ML043620075

Comment (10) of Jill Lipoti on Solicitation of Public Comments on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process, Dated October 25, 2004

ML043620075
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/10/2004
From:	Lipoti J State of NJ, Dept of Environmental Protection
To:	Lesar M NRC/ADM/DAS/RDB
References
69FR63411 00010
Download: ML043620075 (8)

Text

7 State of Nrfu &2rsig Richard J. Codey Department of Environmental Protection Bradley M. Campbell Acting Governor Commissioner Division of Environmental Safety and Health Radiation Protection and Release Prevention Programs PO Box 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415 II/IAIIIAl Phone (609) 984-5636 Fax (609) 633-2210 G~gr3 ///

December 10, 2004 Michael T. Lesar Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Office of Administration (Mail Stop: T6-D59)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Lesar:

This letter provides you with comments from the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering (NJDEP-BNE) in response to your letter, "Solicitation of Public Comnents on the Implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process", dated October 25, 2004.

The experience of the NJDEP-BNE with the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) has not been a favorable one for the four nuclear power generation reactors located in New Jersey (Hope Creek, Salem 1 & 2, Oyster Creek).

Over the past four and one half years, since the April 2000 implementation of the ROP, significant enforcement actions (Levels White, Yellow, Red), referred to as escalated,

-totaled onefor-Hope Creek, two total.for-both Salem 1.&2, and one for Oyster Creek (a second for Oyster Creek related to Emergency Planning is anticipated). All of these significant enforcement findings were categorized as "White", or the lowest of the escalated levels. When compared to pre-ROP findings for the similar length period of January 1996 to April 2000, there were "Severity Level III" findings totaling five for Hope Creek, three total for both Salem 1 & 2, and three for Oyster Creek. This comparison shows a significant decline in significant enforcement findings while lessor findings (Green) remained at a relatively constant level. It is NJDEP-BNE experience that this comes from "Potentially Greater than Green" findings, identified as such on-site by NRC Inspectors, are later determined to be "Green" by NRC management. The final "Green" determination is often justified based on laborious analysis presented by the licensee to show that while the finding/condition is not in dispute, probable risk for the condition can be computed to be low. This obfuscates the obvious conclusion that licensee performance was poor. An obvious example of this was the recent case of the "Green" determination for the Oyster Creek Diesel Generator maintenance finding.

54_75,/jD ,35 ,/; -,PD5- 3 New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer =) ;ffi cj Recycled Paper (6 Av5s -

7/ = 1- -,/93

The above comparison is especially disturbing for the three reactors, Hope Creek and Salem 1 & 2, located at one common site and operated by a common licensee. As you are aware, the NRC has recently determined that there are severe challenges to the existence of a safety conscious work environment at this location. As a result of this concern by the Administrator of NRC Region 1, special NRC team inspections and enhanced oversight of these facilities are ongoing. The safety culture concern was not identified by the ROP process as is evidenced by only three total "White" findings found over the past four and one half years for this location. It can be concluded that the ROP process has significant flaws since it allowed this a poor safety culture and failed to identify prescriptive preemptive actions.

Finally, -you will find attached the completed survey form enclosed with the subject letter.

It is our hope that the future existence and application of the ROP will show significant improvement and will better serve to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power generation facilities in New Jersey and throughout the country. If you need additional information, please contact Mr. Kent Tosch, Manager of the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, at (609) 984-7701.

Sincerely, oti, Ph.D., Assistant Director Radiation Protection Program and Release Prevention C: Samuel Collins, NRC Regional Administrator

f Questions related to specific ROP program areas QUESTION COMMENT (1) Does the Performance Indicator Program promote

• Having all ROP performance indicators green doesn't indicate plant safety? l _ _ whether the plants are promoting plant safety or not I

• Emergency Preparedness performance indicators are weak Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) 1

• Licensees overly concerned maintaining green due to stock holder l_ implications regardless of plant safety Current ROP - 3 (neutral)

• Performance indicator thresholds need re-examination (2) Does appropriate overlap exist between the Performance Indicator Program and the Inspection

• Something must be missing if cross-cutting issues, such as the Davis-Program? Besse event, and safety conscious work environment concerns exist Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) i Current ROP - 3 (neutral),.A (3) Is the reporting of PI data efficient?

• The reporting of performance indicator data, as well as, inspection findