| |
| 10 MR. RAY: -- we can choose our own models but that 11 is --
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I agree. I mean but all 13 I mean when I say the chips fall down both ways is by 14 definition you prioritize some things are going to come off 15 the bottom, so to speak, but there could be things that are 16 up at the top that heretofore we have not had before.
| |
| 17 MR. McNEILL: And I don't think the industry has 18 ever or let me say I think the industry has understood that, 19 that is, as Harold would say, it's a reallocation of 20 priority, and I think that our instinct tells us that 21 collectively all of those activities may in fact reduce --
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: --
| |
| the burden.
| |
| 23 MR. McNEILL: -- the burden.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. I could probably agree 25 with that. I certainly think that certain things have to i
| |
| I l
| |
| 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ - - _ _ . - - - - . - - - - ------------------------------------J
| |
| | |
| 70 1 fall off the' table and other things go on.
| |
| 2- MR. COLLINS: Chairman Jackson?
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm sorry. Sam wanted to say 4 something. Thank you.
| |
| 5 MR. McNEILL: Thank you.
| |
| 6 MR. COLLINS: I wanted to address perhaps an 7 overarching issue and although we are talking specifically 8 about risk-informed and performance based has been mentioned 9 as a part of that two brief comments.
| |
| 10 One is we're complete -- the maintenance rule 11 ~ application inspections -- in fact, Limerick, Corbin, I 12 think was the last plant I think --
| |
| 13- MR. McNEILL: Right, 14 MR. COLLINS: -- and the routine maintenance 15 inspections have~been modified to include what we now hope 16 to be a performance-based measurement of the maintenance 17 rule, but it is very difficult.
| |
| 18 The Commission asked the question of the staff, 19 how do you know this rule is working? And that took a lot 20 of thought and we yet don't have an answer.
| |
| 21 [ Laughter.]
| |
| 22 MR..McNEILL: So the effort is not over yet?
| |
| 23 MR. CCLLINS: No, we are still -- although we're 24 giving it a lot of good thought. The effort is still yet to 25 play out over time of how to measure performance-based I
| |
| i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 71 1
| |
| implementation over a spectrum of facilities over a spectrum 2.
| |
| of time, but our inspection has been modified to give us 3
| |
| that data.and we hope to achieve that result and provide the 4
| |
| feedback-but.it is an example of how difficult in fact 5; performance based --
| |
| 6 MR. McNEILL: Particularly if you are going to
| |
| .7 use ---I mean if the ultimate says -- I mean there is a 8 tendency, an organizational tendency -- the Commissioner 9 says risk is never zero in this business but a Commissioner 10 can say that the risk will be zero of a major accident 11 during my tenure,.all right, because the timeframe is so 12 short., so you have to understand that this is not a riskless 13 business.
| |
| 14 Almost any activities in human society are not i 15 riskless so there is a fine balance to understand the 16 distribution.of that risk with time.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Absolutely.
| |
| 18 MR. COLLINS: My second point, and this is the l 19 overarching aspect, would be much of what we are talking
| |
| [ 20 .about I believe the Staff is very receptive to, and that is 4 21 . engagement, certainly the guidelines and the Commission's 22 role in providing those guidelines and reinforcing the k 23 bounds of that decision-making process is important but it 24 gets down to providing the forum for the Staff, and I am j
| |
| 'i 25 here as pretty much the implementor of the programs and to 1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 72 1 provide the Staff the tools to get to where we want to go as 2 a broader based body.
| |
| 3' We are really looking at what process barriers 4 currently exist to prevent the type of dialogue that we are 5 referring to from occurring. Many of those are historical.
| |
| 6 We have mentioned the zero change aspect, but in fact many 7 of those are embodied in our process and our regulations and 8 interpretation of those regulations as to how much can be 9 done in a forum like this, only if you can envision the 10 working level around this table to get to the goal that we 11 need to get to.
| |
| 12 Those are process issues which I believe we need 13 to.look at internally and provide the forum for these types 14 of dialogues --
| |
| 15 And type of end results to be formulated So they 16 can be raised up in a shorter time frame in a more 17 consolidated sense to provide for some of the issues being 18 resolved. Without that type of change internally to 19 processes and to facilitate the results, we are not going to 20 get to where we need to go.
| |
| 21- CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I agree.
| |
| 22 MR. COLLINS: I think that is a significant 23 challenge for us.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Also, I think one thing that 25 relates to your over-arching comment that I would like to i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 73 l
| |
| I 1 extract because it ties to back to, I think, where Joe Colvin started, and that is this issue of -- you mentioned 2
| |
| 3 the maintenance rule and you are right, the Commission has 4
| |
| asked you, how do you know that the rule is accomplishing --
| |
| t 5 MR. COLLINS: I just wanted you to know I hadn't i
| |
| '' i 6 forgotten the questions.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good. And that is the issue of 8 having the objectives clear from the beginning, and the 9 implementation of the rule being oriented to those 10 obj ectives . And it is something that the agency has been H11 struggling with. But it is a fundamental issue and 12 something fundamental that has to occur.
| |
| 13 But now back to Joe.
| |
| 14 MR. COLVIN: Well, I was just going to pick up on 15 Sam's comment. I think that the process issues are very.
| |
| 16 important and we need to work through those to establish the !
| |
| 1 17 . framework. And I think the Commission, certainly, in my 18 view, has the ability to establish the proper framework to 19 allow this -- I will use the term " partnership" between the 20 appropriate stakeholder to work through these issues. And 21 it needs to be there, I think, with an equal, if that is 22 possible, an equal commitment to what the desired end-point 23 and end-state is.
| |
| 24 And I will just share with you, the maintenance
| |
| ,. 25 ' rule guideline development is an excellent example of that.
| |
| I i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '
| |
| e 2_--_-_--_____-_____-_____-_-_L___--- - _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 74 1 And we used a process by which we had a senior policy level 2 group from the industry and one from the NRC staff. We had 3 a common end-goal, which was develop a guideline that fit 4 within the context of the rule, and improve maintenance, and 5 we had that commitment on both sides, and we had the 6 interactive engagement of the Commission, and, in 7 particular, one Commissioner leading that interface. I 8 think the result of that was very positive.
| |
| 9 Now, we tried that same process, I will tell you, 10 on Graded QA, ISI, IST and a number of other issues, and 11 they -- I guess I would be blunt, say they failed miserably, 12 if you look at them in the context of the maintenance rule.
| |
| 13 And it was in large part, I think, because of not having the 14 common objective, not having the commitment on both sides to 15 the end result of what_was desired,-and not having an open 16 dialogue of the issues.
| |
| 17 We run against, up against, well, this is 18 pre-decisional or this is preliminary, or OGC prevents us 19 from this or that. I mean-all kinds of barriers, which, in 20 fact, if you worked through those, could be worked -- they 21 could be eliminated. I think that's -- I really would urge 22 the Commission to look at those and take the steps to 23 establish that framework to have an open dialogue. And 24 whatever forum is the end result, I think we can work in 25 many different fora to get there.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| = . - -
| |
| | |
| . . l 75 1 Okay.
| |
| CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we need to
| |
| ~2 probably draw this'-- but'everything weaves through 3 everything else, as we can see, but we need to move on, and 4 it just so happens that it is 11:30 and we need to have our 5 affirmation and give people the time to their phone calls 6 and stretch their legs.
| |
| 7 But let me just quickly go around the table.
| |
| 8 Since this the topical area of risk-informed regulations and 9 regulatory policies -- I mean we have talked a lot about the 10 maintenance rule, which is one that alrea'dy exists, and then 11 the Commission has done some fine-tuning to it lately.
| |
| 12 But are there other areas or other regulations, we 13 have talked about 50.59, but are there o+.her targets of 14 opportunity where we think there woulu be greatest payoff 15 vis-a-vis risk-informed, development of risk-informed 1
| |
| 16 regulations that anybody would like to speak to? And what I I 17 am just going to do for that is to start to my right and go 18 around the table with Mr. Nye. I 19 MR. NYE: Chairman, I think I will defer to some {
| |
| 20 of these others who have a closer focus on this.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Dr. Pate.
| |
| 22 DR. PATE: The same.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Lochbaum?
| |
| 24 MR. LOCHBAUM: No.
| |
| 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I would like, I was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 76 1 looking'for a chance to talk, and I won't talk very long.
| |
| 2- But I want to go back to Commissioner Remick, and maybe 3 since he will be soon following me in this order, challenge l
| |
| 4 or the -- I think I may have been the one who asked him how 5 do we get a risk-informed Part 50, and I have asked at the 6 Reg. Info Conference, how do we get a risk-informed Part 50?
| |
| 7 And I don't know how to get there. I do think 8 some of these mechanisms that Joe has been talking about 9 might help. If that is a fundamental goal, to get to a 10 risk-informed Part 50, we could go through and we could look 11 at Part 50. Another former Commissioner has suggested to me 12 that, in light of the maintenance rule and its success, 13 should we look at Appendix B to Part 50 and pull some stuff 14 out?
| |
| 15 The Commission, at that time, when they propounded 16 the maintenance rule, didn't feel that it was appropriate at
| |
| ' 17 _that point. But I know the industry view, as is sometimes 18' expressed, is that the maintenance rule is a layering on of 19 what is already there in the traditional prescriptive 20 framework.
| |
| 21 So I don't know whether in risk-informing it is a 12 2 step by step process, where we take areas of opportunity, 23 such as Appendix B, or whether it is a massive, one-time 24 change. But I do think we need to think about it.
| |
| 25 One of the diagrams that a licensee has shown to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '
| |
| | |
| 77 j 1 me, and it is a licensee who presumably has one of the 2 -better PRAs. They have looked at rules that have been I j
| |
| 3 passed by the Commission going back to the post-TMI rules or 4 requirements, and they showed me a sort of step-down curve 5 of their core damage frequency and the various post-TMI 6 ' action items had almost no effect for this particular plant.
| |
| 7 The. station blackout rule had a large effect. Presumably, 8 they added a diesel, they did something, but it had, you 9 know, a really remarkable effect on their core damage 10 frequency.
| |
| 11 And that is sort of a metric of whether rules are 12 worth doing or not is -- you know, if we could -- and which 13 rules are no longer worth having, if, when you pull them 14 off, there's microscopic or no effect.
| |
| 15 And going to Dave's point, I think we have.had a i 16 lot of discussion at various meetings. I see the ACRS L 17 there. I think everybody believes that deltas in core 18 damage -- or deltas in IPEs, deltas in core damage frequency is a result of a specific change or have greater fidelity
| |
| ~
| |
| 19 20 than the IPE itself. I mean the Commission, if you had been 21 to any of our meetings, you would have seen all of us asking 22 the exact same questions -- Is this.IPE number worth 23 anything? But I think the strong view of the ACRS, and 24 others who know more about this than I, is that the delta 25 means something. '
| |
| j ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20035 l (202) 842-0034 )
| |
| i
| |
| . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___----_--_A
| |
| | |
| 78 1 So that is just a bunch of rambling thoughts. But 2 the challenge is -- we have been talking about it forever, 3 and how to, with some speed and with some common sense of 4 goal. The industry, one person walked up to me at the Reg.
| |
| 5 Info Conference and said, Commissioner, we do have people 6 thinking about a risk-informed Part 50 and how to get there, 7 but there is not consensus as to whether we do it piecemeal 8 or whether we do it -- try to do it in one large action, and 9 there are pros and cons of both.
| |
| 10 So I throw out those thoughts and I look forward 11 to the rest of the discussion.
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Great. In fact, as we go 13 around, perhaps, you know, you can put your commentary in 14 that context, in terms of where there are opportunities in 15 terms of development of risk-informed regulations, this 16 piecemeal versus, you know, let's throw the whole thing out 17 and sit down and rewrite Part 50.
| |
| 18 Joe.
| |
| 19 MR. COLVIN: Chairman, I'think there are probably 20~ a lot of rules that we could look at individually and try to 21 make performance-based, risk-informed and so on. We have 22 tried those with diesel reliability. Containment leak rate 23 testing is an excellent example of taking that in. We do 24 have the work on Graded QA and how fits into Appendix B, I 25 think is a work in progress, as well as ISI, IST and how ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 79 JL that fits. So I think we ought to pursue those and go back 2 and also take my previous recommendation about the 3 maintenance rule and use that as the example before we walk, 4 before we run, so to speak. I think we will learn a lot 5 through that process.
| |
| 6 I.also think we need to go back to basics about 7 what.is the ultimate goal and where is the threshold of 8 safety. It goes back to the point that Mr. McGaffigan just 9 made. We implemented a lot of changes based upon a lot of )
| |
| 10 good ideas that didn't have -- that had little impact in 11 improving safety.
| |
| 12 And, yet, a rule like station blackout, where l
| |
| l 13 there was a clear recognition that there was, in some cases, I 14 a 90 percent impact on core damage frequency for some 15 plants, we really grabbed ahold of that as an industry and 16 the agency and dealt with it. And that rule is in place and i
| |
| 17 I think that rule, the rigor of that rule and the guideline 18 it has implemented has shown true, even through today, an'd, 19 I in fact, that -- the example, the tornado hit at Davis i 20 Bessey, I think, and the actions, and how that showed that i
| |
| : 21. the rigor of that was in fact correct.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. But the question I am 23 really trying to get at is whither to now.
| |
| l 1
| |
| 24 MR. COLVIN: I understand that, but I am just -- l I
| |
| 25 let me just close on this point, because I know you are !
| |
| l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 80 1 trying to move on.
| |
| 2 I think that we -- though, my point is we use a 3 lot of means currently such as calculations of averted 4 on-site costs, and other things, to justify a regulation and 5 the implementation of that regulation, that may in fact have 6 little, real true benefit of safety.
| |
| 7 So we have got -- I think that we have got to take 8 the regulations. We have got to look at the risk-informed 9 information we have and at the same time decide where the 10 threshold is, otherwise, we will continue putting in place 11 regulations that are risk-informed and/or performance-based 12 but which do not contribute to safety.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. So let me make sure I 14 understand what you are saying. You are saying if one looks 15 at the risk-informed information available,-that what you 16 are really suggesting is that in promulgating or considering 17 the promulgation of any rule or rule change, one needs to 18 -use that in a more rigorous and systematic way in 19- determining the basis for doing the rulemaking in the first 20 place.
| |
| 21 MR. COLVIN: Yes. And have a clear expectation of 22 what safety benefit is in fact desired in order to make that 23 determination.
| |
| '24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Mr. Ray.
| |
| 25 MR. RAY: Chairman Jackson, it is 11:40. There is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| * 81 1 much I would like to say in answer in your question. I will 2 limit myself to just two things. First, yes. Secondly, I 3~ do --
| |
| 4 (Laughter.]
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What? You are going to give me 6 a million dollars?
| |
| 7 MR. RAY: No. Yes, I think to the question you 8 asked, which I won't try and repeat back to you.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Sure.
| |
| 10 MR. RAY: But in any event. The other thing I 11 would say to you and then I will quit for now, is we operate 12 our plant differently because of the safety monitor. We 13 don't just look at core damage frequency. We look at the 14 probability of boiling in the core. There are lots of 15 things that -- functions that it has. I think that they are 16 things that this agency cares about, just as I do, and we 17 can -- I am wandering. We can use this technology to
| |
| )
| |
| 18 improve the results that we achieve in the way of safety. l 19 There is no question about it. It shouldn't be a subject of 20 debate.
| |
| l 21 I know you are looking for what is the next thing 22 for us to do, and I will have to tell you -- I will have to 23 tell you after lunch or after we get back.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you. !
| |
| 25 MR. RAY: It's too long.
| |
| l l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. !
| |
| Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| l l
| |
| L___ __
| |
| | |
| 82 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thanks.
| |
| 2 Sam.
| |
| 3 MR. COLLINSi I just have a brief comment. Again, 4 that is having agreed with the intent of most if not all of 5 the discussion. _My issue would be, How do we apply it? How
| |
| -6 do we get'it into the process by which we can achieve these 7 goals and then how do we, in fact provide the right types of 8 guidance, whether it be policy or implementation, to our 9 reviewers and to our inspectors, such that it manifests 10 itself in the right result?
| |
| 11 I perceive it ao a. gap right now, even 12 philosophically, in the initiatives that have already been 13 taken, because the guidance and the training, although it is 14 in progress, has not really manifested itself in the desired.
| |
| 15 results.
| |
| 16 Will it get there? I think so. Could we do it 17 quicker and faster? Probably so, given resource 18 constraints. But I would like to stay focused not only on 19 it philosophically, but bring it back into the practical 20 application aspect, because that's -- and only then we 21 achieve the results.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
| |
| 23 Joe?
| |
| 24 MR. CALLAN: Well, I'll just say that I -- we are 25 talking about risk in the context of operating facilities.
| |
| f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 1 But I think to really do the kinds of things we are talking 2
| |
| about, we as an agency have to be willing to accept more 3 risk in our processes. You can call it litigative risk or 4 however you want to define it. But our regulatory regime is 5 predicated on driving our risk to zero, and that leads to 6 complexity. And it gets back to the notion --
| |
| 7 MR. McNEILL: And high costs.
| |
| 8 MR. CALLAN: Yes, it gets back to the notion that, 9
| |
| and I agree with this whole-heartedly, that our quest for 10 j perfection, and.I'll paraphrase a little bit, perfection in 11 regulatory processes can be the enemy of adequacy or good 12 enough. And I think we have to be more willing as an agency 13 to accept good enough as an answer. And risk-infonned, QA, 14 ISI, and I think our quest for perfection in those areas 15 killed it.
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: They aren't dead.
| |
| 17 MR. CALLAN: Well, they are not dead. Thank you.
| |
| 18 But we have to be able to say that is good enough.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Since people have talked 20 about the overly legalistic -- Karen, do you have any 21 comments you want to make?
| |
| 22 MS. CYR: Well, I didn't interpret Joe'F in that 23 case particularly. I mean, clearly, there are legal 24 framework issues that you have to work within, but I think 25 they provide you lots of flexibility and you have to be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 1 willing to take the flexibility that is there and work with 2 it.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Corbin.
| |
| 4 MR. McNEILL: I have one area here in this area 5 that I think is important, because it is an expansion of the 6 use of this issue. And it really gets down to the public.
| |
| 7 The public's appreciation of the risk of nuclear is in some 8 way formed by NRC's public reactions to things, and it is 9 not clear to me that the public is not drawing an incorrect 10 view of risk because of the way that the NRC publicly 11 handles issues, whether it is enforcement or things of that 12 nature.
| |
| 13 And by that I mean, and this goes back to Harold's 14 very early remarks about whether, in fact, notices of 15 violation on inconsequential --
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We are going to come to that.
| |
| 17 MR. McNEILL: Yes. Okay.
| |
| 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right.
| |
| 19 MR. McNEILL: But I think that that is an issue.
| |
| 20 If the public presentation of NRC actions was more aligned 21 with the true risks, that, in fact, the industry would be 22 more acceptable to the general public.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Why don't we come back 24 to that point after the break?
| |
| 25 Dr. Remick.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, IN, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 1 DR. REMICK: All right. Well, certainly, first, I 2 would endorse Commissioner McGaffigan's suggestion, Appendix 3 B being ripe for one to be looked at. Look at the number of 4 NOVs that are based on Appendix B on matters that, really, j 5 many of which have very little, if any, safety significance.
| |
| 6 Basically, Appendix B says you are going to establish 7 procedures and in the procedures it says you are going to 8 shave every morning, and you didn' t shave this morning, 9 that's Level 4 and somebody has to respond to that.
| |
| 10 Also, I would say complete the pilots that you 11 have underway. There are some significant pilots there.
| |
| 12 They have drug on for a long time. You need to better 13 manage those projects. You need to set schedules for 14 completion. Already, there is reluctance, I am told, by 15 some licensees to submit the results of their analyses 16 because they don't expect anything is going to happen based 17 on some of the early ones. But I think those pilots can 18 help show the way for further changes to the regulations.
| |
| 19 And I would say get them done.
| |
| 20 CHAIRIGN JACKSON: Great. Thank you.
| |
| 21 Commissioner.
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I just want to take a year 23 leave of absence from the Commission and make Part 50 24 risk-informed.
| |
| 25 [ Laughter.]
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| (.
| |
| 86 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, I have Diaz, Part 50.
| |
| I 2 Okay. Well, my only comment is all of the above.
| |
| l ~
| |
| j 3 And I think the challenge is to go-back and look at what is I
| |
| (
| |
| 4 already underway. Get to the basics, based on the 1 5 cornerstones of what our jobs are, and to have the staff 6 break away the barriers to working with our stakeholder and 7 to put the focus and attention to move these things along a 8 pace.
| |
| 9 We will take a break till 12:05, and then what I 10 would like to do when we return is to have a combined 11 discussion of inspection, enforcement and assessments, since 12 they all go, and should go together, even if we don't think 13 they do as well. And then, finally, close with the 14 timeliness of NRC processes and then we will capture 15 whatever is left after that, and to try to see where we go 16 from here.
| |
| 17 So I thank you for your indulgence. I know all of 18 you are very busy, but I do think.this is an important 19 discussion. Thanks.
| |
| 20 [ Recess.)
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, thank you very much.
| |
| 22 As you know, fundamentals of NRC's mission of 23 protecting the public's health and safety is our need to 24 independently know that the licensees are meeting their 25 responsibilities for safe operation and a key part of it is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| i
| |
| ! 87 l
| |
| l 1 NRC's inspection program.
| |
| I 2
| |
| We also have additional parts to our oversight 3 assessment and enforcement. And other than my beginning a 4 long soliloquy, I think it's appropriate, given the 5
| |
| background that we have from this morning's discussion, just 6 to launch directly into comments from the various members of-i 7
| |
| L our discussion at the table in these areas.
| |
| 8 And so I'm going to-again start right and then go-9 to the left and invite Mr. Nye to make any comments he
| |
| -10 wishes to make.in these three areas.
| |
| 11 MR. NYE: Thank you, Chairman. I won't offer 12 anything very profound in this respect, other than to say 13 that it does seem to me that perhaps we could all agree that 14 the increase in apparent violations is somewhat inconsistent 15 with what I believe we all perceive as an improved 16 performance on behalf of the industry. And so there is some 17- disconnect there with respect to the inspection process.
| |
| 18 I would suggest that there may be an inconsistency 19 in your goal of assuring adequacy in the sense that we have 20 a fair amount of time spent on what I would regard as very 21 low-risk -- not very sharply defined, at least with respect 22- to safety issues, that take time and take resources away l '23 from presumably more important and more safety significant 24 matters.
| |
| 25- My suggestion, and I think the standard suggestion ANN RILEY-& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 88 1 is that minor discrepancies which may need to be noted, may 2 need to be followed can be treated as inspector follow-up
| |
| ! 3 items, not necessarily becoming violations.
| |
| 4 I'm not suggesting we throw out all' ideas. I 5 think we ought to pursue all thoughts that anyone can come 6 up as to how to make this better.
| |
| 7 Here, again, prioritizing around those things that 8 are safety significant, including our resources and our 9 time, all those, and handling the others in a more informal 10 fashion, it seems to me, to be a productive start.
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| 12 I'm going to make one change in what I said. I 13 had said we would just go around the table, but Mr. McNeill 14 informed me that he's going to have to take his leave 15 shortly. So, Corbin, if you would care to make some 16 remarks.
| |
| 17 MR. MCNEILL: Okay. The remarks I made just 18 before the break are related to this where it's not clear to 19 me that these areas of assessment oversight and enforcement 20 are properly balanced versus risk. And I do -- I'm somewhat 21 of an outlyer in the industry in this area, that I do at
| |
| ~22 least believe that the NRC needs a mechanism at the highest 23 levels, at the Commission level, to have some understanding 24 of the health of the industry and other plants and that that 25 does require some form of assessment.
| |
| )
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court. Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 89 1
| |
| Now having said that, I think the issue here is 2
| |
| where you draw a line, and clearly, it's not a bright line 3
| |
| between regulatory arena data and that's a truly with 4 safety, along with just normal performance data.
| |
| 5 And I think that, in part, that is an issue that 6 perplexes us es an industry and is one of the drivers behind 7
| |
| some of the interaction or the strong interaction that we, 8 from time to time., have.
| |
| 9 But I do think that that has to be addressed.
| |
| 10 Risk, it could be one factor in evaluating where that line 11 is.
| |
| 12 Likewise, as I said, I'm not so sure that some of 13 the enforcement actions that we get project a true picture 14 to the general public around the risk associated with 15 whatever actions that the NRC takes. And I think that is an 16 issue that needs to be reviewed.
| |
| 17 I'm not here to present any particular answer, 18 other than to give you sense that I have that enforcement i 19 actions -- my judgment would be that enforcement actions are l
| |
| 20 sometimes initiated at too low a level. Let me put it that 21 way.
| |
| 22 That's not to say that you're not implementing 23 your existing policy. It probably is in reference to a 24 modification to that policy.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 90 1 Dr. Pate, Zack?
| |
| 2 DR. PATE: Thank you, Chairman.
| |
| 3 Picking up on what Earle Nye just said, as well as 4 Corbin's comments, and indeed, that other people around the l 5 table said in the first section this morning, and that is l
| |
| 6 all having to do with the impact on the industry and whether l 1
| |
| 7 requirements imposed in the plants and on the utilities are 8 reasonable, or sometimes unreasonable and unjustified.
| |
| 9 I asked myself what I would do if I were in the 10 shoes of the Commissioners or the EDO, and based on this 11 reflection, I want to give you one suggestion that may be 12 helpful in addressing this issue, and perhaps other issues 13 that have been discussed, as well.
| |
| 14 And that's to suggest that you conduct a high 15 level self-assessment of the NRC's activities that involve 16 the plants and the utilities, and that is an assessment at 17 both the interface between the regions and the plants and 18 between headquarters and the plants.
| |
| 19' Utilities have used self-assessment to great 20 advantage, often at the urging of the NRC. And, indeed, 21 INPO. evaluations and WANO peer reviews are a form of 22 self-assessment.
| |
| 23 A carefully chosen self-assessment team or perhaps 24 two teams could be put together. The teams, in my view, 25 should report to the Commission or to the EDO.
| |
| l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIAT' JTD.
| |
| Court Reportelu 1025 2onnecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 91 1
| |
| Team members should be selected by the Commission 2 and the EDO. Perhaps NEI could nominate some of the 3 candidates.
| |
| 4 I would recommend small manageable teams or teams 5
| |
| -- a small manageable team or teams of people like, just for 6 example, Jim Snesiak, who is retired from the NRC, or Forest 7
| |
| Remick or Jim -- Jim Curtis or previous Commissioners, Bill 8
| |
| Conway, who is a retired utility executive more respected in 9- the industry and so forth.
| |
| 10 These are just examples. I've not, in fact, asked 11 these people whether they would be willing to do such a {
| |
| 12 view, so I stress that they're just examples. But I think 13 you can see that I'm illustrating a team comprised of senior i
| |
| I 14 seasoned experienced people.
| |
| 15 In any event, I would avoid a team that takes a 16 negative approach. The self-assessment should be 17 constructive and forward looking, with a sole aim of 18 improving the regulatory process and not in assessing blame.
| |
| 19 Of course, one of the principle benefits of a 20 self-assessment initiative is the following: If it's {
| |
| l 21 structured correctly and if the right people are picked, it 22 begins to have a salutary effect on the behavior of the
| |
| -23 organization from the day it's announced.
| |
| 24 I hope this is a helpful suggestion.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Thank you very l
| |
| JJDJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| L
| |
| | |
| 92 1 much.
| |
| 2 Mr. Lochbaum.
| |
| 3 MR. LOCHBAUM: We think that the largest problem 4 with the inspection enforcement in any assessment program 5 are all tied to the same thing, and that's the NRC views on 6 these things are dictated by its -- how it classifies the 7 plant's performance, or how it predetermines the plant 8 performances.
| |
| 9 If a plant is in good standing, then it gets good 10 inspections. It gets good enforcement action, and it gets 11 good performance assessment.
| |
| 12 If the NRC places that plant into regulatory ;
| |
| I 13 distress category, then all these things drop off the board, !
| |
| 14 and there's a step change virtually overnight into the other 15 category.
| |
| 16 The example we'd use for inspection is D.C. Cook, 17 which was shut down last September following the AE 18 inspection. We went back and looked at the inspection 19 reports issued at that plant in the last two years prior to 20 September, 1997. Fewer than half of those inspection 21 reports contained violations.
| |
| 22 Since 1990 --
| |
| January, 1998, virtually every 23 single inspection report has contained one or more 24 violations.
| |
| 25 The plant's status did not change overnight, just ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l < a 93 i
| |
| 1 the NRC's perception of that plant. What in the past 2
| |
| apparently was written up as a non-cited violation on 3 nothing is now being cited as a violation.
| |
| 4 And that the standard shouldn't change. If there 5
| |
| . were problems before, they should have been reported as 6 problems before.
| |
| If they're not problems today, they 7
| |
| shouldn't be reported as problems today.
| |
| 8 There's something wrong with that kind of 9
| |
| 1 performance, and that's not the only example. It's just the 10 most recent one.that we've been aware of. There's probably 11 been some since.
| |
| 12 We've seen the same thing with performance 13 assessment.
| |
| We've been involved in the last few months with 14 the IRAP, and sua had -- I've had some discussions with 15 members -- NRC staff members on that task force who said 16 that the NRC needs to maintain the ability to adjust the 17 final outcome of any performance assessment program because 18 l'
| |
| the process may give a plant too high or too low a rating, 19 and they want to be able to adjust the plant's rating down 20 or up to what they think it really is.
| |
| -21 And if you don't trust your process, or if you 22- already know what the plants are, just say well, effort, and 23 send them a letter every six months or whatever, however 24 often you want to do it. And don't go through all that 25 process. It's a waste of everybody's time and effort.
| |
| l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| a .
| |
| 94 1 So -- and if you don't trust your process, then 2 why use it. So I don't -- I'm constantly baffled by that 3 kind of approach to things.
| |
| 4 And I think, again, it's reflective of the same 5 thing. The NRC staff has a feeling for how these plants are 6 performing and all of it's actions in terms of inspection, 7 enforcement, and assessment are dictated by those. overriding 8 philosophies or attitudes, whether they're right or wrong.
| |
| 9 Thank you.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Commissioner?
| |
| 11 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN: Let me go try to go back 12 to where I was going to start and then pick up on something 13 to respond at least or talk at least about -- a little about 14 what Dave just said.
| |
| 15 I agree with Mr. Nye that there is a problem with 16 the disconnect we have at the moment, and we've -- we're 17 trying to figure out what needs to be done there.
| |
| 18 The suggestion you made about treating the 19 violations as inspection findings if they're below a 20 threshold of safety significance, I think we need to look at 21 that.
| |
| 22 There clearly -- we should not be expending large 23 resources -- asking you to expend large resources on 24 something that you found that you have in your corrective 25 action plan already, and that somehow, we torque you around ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l 95 1
| |
| and make it more important than things that perhaps clearly 2' are more important already in your corrective action 3 program, so we've got a problem there.
| |
| 4 All right. I'm going to be frank about where part i 5 of.the problem may come from.
| |
| 6 We don't speak with one voice on the issue. Our 7 Inspector General -- your Inspector General, at last year's !
| |
| 8 reg info conference, I went to a breakout session where Bill 9 Beach was talking about the difference between a non-cited 10 violation and a cited violation at level 4.
| |
| 11 And I walked out of the meeting and I said Bill 12 just had done a pretty good job to one of the staff that was 13 there, and the staff said, " Commissioner, we're not going to l 14 change. You know, we read the Inspector General's report."
| |
| l
| |
| )
| |
| 15 And, you know, it's the safest thing is to write
| |
| !- .16 it up.
| |
| L 17 Yet we also have an Inspector General who will 18 tell us that we need to spend less time on compliance, a 19 famous September of last year report, and more time on risk i
| |
| 20 significant things.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: But risk informed wasn't going 22 to work.
| |
| 23 COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN: But --.and we weren't 24 doing enough to move towards risk informed.
| |
| 25 We had an IG report last year about an absolutely l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. I Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l j
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| o .
| |
| 96 1 trivial security violation at Millstone, where a woman 2 managed to get through the machine using somebody else's 3 card.
| |
| 4 Millstone identified -- Millstone was dealing with 5 it. Our inspector gave it all due attention that was 6 necessary. He made one mistake. He pretended he -- in 7 writing it up, he was sloppy in writing it up and said he'd 8 done more than he had done in terms of inspecting that 9 particular situation, and he got called on it.
| |
| 10 You know, we are, in all honesty, if you are one 11 of those people in the field who sometimes get maligned
| |
| .12 trying to figure out what they're supposed to be doing, 13 they're getting a very strong signal at times,.with very 14 high amplitude, that they had best be writing everything up 15 or their career could be at risk.
| |
| 16 And I think it's -- we need to find a way, and I l
| |
| 17' think the staff needs to find a way to give a clear signal 18 that we'll stand behind the staff if they decide, as that 19 inspector did at Millstone, to -- that this is a trivial 20 security violation. I have better ways to spend my day 21 today.
| |
| 1 22 And if somebody comes along and second-guesses me 23- later, we'll back them up.
| |
| 24 Because it is a matter of applying scarce 25 resources intelligently.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| e O 97 1-The issue of assessment -- I would be very l 2 interested if people could tell me -- we have tried to make
| |
| .3 some changes. We have something. It isn't Jim Curtis and 4 Forrest Remick but the Arthur Andersen group that Chairman '
| |
| 5' Jackson asked to look at our Senior Management Meeting 1.
| |
| 6 process a couple years ago I think has effected some very 7 good improvements in that process.
| |
| 8 There is a lot more use of objective data today 9 that has to be refuted -- if it says a plant is an outlier 10 and we decide not to take action, they have to have a good 11 rationale that they can explain to the Commission. l 12 We have been trying to make improvements in some I 13 of these processes. The plant issues matrices have now gone i 14 out to everyone in the last couple months with the latest 15- PPR results and I think we have to align these various 16 processes but the Staff has been trying to improve these 17 processes, make them more transparent.
| |
| 18 I would be very interested if NEI could survey
| |
| : 19. folks and find out what they thought of this plant issues
| |
| : 20. matrix and whether it was fair and whether it was on point 21 and what_they are reading in the plant issue matrix aligns 22 with what they are reading in the various other assessments 23- that they are getting from us. They should.
| |
| 24 But it 10 an ongoing process and we are open to 25 _trying to improve (411 of them -- inspection, assessment and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 )
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 98 1 enforcement..
| |
| 2 Finally going back to Joe Callan, we can't let the 3 perfect be the enemy of the good enough in this area either 4 and if we can get a process that is defensible -- it will 5 never be perfect --
| |
| can we move on?
| |
| -6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Joe Colvin?
| |
| 7- MR. COLVIN: Madam Chairman, thank you. I think 8 that you at.the summary before we broke, you made the point 9 that what we are talking about is inspection, assessment and 10 enforcement, that they are inextricably linked and certainly 11 that is the view that we have and I think a view in which we 12 need to proceed.
| |
| 13 Just basically, I think you are aware and I would 14 be happy to talk in greater detail, we have proposed on the 15 industry side a new plant assessment process which 16 integrates in a risk context, a risk-informed context a 17- process by which you focus inspection, you make the 18 assessment processes and you look at how that ties to 19 enforcement.
| |
| 20 It does so in an objective way that -- you have to 21 get at a common, I think that the key to issue that
| |
| ~22 Commissioner McGaffigan is talking about is we don't have a 23 common understanding of the performance we are trying to 24 achieve at the end of the day and there are probably several 25 different thresholds of levels that we need, so we need some ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l 99 1
| |
| way to measure, some common way to measure the safety 2 performance of nuclear power plants. I 3
| |
| I don't think we have that, quite honestly. We 4 have a lot of ideas, but we haven't gotten there.
| |
| 5 I think that goes to Corbin's point also -- if we l 6
| |
| had this process we would be able to accurately communicate 7 that safety performance to the public and the other 8 stakeholder. We would have a common means of talking about 9 this and then I think we could analyze that data and I think 10 probably more importantly we would be able to have 11 thresholds that distinguish where your expectation of 12 utility action is appropriate and where you as the regulator 13 ne.ed to have these steps, and I have some slides to !
| |
| 14 illustrate that and after -- perhaps if we have time I would 15 be pleased to give you a concept of what we are talking 16 about in greater detail -- but I think we have the framework 17 to do that.
| |
| 18 Probably more importantly, we have the ability, l
| |
| 19 you have the ability to do that now and without any
| |
| ! 20 rulemaking process that would take an inordinate amount of 21 time. I think it is within the capability of the Commission 22 and the Staff to put in place, put in place fairly quickly, 23 and does not take any -- the processes should not 24 unnecessarily delay the accomplishment of that task -- and I 25 will stop with that and be happy to speak further.
| |
| i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| e .
| |
| 100 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Mr. Ray.
| |
| 2 MR. RAY: Let me start with performance assessment l 3 and then talk about inspection enforcement separately, 4- Chairman Jackson.
| |
| 5 I guess I am not as sanguine about performance 6 assessment as perhaps everybody else here is.
| |
| 7 I do think that for example it can drive perverse 8 . behavior -- from the Commission's standpoint.
| |
| 9 Joe indicated it's safety performance'that the 10 Commission is properly concerned with, not performance'in 11 some'other context, and I would underscore that.
| |
| 12 The performance indicators that are often used I 13 think you should just be very thoughtful about. Let me take 14 one simple example -- what is sometimes referred to as 15 unplanned capability loss factor. That is a factor often in 16 performance metrics that are.used, quite rightly.
| |
| 17 In the regulatory and safety context however, it 18 is not something that you want to discourage necessarily 19 because it can be a reflection of a conservative, thorough, 20 meticulous attention to detail kind of a' program'and if you 21 penalize that particular parameter-you can, for example, 22 force people to say I am, by god, going to get this thing 23 done in the time that I planned for it and I am not going to 24 have any unplanned capability loss.
| |
| 25- So I just urge you on the issue of performance ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 101 1
| |
| assessment to look at it carefully from the standpoint of, 2
| |
| as I,say, not driving perverse behaviors inadvertently from 3 the Commission's standpoint.
| |
| 4 Now with regard to inspection and enforcement, i 5 this is not the place where I should come and bring to the-6 agency problems.that I should be talking about with the 7- region or others. Unfortunately I am here and --
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Or fortunately we are.
| |
| 9 .
| |
| [ Laughter.]
| |
| 10 MR. RAY: -- it seems to me that there are times 11- .when specific examples need to be used. I just want to make 12 .the comment that they are not things that I am coming here 13 complaining about, having not gotten satisfaction elsewhere.
| |
| 14: That is not the case, but I want to share with you 25 some additional data that I included just briefly in my
| |
| '16 initia) remarks.
| |
| 17' 3 541d since January '97 San Onofre had 21 cited 18 notices of violation on procedure. This is out of a total 19 of only 30 so there'were only 9 violations since January of 12 0 1997 that were not procedure-related or-based on procedure 21 noncompliance; 21 that were.
| |
| 22 In the area of noncited the numbers are -- 37 was 23 .the total, 22 are procedure, and 15 were not -- so there is 24 a very, very heavy weighting in the area of violations that l 25 we received in connection with procedural compliance.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters
| |
| , 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| ) 102 1 I have already made all the comments I want to 2 make about why that is. I am not going to change. That is 3 just the way we are going to do business there.
| |
| 4 I am insAstent that people comply with procedures 5 but I think I can take care of that myself and I really 6 don't feel that we're productively using the time and energy 7 in that area in the regulatory environment.
| |
| 8 On the ones that were cited, I want to acknowledge 9 that 3 of them were categorized as having actual safety 10 significa: ace, 6 had none, 4 had potential and 8 had 11 somethir.g called regulatory concern associated with them and 12 then thr.re are statistics on the non-cited ones as well, but 13 I won't bore you with that.
| |
| 14 Now why do I say all this? Well, I have indicated 15 that it is consuming a lot of our time and attention. What 16 do I think you should do? I think that is what you would 17 want to hear from me. We can't -- you can't ignore 18 violations of procedures. It is a requirement that we have 19 procedures and that we follow them -- but you certainly can 20 choose not to take enforcement action if you feel that we 21 are properly managing procedure compliance ourselves.
| |
| 22 To use Joe Callan's point, there needs to be
| |
| :23 robust guidance provided there. I think Commissioner 24 McGaffigan's comments about what are the incentives that ,
| |
| l 25 inspectors have in the field is surely on point. Is it well l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 103 1 understood and is there some robust guidance available to 1
| |
| 2 the Staff?
| |
| l 3
| |
| One of the things that helps with guidance I find 4 is to focus people on what is important --
| |
| in other words, 5 we can try and contrive some complex set of rules for 6 inspection and enforcement in the area of procedure 7
| |
| compliance, but probably will never get anything terribly 8 satisfactory. What I think is going to produce the results 9 i that we all want to achieve is what I have done with my own j
| |
| 10 staff and that is to say what you do every day has got to be !
| |
| 11 driven by some understanding of the connection that it has 12 to safety and you have got to defend it on that basis.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| 13 That means that time and effort is going to have !
| |
| )
| |
| 14 to be put in to develop an understanding and to make 15 judgements that are defensible based on the fact that they
| |
| ~
| |
| 16 truly are related to safety, not simply that it is a 17 noncompliance and that is my sole justification for writing 18 it up, period.
| |
| 19 I don't know if that was very helpful to you. I 20 want to pass on the additional data and I did want to 21 introduce this note of caution about performance assessment 22 because I do have experience where I think it can motivate 23 the contrary behavior to what the Commission really wishes.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, let me make sure I 25 understand something vis-a-vis performance assessment.
| |
| i l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| * l
| |
| | |
| 104 1 Is your concern with it relative to performance 2 indicators driving the-process to some undesirable result or 3 are you arguing that the agency perhaps should not do 4 performance assessment at all?
| |
| 5 MR. RAY: I might like to make the latter 6 argument --
| |
| 7 (Laughter.]
| |
| 8 MR. RAY: This is not a good place for me to do 9 i t ', I don't think, just because of the circumstances and the 10 clock and so on.
| |
| 11 I am just urging that you, given that performance 12 assessment is something the Commission has deemed important 13 and necessary,'that you give careful thought to the metrics 14 that you use in performance assessment to ensure that they 15 in fact are linked to safety because not every indicator out
| |
| .16 there is.
| |
| _17 Let me.take another example, just radiation 18 exposure, and we were talking about the experience at Big 19 Rock Point, which I am learning about it now than I knew 20 before, but be that.as it may, it is arguably possible that 21 radiation exposure could have been increased by some 22 requirement that would have been deemed appropriate to go 23 and inspect whatever it was that wasn't right or perhaps to 24 maintain something that is important to safety, but it 25 creates a radiation. exposure, manrem exposure.
| |
| ^
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| I. -.
| |
| 105 1 The industry rightly should be pursuing an ALARA 2 program, but not at the expense of doing the things that are 3 important to safety. 'There is inevitably a trade-off there, 4 something that is very good, low manrem exposure at the 5 plant, we just need to be sure it is not driving us'to not I
| |
| 6 do things that create radiation exposure inevitably. ;
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think the problem we 8 all have in talking about Big Rock Point as an example is 9 that --
| |
| 10 MR. RAY: I don't mean to --
| |
| : 11. CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- that the data is not in, but l 12 no, that does not obviate the point I think you are trying l 13 to make in terms of one desirable outcome can have an L 14 adverse effect on another desirable outcome, but I-think 15 what we all would like to reach is a point where we l l
| |
| 16 understand and that there is a clear statement, particularly 17- in risk-significant areas, that those tradeoffs are 1
| |
| 18 understood and have been resolved in some way. i 19 I think that is the way that one addresses that i
| |
| )
| |
| 20 kind of issue, because I agree with you that those kinds of '
| |
| 21 tensions are going to exist in any operation.
| |
| 1 22 MR. RAY: I have been troubled, as you can tell, '
| |
| 23 by this high rate of NOVs that we have had for a long time.
| |
| 24 This isn't a recent experience. I mean Joe and I talked 25 about it when he was a regional administrator.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| l
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __m
| |
| | |
| 106 1 I pointed out that I believe you have made remarkc 2 that, well, noncompliance, numbers of noncompliance ought 3 to be an indication of performance.
| |
| l 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I don't know -- I've 5 never quite said it that way.
| |
| 6 MR. RAY: Well, that is the inference I got, maybe 7 wrongly, from something I read.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think so.
| |
| 9 MR. RAY: In any event, the point is that I am 10 committed to what we do as producing the safest result and I 11 just think we all ought to have a chance to talk about that 12 in the course of establishing a performance assessment 13 matrix, however they are chosen.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No , I understand. Very good.
| |
| 15 Thank you. Sam.
| |
| 16 MR. COLLINS: I am going to be brief. I don't 17 disagree with any of the concepts I have heard given the 18 common philosophy of the dedication of resources, both the 19 licensee's and the agency's towards what is truly important 20 I think that approach can be taken in assessment, 21' in inspection, and also in enforcement. We have in fact met 22 with NEI, public meeting, on the-indicators. I think we 23 provided fairly positive feedback on that. The staffs are
| |
| - 24 continuing to work.
| |
| 25 To speak to David's point I think any indicator ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 4 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 1 i
| |
| l 107 I
| |
| 1 needs to be mutually agreed upon, so we engage ourselves l
| |
| 2 based on the results and not on the information itself, 1 3 uhich is a tendency that we currently have with the {
| |
| 4 processes that are in place and I agree with David's point 5 that it needs to be scrutable. I think the IRAP always had 6 a box for more than one process to be able to crcas-check j 7 the agency's IRAP proposal and we had a tendency to lean 8 overly on enforcement and we have the clear message from the 9 Commission to reassess that and we will do that in a public 10 way with a meeting in August, we hope.
| |
| 11 We have had a number of internal discussions --
| |
| 12 Joe may speak to that directly -- in fact, as early as 13 yesterday, with two members of the Commission dealing with !
| |
| 14 proposed enforcement and issues which touch upon many of 15 these areas to reach to the point that Joe and Commissioner 16 spoke to, we have to be willing to accept licensees' 17 processes as being able to disposition items of less than 18 significant safety impact.
| |
| 19 We have to be willing to let go of our current 20 processes and we have to be willing to have a different type 21 of follow-up to violations and focus on those types of l
| |
| 22 issues that are truly safety significant and bring us !
| |
| 23 meaningful information on the status of the industry.
| |
| 24 In terms of assessments, I just happened to list 25 the number here and the number I have, it's not complete, of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 108 1 ongoing assessments'within the NRR program office and the 2 number.is seven.
| |
| 3 Two of those are JTAs where we are looking at 4 regional inspection and licensing PMs and follow-up to that.
| |
| 5 One is an internal initiative by a contractor, Cox &
| |
| 6 Associates.
| |
| 7 We have two in progress with Arthur Andersen and 8 we have at least two.that I know about, OIG reviews, looking 9 at our processes.
| |
| 10 I only say that to indicate that we are receptive 11 to all of those but the last two being independently 12 initiated.
| |
| 13 We are receptive to self-perception, 14 introspection. I would sign on with any type of insights 15 .that could be derived from independent parties with the 16 caveat that the intent should be focused and the intent 17 should be mandated in a way that it has I believe Commission 18 EDO buy-in into what are we trying to achieve and how will 19 it be measurable in the product line -- the types of 20 initiatives that I mentioned earlier with the seven really 21 are refinements of existing' processes.
| |
| 22 I understand Dr. Pate's point and it is a good one 23 is that we need to look at some of the fundamental precepts 24 and concepts by which we operate. ~That would be a different 25 type of review. It would clearly have to be mandated with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| O 8 109 1 some fundamental goals involved.
| |
| 2' With that, I think I'll leave the remaining points 3 to Joe.
| |
| 4 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Actually, I am not quite going 5' to Joe yet. Since Karen is at the table, I am going to 6 offer her the opportunity if she has any comments in this 7 area because some of these things get into somewhat 8 legalistic considerations.
| |
| 9 MS. CYR: Well, again I think the Commission has a I 10 lot of' discretion in. terms of how it approaches an 11 enforcement program in terms of being able to structure a 12 program that. focuses on those things that are most safety 13 significant and to in fact rely on licensee's programs and 14 followup, and if that is what they choose to do I clearly i
| |
| l i
| |
| 15 think that is something within our authority to do -- within 16 any agency's general authority to do.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Joe. 3 18 MR. CALLAN: I am not going to belabor these 19 points, but I will just say that the Staff in fact 20 understands that we have a lot of work to do with 21 enforcement, particularly what we call non-escalated 22' enforcement, the type of enforcement that is below the level 23 where we would consider civil penalties or other sanctions.
| |
| 24 We have a lot of work to do.
| |
| 25 Jim Lieberman, who is sitting in the audience, who ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters ,
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 '
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| _______m_ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ .
| |
| | |
| 110 1 is our Director of Enforcement, Office of Enforcement, asked 2 me yesterday afternoon if he should come to this room and 3 observe -- watch it by television. I told him to come here 4 in person.
| |
| 5 [ Laughter.]
| |
| 6 MR. CALLAN: In fact, right now, and I think Jim 7 would nod his head, this subject is probably on the top of 8 my list in terms of my priorities. It's kind of 9 embarrassing to admit this but I think Harold referred to 10 this fact. When I was Regional Administrator it took him 11' actually tx) shine a bright light on problens I had internal 12 to the region. I mean we had significant non-escalated 13 enforcement consistency problems within a branch -- one 14 branch -- not.to mention among the various branches.
| |
| 15- Now I am EDO and it actually took Earl -- your ?
| |
| 16 staff -- who came in a year ago and shined a bright light on 17 significant consistency problems amongst the plants around 18 the country, so all my insights I have gotten from the 19 industry, which points out the fact that as an agency we 20 have not focused management attention on non-escalated 21 enforcement up until about two years ago.
| |
| '22 'It has not been an area of management attention.
| |
| 23 We have focused most of our management resources, 24- particularly.from headquarters, on escalated enforcement, 25 and;we can talk about that, but for every escalated ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l
| |
| | |
| 111 1 enforcement action we basically have 25 non-escalated cases, 2
| |
| about half of which are cited and the other half are not 3 cited, so it is about a ratio of 25 to 1, and tre just l 4 haven't really focused on that in terms of, well, the kind 5 of management attention that we should be focusing on.
| |
| 6 What has happened I think is that the industry has 7 gotten better to the point where now non-escalated 8
| |
| enforcement in my view is almost as important to a plant.as 9 an escalated enforcement action was 10 years ago in terms of 10 the way the plant internalized it, the way plant management 11 reacts to it, and the significance of it, and our processes 12 just didn't keep up with that reality, so we are scrambling 13 and looking for ideas.
| |
| 14 We are meeting frequently on the subject and 15 thinking of and working with industry groups such as NEI to 16 come up with schemes and, as Karen mentioned, OGC has been 17 quite supportive in enabling the Staff to think of 18 approaches that are nontraditional to deal with this.
| |
| 19 I will just finish by saying this, that despite 20 .
| |
| l what I said about the insights I gained from Comanche Peak 21 and San Onofre regarding the problems we had, the most 22 compelling arguments I have heard regarding the need to make 23 changes in an urgent fashion on non-escalated enforcement I 24 get from the meetings that I have from time to time with 25 plant managers.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 112 1 INPO hosts groups of plant managers who come here 2 about every three months. These are groups of -- well, 3 actually plant managers-to-be. It is a training course and 4 they are usually, in fact, Commissioner McGaffigan, you 5 sometimes attend, groups of 15 to 20 individuals who are G typically operations supervisors, maintenance supervisors, 7 sometimes they are actually plant managers, and I have been 8 through maybe a half-dozen of them since I have been here, 9 and the first thing that is on their mind when you ask them 10 what is on your mind is this subject.
| |
| 11 The issue to them is they plan their activities 12 and they allocate resources at the station based upon their 13 prioritization of all the problems that they have on their 14 plate and they prioritize in a fairly sophisticated manner, 15 most of them, taking into consideration risk insights and 16 resources, and then we come along with an initiatives --
| |
| 17 say, a procedure violation at San Onofre, and that trumps 18 everything.
| |
| 19 That trumps everything on their plate and so they 20 have to drop what they are doing basically, reorder their 21 priorities, and deal with our problem, and our problem, if 22 we were to objectively assess it in the context of their 23 priorities, we would probably agree in many cases, most 24 cases perhaps, that it would be well in the pack and not 25 deserve that kind of treatment but they have no option.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 113 1
| |
| Under our current process, they really have no 2
| |
| option but to reorder their priorities and that message 3
| |
| comes over, over and over again, in a very heartfelt way, 4
| |
| and so to me from a safety perspective, risk perspective, 5 that is the most compelling argument of all, to make the 6 changes we need to make with enforcement.
| |
| 7 I will stop at that.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
| |
| 9 DR. REMICK: Along with what Joe just said, I 10 think somebody earlier said the Staff always wins and that 11 is largely true.
| |
| 12 Harold reminds me of something I might share with 13 the other Commissioners because I think it is very important 14 to remember what you say and how you say it can be 15 significant on what the Staff does.
| |
| 16 I learned as an early Commissioner an offhand 17 comment in the presence of Staffers, something to the effect 18 that I think the agency should be doing this, and lo and 19 behold about a month later -- " Commissioner Remick, here is 20 what you asked for" and I realized and I tried to use it on 21 a number of occasions at Commission meetings where I would 22 tell the Staff why I think you should do this, but then I 23 would say, but remember, instructions from the Commission 24 come through Staff requirements memoranda, they don't come 25 from offhand comments from Commissioners telling you what to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 114 1 do.
| |
| 2 To address the question of inspections, there is 3 no question in my mind inspections are important. They do 4 sometimes come up with safety significant findings.
| |
| 5 Sometimes they come up with a lot of trivia. Just to give 6 you an example, in the last week while reading an inspection 7 report of a facility -- fortunately I don't even remember 8 which one it was -- at a time I guess when I had nothing 9 better to do in Happy Valley or couldn't sleep or something 10 like that --
| |
| 11 [ Laughter.]
| |
| 12 DR. REMICK: -- I was reading this inspection 13 report and in the inspection report the inspector pointed 14 out that the licensee was using a hand calculator rather 15 than a computer to calculate effluent releases.
| |
| 16 Fortunately, later on in the inspection report, he 17 pointed out that those hand calculations, however, were
| |
| '18 okay. I asked, well, maybe that is good advice. It is 19 something I might expect in an INPO evaluation -- if that 20 truly is the computer is better than the hand calculator to 21 do it, I would expect that they would pass that information 22 on -- but I really question, even though it might be good 23 advice, what is it doing in an inspection report? It might 24 even be just an offhand comment of the inspector. Do you 25 know other people are using this particular software in a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 -
| |
| | |
| 115 1 computer to do it? But I question whether it was an 2
| |
| inspection report although fortunately it certainly did not 3 lead to a notice of violation, but I think there is a 4
| |
| balance missing in many inspection reports of the type of 5 things that are discussed. Are they safety significant?
| |
| 6 Are they tied to the regulations -- and so forth. I think 7
| |
| senior management and the Commissioners have to keep asking 8 that question, 9 On the question of enforcement, I strongly agree 10 there is a disconnect between the number of Notice of 11 Violations and the civil penalties associated and there is 12 another aspect. There has been a recent trend I believe in 13 aggregating Notice of Violations that makes some sense.
| |
| 14 Maybe it is even more efficient, but I have been involved in
| |
| : 15 some litigation as a witness in which people use the fact 16 that these things have been aggregated into a larger number l
| |
| 17 and then saying this must be poor management because this is l
| |
| 18 the "x" highest number that has ever been given to a 19 licensee.
| |
| 20 I think that is misuse of the information which 21 might otherwise be well-intended.
| |
| -22 I have always felt that the enforcement process is 23 too punitive and that sometimes it appears to'.be intended to 24 be setting an example, not necessarily for that licensee, 25 but for the industry, and I think that is misuse of the I
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
| |
| | |
| e e i
| |
| 116 1- process.
| |
| l 2 To give you an example, as a former Commissioner 3' on enforcement action, I remember this one. A matter had 4 come up to the Commission. I believe it came to the 5 Commission because there was a difference between the 6 enforcement office and the Staff and in this it had to do 7 with employee concerns, problems, and in this the Staff had 8 written that the licensee had done this and the licensee had 9 done this, and the licensee had done this, and the licensee 10 had done this -- but the problem wasn't solved, therefore a 11 $100,000 fine.
| |
| 12 My reaction was but they did all these things that 13' seemed to be logical type of things. They didn't work 14 apparently, admittedly, but the agency is not able to say 15 yes -- something that they should have done, and I certainly 16 sitting and thinking about it couldn't think of anything 17 that I would have done in a similar situation.
| |
| 18 Unfortunately I lost on a 4-to-1 vote, but I still felt 19 proud that I was the one who voted against that enforcement, 20 but sometimes it is not clear why somebody is being 21 penalized, even though they have tried everything that we 22 can conceivably think of as an agency.
| |
| 23 On the question of assessment, I would just second 24' what Joe Colvin has said, and I have had no involvement with 25 the NEI approach on the assessment process but I have heard ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| i 117
| |
| -1 i
| |
| it discussed and I have read about it and I find it exciting 2 because it basically goes to the point of what are the 3 objectives that we are trying to seek?
| |
| 4 Let's define those objectives and do it 5
| |
| collegially to get to those objectives and then set up 6 indicators of whether we are achieving those objectives, and 7 base the assessments on that.
| |
| 8 I find it a very logical approach and I think it 9 is something highly worth considering. I think it would be i i
| |
| 10 a definite improvement over the current assessment 11 processes.
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Commissioner Diaz? I 13 COMMISSIONER'DIAZ: Let's see. First of all, I 14 want to make a quick comment to Dr. Pate, who suggesting 15 have teams of senior people. I think teams- are great.
| |
| 16 Let's bring some junior people in the teams. j 17 DR. PATE: I agree. '
| |
| 18 [ Laughter.] i 19 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So that people from the 20 trenches --
| |
| l j 21 I am going to go back to what Commissioner 22 McGaffigan said and try to put a couple of comments.
| |
| 23 The Commission has been working I think l l lu 24 practically since I got here to make better inspections and i
| |
| 25 assessment processes. We even called them integrated and we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 118 1 realized there were too many levels, to many different 2 inspections and assessments. They were too fragmented into
| |
| : 3. .too many offices.
| |
| 4 I think we are getting to the point where we now 5 understand how fragmented they were -- maybe we even 6 understand where.we should be going with them.
| |
| 7 One thing that, you know, has always been lacking 8 is enforcement and I think enforcement lags because in 9 itself it's an integrated process, and so it just lags 10 everything behind, but it is an important part and it should 11 be as integrated and consistent with inspection and 12 assessments as anything else.
| |
| 13 There is another element that I am glad Commission 14 McGaffigan brought up and that is how consistent and how 15 integrated is the Office of the Inspector General with 16 whatever else we do? Inspector General is an independent 17 office and they do things independently and we respect that 18 independence.
| |
| 19 However, I think the Commission needs to have some 20 assurances that what the Inspector General is assessing is 21 ' consistent with the Commission rules, regulations, and 22 policies, and maybe in that case, you know, some integration 23 in the policy area of what we do with enforcement and 24 inspection'on assessment and how it reflects what OIG is
| |
| -25 going to do independently might be a very good idea.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036
| |
| ( 2 02') 842-0034 t'
| |
| | |
| 119 1~ That's'it. Thank you 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Are there further 3 comments anyone has in this arena? Have I missed anybody?
| |
| 4 Why don't we move on and talk about --
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chair, there's 6 just one item. I'd like to address a question to Joe if 7 it's okay?
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Sure. Sure.
| |
| 9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: It's a high priority 10 figuring out how to deal with this non-cited violation 11 issue. Do you want to share any initial thoughts that Karen 12 .will let you share?
| |
| 13 MR. CALLAN: Well, I'll just.say,that --
| |
| 14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: How do you propose to 15 solve it? Because we all recognize it's a problem, ehe 16 staff recognizes it's a problem. I know there - some 17 thoughts out there as to how to get rid of this torquing 18 people around when they don't deserve to be torqued issue at 19 least is --
| |
| l 1
| |
| 20 MR. CALLAN: Well, one of the most exciting '
| |
| 21 approaches as Forest Remick -- I was going to say 22- Commissioner Remick -- referred to is coming out of NEI.
| |
| 1 23 The thinking that is going on at NEI with the team that they l
| |
| 24 formed -- industry team -- to come up with this new l
| |
| 25 assessment process that does what IREP, our version, didn't ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters
| |
| , 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014
| |
| ) Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 120 1 do very well. It truly does provide a mechanism for 2 integrating enforcement into the assessment process and it 3 basically avoids the trap, I think, that Dave referred to 4 which is the notion that if you get the wrong answer you 5 have to apply, you know, kind of a J factor. That was true.
| |
| 6 In fact, I would say that was probably the fatal 7 flaw of the IREP was that we~didn't have enough confidence 8 in the answer we would get, so we wanted that kind of escape 9 path.
| |
| 10 With the NEI approach, as I understand it now, we 11 may be able to avoid that problem. -But anyways, in its 12 essence, the industry thinking that we're looking hard at 13 would establish thresholds of performance in various 14 categories. And as long as a utility's performance meets or 15 -- either above or below, how ever you want to look at it, a 16 'certain threshold then the regulatory environment is more 17 benign for them because they meet some standard of I 18 excellence, quite frankly, in performance. And then as long 19 as they're in that zone of performance then our enforcement 20 process would take that into account and perhaps violations 21 would not be cited, a document would not be -- there are 22 various ways of approaching it. And if they are outside ;
| |
| 23 that zone we approach enforcement differently. They even l i
| |
| 24 defined a =one, what they call a " red zone" of extremis in l
| |
| i 25 which' case the enforcement posture could be quite harsh. '
| |
| I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| o
| |
| * 121 1 So that's the kind of thinking we're doing.
| |
| 2 Internally Sam and I kick around ideas with the staff, for 3 example, looking for ways to integrate non-escalated 4 . enforcement into a utility's corrective action program. And 5 we're seeing that these programs are becoming quite 6 sophisticated across the country. And I think in Dave's 7 opening comments he noted that management determines whether 8 or not the off-the-shelf program works or doesn't work, and 9 we understand that. But assuming it works, can we use that 10 to prioritize a. utility's response to our issue, 11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Could I follow up 12- though? My question is more short-term than I think getting 13 to an assessment process that's different from the one we f
| |
| I 14 have today, and that's with the severity level fours and I 15 non-cited violations, minor violations that are out there 16 today, are there thoughts being given to how we today 17 totally.aside from the assessment process look at severity 18 level fours and the degree to which -- I mean, if we 19 recognize today that in many cases we are forcing people to 20 put something higher up in a corrective action list that's 21 already on a corrective action list, should we back off.
| |
| 22 When you met with the senior managers the last 23 time you threw out a notion of not requiring the degree of 24 response, having the degree of response to a severity level 25 four be the same as what it is to a non-cited, so they don't I
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 122 1 get torqued around as much. Are there things like that we 2 can do sooner?
| |
| 3 MR. CALLAN: Yes, there are. In fact, there are 4 some very near-term actions that I don't -- I've got to be 5 careful here because we're -- we don't have Commission 6 buy-in yet, but there are some very near term actions that 7 again the cliche of low-hanging fruit that we're plucking 8 quickly, that we're going to do that will reach to some of 9 those kinds of questions.
| |
| :00 One thing, by the way, that started about a year
| |
| : 11. ago is we added resources to the office of enforcement which 12 we're paradoxically because by adding resources we feel like 13 we can not make enforcement .nore aggressive or assertive, 14 but rather to provide greater discipline in the enforcement 15 process. So we're taking steps -- we've been taking steps 16 to -- I think the critical threshold in enforcement quite 17 frankly, the critical threshold is the threshold that 18 demarcation between what we call a minor violation which is j 19- a category of violation that we don't even document. And 20 it's a defined threshold.
| |
| 21 We tell inspectors, we have explicit guidance to 22 inspectors that if a violation of non-compliance is labeled 23 minor, a minor violation unless they have a very compelling 24 reason they're not even to document --
| |
| it's not even worth 25 the resources of document. The threshold between that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 123 1 category and what we call level four violations which is the 2 category we cite, has not been policed. And we're doing 3 that now. That's where a lot of mischief can occur in that.
| |
| 4 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chair, one last 5 paint, and this goes to a point of I think Joe made earlier 6 about our communications with the industry. I someday, and 7 the Staff has gotten very different guidance -- I had this 8 conversation with Frank Miraglia at the reg info conference.
| |
| 9 T Commissions over the years have kept the staff on very 10 short leashes at times and said everything is predecisional 11 and don't talk about anything, and then at times we've.said 12 go talk and they get confused.
| |
| 13 As people probably know coming from Congress of 14 the school that we should have a lot of conversations pretty 15 much out in the open, always subject to the Commission j 16 potentially overruling if we don't like what the staff j 17 produced, but if we're kept closely informed as to what the 18 staff is thinking they're probably not going to get too far L 19 astray and so I'm not going to prolong the discussion but I i-20 do think allowing the staff to talk pretty openly about how 21 we're going to solve these problems even if they don't have 22 Commission buy-in, that's my only point. I don't mind the I
| |
| 23 staff talking quite openly about ways to solve problems and i l
| |
| 24 brainstorming about them even though I have not yet --
| |
| it l
| |
| )
| |
| 25 ultimately is going to be a policy matter that has to come i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters I 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1
| |
| | |
| 124 1_ to the Commission and they're going to have to get a yea or 2 nay out of the Commission. But I just thought I detected a 3 sense of that in Joe's comments.
| |
| 4 MR. CALLAN: Well, you know, part of it, though, 5 is by me speaking with too much certainty on some of these 6 ideas I put my thumb on the scale. The staff has to work at 7 some of these issues, too, and I'm not saying I represent 8 staff views. I represent my own views. I think I talk
| |
| ~
| |
| 9 enough to Sam and some other senior executives, I can maybe 10 claim I represent their views. But we have to make sure 11 that we develop issues broadly. And I don't want to skew 12 that process. That's why I'm a little hesitant.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Let's take up the issue 14 of timeliness. And, Earl, you sent us a very thoughtful
| |
| , 15 piece on NRC adjudicatory processes and so I thought that 16 I'd like to ask you to share some of those thoughts openly.
| |
| 17 MR. NYE: Thank you, Chairman. I don't want to 18 take.away from other comments, but I will say we had some 19 experience in a prior lifetime with respect to timeliness of 20 various kinds of activities and particularly the ASLB 21 process and you asked for comments about how our experience 22 might apply to relicensing. And while we are not quite on 23- the verge of relicensing we know others are and we would 24 like to facilitate that. So we did send a letter and you 25 were very kind to respond I thought in a very thoughtful ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 125 1 manner, and I was very pleased with that and frankly I am 2 encouraged by what was said and what was implied in your 3 comments. I don't know that it's worthy of taking that 4_ diversion at this point, but timeliness is important.
| |
| 5 I was sitting here thinking and this is probably a 6_ digression also, what list of to do things am I taking from 7 this? Because I made a note here, what is the industry 8 willing to do and what has the industry done and self 9 appraisal being what it is, perhaps we're not in the best 10 position to say what we've done, but I think that NEI has 11 been fairly active in trying to be constructive. But I'm 12 curious, what is the process that takes us from this place, 13 what kind of a authority is the Commission willing to 14 delegate to staff and other, and what is the expectation 15 that they would have. And I'll just leave those as open 16 questions.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| 18 MR. LOCHBAUM: I'think as far as the timeliness 19 the one example that I'll choose to talk about today was an !
| |
| 20 event that happened up in Perry that we got involved in last 21 June. The plant had suffered an unplanned SCRAM due to, I 22 believe, a transformer failure. That problem was fixed 23 relatively quickly and the plant was on its way in startup 12 4 to restart when the NRC staff showed up with a list of three l 25 things that needed to be fixed before they would allow the l
| |
| I l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 126 1 plant to restart. Although it wasn't exactly stated in 2 those terms, but it was -- the heavy arm was there and those 3 three things were fixed before the plant started up.
| |
| 4 I called the resident inspector when I heard about 5 that to find out when those three things were identified.
| |
| 6 He told me they were identified by the NRC during 7 inspections in January and February of that year, but they 8 weren't serious enough to shut the plant down. Yet, when 9 the plant does -- due to some untoward reason it's a big 10 enough issue to keep the plant from restarting. It doesn't 11 make any sense to us. I don't know why that happens.
| |
| 12 I had worked as a consultant at Perry before 13 joining UCS, so I talked to some people who worked on fixing 14 those three items. Since they were needed to be fixed 15 before the plant could restart, it was a band-aid fix. The
| |
| . 16 individual I talked to said he wasn't even sure they would 17 last until refueling. But it was enough to get the plant to 18 restart.
| |
| 19 The whole process was a waste of time and effort 20 and didn't do anything for safety. And the fact that things 21 like that happen in 1997.is baffling. And, again, that's 2:2 not the only example, but I don't understand how things like 23 that happen in this environment. Thank.you.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| 25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Timeliness. I do want i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t... . . . . ..
| |
| | |
| o
| |
| * 127 1 to also compliment Mr. Nye for his letter and for some 2 previous interactions we've had on this issue of the 3- adjudicatory process.
| |
| 4 One of the major points in Mr. Nye's letter I want 5
| |
| to get out in the open is the notion that at some point we 6' may need to go and get authority to have legislative style 7
| |
| or informal hearings for issues such as license renewals, 8 such as license transfers,'such as the ATWS application that 9 we may get from USEC next year.
| |
| 10 You can make a case at the moment that we.could by i
| |
| 11 rulemaking try to do some of this, but if we don't have 12 Congressional buy-in.that rulemaking could be perilous. And 13 so. I think if Congress -- one of the "to dos" that may come 14 out of this, Congress may well provide us as we go forward 15 to hearings a couple of weeks from now under the new 16 Congress, but one issue that I would urge people to think 17 about is whether we should seek amendments to sections 189 L 18 for most licensing cases and 193 for ATWS so that we could 19 use more informal proceedings.
| |
| l 20 We just went through one and the Commission very 21 much appreciated Mr. Lochbaum's letter about the legislative l r-l 22' style hearings we went through in Millstone. He didn't 23 agree with our conclusion, but the process he complimented 24: us on and I think you can run -- if you can come out of the
| |
| , 125 ' legislative branch, you can run legislative style hearings i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 128 1 very fairly'and' efficiently and get the issues on the table.
| |
| 2 Other agencies of the Government, the FAA, was 3 referred to earlier, where they certify aircraft without 4 adjudicatory hearings. The FDA yesterday decided 1
| |
| 5' _ thalidomide was safe enough for use in leprosy applications l 6 with very strong license conditions presumably on 7 pharmacists, et cetera, they did that without adjudicatory 1 3 8 . earings.
| |
| The EPA.recently decided the waste isolation 9 pilot plant was safe enough for EPA to commence operations 10 -without adjudicatory hearings. And so I do think that 11 there's a major question as to whether adjudicatory-style 12 hearings are the most efficient way to carry out our 13 ' business. And obviously we have some recent cases that 14 raise questions and I don't know, we're going to try.
| |
| 15 The Chairman in her. letter to Mr. Nye'said we're 16 working on a policy statement, but having watched American 17 jurisprudence -- I'm not a. lawyer, I should add -- I'm not 18 sure how far we're going to be able to go within an 19 adjudicatory. setting in streamlining a process. Those two 20 terms may be incompatible.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Oxymorons.
| |
| '22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Yeah, oxymorons.
| |
| '23- 'With regard to timeliness of other areas, one i
| |
| 24 thing'I've learned is if we give an area significant 25 Lattention we can speed up the processes at the senior ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| _. . N
| |
| | |
| o o !
| |
| l
| |
| )
| |
| 129 i i
| |
| 1 management attention. The AP 600, I think Sam Collins has !
| |
| 2 correctly gotten a lot of compliments for how the AP 600 3 process has worked in the last seven or eight months as 4 they've worked through the issues to get to final design 5 approval t'lere. i t
| |
| 6 The improved standard tech spec process, we didn't 7 get a lot of compliments early, although Sam's predecessor !
| |
| 8 was promising six-month reviews which we never really were '
| |
| 9 capable of doing, but we are -- we have learned and there 10 was a recent interaction I heard about where the four loop 11 group came in and met with Sam and Joe and on their own the 12 two senior managers raised the question of why are the 13 requests for additional information so voluminous here. The 14 licensees weren't even asking that. They were just trying 1
| |
| l 15 to get the trains to keep running on schedule.
| |
| j l
| |
| l 16 Iher0 are other areas, however, where we have a 17 ways to gt s d dry cask storage comes to mind, how we're l 18 dealing with some of the decommissioning plants come to 19 mind, and we sort of have this rolling area where we shine t
| |
| 20 spotlights on things and as we shine the spotlights we can 21 solve some issues. But the fundamental issue on timeliness, i
| |
| 22 I think Joe Colvin has already talked about and that is the 23- issue of a perfection standard, a working the asymptotes or l 24 the Nth-order terms, the equation standard versus a standard i i
| |
| 25 that's good enough and appropriate to the circumstance we l l
| |
| l l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters :
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 130 1 have. And if there's a cultural change, I think Mr. McNeill 2 before he left talked about cultural changes and 3 dichotomies, but there's a cultural change that we need to 4 bring about, it's getting a standard that is good enough and 5 is very detailed in cases where it's necessary where we 6 .really rake somebody over the coals on a safety significant 7 issue, but where it's a very straightforward process.
| |
| 8 Gary Hollahan in one briefing to Commissioner Dias 9 and me talked about a nanosecond clearance process and Steve 10 Burns promised a second nanosecond for OGC concurrence for 11 some of these trivial things that come before us. But we 12 don't have that. I mean, when I said that to an industry 13 executive a few days later in a meeting he said, I'd like to 14 know what an NRC nanosecond was. So we have a ways to go.
| |
| 15 MR. COLVIN: Define a nanosecond.
| |
| 16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Yeah, define a 17 nanosecond.
| |
| 18 [ Laughter.]
| |
| 19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But if we shine -- and I 20 think license renewal, probably the most important area, we 21 have Frank Miraglia at the moment empowered to keep an eye 22 on that process and deliver SERs and environmental 23 statements by late next year in the case of the initial 24 applicant. So we've got to figure out how to do that more 25- broadly and not have to -- not have that require the degree ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 131 1 of senior management attention it seems to require in order 2 to bring it about. But that involves empowering people at 3 lower levels to a different standard from what they have 4 today.
| |
| 5 MR. COLVIN: Chairman, thank you. I'd like to 6 pick up on just a couple of comments and then on to your 7 basic theme. With respect to the hearing issue, I would 8 support the efforts you have underway and the leadership 9 that this Commission ~is taking in relooking at the hearing i
| |
| 10 issue. We have analyzed that over the years and.I would say 11 we don't think that the processes that the Commission uses 12 are necessarily embodied within the statutory requirements 13 law. They certainly have been used to a great degree, and 14 we would support your efforts from the legislative arena to {
| |
| 15 support your efforts to make the appropriate changes.
| |
| 16 A second issue I guess I would put under the 17 heading of when I look at timeliness and 1 look at the-10 comments that Mr. Lochbaum made, the double standard issue, 19 I think we really need to go back to the key point in my 20 mind, that is confidence that we develop in the process.
| |
| 21 And I think confidence in the process drives schedule and it 22 drives the perceptions. And if you take a look at some of i
| |
| 23 the issues that we have faced or are facing, I mean, let me 24 just throw a couple of examples, and it leaves those as 25 illustrative and not to get into the details. But if you i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut-Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l' (202) 842-0034 '
| |
| | |
| 132 1 look'at it and take a step back and look at the timeliness 2 to make a decision on bearing the Trojan reactor vessel in 3 tact, and_ycu look at that and say, that's been done for 4 many, many years through the Navy process. It's done 5 routinely, and yet we have spent nine plus months looking at 6 it and now we've outlined a. process which will take a year 7 to develop the process and a year to implement the process.
| |
| 8 Now, I know there's changes being applied and 9 there's improvements to that, but on its face it says that 10 that's a very difficult hard thing to do and yet I think 11 what that does is undermine a confidence that the industry 12 has that decisions will be made in a timely manner only gets 13 people into the, this is very hard, when it ought to be 14 ' fairly easy to make'those decisions. Dry cask storage 15 licensing and I do agree with the concept or the discussion 16 that Mr. McGaffigan made of shining a light on there. We 17 see tremendous commitment out of NMSS to shorten that 18 timeframe and that's very important as you all know, and I 19 won't go into the reasons. But I think that if we look at 20 -- we seem to get back to the point, we've got to decide 21 what the end objective is and then we can set the time 22 schedule to meet that appropriately.
| |
| -23 If we take license renewal, I mean, it's very 24 .important, but if we set the schedule without defining the 25 end objective and setting the scope, the scope will ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| * 133 1 ultimately drive the schedule and we won't meet the
| |
| )
| |
| ( 2 deadlines we have to make. So that comes back to the
| |
| ! 3. central objective of each of those issues. What do we want 4 to do, how are we going to measure, what is success, and 5
| |
| l then set the schedule to meet that and then I think we can 6 make those changes.
| |
| l 7 So I'll be happy to speak more to that, but in the 8 interest of time I'll pass.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Harold?
| |
| 10 MR. RAY: Thank you. Chairman Jackson, as the 11 chairman of NEI's regulatory process working group it falls 12 to me to try and maintain often industry support for much of 13 what we're talking about here. And I must report to you 14 that there is -- it's increasingly difficult. There's a i
| |
| '15 skeptical world out there, but on the other hand I'll tell 16 you, I think there's a craving to see progress to the point 17 that all we need to do is show some progress and the 18 skepticism will evaporate.
| |
| 19 I give you as an example, I was just at the recent 1
| |
| ~20 meeting. I shared where we stood on 50.59, a meeting we had 21 with you all in which we indicated we understood the 22 separation of the issue of scope and one that was going to 23 be addressed as to what the scope part of 50.59 should be 24 and so on. There was real satisfaction, I think, and I want !
| |
| l 25 to feed back to you on the part of the industry that, well, 1
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 :
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 ,
| |
| (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 134 1 it looks like there's progress being made. This a logical 2- -thing to do. Do you have confidence that we'll really be-3 able to come to grips with this issue and run it to ground 4 in a reasonable time, I said, yes, I did.
| |
| j 5 So there jus a desire, and lixe I say, a 6- willingness to believe that we are in fact going to overcome 7 what is perceived to be a problem with timeliness at least 8 in the narrow area that I'm talking about with you now.
| |
| 9 On the other hand, let me say that I think we're 10 getting all that we can out of the people who are having to 11 get the job done today, and that whereas I think you have 12 sufficient resources in the Agency, there's no doubt in my 13 mind, and this may be gratuitous, and if it is, please 14 forgive me, but I think that resources are going to have to 15 be redeployed into these areas that are going to require a 16 lot of work. It cannot-get done by a waving of the wand, 17' It is going to require a hard slog in many areas. We are 18 going to have to join with you in order to make the result 19 as efficiently arrived at as we can. And let me just leave 20 that.there, then, 21 The last thing-I want to say with regard to 22 timeliness is back on my third overhead in my opening
| |
| ~23 remarks, it's on the issue of restructuring, you've now 24 heard it said many. times and I perceive it perhaps doesn't 25 need to even be said to you. But there is this train coming ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 135 1 and when I think about skepticism, I have to think in terms
| |
| ,2 of the world that I spent a lot of m/ time in and that is 1
| |
| L 3 where we're restructuring the industry.
| |
| 4 I have now closed and gotten in hand the money for 5 the sale of 12' generating plants that my company owned up 6 until a couple of weeks.ago. That process went forward in 7 accord with the changes'that have-taken place in California, 8 and as you know,-it's happening in other parts of the 9 country. The nuclear plants are in line. They're going to 10 have to get out of the utility or shut down. And there is a 11 whole lot of people who believe that we're not going to find 12 a way to get them out of the utility that they're going to 13 have to shut down.
| |
| 14 I am committed as I think everyone else here is to 15 the proposition that that isn't the case, that we will be 16 able to transfer these licenses, but it will not, of course, 17 happen if the pattern of experience recently in taking such 18 actions continues in the future. I know you're committed 19 that that will not be the case, I just want to underscore l
| |
| 20 that there's a large volume of these things coming and it's 21 a tough challenge for you I know to decide how to deal with 22 it in a way that will allow this transition to take place 23 Thank you.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Sam?
| |
| 25 MR. COLLINS: I just want to state, I think the i-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l 136 1 ' Office's' commitment to_ acknowledging that timeliness or the I 2_ paradigm wherein timeliness is different than it has been in 3 the past. We, by being.in line with processes and business 4 decision, we implement actual business decisions and the 5' unregulated environment play, by no small means, a part in
| |
| '6 the licensee's ability to conduct business efficiently. And 7 as stated here previously the efficiency goes to safety hand 8 in hand. I think our operating plans go to a large extent 9 to that,_the discipline through the budget process that 10 we're trying to implement, but we are resource constrained
| |
| -11 given what's on our plates, so we have to work smarter. We 12 have to work in a way that raises those priorities much to 13 the issues that have been mentioned here this afternoon 14 first.
| |
| 15- So the question becomes, can we do that, do we 16 have the processes to-do that, and the checks and balances 17 to ensure that it gets done? And my response would be,.yes, 18 in some cases, and in other cases we're developing those.
| |
| 19 We have had some successes and credit for license renewal 20 -progress with Brian Grimes -- or Chris Grimes, excuse me, 21 and his crew and AP 600 with Ted Quay. It goes pretty much 22 in others to the staff's ability to act given the right 23 tools to do that with. And that includes oversight and 24 direction, but mostly decisionmaking discretion which is an 25_ area that we have to continue to work on which, again, I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Sud te 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| ^ }
| |
| 137 !
| |
| l 1 think, comes back to the overarching issue of how do-we 2 provide for that? How do we monitor it, and how do we 3
| |
| surface those issues up to the line that need broad policy 4 decisions. I think that will be a continuing challenge for 5 us, but clearly working with the industry we need to be sure 6 that those issues that are on our plate are the most 7 important.
| |
| 8 The most recent example of that is the elevating 9 of the importance of risk-informed tech spec amendments to a 10 high priority category two rather than the lower priority.
| |
| 11 And that was brought about as feedback from NEI and the 12 industry about the progress of these initiatives given the i 13 Commission's intent to provide focus on those areas. So we.
| |
| 14 went back and looked at our processes and they were not 4 15- commensurate with that direction. We have to do more of 16 that. I think we'll find other instances as we continue to 0
| |
| .17 look.
| |
| i 18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Karen?
| |
| 19 MS. CYR: I think there are a lot of lessons we 20 can take both from what we see in the industry in terms of 21 how they've gone about setting improvements for themselves 22 in terms of setting clear expectations, setting schedules, 23 holding people accountable for their actions and monitoring 24 actions that you set in place. Those apply in an 25 adjudicatory context. They apply in regulatory context in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES ~, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l-o------_-----
| |
| | |
| j I
| |
| 138 !
| |
| I 1 terms of decisionmaking for processes and we're committed to 1 2 the Commission in terms of the regulatory -- the i
| |
| 3 adjudicatory process to take a look in the next few months 4 about where we may change or there are opportunities to 5 either change our regulations, or if not, opportunities to 6 change -- to go beyond that if we want to, to seek 7 legislation. And we will do that.
| |
| 8 And we've helped provide the Commission in the 9 last few months some options for how within the existing 10 framework we think that they can monitor the adjudications 11 themselves to do some of these things in terms of setting 12 expectations and schedules. And so hopefully those will go 13 a long way in terms of trying to address some of the 14 immediate issues that we have before us.
| |
| 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Joe?
| |
| 16 MR. CALLAN: Chairman, I really have nothing to 17 add to what Sam said. And I'll just -- I guess I would also 18 reinforce what Commissioner McGaffigan said about accepting, 19 as appropriate, the good enough standard and that will, as 20 you said, entail some degree of a culture change in the 21 staff. But there's only so much you can do with the process 22 and until you change that mindset, you're not going to make 23 the kind of breakthrough improvements that I think we're 24 talking about. So we understand that.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you. Dr. Remick?
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 139 1 DR. REMICK: In preparing my remarks the last 2 couple of days, I went back over it and asked, where can I 3
| |
| expect the Commission is going to pin the tail on the donkey 4 and say, give me some specific examples. So on the bit of 5 timeliness I'll share with you some of the notes that I made 6
| |
| at the time, and some of the issues, the pilots I've already 7 referred to. But Part 50.59 improvements are certainly 8 languishing, the final guidance from the Commission on that.
| |
| 9 The update guidance on USAR certainly is 10 languishing, the licensees out there are trying to comply, 11 but they don't know what the final guidance is going to be.
| |
| 12 The Louisiana Energy Services hearing certainly was very, 13 very lengthy. The improved tech spec approvals certainly 14 are languishing, but why are these important to licensees.
| |
| 15 And you have to look at it from the licensae standpoint, 16 that if they have initial classes of licensed operators 17 coming along, and this is a long, lengthy process of 18 training these people, do they get trained on the existing 19 tech specs, or do they get trained on the improved tech 20 specs. And if they go on that, that they're going to be 21 trained to the improved tech specs and the Commission does 22 not live up to the schedule, when these people are ready to 23 he examined for their license, it can be a disaster. You 24 can't change from one set of tech specs to the other after 25 people have been trained for many, many months on that.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 140 1 The Part 52 reviews and much of the onus of that i 2 is on the Commission on which I served as much as on this
| |
| ! 3 Commission. And although I'm happy to hear that AP 600 is l
| |
| l l
| |
| 4 moving along, certainly the two evolutionary plants and the l
| |
| l 5 one -- I can't think of the -- the advanced plan, AP 600, 6 that is really an inordinately long process of reviewing 7 those applications and comparing what was done in this 8 Agency 20 years ago when there were just multiple, multiple 9 applications for plants.
| |
| 10 Topical report reviews which was a problem six, 11 eight years ago, I'm told it's still a problem with very, 12 very low priority on reviewing and completing topical 13 representative reviews.
| |
| 14 License amendment approvals also. The Generic 15 Letter 9606, this is the one that has to do with the 16 question of water hammer and containment air coolers and so 17 forth, they're still daily going out -- I shouldn't say 18 " daily", but I see occasionally RAIs going out which I can't 19 help but question, aren't these overkill questions that are 20 going out and are they just questions based on job security.
| |
| 21 It's already been raised, the spent fuel cask 22 reviews, this is extremely important.
| |
| 23 We mentioned the question of resource allocation.
| |
| 24 I can't help but raise the question, is it still necessary 25 to have as many as five residents at one site in some cases?
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| O 8 141 l
| |
| 1 And I'm not talking about Millstone. Is it really necessary 2 in this day and age to have as many as five residents at one 3 site?
| |
| 4 The other matter I would like to talk about is the 5 ASLB process. And the reason I'd like to talk about that, I 6 have some prejudice or bias, I guess, because I served ten 7
| |
| years as a part-time administrative judge on the licensing 8 boards. And I guess I am defensive in a way inasmuch that I 9 really found that people serving on those boards at a time, 10 when there were many, many, many proceedings under way, were 11 trying to do the best job possible.
| |
| 12 And after serving on there for ten years, then I 13 served as director of the Office of Policy Evaluation, a 14 small office that reported to five commissioners at the 15 time, and I sat at the Commission table just like the 16 General Counsel does at every Commission meeting.
| |
| 17 And on several occasions frustrated Commissioners 18 asked why in the "H" are these licensing boards making 19 decisions for us out there? And because.of my background, 20 and the Commissioners did not have that background, I was
| |
| : 21. able to point out, they're out there doing it for you.
| |
| 22 You've delegated them that responsibility, you could 23 certainly do it. But there's no way physically you could 24 handle all of these proceedings. So you've asked this group 25 of people to hear these cases and come up with initial ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| t Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '
| |
| | |
| 1 142 1 decision which you can step in and modify if you wish.
| |
| 2 Those people are trying to do a good job, but they are !
| |
| 3 receiving, and I felt this at the time, receiving absolutely l 4 no direction from the Commission on what the expectations l' 5 were.
| |
| 6- And so my advice on-the hearing process is that 7 the Commission needs to stay in tune. They need to 8 establish expectations and schedules on what these 9 proceedings should be. You can't tell the licensing board 10 ' members how to decide, but you can tell t' hem expectations on f 11 timeliness and so forth. And as Karen mentioned, you can 12 monitor them closely, and you certainly have the authority 13 to reach down and bring things up for you to correct or 14 redirect and so forth.
| |
| 15 Now, on the question of adjudicatory legislative, 16 certainly I personally would support more legislative-type 17 of hearings. I predict, however, it's going to be a very 18 touchy political question. There are a lot of people out 19 there who very much want that opportunity provided by the 20 adjudicatory hearings. I would like to see more legislative 21 -- Commissioner McGaffigan and I bounced around the idea a
| |
| : 22 few weeks ago of the Commission taking on the first license-23 renewal case and hearing it. And I told Commissioner 24 McGaffigan, if I was still on the Commission I would 25 probably be dumb enough to sign on and suggest that the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| * e .
| |
| 143 1 Commission do it. Because I applaud the intent of it, and 2
| |
| that is try to set an example of how the efficient process 3 could be handled for the first one.
| |
| 4 But if it is an adjudicatory-type of hearing, I 5 think there is considerable risk that you might cause the 6 opposite. Because I think it will receive a. lot of 7 attention, and nobody on the Commission currently has 8
| |
| administrative law experience, and, therefore, you're going i
| |
| 9 to be sitting as a Commission certainly with guidance from 1
| |
| 10 legal counsel and so forth, but in a public eye, trying to 11 come up with collegial decisions on procedural matters which 12 you could easily make a mistake on, you can also look bad by 13 taking a long time to come to those decisions and to be 14 appealable in the courts, I presume, and so there is some 15 risk. I applaud the idea. I do support the idea. I would 16 like to see more legislative-type of hearings, but I must 17 admit, I predict there would be a lot of opposition to 18 changing from adjudicatory to legislative.
| |
| 19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On that one issue-that 20 we did talk about, I should inform you and the public that 21 the Commission decided not to take --
| |
| 22 .IM1. REMICK: I see.
| |
| 23 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: --
| |
| it to BG&E's, you 24 know, sighs of relief. We decided that we would not --
| |
| 25 (Laughter.)
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters .
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 l I
| |
| i I
| |
| L__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _. _
| |
| | |
| 144 1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: -- do that.
| |
| 2 DR. REMICK: You needed my vote.
| |
| l 3 (Laughter.]
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Not in this instance.
| |
| 5 DR. REMICK: I'm finished, thank you.
| |
| 6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's it?
| |
| 7 DR. REMICK: Yes.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. In the interest of 9 timeliness I think some of the concepts that come out which 10 can help us do things more timely is full consideration of 11 eliminat'ag the zero factor. There's no such thing as a 12 zero factor. It's just an invention and its time is passe.
| |
| 13 I think the elevation that " good enough" is fully acceptable 14 is something that we should seriously address and seriously 15 carry down, you know, all the way down to implementation. j 16 I think that if we take these two things, both the 17 elimination of the zero factor and the elevation of the l 18 " good enough" is fully acceptable and integrate it with 19 processes that discriminate from the beginning what the 1
| |
| 20 priority are rather than looking at the process to make the I 1
| |
| 21 discrimination, that should accelerate, you know, a lot of I l
| |
| 22 the licensing actions. I 23 And then finally in the interest of timeliness 24 I'll say ditto to all of the above.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 145 1 I think we've covered quite a full panoply of 2 issues today. But I would like to have, as they call it, a 3 " green-light session" to see if there are any other, you 4 know, issues that anyone would like to raise. Joe?'
| |
| 5 MR. COLVIN: Chairman, if I could pick up one last 6 comment on the rulemaking and timeliness or the timeliness 7' activities. There were two areas that were not raised and I 8 would be remiss if we didn't mention them. And I think
| |
| '9 that's the-recommendation to the Commission on a process to 10 decide on petitions for rulemaking in a timely manner that 11 have been issued to the Commission. When a petition for 12 rulemaking is submitted, it goes into some place and one may 13 never hear whether it's been accepted or not accepted until 14 some actual decision is made. And I think we've had 15 petitions for rulemaking pending for four or five years and 16 really don't know the status. And I think that that's an 17 area that would be an easy recommendation to take in effect.
| |
| 18 I think the second issue has to do with the length 19 of rulemakings. And I know you've worked on this and tried 20 to come at other issues. But other agencies, and I would 21 use the FAA example only for illustration, when there is a 22 problem that is in fact a safety issue they pull together 23 the stakeholder, the engine manufacturers, the airframe 24 manufacturers, the operator and so on, put them in a room, 25 they solve the problem and the FAA issues an airworthiness !
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ,
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| i 146 1 directive which I think falls into the order category which 2 is then implemented. And they do that in a fairly rapid 3 manner, So there are probably some examples like that I 4 would encourage the Commission and where they may need 1
| |
| -5 statutory, and these may require legislative statutory l 6 fixes, and I recognize that and industry would be pleased to l 7 work with the Commission and support the appropriate changes i
| |
| 8 to provide efficiencies in the process.
| |
| L l 9 MR. COLLINS: Chairman, I agree with the petition 10 for rulemaking issue. I think there's been one on QA 11 specifically that the staff has been wrestling with for a 12 period of time. That and the 2.206 process which David 13 Lochbaum has brought to us, I think are examples perhaps 14 where a focused review, perhaps Dr. Pate's concept, would 15 apply. I think it would be beneficial to sit down with the l 16 stakeholder and carve.those out, if you will, of the l
| |
| 17 overall issues that we're dealing with and try to pick those 18 processes off independently. And I'm willing to dedicate 19 resources to that because that -- and only after we improve 1
| |
| 1 20 those processes will they start to bring good results.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Very good. Thank you. -
| |
| l 22 Are there any other issues that anyone would like j 1
| |
| 23 to raise?
| |
| 4 24 MR. COLVIN: Chairman, I have one other point. I 25 don't want to belabor'the conversation, I wanted to just ]
| |
| l l
| |
| ]
| |
| I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| L l-
| |
| '147 1~
| |
| . enter and give to you the Commission, we have a two-sided 2 sheet of paper which has eight specific recommendations, 3 many of which we have talked about today.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
| |
| 5 MR. COLVIN: And I just wanted to provide that,
| |
| ! 6 and there are' copies that will be provided for the other 7 parties.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
| |
| 9 Anyone else?
| |
| 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Madam Chairman, just one 11 point. Obviously what provoked this discussion more than 12' anything was the language from the Senate Appropriations 13 Committee and I think it's been very useful and we obviously 14 have things we need to do to improve. I would prefer -- I'd 15 just state to this group that I don't know that cutting 16 ' resources -- and I had a conversation with Dr. Remick about 17- this -- cutting resources is a very blunt instrument and it 18 doesn't necessarily lead to the improvements we're all 19 desiring. It may well.be that if we fix all these processes 20 we need fewer resources. But at times fixing the processes 21 requires resources up front. So I would just make that 22 point.
| |
| 23 The Commission also, on the issue that I think was 24 most -- and maybe I should defer to the Chairman on this, 25 but the issue that was of most concern to the industry, the 1
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| , Court Reporters t
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 148 1 fairness and equity issue, I think we -- why don't I just 2 turn it over to you and let you say whatever you want there, 3 but-we have responded.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Yeah, let me take that up and 5 then let me talk to the resources issue.
| |
| 6 I that in fact -- I mean the Commission made a 7 decision'and our' original timeframe was for the FY-2000 8 timeframe, but in fact we're prepared and certainly willing
| |
| -9 to propagate it into FY-99 to address the issue of fairness 10 and equity of fees by looking to take off of the fee base 11 those activities that have less direct connection to the 12 activities of our domestic licensees. And the Commission 13 decided on a percentage formula up to 10 percent to come.off 14 of the fee base -- 10 percent of our current budget.
| |
| 15 There are various proposals, but one in particular 16 -that I'm sure will be discussed at an authorization hearing 17 we'll be having at the end of the month that's arisen in our 18 authorization committee that would take up to, I believe, 19- $30 million off of the fee base, and we've said that we 20 could work with that, although there are some procedural 21 things that we've been talking with the committee about.
| |
| 22 And so -- I mean, that's an issue that has been around and I 23 think that -- in fact I particularly congratulate my 24 . colleagues in this regard and then one member of my st'aff in 25 working out a formula for how that could work. And the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters -
| |
| 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 ,
| |
| Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| E] e l
| |
| t 149 1 member of my staff is Jackie Silver who I don't think is 2 here. But I think all of us worked to try to come up with a 3 reasonable approach recognizing what the issues are and that 4 we needed to address this forthwith.
| |
| 5 And on the resources issue, I would like to come 6 at it this way, I'm sure many of you have had experience, 7 perhaps much more than some of us, in managing your 8 enterprises and you make various decisions relative to 9 streamlining and downsizing and what needs to happen. But 10 in the end that comes out of a set of decisions having to do 11 strategically with where one wants to go, what the strategic 12 focus and positioning of your enterprise needs to be, and 13 that what downsizing decisions are made are made in a very 14 deliberate fashion that ends up having to balance, you know, 15 what needs to go out the window with what needs to perhaps 16 come in the window.
| |
| 17 And Commission McGaffigan has already spoken to --
| |
| 18 in order to carry out these new -- a number of these 19 corrections themselves require resources, speaking of 20 deployment or redeployment of resources and that is 21 certainly true, and I was going to speak to that at any rate 1 22 in a minute. But in the end that implies there are 23 resources to be deployed. At the same time the Commission 24 has been pressing the staff very strongly on issues related 25 to timeliness and efficiency. I won't tell you some of the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| . o-150 1 things that Commission McGaffigan really presses the staff 2 on in terms of trying to be more efficient in how we use our 3 resources. And I have worked very closely with the 4 executive council in particular to develop a budget and 5 planning and performance management framework and to squeeze 6 and to think about how we can use in a very smart way the 7 resources we have including redeployment of people as 8 necessary.
| |
| 9 What one would not like to risk is to lose faith 10 with the staff in carrying out these processes that as we 11 demand that they become more business-like in their focus, 12 more efficient in their use of resources and squeeze money 13 out of the budget. And believe me, we are continuing to do 14 that. That, in fact, people feel they are penalized for, in 15 fact, exposing more of how they in fact manage their shop.
| |
| 16 And there are any number of vulnerabilities and improvements 17 that can be made, but I think it's very important that the 18 staff be able to manage those processes down with clear 19 guidance and direction from the Commission. And I think we 20 feel very strongly about that. And so I thank Commissioner 21 McGaffigan for bringing that up.
| |
| 22' Now, all of that said, let me thank particularly 12 3 our invitees, Mr. Earl Nye, Mr. Joe Colvin, Mr. Corbin 24 McNeill who had to leave, Dr. Zack Pate, Mr. Harold Ray, Mr.
| |
| 25 David Lochbaum,-Dr. Remick, a former commissioner, as well ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| l 151 1 as my colleagues and the NRC staff, and all of you who came 2 out today for your participation in, and/or interest in this 3 round-table meeting. I hope that you in fact have felt that 4 it has been a round-table discussion. Notwithstanding the 5 geometry of the table. ;
| |
| l 6 [ Laughter.] '
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And I will state on behalf of 8 the Commission, and I hope you've seen this in the l 9 discussion today that we recognize the challenges before us.
| |
| 10 And we in fact embrace a movement to improvement in how we 11 do our business. And I want to reassure the public, in 12 particular, that the Commission remains committed to 13 maintaining our focus on our primary health and safety 14 mission. In the end that is what we are here for as we 15 continue to improve our oversight of nuclear programs along 16 some of the lines we've been discussing today.
| |
| 17 Now, of particular interest to me today, and I'm l 18 going to try to see how well I've captured. Unlike our 19 totally choreographed Commission meetings, this one is a l 1
| |
| 20 challenge in terms of capturing, as we've gone along, the l 21 essence of what we've discussed. But I think of particular l
| |
| 22 interest were the discussions regarding issues of management l l
| |
| 23 within the NRC and the timeliness of NRC activities, the 24 insights on risk-informed regulation, the need for 25 adjustments to our inspection or reworking of our inspection ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters
| |
| , 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 i-
| |
| | |
| 152 1 process, and pointing out some of the abuses of regulatory 2 process at the site interface; reworking and ensuring the l 3 proper focus in our inspection program; and in particular I l
| |
| 4 think -- I and the whole Commission is in interested in 5 ensuring that all of these functional areas of NRC fit 6 together in a logical cohesive framework for regulatory 7 oversight. And let me see if I've captured some of the 8 points of concern.
| |
| 9 This is probably not comprehensive, but I would 10 say in the management arena there were examples and 11 discussions of lack of clear direction. On one hand a lack 12 of oversight of field personnel in certain instances as I 13 talked about particularly in the inspection area, but on the 14 other hand the need to empower the staff in order to be able 15 to move along on some of these joint initiatives. And 16 overall a need for cultural change in order to move from 17 where we've been to a truly risk-informed regulatory 18 framework. There's the need for the Commission itself to 19 satisfy itself that it understands ~what's going on in the 20 field with respect to its direction and how the practices 21 are carried out in conjunction with Commission procedure.
| |
| 22 There are any number of comments made on the 23 assessment and enforcement and inspection areas 24 specifically, but the NRC does look to validate its 25 assumptions about licensee performance. But we've heard ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| o
| |
| * 153 1 -that a number of our enforcement actions, for instance, '
| |
| 2 frequently are not focused on what is safety significant and
| |
| '3 can serve unwittingly the misdirected purpose of 4 misdirecting licensees' attention. That there is a burden 5 that we place on our licensees for relatively low-level, 1
| |
| 6 non-safety significant violations and we need to look at 7 that.
| |
| 8 In the overall area of regulatory excesses we've 9 heard reppatedly about inspector mischief, about our use of 10 informal means such as confirmatory action letters or 11 generic communications to de facto create regulatory 12 requirements and that we get-in our own way at times by 13 focusing on perfection versus what is adequate or good 14 enough.
| |
| 15 In the timeliness area, there are issues having to 16 do with boundaries and barriers to interactions between the 'I i
| |
| 17 various parties. We've talked, there were a number of l 18 specific areas but focusing on the adjudicatory process, et 19 cetera. I 20 Now, Mr. Nye spoke of a "to do" list and I've 21 tried to capture some of the "to do"s and then if there are i
| |
| '22 any that any others feel we-need to specifically focus on, I 23 would-welcome your giving us that input.
| |
| l
| |
| ; 24 I think we need to work on our working l
| |
| I 25 relationships on the various initiatives to have the right i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| O S 154 1 working groups to be more open in terms of how we work with 2 our stakeholder to move along on these initiatives and 3 create within those relationships the means to break log 4 jambs immediately.
| |
| 5 There's the need to bring to closure certain 6 specific initiatives. We've talked about the results of 7 some of the pilot programs. In particular in-service 8 inspection we know is an important one as well as the others 9 that have traditionally been talked about.
| |
| 10 I think we ourselves can ask how can the -- we can 11 ask you, and I think we have, what can we learn from the 12 industry in terms of developing our own get-well approach.
| |
| 13 I mean, we always talk with the industry about the need for 14 clear objectives, the need to have a management team focused 15 on achieving those objectives, and then to have people 16 actually working on getting the work done.
| |
| 17 There was a specific recommendation to convene a 18 high-level assessment group and Commissioner Diaz pointed 19 out, I think, rightfully so, that one needs to be sure 20 there's fresh blood in that group, folks who are where the 21 rubber meets the road, but that this -- the Commission needs 22 to be clear on what the objectives of such a high-level 2
| |
| .3 review would be and it needs to have the full Commission 24 buy-in and the EDO's endorsement. And it perhaps needs to 25 look at some of the more fundamental precepts and concepts ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Peporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 155 1 but-since what fundamentally we're talking about here 2 largely involves looking at what we do in our reactor 3 regulation program, I think it is very important that we 4
| |
| understand how any new assessment or review would play off 5 of the existing assessments. And Sam talked about various 6 ones, and I'm sure coming out of Congressional concerns 7 there may be yet other assessments that'get done. And in 8
| |
| the end we have to look at the tradeoff between studying 9 things to death and getting things done. And I know that 10 Sam and his folks are working very hard and are feeling 11 pretty overwhelmed at this point.
| |
| l 12 With' respect to timeliness, I think we know where j 13 we.are on the adjudicatory issues. I think there are some 14 more innovative approaches that may require some legislative 15 help, but at the same time we are where we are and we're in 16 the middle of some important processes that have i
| |
| 17 adjudicatory aspects, license renewal obviously being a big 18 banana, but at the same time the reality that a number of 19 you have spoken of, of the reorganization of the industry --
| |
| '20 nuclear power industry pursuant to deregulation and that 21 there will be any number of license transfers. And our OGC 22 has offered us a number of options which the Commission is 23 probably going to try to adopt as many of them as we can for
| |
| .24 moving things along.
| |
| ; 25 And recently, Commission McGaffigan had raised the l
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u_________--_______ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _
| |
| | |
| 156 1 issue of.-- and I'd ask Karen specifically of looking at 2 with respect the license transfers what kinds, do we have 3~ any flexibility on the kinds of hearings that we might have.
| |
| L 4 The point has been made that we need to give more 5 management attention to speed processes that we need to 6 redeploy resources'into areas where the high priority work 7 needs to be done, that we need to particularly perhaps we 8 could use a focus to review with respect to how we handle 9 . petitions for rulemaking as well as 2.206 petitions and that 10 we can learn things from other agencies such as the FAA by 11 looking at things like the length of rulemaking.
| |
| 12 And so in closing let me sort of leave a couple of 13 thoughts. There were a couple of times that the statement 14 was made that the staff always wins. And I think that I 15 would not like to have us leave this meeting with any kind 16 of pejorative statements or implication relative to the NRC 17 staff. The NRC staff works very hard to carry out its 18 regulatory mission. That it feels it is very strongly 19 focused on safety, that we have managed to license over 100 20 currently operating nuclear plants, they have been safely 21 operated. The responsibility for safety rests with those 22 who own and operate the facilities, hot I think we at the 23 NRC believe that we've had a stro:4g hand in the safety 24 record of "that. industry, but particularly the NRC staff.
| |
| 25 There have been any number of normalization that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| .)
| |
| | |
| 157 1
| |
| have been made along the way in response to not only 2 industry, but Congressional to GAO and other stakeholder 1
| |
| 1 3 concerns and reviews, some with unintended consequences 4 perhaps. For instance, the issue of the severity level four 5 violations and their increase, but growing out of a desire 6
| |
| and an attempt to be more consistent in how things are done, l
| |
| 7 activities taken pursuant to the situation at the Millstone 8 Nuclear Power Plant.
| |
| 9 Ironically I believe that there's' always a silver 10 lining because a benefit has been that along the way what 11 we've done is to expose what really have been festering l 12 problems in terms of, for instance, how we handle 13 enforcement, the tie of our enforcement actions to risk and 14 safety significance, and these things predated the specific 15 run up of severity level four violations recently, and 16 predated any number of other things. But nonetheless, it's 17 clearly on the table.
| |
| 18 Joe spoke circumspectly about some things that we 19 are considering, but they do have to come to the Commission 20 for the Commission's decision. :
| |
| l 21 Similarly, growing out of our experience which )
| |
| 22 none of us would like to repeat with Millstone, the whole 23 issue of finally doing a rulemaking on 50.59 where we get at ;
| |
| 24 this issue that Commissioner Diaz spoke eloquently about of 25 getting rid of -- of recognizing that the zero is not zero ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L_-______._____._____-____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _
| |
| | |
| 158-1 anyway. And it doesn't make sense. And looking at issues 2 of the safety analysis reports and how they are handled, 3 even though I agree, we need to get the guidance moved 4 along.
| |
| 5 So we have initiatives under way. And what we are 6 in the process of doing is culling through, you know, what 7 we think is working, what is not working, and what needs 8 fundamental change. And I think that our discussions today
| |
| : 9. are going to contribute very strongly to that. And there 10 are a number of thoughtful proposals that have been placed 11 on the table and thoughtful communications such as the NEI 12 proposal on risk-informed oversight, others, there are some 13 petitions-for rulemaking as well as communications we've 14 gotten from various individuals. What we have to do then is 15 to engage with o'ur stakeholder, engage with the industry to 16 work through them in an expeditious manner.
| |
| 17 We do have a planning process which we hope will 18 help us to accommodate change whether it's -- as I've talked 19 -with the staff about -- a modulation of trajectory or a bend 20 in the road, but as I've also told them that a-bend in a 21 road is not the end of the road unless you fail to make the 22 turn. So in the end communications is the key.
| |
| 23 And I hope that the discussion today has helped us 24 to take a step along the road of better communications, but 25 more importantly, through the communications to rectify what ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034
| |
| | |
| 159 1 1 have been these long festering issues. And I think the 2
| |
| Commission and all of us are committed to that. And we may 3
| |
| have differences of opinion on any' number of things, but I 4-think that we're all committed to making progress in these 5 areas and making it forthwith.
| |
| 6 So unless there are any further comments, we are
| |
| -7 adj ourned .
| |
| 8 [Whereupon, at 2:00 p.m., the meeting was
| |
| ! 9 concluded.]
| |
| 10 11 i
| |
| 12 l
| |
| .13 14
| |
| ! 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
| |
| ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
| |
| Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '
| |
| J
| |
| | |
| o .
| |
| i CERTIFICATE
| |
| (
| |
| l This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting of the.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission entitled:
| |
| i l
| |
| l TITLE OF MEETING: PUBLIC MEETING ON STAKEHOLDER' CONCERNS l PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland' l
| |
| DATE OF MEETING: Friday, July 17, 1998
| |
| ; was-held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and that this is-the original transcript thereof taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company Transcriber: .
| |
| , tE t/
| |
| r--
| |
| dbh Reporter: Mark Mahoney i i
| |
| l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| Il !lllIl i!
| |
| y s
| |
| y a r E t
| |
| o s ht e y c
| |
| l a s e e s
| |
| n i
| |
| l o
| |
| c o P u
| |
| g i
| |
| t i
| |
| r or sl t t oP e u n e s i c c e r y t Rse P et o r
| |
| ri f uf oi i
| |
| s s
| |
| n e c il va sD e o e h o t c g u Reh Cg t r jee f t f oa n nP bR of n o eh i
| |
| e Oerh i oe s cC n o a n t
| |
| g ot a t f t pe p t r
| |
| n d o u i s x o po/n a e eh iEs mic _
| |
| h Ng u De I t
| |
| C e o h hr eht h t hi e e r Tt Ta TD
| |
| | |
| y t
| |
| ef e
| |
| y ht a S
| |
| r s e t
| |
| o i s
| |
| t a
| |
| a s e q u l c e u ). et o rd B e n y gd '
| |
| nu PA t e t n a r nf o i u
| |
| Rc c o
| |
| Cne o g i ne o c i
| |
| b g
| |
| e s cC i t n m h s n e c a t e iB a f e r u Adye n c l p r e
| |
| s s i o mto PA s r o e s r od r t
| |
| a d r eP g Ce t a
| |
| o f h e l ud g
| |
| eA t
| |
| n d r nt s t
| |
| sf e o a a uy Re yo n B
| |
| - h t Qm t
| |
| nt C
| |
| e m e e e s f
| |
| a u t
| |
| a e h n SD TE LM l
| |
| | |
| i n
| |
| ht i
| |
| s e e r o s w t y g n
| |
| h t
| |
| t c e i
| |
| l i a s at a t h r s L C o e ReRe c s f c r e ic i
| |
| r i
| |
| ht d e o wv t
| |
| c n g r o e r e r o a nP p l
| |
| E f P S e x nt e e y d f- rE l
| |
| r e o s
| |
| o a r a d p
| |
| l a to nt s e
| |
| Ne l e r a n
| |
| h a c o o e P e t c L C u i
| |
| r c o n Cl u f n feA t i
| |
| wge i o e yBs sl nl i s t nn o o
| |
| e t r aW r iC NRi jNY r t o oe a
| |
| a T s r r o e t
| |
| c At o A Miv l l e l e n a w Cd e Re AWiF SO NN
| |
| | |
| 3 RECO.\D1 ENDED NEAlt-TER.Tl REGl'I.ATOltY 1.ilPROVE.TIENT ITE31S
| |
| : 1. - NRC need.- a new Plant Awessment Proce. s that:
| |
| * Accurately and objectively measures the safety performance of nuclear power phint.< through quantitative metrics.
| |
| . . Accurately communicate.- the cafety performance of nuclear power plants to the public and other stakeholder.
| |
| * Permits informed analvsis and assessment of safety performance.
| |
| * Provides actionable thresholds to distinguish when licensee action is appropriate and when regulator action is appropriate.
| |
| : 2. NRC Enforcement' Policy needs an improved safety focus.
| |
| ' 1 Increase in violations is inconsistent with improving industry safety performance.
| |
| * ~ Violations ofloiv safety significance consume NRC and industry resources.
| |
| . .\linor discrepancies should be documented in inspection reports and treated as an inspector followup item.
| |
| ~
| |
| : 3. Expedite Risk-Informed / Performance-Based Regulation activities.
| |
| . The nuclear industry shares NRC's vision of moving forward with this approach.
| |
| . Current NRC staff approach is too slow, creating a reluctance by industry to invest resources in this area. Two examples are:
| |
| * It took the staff over 4 years to issue regulatory guides for ISI. IST.
| |
| and graded QA - all were obvious improvements in safety and efficiency.
| |
| * Industry proposed "whole-plant" risk study is in jeopardy of being
| |
| : cancelled because the NRC staffis unable to act in a timely maaner on even the simplest proposed item to extend post-trip hydrogen sampling times.
| |
| : 4. NRC needs strict Application of the Backfit Rule. l
| |
| ! :. NRC staff routinely impose new.. individual interpretations without
| |
| ' applying the backfit rule. !
| |
| i
| |
| . The discipline provided by the backfit rule should be applied to L . decommissioning issues and reflect the reduced risk posed by plants in a i defueled condition.
| |
| . NRC should not include Averted On Site Co-ts in us reculatory analysis under the backfit rule. Averted On Site Costs involve avoidance of
| |
| ' potential economic losses for the licensee. This is a business issue and should not be reculated by the NRC.
| |
| i i
| |
| 1
| |
| \ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
| |
| | |
| l
| |
| : 5. NRC Communication to Licensees should reflect senior management l direction and policy.
| |
| l
| |
| ; . Management does not exercise its responsibility to controlindividual interpretations of regulations that differ from established positions.
| |
| . Requests for Additional Information (RAI) frequently solicit commitments ,
| |
| that exceed established positions. l e More accountability has to be provided in management oversight. Simply
| |
| ; lengthening the already long concurrence chain without adding value is not the answer.
| |
| i j
| |
| : 6. NRC needs to conduct a Task Analysis of Work Processes to improve its lack I of timeliness and ineffective use of resources.
| |
| . NRC takes an inordinate length of time to process licensing actions, complete enforcement activities, and promulgate rulemakings. Exampi include:
| |
| * 3 to 4 years to certify dry storage containers;
| |
| * 10CFR 50.54(a) rulemaking petition regarding QA program change, which has been under consideration since Spring 1995;
| |
| * Shipment of a reactor with its internals has been under review since ;
| |
| March 1997.
| |
| . An independent task analysis could eliminate unnecessary, low-value steps in processing work and greatly improve timeliness and efficiency.
| |
| : 7. NRC should stop Duplication of Effort. Examples include:
| |
| . Industry has effective programs for evaluating events and compiling performance data, which NRC does not need to duplicate.
| |
| * NRC should make more use oflicensee self assessments by reviewing the results rather than conducting redundant inspections.
| |
| '. Make more use ofindustry guidance and standards under DSI 13.
| |
| : 8. NRC needs to expedite Certification of Dry Storage Containers.
| |
| . Twenty-five plants will lose full core offload capability by the year 2000 if they cannot expand pool storage or use dry storage technology.
| |
| . Container certifications take 3-4 years.
| |
| . Commission needs to ensure the one year goal for certification is achieved.
| |
| l 2
| |
| | |
| FORREST J. REMICK e e e Consultant e e e t .
| |
| PERCEPTIONS OF THE NRC TODAY Presented At NRC STAKEHOLDER'S MEETING in Rockville, Maryland By Dr. Forrest J. Remick 17 July 1998 '
| |
| & 305 East Hamilton Avenue, State College, PA. 16801-5413 + Phone / Fax: 814-237-1038 + t
| |
| | |
| I am pleased to be invited to your Stakeholder Meeting to discuss perceptions of some of the issues that face the NRC and the nuclear industry today. I must admit that l f
| |
| l debated accepting your invitation. After all, I wasn't sure who would be swinging the l sledgehammer at the stake I was to be holding, and I wasn't sure if I was to be a stakeholder in the nature of Joan of Ark Seriously, I'm pleased that you are holding this meeting and to have been invited I've had a variety of interactions with this agency and its predecessor over the past 42 years. I was a licensee and a licensee's representative for many years. I've been personally responsible for two Part 50 licenses, several Special Nuclear Material (SNM) licenses, anr 86veral special Byproduct & Broad Byproduct Material Licenses. I've consulted for a number of licensees and worked for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I was a consultant operator license examiner for the AEC and the NRC for 14 years; served as a part time Administrative Judge on the Atomic Safety ana Licensing Board (ASLB) for 10 years; was a member, vice-chairman, and chairman of the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) for more than 7 years; served as Director of the Office of Policy Evaluation (OPE), reporting directly to the Commissioners during 1981-82; and, served as a Commissioner from 1989 to 1994.
| |
| Further, I have interacted with a number of you and with members of the staff on a regular basis and I watch your activities fairly closely I mention this not in an attempt to impress you, but to indicate that I believe i bring a somewhat unique perspective to the meeting. I have seen the agency extensively from the ;nside and from the outside. I feel very much at home in this agency and with its people. I have the highest respect for the NRC, its important mission and its people; but, I also have some differences and concerns about the agency's direction and its future.
| |
| There are a number of things that I considered saying to you today but I believe others at the table might best address many of the points. However, there are some things that maybe I am in the best position to say. Therefore, I wish to share with you some perceptions of the NRC today. Many say that perceptions are reality, although I don't always fully agree with that generality To conserve time, I will go to the bottom line in a direct, perhaps blunt, manner sharing with you what I see from my perspective. And when I say you, I mean the agency in general. However, because of my past relationship with the NRC, it gives me some discomfort and pain to be so blunt in a public forum. But, I take your interest in hearing from your stakeholder as sincere. Further, to the best of my knowledge, I have no ox that might be gored. My comments are meant to be constructive and are provided with respect for you and your posi: ions.
| |
| Much of what I read that you say as a collegial Commission, I can agree with. But to be blunt, the Commission does not know in detail how the agency's programs are being performed in the field. And after all, it is said that " Performance is, what performance does" Page 2
| |
| | |
| You have lost some credibility and are losing credibility on the Hill. You are being seen more and more as an agency with problems; thus, you are being seen as a problem agency.
| |
| The overemphasis on blind adherence to strict compliance with confusing regulations and strict compliance with documents never intended for that purpose is, in some cases, diverting plant personnel's attention from more safety-related activities. Directions to the staff to write-up anything they see that appears to be wrong, whether or not it falls under the regulations, is not only questionable, but wasteful. It is my fear that rather than maintaining or increasing nuclear power plant safety, this trend may be resulting in reduced attention to safety. As a result, you are losing credibility with many of your licensees who, in return, are losing respect for the agency and its regulatory process.
| |
| You are seen as having lost focus and perspective on what constitutes safety and adee," ate protection and are striving to duplicate industry's initiative of seeking excellence in plant operation. You speak of striving to be risk informed and you speak of the need for performance based regulatory implementation, but little impact is seen in the field. In fact, there appears to be great reluctance to accept risk informed insights as justification for considering change. Further, you are seen as neither being fully committed to the various pilot programs that have been undertaken or are underway nor implementing or taking advantage of the results.
| |
| The Commission is seen as a highly bifurcated body, not a unified collegial body.
| |
| Rumors of infighting are rampant, both internal and external to the agency. As a result, many of the staff are perceived as being hunkered down and afraid to make decisions, and reviews and decisions are seen to languish, with numerous further Requests for Additional information (RAls) used as delaying tactics. This, I believe, is the basis for industry's legitimate concern over timely License Renewal reviews. The morale of some staff is low, and a number are seen as biding their time to retire or wait for change. The agency has lost much technical expertise and regulatory knowledge and memory.
| |
| The agency is highly intrusive into the day to day activities of licensees. Little, if any, change or relief is seen based on improved plant safety and operation. For better, but also for worse, this intrusiveness in large part drives what goes on at the plants on a day to day basis. The intrusiveness is largely based upon highly subjective criteria which NRC residents, and regional and headquarters personnel would like to see done at the plants, frequently with the best of intent. But finding the relationship to public safety, or to the Commission's regulations is frequently difficult to see. The influence of and the discipline prescribed by the Backfit Rule (Part 50.109) is not evident in this subjective ratcheting.
| |
| The influence of subjective SALP ratings, or of subjectively being placed on the " Watch List" play a large part in what drives many day to day activities at plants whether or not the activities have a safety nexus. The subtle threat or fear of adverse SALP scores or being placed on the " Watch List" are an effective means of getting licensees to mako '
| |
| Page 3
| |
| | |
| changes that the staff wants. Many such changes would not meet the criteria of the' Backfit Rule or be solidly anchored in the Commission's regulations.
| |
| For example, the use of Confirmatory Action Letters (CALs) has grown by leaps and bounds recently. These are viewed as a technique to obtain changes that the staff wants done while getting around the Backfit Rule, the regulations, and the Commission.
| |
| If you doubt this, I urge that you read all the CALs issued in recent months and ask the following about the actions being " confirmed"-
| |
| What is the relative safety significance of the individual actions being " confirmed"?
| |
| Are the actions, in effect, new requirements?
| |
| Where are the actions specified in the regulations?
| |
| I Do the actions meet the criteria of the Backfit Rule?
| |
| is the letter truly " confirmatory", or has it been previously written and is being imposed?
| |
| If +he actions being " confirmed" are not safety significant or not specified in the regulations, what place do they have in a Confirmatory Action Letter? It would also be an interesting exercise for you to read a large sampling of Inspection Reports or sit-in on inspection exits and ask some of the same questions about matters being addressed.
| |
| I think that I have shared more than enough perceptions to help kickoff this discussion.
| |
| Much of what I've said I'm sure you've heard before. What is important is what you in the agency do about it.
| |
| I close by saying what I have said before in various fora: The industry wants and needs a strong NRC which is creditable to the public. The NRC is not a perfect agency; however, it; is the strongest nuclear regulatory body in the world; is highly respected throughout the world; and, is one of the best, if not the best, technical agency in Washington. However, it can and should be improved.
| |
| Further, nuclear energy is important to this country, it: is important for assuring an adequate energy supply and mix; is important for national security; and, is important for public health and the preservation of the environment.
| |
| It is inevitable that there will be a resurgence of the need for nuclear power in the US.
| |
| However, for nuclear power to be available to meet this nation's needs as Congress has directed:
| |
| * The multiple layers of stakeholder (i.e., Congress, the NRC, industry executives, plant management and plant employees) must work in concert to accomplish effective change.
| |
| 1
| |
| + Licensees and the NRC, who are in this important enterprise together, must find ways to work together in an above board, professional manner which is less confrontational, adversarial and punitive.
| |
| i Page 4 I
| |
| I- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.________
| |
| | |
| + With restructuring underway, utilities have undergone and are undergoing change.
| |
| + The NRC must change its manner of doing business, and the time is ripe for it to change.
| |
| I + The NRC must become more efficient.
| |
| l
| |
| * lt must complete its reviews in a more timely manner.
| |
| * lt must bring its regulations up to date with the knowledge, experience and techniques available today.
| |
| + lt must become more objective.
| |
| + lt must cease to waste its resources and those of its licensees through the use of subjective criteria.
| |
| * It must regulate wisely to its regulations; not to a subjectivesearch for licensee excellence, which is industry's job.
| |
| + However, the NRC should seek excellencein all that it does.
| |
| Thank you for the opportunity to share some of my perceptions with you today in the interest of an improved regulatory process.
| |
| Page 5
| |
| | |
| e j
| |
| N C
| |
| Em 0
| |
| 6 N e t-u -
| |
| t "O CL.
| |
| 0
| |
| *c0 W DG o
| |
| UE e
| |
| g 6
| |
| : o. Ek!
| |
| se= b l X 4 0 W > l l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| C a8 mx m O O 1{:
| |
| E ..
| |
| O W m m
| |
| w 8s a,
| |
| O b $ 9 [p ~li W 0 D) ha aa W m O - >.
| |
| O Q C M
| |
| i
| |
| ;}m0 !
| |
| 0 .s [ .
| |
| % .. S 2 gg h3 O E g C pyrwegemangmmage*7" +m0 6 -
| |
| 0 mW g j.sEb.8
| |
| * ' 4 >
| |
| p Q $$==wassu:acewzua k aa na ia- 3 E $
| |
| b 4 n -
| |
| O
| |
| * f , , , ,
| |
| O O o o o O eg b .-
| |
| O m 4 N N g W e6n4ueoaed
| |
| =
| |
| W .& .W-g -
| |
| .it asm=
| |
| 0 Y O bk
| |
| $a
| |
| &= Q eD
| |
| * b b m .!
| |
| 8 m, .
| |
| > ,,0 ,, .-
| |
| > 1
| |
| 'l 0 0 -
| |
| o ,. - -
| |
| s g
| |
| gm m -
| |
| g -
| |
| 3 a. o N. ; :: ''c'4 .s L ._ \
| |
| w v.<jea{.
| |
| w g x N W
| |
| ~
| |
| O y g u o ne,n=wnmangen,, ~~g mv
| |
| .t m
| |
| meEmut=usemeusse
| |
| : e. -z ' 2Af me & i .s ed2. ,}1 1 gg m
| |
| *& m
| |
| *O ew0 -
| |
| 6
| |
| .s 2 -6 a s a u o
| |
| o o o o o o Y O w D M N
| |
| @ e6o4ueo;ed i
| |
| | |
| b i
| |
| .-w b
| |
| =b .
| |
| e U m, C _x N
| |
| o o o
| |
| m C3 ..
| |
| mo e &m m
| |
| @ @e o co W j D3 eeE %
| |
| g g b
| |
| 6 0) r_u ega m g
| |
| .C .p _3.- c 2 a
| |
| .-.F 0 m G %
| |
| o *3 b E Z
| |
| o h .$ Oh C 0
| |
| @ u*m g m(j(<m =_,w -''~ ~*fQy M~
| |
| h N E'
| |
| * g2 l
| |
| O ' 'e g3mO S..
| |
| C0- e2
| |
| - gf ,,
| |
| * w$i m. <>u o me3 7 , ,
| |
| : x. .., y g <03 wb g) unanmaammastu
| |
| *me 3
| |
| 6 6 o o o
| |
| l o
| |
| l o
| |
| l o
| |
| i mG o w < n m l
| |
| @N g C 060{UO3Jed
| |
| .- mn 0 4
| |
| semi
| |
| .U C G
| |
| .seus .0 S
| |
| .C v-
| |
| '8" h
| |
| r _x a) e) o 2D)
| |
| ( )@ . Os< _c 9 E' R_
| |
| 0 g !i *dO
| |
| *O3OUp > _
| |
| ,i::
| |
| gU. 3 U
| |
| 2 S
| |
| mEU s
| |
| .b. S em N
| |
| N _
| |
| o C tem.
| |
| m LIA Z 0 C *x. se . -
| |
| C0UgC .t:
| |
| m r----
| |
| _x N o U 4
| |
| * S G o MNE 7 :N l 4 @' > c o 8 o " D)
| |
| .. .N. 1, ; 4 ZC g .t 2 i .- ~ - - _ -' _' : ,
| |
| . di <a) <
| |
| A e e i e g g i i i i
| |
| * mb o o o o o o o m 4 M N C9 e0 -
| |
| p gU eBo4uGDJOf C
| |
| a
| |
| | |
| W o ;O x ,) e a e e 1
| |
| c g c3 O* m '"
| |
| j c R I g U b g k
| |
| : n. W OU d l
| |
| I I* m -
| |
| U Q O= m C E E G D m u .O N -
| |
| - o C *m ,s.
| |
| Z 00
| |
| * c -
| |
| *3lll CD 0
| |
| , 0 menn-m-mm:7mmw WQ "b g fs "p s:: _\ g g g 3 - [l; g:@ pS g Q. m .. N is- n;C) e b c) m Z '
| |
| M <m hb.uauddhW;i.sukuun% ::Ma6L - G<4 mo -e O O
| |
| a m
| |
| a e ,a a n
| |
| O 000 mm m e B o4 u e a;e d 3
| |
| e*g 0o
| |
| >c" 0u
| |
| ,,glll 3 0 y; x g.
| |
| mmg m i:n 9' s m oe u ge N ji, - .
| |
| c o 6 c) o 0 u .t m : 5, o.aef
| |
| *U g- e n.
| |
| G > ~
| |
| Gg> g 0G m Q 3 u
| |
| e o
| |
| .C E @ T
| |
| - G g o
| |
| " 2 Uo og
| |
| * e -
| |
| .t:
| |
| ZAg m s E~mme-mye-ne-e-.
| |
| .. 2,.s o e e ,
| |
| y n<m :n c m
| |
| ,,0
| |
| ) ..
| |
| bx sw 14:s N
| |
| =l e b c)
| |
| O#
| |
| g O O O O O O O m C M N e6o4uea;ed
| |
| | |
| o
| |
| * l 1
| |
| l C
| |
| e0 , 1 q -
| |
| my l g,e o N.
| |
| g .:.--. .
| |
| c--;.
| |
| .c o a c) 0
| |
| 'C U E * -:
| |
| ^
| |
| * 0 m a
| |
| ^
| |
| OAe e : 6O
| |
| : 0) e D) Un 0
| |
| mC 0 e :
| |
| OO CU C O <> m 5
| |
| E.4 -
| |
| E ~ .
| |
| -o ~vE f l l 9 6 c
| |
| ! >ge e c. -
| |
| a . , _ - _
| |
| i Es
| |
| -D -0 & a ;
| |
| 4 y m. , ,m, mo c o" e-E Q. b .. C") ?> Cr)
| |
| O c) C) i 0O Q. 2 ! >
| |
| o 54 4 i gum , , , ,
| |
| Ogg = O O i
| |
| O i
| |
| O O
| |
| O l M e *3 O m 4 7 N g3 .e.
| |
| 1
| |
| ~
| |
| l
| |
| % +.
| |
| - eBo4ueo;ed mmE l
| |
| *. .C m g
| |
| *00 0 u ^ "
| |
| h mg*a= { *- .
| |
| }o,). o m 0
| |
| a0c
| |
| * E 85) 8' L
| |
| 5 v_g .)
| |
| g is i .
| |
| a ss
| |
| 'I"" m 3 0 *c 3 2 Oe) 16 .e v
| |
| *
| |
| * S z
| |
| - X Z w
| |
| d D) >
| |
| m .E e 2 c-,,-
| |
| Z>m. m o n - m, %
| |
| c) c) og g % ,y O y g!'
| |
| s gcg c e ,)
| |
| l N y-? : y;: . eL o m 4U ggg p:
| |
| l
| |
| > g. amam masa
| |
| ~g e y O O O O O O
| |
| -0m O m o y n M AU g a604uea;ed "D .
| |
| | |
| , a1 < 6 _
| |
| le _
| |
| ,~
| |
| , b _
| |
| s ._L
| |
| /r a o
| |
| g .,
| |
| t r e 0__g,~^y ,0-4 f
| |
| i o
| |
| n o n
| |
| s MeRa
| |
| ~
| |
| n g #
| |
| .ys;;s o a _. u.
| |
| g eE h [ pS(
| |
| i n a :n a e
| |
| R to i M
| |
| t n' I?[;d ;
| |
| /
| |
| g/le n gb hl ea n a
| |
| g~MfPn qoig q
| |
| S :
| |
| j
| |
| : g. -
| |
| - . min i
| |
| d n a g6r o
| |
| l t u l P 7 g 8*
| |
| .3#gg: # h e n a a s
| |
| g 5 1 g w me ye b r 4
| |
| : 9; uy7 kd s,kv 2
| |
| ^
| |
| r e e nr _
| |
| N y j j-:B gsl[l j
| |
| :. s Ov D U ey - - _ -
| |
| rb u 0 0 0
| |
| o 0
| |
| 0 sd 0 8 6 a 2 s 1 ere ri
| |
| $ ~ , bgm pu q
| |
| ye r r o .
| |
| e t t a o. , _ '-
| |
| l
| |
| .b u n l
| |
| /r a s 2 o
| |
| n o n
| |
| gn e N eo ri i
| |
| t v m_~:'N
| |
| ,~
| |
| [
| |
| : i MaRe s
| |
| ,c .
| |
| f t
| |
| c u $
| |
| c oa e t e x $ [j)yj jm' j /
| |
| g/l e E
| |
| ck a e q__p', 2,n Q
| |
| w3sg E
| |
| i n gb M{ n a pt a min n
| |
| t .((t
| |
| #d. 's d
| |
| ,l o
| |
| l i 3 aj ? e n s S h i
| |
| s m w sd -
| |
| a a 1
| |
| w me i
| |
| 8 ws :' 'gE .
| |
| s I 4 r
| |
| _ : vp g xG gTE pM.R h }
| |
| j:
| |
| l e e nr v D U 1 N g f.
| |
| u O
| |
| - 1 0 0 0 o g
| |
| 0 2
| |
| 0 8 6 1
| |
| $
| |
| * couL
| |
| - n
| |
| | |
| - ly/e e e
| |
| s g er r s 2 n g g e
| |
| u s
| |
| r o$ S t
| |
| o r a is i a
| |
| s DD e D s s syt g .
| |
| i l s a e nio r n r u
| |
| oac a S nssg t
| |
| M o N
| |
| oei n t it ct n .
| |
| cea a y! l gi g;J ;
| |
| y/
| |
| anr l P 9 . '
| |
| l g e e e nup e -
| |
| n er e 4
| |
| ~ 5 ,.. :
| |
| 3 o
| |
| r g r
| |
| g k o N _ _ .
| |
| SAA t
| |
| as t at n -
| |
| , i j!j ;-;;~
| |
| 0 0 0 0 0 0 t
| |
| oh a 0 8 6 4 2 el p 1
| |
| $ a~ ou ; m.
| |
| Cu Rl an t Nvac e yi htf m9' y/ e e t fei n lg er e r 6 n g ga mag si s 0_?K S
| |
| t o
| |
| r a s i s
| |
| o s e -
| |
| DiD f r onto i t
| |
| v .
| |
| e e
| |
| r rd u
| |
| c r
| |
| u u
| |
| s oe t e
| |
| x S
| |
| t o
| |
| sl eu E N etb ri t i e .
| |
| Pl t r t ji ! 3l
| |
| * i 3i! 2 y/
| |
| S -
| |
| l g e e
| |
| ) f n 9 5 n er e a o o r
| |
| 4 .
| |
| o g
| |
| : 5 r g
| |
| ( c N
| |
| . ^
| |
| r }l ;Ft J '
| |
| l' SAA t
| |
| 3 -
| |
| 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6 4 2 1
| |
| $a5v;a-
| |
| | |
| ($:
| |
| 3 x)o 03 e e x
| |
| i n 9 f.. N... c ;
| |
| 3 g a dj W .@g&,Ro>
| |
| m l
| |
| =g a g a n . m_ ao j 9E m O 3* C e QD D D 5
| |
| ug s z
| |
| ! m * *b %
| |
| z U m == C . .
| |
| .c C =*" O
| |
| .mme mwenn a m n X
| |
| I U *O.0n Am a O bw: , -v9. . e. .... J:' . a,o a o .
| |
| 8 l .. CN n t O
| |
| $ <& <o,
| |
| ~
| |
| ZU M U =@ Z I i
| |
| =a =< ~M" g,
| |
| i !
| |
| umu. T_ _
| |
| h l m 0 a d d E $ a
| |
| *0 O m o w a eso4uea;ea l
| |
| E *o e l
| |
| *w0 * *U 6
| |
| Om
| |
| ! g) O n- , , -
| |
| x me s ss &. .
| |
| 48, e 1 w* r cN ; c & a>
| |
| t a mC i e-- , lCD' O g .oe .e O
| |
| g* e e r.. - =
| |
| oo w w e t. : - -
| |
| D. ggg .2 -
| |
| l ,s 60 ._
| |
| g a e a
| |
| o
| |
| . u, m e
| |
| * 3 - -
| |
| O g %
| |
| *E* v z
| |
| m
| |
| ,,,,* O
| |
| * o an-mne
| |
| ^g O W a y
| |
| DM W.
| |
| c- -
| |
| -)o
| |
| : 8) oe b g
| |
| .. ngs fi(Oy . . . . O $ D) w .g e ," sy9 I!$dae;h::assassad; c .t=
| |
| 4(
| |
| i i i i yes, O O O O O O O CD D M N eBo4ueo;ed
| |
| | |
| t fy^ g @
| |
| l @
| |
| e L -ii; 8e("
| |
| i
| |
| * O o (O y c &
| |
| m .8 R .8 l g +g- 6 g c. : . ..
| |
| x ,mm mgo l D) -
| |
| .O
| |
| - "3 g l WG C $
| |
| 0 6 6 0 0 m m i.
| |
| g e o 11 .
| |
| Z UC C -
| |
| b O m. Q frewmenny c
| |
| y 0m# qu n. a n m %s n
| |
| %pgi =
| |
| LCW 4.
| |
| s- _\
| |
| o> e c
| |
| e og w
| |
| 4 l
| |
| ym b z
| |
| ,, cc).
| |
| ;p g" (m4 any
| |
| ~s o
| |
| p, <a) <
| |
| CD .
| |
| 0$o cu m 0
| |
| ; l l k*"""'""
| |
| l 300u b o o
| |
| o m
| |
| o e
| |
| o 5
| |
| o m
| |
| o O gg e B ot u s o;e d C 0
| |
| *GeO. Q.
| |
| OUc s "U o 0 i, . .,. . , .,
| |
| #. _x o> oo 8-Em T o Q eb .e 4m -
| |
| ,em, m
| |
| g m-w 12,.- +
| |
| u w Ca . .e m *g y .
| |
| 6 0 .- ,g oEt = s
| |
| 'E b a g 9 m e4 m =
| |
| x 2 y .e y -
| |
| gw +
| |
| ,: gem-w-r -s Q g .p 4 g o oe
| |
| -O jb, f.hk n% ..
| |
| Z my lW .g % Q m4 EN
| |
| ~
| |
| badumn EssaoAE s
| |
| ~0 , , , ,
| |
| ME
| |
| - . - o o
| |
| a m
| |
| a e
| |
| a a
| |
| m 0
| |
| o 6 o4 u e a;e d
| |
| | |
| . o .
| |
| l N e o :
| |
| % :.... -xS -
| |
| *E *O o@% E$eE '
| |
| .C = .
| |
| s-1 2o a
| |
| -*$9*
| |
| y G ba *$5 AC*04 O
| |
| w0 e 2
| |
| : 0. 0 0- O U N S m9h E -
| |
| Z o
| |
| 34
| |
| * O
| |
| * Q. C - 1 w0 S * .g G _U A. a 3
| |
| 1 '" '^
| |
| s s mo g i 3
| |
| e m llll:
| |
| mCC 7
| |
| 2
| |
| .g- l l'.
| |
| Q.
| |
| g2
| |
| $ $ <r,3 g0g :-~ . m ... 2 .- -.
| |
| 4 ,*u w a
| |
| O O l
| |
| O l
| |
| O l
| |
| O l
| |
| O m
| |
| C@w D ,. -
| |
| O CO C e604uea;ed 7 CN O
| |
| : m. o "0. .C - 4 m O*
| |
| .a.@h E s [ro^
| |
| } e r e @r,)
| |
| ugU m0 W t
| |
| c o g> o u , .e g g ex a...
| |
| v) .-
| |
| Oa T *g g >
| |
| U .g 4
| |
| * e C 3 -
| |
| Ee6 Z.C e v
| |
| o CO m
| |
| o V)
| |
| * v X o C,C m Z l @ e0
| |
| .C m W e
| |
| .t: wmm,,mem,--
| |
| N CQ 4p?g ~C) O
| |
| .- , - . .,ip ' ,
| |
| . - ~
| |
| m e .
| |
| A bN - 'N: Ed. N <
| |
| @ D) O W Wg 2 % ama<$'!
| |
| b meauma v) <C 4 w g.
| |
| at - Z l l l N .t: O O
| |
| O CD O
| |
| 4 O
| |
| 7 O
| |
| CN O
| |
| e6otueo;ea
| |
| | |
| l l
| |
| xoN ee oS -
| |
| *eE e "i l'i 6o mo cw e
| |
| m -
| |
| G 0 g A u. c 5 e
| |
| M D
| |
| * i l
| |
| *2z E
| |
| eT S E
| |
| c q
| |
| Z Z
| |
| z
| |
| ! ACg n 00* --
| |
| g, C' ~'~ '' "-~'1 v'^n g
| |
| :<,,, __X N g b seus
| |
| : 0. m T N i . ,v F 8 e)
| |
| ! ,,. o C * ! '
| |
| 9' m<g
| |
| .g &
| |
| n., 3D
| |
| : - a wn-~~~,,,,,,,,,_ ,n,,
| |
| Cm
| |
| .M m .- o o m
| |
| o o o o w o o y n eBoluso;ed CU $ I
| |
| .U)t - e \
| |
| m 'e=u &
| |
| =
| |
| m .W- *=
| |
| D m.J W xe o m4 0 -
| |
| a) e 2 ON c & o)
| |
| *": '*U * - 9 o o L w - m wgo U g tlu e
| |
| @ y -
| |
| 0, *=
| |
| g O 8 U =
| |
| O 0 .C- N D
| |
| * Ogg N N O Ue m z g ..
| |
| 2 O g0 .00 0 -
| |
| = vvmmyrmwnnmm' +'n,''" '~--+ ~~
| |
| g es"% g wey -
| |
| p sol - T8e l to e . tpn m '~ 9 & a>
| |
| Yg e ....s e @
| |
| ghadach.sanmuda;;;;gksgn
| |
| ~ - 05 < 4 gA o o o
| |
| o O c o m c y l
| |
| o N
| |
| eBo4ueo;ed
| |
| ! l
| |
| | |
| l I
| |
| f l
| |
| ~
| |
| l x
| |
| - - 0 o. eq l F.g. prm-:;;: :': ; > t
| |
| ,, < f:M < ' % <} --, , . . .
| |
| Z gs
| |
| \
| |
| ;W2' lid, M, s ,;< os D <( 8 i e '
| |
| +;ps;l[T'/lfj V i:M R2 l
| |
| .. u .~:,:,.,n'Q:a
| |
| ..r .: .~
| |
| y y m, s_z ggg .a y}
| |
| be g) .
| |
| 0 0 m C =?
| |
| o W D 3P j
| |
| l M
| |
| C G
| |
| m.-
| |
| s.
| |
| C g
| |
| &E m
| |
| 1C
| |
| '5
| |
| =
| |
| W .--
| |
| p$ h*I N
| |
| @ O. m T i
| |
| ; W ?. oN fTF 1
| |
| M g
| |
| ~ Z i
| |
| i i
| |
| i i
| |
| i i
| |
| i H
| |
| 22%. OsE 0
| |
| o l 0 o o m
| |
| o o o a
| |
| *= o o n N D) -
| |
| ; e e B ot u e o;e d l
| |
| M w
| |
| c o
| |
| (8 l -
| |
| ~
| |
| l C Q. 4 ' _.';;;ggy
| |
| ' {ilf. 8) g - .3 w qg e $ nLpqng.- E ::cN.: 2 g um..m ig.m q. .
| |
| a_ m h-usgd ^g^
| |
| * is.[
| |
| g g
| |
| , O= .-
| |
| ; +=
| |
| T 3 u
| |
| il
| |
| - 3h 8)
| |
| . - . M =Co
| |
| %= N '5
| |
| : u. 2 MJ U '
| |
| M .N. n 1 38
| |
| =
| |
| Z m a M
| |
| pr
| |
| , 1. 2 g>
| |
| 1 O ODh 2o e
| |
| ' - a 3o l y-= 2 6-FE ty cS 2 i i i i O
| |
| i i i i i
| |
| 7 o o o o O o o m C 7 N e6o;ueosod
| |
| | |
| ;7., < >>; ...v s
| |
| .e n m ~ ~ e: m ; ,
| |
| cm -
| |
| C e,
| |
| ,o g fiE j QQ % ;,;r. ' O . i ea Q , b:f p & R bEo e p %mg #.13 ;a. %v, , .a memo.:.e
| |
| , e s3 ng v->e a.
| |
| g s n <, 4 g
| |
| > - *: s<w . _
| |
| p g;;4s;~a; . :+;;
| |
| e,, ':
| |
| k 9 m
| |
| )m U - _b -
| |
| c C
| |
| c 4 i -.
| |
| i E 2-$
| |
| +
| |
| c) O O k l:_', 3 yE g __
| |
| C C g >
| |
| 0.. m br 2 c A . O o
| |
| e a EE vO .o *
| |
| ?-
| |
| 2 o a.
| |
| ZE c0 W U .-
| |
| l l l l
| |
| % *=% o o m
| |
| o o .o o M
| |
| o c w m g @ e604ueDJed w 0.
| |
| OW m-
| |
| = 0 c .u - -
| |
| ;e y <-
| |
| nu-p$h:pwm>Y '* hg.. .y::
| |
| c Eh ^ 'gp gw'- Qygg'6O
| |
| <. ,: /x A I? ~
| |
| N' . $b
| |
| ,,,,, [
| |
| y gg , 4 m 4
| |
| >Oa A y
| |
| * 0 he. O 8@3w-s m s
| |
| ?q:: ::.
| |
| sm.;gi:s-3-";~, h i
| |
| @ hI$N 5
| |
| >e- s
| |
| /j$$ x-
| |
| [ $5? '
| |
| h $ 'sisi44fs&&RElhJhma2O
| |
| %4 -E '
| |
| @H c > -
| |
| *=
| |
| 6 *il:
| |
| . . _d -
| |
| b wo 3 #
| |
| n!' - 2 w ,o @ ' 2 e" Q @ "F c) o D.
| |
| W N f pu
| |
| ~0 o
| |
| y iM abww KE W G -
| |
| b 6E D 0 w 7 o >B-O I I I l i 6 i i O O O O o O O m C 7 N e6o;uea;ed 1
| |
| i I
| |
| | |
| t s n e s s s t
| |
| e
| |
| _ Sm Se e
| |
| c d n i
| |
| v e o
| |
| r P s m
| |
| s A
| |
| e e
| |
| t c c e
| |
| i r en
| |
| _ Eo r e s e se s r i n
| |
| e cCf oc i e
| |
| _ Cf n s nA" ef i
| |
| L&D OE i LS cl e
| |
| Rdn s
| |
| t n c o Pa n ui d c n e t
| |
| Ti o o p Cs n Htce l i
| |
| Gsp d e
| |
| I I n o S , M Rtne h t
| |
| g Ems i s
| |
| r p on e yr n o "
| |
| Vse e v
| |
| l oi e cel n t
| |
| a i
| |
| nt a nl Oss O v
| |
| e pP Ds n t
| |
| e e u e^
| |
| g i
| |
| YA y r
| |
| I DR Rde t o
| |
| a OsBa l u
| |
| g T- e e Ac R Lna s s Umro t
| |
| sl e
| |
| s su Gf s AR e
| |
| ErPe & e n e
| |
| c R, e t d a d d n i v m o ro i
| |
| e v e Wm Er o
| |
| r m P s n s s P r r f e e r s
| |
| o e e a e P o t Nf I n
| |
| e s P s
| |
| nAt sl s ya n
| |
| e ei t
| |
| c fa d c
| |
| Aksi i ef d cl eu i i LSI n R L S A
| |
| | |
| t l s a a s o c e l
| |
| u T i l c o g y g
| |
| n EN b u r p
| |
| e r b o HE p y e t n m TMb y r o
| |
| ht f
| |
| e m
| |
| m o
| |
| RN o t
| |
| d a e c e l y v (
| |
| OO w e
| |
| u g i t
| |
| o r
| |
| s e
| |
| FRI i v
| |
| e r
| |
| l i
| |
| b p l o
| |
| r S s e a m L V y t i ht s (a f- r ANE t
| |
| s e i n)p d a
| |
| n l
| |
| e s
| |
| s u
| |
| O i c
| |
| t si y y d n
| |
| GY n e
| |
| uh r s n i t t r
| |
| s i
| |
| /
| |
| C R
| |
| t g l u
| |
| A )y dnt o i
| |
| Y O r i
| |
| a b
| |
| a d
| |
| n R R T yt s r
| |
| a l t
| |
| c i s N u e e f f T A o oi e i
| |
| t d c r d e c o S a n nl e a r n n n E L o e o l
| |
| u i d
| |
| i r p i gd a gi t E
| |
| D G e n i
| |
| f nr s y c
| |
| i t
| |
| n a i
| |
| n Ra s oe n gyi N
| |
| I E e s c d
| |
| v t e s o ro c t f
| |
| e l
| |
| e l s s d )
| |
| R b i
| |
| r g
| |
| a a u n -
| |
| i s e e
| |
| r l a
| |
| u at e r y d n t n c l e u o o ro glef l
| |
| r o u e a CC M (n C p F r C s o o o o o
| |
| | |
| n e g l i
| |
| k r a a y t a r e
| |
| r s m l
| |
| r e g o r n e p n n f o
| |
| S o l o i g o Niut c
| |
| O a e r
| |
| r t
| |
| r p
| |
| h n
| |
| a i
| |
| i n
| |
| p d
| |
| r a
| |
| g I y p o c o d e r o n r e r T o r p s) a o s e t
| |
| s P
| |
| t a e c .
| |
| i s t c u s
| |
| l t o t i c
| |
| E l t t u n d e d e p
| |
| i i g e o r mlh r o
| |
| C e r
| |
| v bL d
| |
| a s n e t e
| |
| R d m
| |
| u gU n n a
| |
| i
| |
| /
| |
| f r
| |
| a i
| |
| wlp E n a
| |
| c r
| |
| i sP t
| |
| s s
| |
| e f
| |
| a s e o P s i
| |
| c iR v yu l t s t r
| |
| e d e a p e
| |
| Yl ur s dC r o
| |
| r s t e mt daN n t ht i l
| |
| n R o ai s n c t e s T f o
| |
| i t
| |
| c nS a
| |
| R
| |
| ,l uwo g i i
| |
| r e e s m e
| |
| S r a s C e r c e t c n u g e e q Ub t
| |
| y r a a r eA e n a g e r D mt o p ,
| |
| l bl p i
| |
| y n nd /
| |
| s x g o n nm Xu a .
| |
| e a a nl u e pmmt
| |
| . t i a o
| |
| _ I d gs f o( e o f t a s i t
| |
| e e e c o e n c s r s s ed e c c e r i t at a e e c z a v s r e Ca p
| |
| e i r
| |
| c mc o o vi di t l
| |
| h b i
| |
| e o s e u Rp at l
| |
| l I
| |
| n S p r Au T a Bi n B Ni o o o o o o o
| |
| | |
| a n d h a e s u d n
| |
| e u
| |
| i n s n a s
| |
| s s e
| |
| t o y i g
| |
| n i g
| |
| l t t n n o e n a e h a
| |
| C
| |
| ( d r
| |
| i f
| |
| c m e
| |
| c n i g d S a n a e g d n
| |
| s e N r e
| |
| i s a e n
| |
| O I
| |
| t r
| |
| a d
| |
| e m
| |
| y y u s r T q a e
| |
| i t t s
| |
| P l
| |
| c r i t u E a c u d e n n C h n
| |
| i s t o
| |
| ns n i
| |
| o R e t
| |
| r o
| |
| t n
| |
| i o
| |
| t e
| |
| E e wf e f a f
| |
| l e
| |
| i s v P t e
| |
| l p si c
| |
| i s
| |
| n nie t
| |
| n Y b o o gd o a
| |
| - R yi c
| |
| n t
| |
| c tc i nt n s e
| |
| T e e a pp t
| |
| c e r e mt S t s s nmjne g o U i s i i i n n
| |
| D o Cr e Ca Ra n C R
| |
| c Ro N
| |
| I I n NmNmN o o o o
| |
| | |
| r d e ol o l
| |
| o Sm Se t
| |
| l ah u e s t y sh e re c g r f ah Er o RT eh ST Cf n OE 4 Rdn >
| |
| Pa n Ti o Htce Gsp d s
| |
| I u n Sl a B
| |
| Rt n e Eem s n
| |
| o Vses p s
| |
| Oss R e
| |
| d e
| |
| c n
| |
| e m
| |
| YA i
| |
| e n a T c a n Rdes n d
| |
| _ b r r
| |
| n e o a s f Oa m n r e o e r p P TB f
| |
| o s e e Aen
| |
| _ l c r p R b a
| |
| _ e s r t P o p La y t
| |
| a e c
| |
| Urmo l
| |
| - t u c i
| |
| g a l
| |
| i e n Gfr U t
| |
| R U EeP R,
| |
| d
| |
| $IE h55 s
| |
| Wem Erfo e Nul A ml i a u
| |
| d V Aksi l
| |
| i i
| |
| R
| |
| | |
| t y n rd ol o d
| |
| l e o Sm t
| |
| ah ys h l
| |
| s u e t e
| |
| Se c gr eh f e r uh Eo Cf r RT ST n
| |
| OE Rdn n e
| |
| c n i n
| |
| o i n
| |
| o s
| |
| Pa n i t
| |
| o c
| |
| i l
| |
| a p t t
| |
| c a
| |
| t c
| |
| a y t t
| |
| r e
| |
| e Ti o p s n m
| |
| o n
| |
| e t
| |
| r o
| |
| l e
| |
| Htec i ni d n s
| |
| c-n m
| |
| e c
| |
| a m
| |
| Gsp e ci ut o o n f r
| |
| o i f
| |
| r n d r
| |
| e _
| |
| I n di a e v r
| |
| o n
| |
| e o r o
| |
| I S
| |
| l e Re f
| |
| d C n
| |
| /d d e d e Rtne o s r e o cn u
| |
| s l t
| |
| a a dt w
| |
| o _.
| |
| Ems M t a
| |
| c a i s
| |
| s c
| |
| s u _
| |
| n m s V h Vs o i
| |
| d r n o t
| |
| ro O s n
| |
| S Oess i if t
| |
| r er p N o) e 5 c o pr e iT t m A cE i YA t
| |
| i n tn n e
| |
| pD T y o ei o s Rde r
| |
| o m mtce i nTI Osa Cu c l t
| |
| a p y i aA _
| |
| Ro s t c , _
| |
| NDi n l . _
| |
| TB u e g i -
| |
| ni v
| |
| - p . .
| |
| g S (e
| |
| _ Aec R e iot t
| |
| c c a -
| |
| Lna de ep s s a n Umro e i _
| |
| r _
| |
| c Gfr i n .
| |
| EeP ._
| |
| R, -
| |
| d egg e j '
| |
| e Wm Er r o o e _
| |
| t Nf I n
| |
| A ia a
| |
| cl dn V u _
| |
| Aks i I
| |
| R
| |
| | |
| e Sm Se c Eo r GS NN .
| |
| T Cf n T N Y ET I
| |
| TE*
| |
| AIS15 E OE MI NR R
| |
| E P A N> C N
| |
| A Rdn t
| |
| S I G R AE O TI M O TT R NN Pa n T O f
| |
| A OI F C C NG R I
| |
| WN N E. E Ti o I D
| |
| N OT G hat I
| |
| I I U
| |
| l C P
| |
| Ht c e
| |
| E C
| |
| N Y TRl A UE l
| |
| PM I
| |
| E C S S
| |
| Gsp i
| |
| A RT R SO NT M ONM A AN NA I n R T A.TE D Cl EC I O A OS N S ,
| |
| s r F lt l E O Y U C SOB YMO S
| |
| N TI F NI I
| |
| N o A Rtne t a
| |
| P E
| |
| Y I
| |
| T E E T T F S A I
| |
| MISG Em i c T F
| |
| Y T
| |
| AY U SS TC K
| |
| S s
| |
| Vss l
| |
| d F A
| |
| l v A l n S R TI O NT I
| |
| i Oess l
| |
| I T A C G e C LA S i l
| |
| c A OM L M l YA n a
| |
| l l
| |
| E O E C TS A
| |
| TA OR Rde m Y S
| |
| T SC Osa r
| |
| f o
| |
| T-B r e
| |
| ES CN S E
| |
| C Aec P NO AI T MART Y GE NG N NY OT I I N
| |
| A M
| |
| Lna RT OC F E E R I
| |
| R GE I
| |
| I TE AL RL TL AI B GA TOD NFN R
| |
| Umro RP R EX A T N
| |
| EA PH OC I
| |
| TP I
| |
| MC A
| |
| ARE LER PPT Gf PEB I
| |
| $, h ErP i
| |
| f
| |
| $k8 hf&w l%j;.:/gCQ S; W-[H e s 1 y[
| |
| i R, ~.
| |
| $ W$ ~
| |
| kN c f Ag E' "
| |
| , IMh Mi d Is t 3 @QLl iN%U li.
| |
| T D I A Rf pot Ci t'3 ]! h ,. N N c Wem L E
| |
| V EL V
| |
| E LM a b G rVpE E R Ui E+y'.
| |
| A A' .
| |
| l E RNF . VElR EVI E Er o 1 E.
| |
| i
| |
| ' .LMS' y .
| |
| LOVP~
| |
| Nfn
| |
| - ~
| |
| .I I
| |
| Aksi R
| |
| | |
| e d n A Sm i i v e om" t
| |
| e e c c Se r s e r en c P s s r i Er o e e s n oc e s e Cf n s nA" i cCi e l L&D OE ef cl ie Rdn LS t
| |
| c o s
| |
| n Pa n .
| |
| ui d c n e t
| |
| Ti o op Cs n Ht c e l i
| |
| Gsp d e
| |
| I n o I
| |
| S , M Rt ne h t
| |
| g Ems i s
| |
| r p n o to n e y n ro n Vse e v
| |
| l e
| |
| i c a i
| |
| mtaio Oss el r l v pP e u c t
| |
| O e D n s t e gA e
| |
| YAd y r
| |
| o I
| |
| DR R es t a
| |
| O Ba l u
| |
| g T- e e Ac R Lna s s Umro t
| |
| sl e
| |
| s su Gf AR s e ErPe & e n e
| |
| c R, e t d a d d n i
| |
| i v m r e v e o Wm Er o
| |
| r m P s n s s r b P ir s e Pe or o e a e e sl Nfn t
| |
| s y a e
| |
| s sP nt e ei c
| |
| I
| |
| - nAt c 'l a dn Aks i i ef d cl eu i
| |
| : i. S l I R LSA i
| |
| | |
| UNION OF Comments and Observations on NRC's CONCERNED Regulatory Structure and Processes SCIENTISTS Summary Nuclear plant performance is a function of management effectiveness more than it is a function of plant age, reactor type, and other factors.
| |
| All plants can develop comprehensive corrective action plans. Good management ensures that the plans are implemented properly and revised as necessary such that the desired objectives are obtained. Bad management allows the plan to get waylaid by emerging issues such that schedule or quality, or both, suffer. Good management uses yardsticks to measure the effectiveness of changes, whether physical or administrative) implemented at their plants. Bad management does not.
| |
| Good management establishes objective standards, which are clearly and consistently l communicated to plant workers. Bad management sends unclear or mixed messages (i.e., either l standards are vague /ill-defined - like ' excellence'- or objectives cannot be attained with l resources devoted to projects).
| |
| Good management establishes clear accountability, or ownership, for issues. Bad management does not, leading to confusion, fnistration, ineffectiveness, and delays as things get sorted out.
| |
| Good management provides workers with effective procedures and policies such that most items ;
| |
| can be processed through normal channels. Bad management does not, which forces the majority ofitems to be hand-carried through the process.
| |
| NRC regulatory performance is a function of management effectiveness more than it is a function of staff size, structure, and other factors. Unfortunately, the NRC staff more closely resembles bad management than good. management:
| |
| * The NRC staff develor corrective action plans, but fails to adequately monitor them to ensure the stated objectives are obtained (examples: enforcement policy,2.206 and allegation processes have been revised in recent years, but are no better than they were a decade ago).
| |
| . The NRC staff does not consistently enforce criteria whether they are 10 CFR 50 regulations or NRC policier (examples: D C Cook is currently shut down for ice condenser problems identified at the Watts Bar, Sequoyah and McGuire plants, which continue to operate).
| |
| l
| |
| * The NRC staff seems to lack clearly defined accountability (example: UCS allegation
| |
| ' involving Millstone Unit 3 was purportedly ' handled' by NRR until the week after the restart vote, then it was passed back to RI).
| |
| * The NRC staff suffers from a lack of continuity (example: allegations,2.206 petitions, and issues raised by UCS get routinely re-assigned from one interim or transient person to another).
| |
| Pop 1of4 July 17,1998 k
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| I' ., -
| |
| Inspectla CId E f rcement inspection program is flawed because inspection reports do not accurately reflect l inspection findings.
| |
| Examples: Maine Yankee ISAT (10/96), Dresden assessment (late 96) l Inspection program is also flawed because inspection reports are primarily dictated by ]
| |
| NRC's general impression of the plant's performance. ,
| |
| I i
| |
| Example: D C Cook - virtually every inspection report issued since January 1998 J has included one or more violations. In the two years prior to 1998, fewer than half of the inspection reports contained violation (s). Most of the violations cited in 1998 are not for new problems, but are for longstanding material condition or administrative control problems. The ' floodgates' at D C Cook are now open.
| |
| i Enforcement process is badly broken because it is inconsistent and untimely.
| |
| Examples: By policy, licensees who implement good corrective actions in a ;
| |
| timely manner (i.e., do what the law requires) can have their civil penalties totally )
| |
| waived. By practice, licensees who run up a huge tab (e.g., Millstone's $2.1 l million fine) receive a discount because of their protracted outages. The middle- l t
| |
| of the-road plants are the only ones paying full fare.
| |
| Largest single failure ofinspection and enforcement programs is that they lack credibility. From the public's perspective, credibility will asler be restored as long as NRC staff steadfastly maintains that every violation and event lacks safety significance.
| |
| The public simply does not believe that the NRC would fine a utility $2.1 million for
| |
| " safe" behavior.
| |
| Use of Performance Indicators and Performance Assessment NRC staff does not need a new or revised performance assessment process - it needs to do something tangible when the process being used indicates a licensee is not performing l
| |
| adequately.
| |
| l Examples: Millstone, Salem, and the Watch List perennial Dresden Recall Mr. j Kenyon's comment to the Commission that he found NU to be the most dysfunctional organization he ever saw. If Mr. Kenyon could reach that conclusion during his first week at NU, NRC staff must have known that Millstone was in trouble.
| |
| I I
| |
| l l
| |
| ---________________ __ _ __________--- - - - _ _ _ _l
| |
| | |
| v <
| |
| Development of Risk-informed Regulations and Reguintory Policies Risk informed regulation cannot proceed unless the risks are known. Until plants are generally in conformance with their design and licensing bases such that their Individual Plant Examinations are valid, risk inform:d regulation cannot be implemented.
| |
| Examples: Pilgrim, Vermont Yankee, and D C Cook all responded to NRC's October 9,1996 50.54(f) letter on design bases information by stating that they everything under control:
| |
| * Subsequent NRC inspection showed that Pilgrim did not have strong control over design bases and consequently was perfonning ' weak' operability determinations. Pilgrim committed to DBD effort.
| |
| * NRC A/E inspection revealed numerous shortcomings in design bases control at Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee committed to expanded, revamped DBD program.
| |
| * NRC A/E inspectioninggered shut down of both units at D C Cook. Both
| |
| ~
| |
| units are likely to remain shut down for over a year while extensive plant and administrative changes are made.
| |
| All of these plants had previously submitted their IPEs in response to NRC Generic Letter 88-20. Yet these findings unequivocally demonstrate that these risk assessments were useless because they did not accurately reflect the actual plant conditions.
| |
| During the current design bases Amnesty Program, licensees have reported literally dozens of design bases problems that dated back to original constmetion. Many of these i
| |
| problems required physical plant changes or procedure revisions to correct. These -
| |
| ' deficiencies are reality, yet the IPEs do not account for these common-mode failures.
| |
| Risk assessments should account for all possible failure modes, not just the ;
| |
| mathematically convenient ones.
| |
| The industry is lengthening surveillance and inspection intervals based on empirical database of equipment failure rates. However, these activities have also detected cases of ,
| |
| i sabotage and inadvertent component mispositioning. It is not apparent that the L justification for longer testing and inspection intervals has accounted for these other risk factors. Risk informed regulation must include all risks.
| |
| | |
| a -
| |
| Timeliness of NRC Processes NRC staff should not establish timeliness goals unless it also provides resources and oversight necessary to ensure that time frames are not met at the expense of quality.
| |
| I Example: Recent emphasis on closmg allegations within 180 days may be causing a high percentage of them to be closed without the underlying issues being addressed.
| |
| Whenever possible. NRC staff should live by same timeliness standards mandated for licensees.
| |
| Example: Per 10 CFR Part 21, licensees have up to 60 days from discovery of a potential safety hazard to justify hwy it is not a problem or report it to the 57C.
| |
| The SRC, upon receipt of a 10 CFR Part 21 report, can and will evaluate it at a much more leisurely pace.
| |
| | |
| l UCS Presentation at UNION OF 1998 ANS Annual Meeting CONCERNED Reactor Safety Margins SCIENTISTS Imagme that you are a parent picking up your child from elementary school. You stand on the comer watching your son or daughter m the cross-walk headmg towards you. Suddenly, there's the sound of squeahng tires and a racing engine. A car darts out of a side street Before you can react, it speeds mto the mtersection. For a few seconds, your child is hidden from sight as the car hurtles past. After an endless moment, the car disappears from view and you see your child -
| |
| unharmed, but visibly shaken by the near-mtss.
| |
| In that split second of horror, you noticed that I was dnvmg the car. It's safe to assume that vou sorced your concems about my drivmg the next time you saw me. Think about your reaction ifI had dismissed your concerns with a discussion about the dry pavement conditions, the quick response from rack and pinion steering, the unobstmeted vision through my windshield, and my excellent drivmg record. Chances are pretty good that you might have mentioned that your
| |
| :hild could have reacted to my recklessness by running towards the safety of your arms, into the path of my car. Refusmg to be drawn into such pointless 'what if' scenanos, I responoed, "look, you just don't want to discuss this matter rationally. I missed your kid by a good foot, foot and a half. Get over it." Half of this audience probably would have punched me in the nose. I thmk that all of you would have wanted to slug me, but I'm guessmg that I could out run half of you.
| |
| The moral of this story is that safety margin is not just somethmg that you measure or quantify and just dismiss so long as the number is positive. There's another component to safety margm which I call comfort level. Comfort level is very subjective. It is also a function of perspective. As the dnver, I had a high comfort level because I saw your child and I knew I had plenty of room to evade any sudden movements. Standmg on the corner, you had a low comfon level, and high distress level, because you only saw a speeding car too close to a loved one.
| |
| But, enough about my driving skills. Let's tum to the subject of today's session - reactor safety margin. Part 50 to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations defines minimum acceptable safety standards for nuclear plant operation. These mmimum standards do not result in tero nsk, but reduce the nsk from nuclear plant operation to an acceptably low les el.
| |
| < FIGURE 1>
| |
| The minimum acceptable safety standards essentially draw the upper line for what is called " reactor safety margin." The lower line is crossed when one or more members of the public is exposed to excessive amounts of radiation. A nuclear plant operating at or above the minimum standards can expenence a transient or accident with reasonable assurance that public health and safety will c.ot be affected. In other words, the transient or accident will, in all likelihood, cause the plant to drop aelow the minimum standards and use up some of its reactor safety margin, but there is reasonable assurance that the important lower line will remain intact.
| |
| l June 8,1998 Page1of5
| |
| | |
| , . 1 UCS Presentation at UN1ON OF 1998 ANS Annual Meeting CONCERNED Reactor Safety Margins SCIENTISTS UCS believes that the upper and lower lines for reactor safety margm are acceptably ;
| |
| i drawn. We do not necessarily advocate raismg the mimmum acceptable safety standards to provide additional reactor safety margin, although quite honestly we would not strenuously oppose any such efforts. We are truly concemed, however, that too many nuclear plants are venturing too often and too far, below the upper hne into their reactor safety margms.
| |
| < FIGURE 2>
| |
| For example, there have been numerous fmdings recently that safety related equipment muld or may not have functioned as required during an accident. Mame Yankee discovered m 1996 that 16 feet of control cable had been inadvertently cut and removed three to four years {
| |
| earlier. ne missmg cable would have prevented the high pressure inject:on (HPI) pump from automatically startmg m event of an accident. In 1995. boiling water reactors began correctmg a problem with the suction strainers for their emergency core cooling system pumps. Debns such as insulation blown off pipmg could have plugged the stramers and disabled all of the pumps during an accident. And Mjllstone Unit 3 recently completed over 70 physical changes to the plant and made several hundred changes to its Final Safety Analysis Report to get the facility back above the mmimum acceptable safety standards.
| |
| The NRC and the industry invanably tell the public that these violations are little cause for alarm. These positions talk about defense-in-depth and probabilities. Even if the public understood, yet alone believed, these complex arguments, they would still be unsatisfied by them.
| |
| These arguments fail to adequately address the comfort level component of reactor safety margins.
| |
| All of my reasons for thmking that I did not unduly jeopardize your child may be sincere and vahd, but they are tossed aside m a heartbeat when someone, or perhaps that mner voice we all have, says, "sure he missed your kid this time, but what about next time?"
| |
| < FIGURE 1>
| |
| Nuclear plant problems are almost always evaluated by the NRC and the industry on the basis of the as-built reactor safety margin. The as-built reactor safety margin is that margin which exists wh.n the plant meets the minimum acceptable safety standards - the upper line. When a problem leaves the plant at or above the upper line, then that approach is valid. We would agree that the public was protected this time and would probably be protected next time.
| |
| But some problems drop plants below the upper ime. In these cases, the as found reactor safety margin must be considered. We define the as-found reactor safety margm as the margm existing with the plant m its degraded condition. For some of the events that have been recendy l reported, the nuclear plants did not satisfy the mimmum acceptable safety standards. Had these
| |
| { plants expenenced an accident staning from those degraded conditions, it seems possible that the lower 1me might have been crossed.
| |
| Page 2 of 5 June 8,1998
| |
| | |
| - ~
| |
| m UCS Presentation at UNION OF 1998 ANS Annual Meeting CONCERNED Reactor Safety Margins SCIENTISTS We really should not debate whether the lower br.e would have been crossed. We all have both a legal and moral obligation to the public to know that answer. Not to guess, not to presume, but to know the answer. When a problem is discovered tha: indicates a plant operated below the upper hne, we must know the as-found reactor safety margm for that degraded condition. We must also know whether the lower line would have been erossed had the plant experienced an accident from that degraded condition. [In other words, would an accident initiating from the degraded plant condition ended up at Pomt A' or B' on Figure !?)
| |
| There probably will be times when the answer mdicates that the lower line would have been crossed. That will clearly be bad news which will not please the public. E.:t by self-identifying and reponing these near-misses, the nuclear industry will regam the public's confidence. The public w:ll then be more receptive to the industry's explanations about corrective actions and recurrence control measures.
| |
| If the NRC and the mdustry contmue to discuss probleins only m the context of as-built reactor safety marsms, then UCS's job becomes very simple. All we have to do is point out,"sure the plant didn't kill you and your family this time, but what about near time?" We may not be quite so blunt, but that will be our basic message.
| |
| I challenge the nuclear industry and the NRC to make my job as difficult as possible.
| |
| Please take the "next time" message away from me. When reporting problems, talk about the as-l found reactor safety margm. Not the as-built safety margin, but the actual safety margin for the plant. Explam what would have happened had an accident occurred with the plant in its degraded condition. !f pubhc health might have been affected, say so.
| |
| The harder you make me work in that way, the easier you'll find it to regain some pubhc trust. Perhaps, they would even come to accept heense renewal, stranded cost recovery, and giving nuclear plants some creoit for avoiding att emissions.
| |
| I began my speech asking you to picture yourself on the sidewalk while I raced past your child in .ay car. It tums out that you are in the driver's seat, not me. If you : tart delivering responsible, credible messages in response to nuclear plant events, the public may even stop punehmg you in the nose.
| |
| 1 Page 3 of 5 June 8,1998
| |
| | |
| UCS Presentation at UNION OF 1998 ANS Annual Meeting CONCERNED Reactor Safety Margins SCIENTISTS Figure 1 Normal Plant Operating Regime
| |
| ' . p,,.;,.....;
| |
| .; .. , . , pp gg n.
| |
| A B
| |
| : i
| |
| ; Reactor Safety Margin ;
| |
| l l
| |
| l l
| |
| i i A' !.
| |
| Public Radiation Protection Standards ;
| |
| i B'
| |
| june 8,199S Page 4 of 5 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ~ e UCS Presentation at UNION OF 1998 ANS Annual Meeting CONCERNED Reactor Safety Margins SCIENTISTS FIGURE 2 Recent Examples of Safety-Related Equipment Problems a BWR Suction Strainers NRC Bulletin No. 95-02 reported in October 1995:
| |
| . incidents at Perry, Limerick, and Bresebeck involved actual blockage of ECCS pump suction strainers in suppression chambers during plant transi ats
| |
| . potentialin all BWRs for debris such as piping insulation to be transported to suppression pool during accident and blocking suction strainers
| |
| . common mode failure affecting ail l ECCS pumps taking suction from suppression pool o Maine Yankee NRC Independent Safety Assessment Team (ISAT) reported in October 1996:
| |
| . cooling water system for safety-related equipment did not support operation above 90% power (although plant had routinely operated above 90% power since June 1978)
| |
| . 16 feet of cable in high pressure injection (HPI) pump control circuit had been inadvertently cut and removed 3 to 4 years earlier during an unrelated modification, preventing the pump from automatically starting during an accident a Millstone Unit 3 NU informed NRC on May 1,1998 of the following events during the recent extended shutdown on Millstone Unit 3:
| |
| . over 200 modifications completed-over 70 modifications as a result of configuration management program
| |
| . over 2,000 configuration management items completed
| |
| . 140 licensee event reports (LERs) submitted for licensing bases violations including 19 of moderate and high safety significance Page 5 of 5 June 8,1998
| |
| !}}
| |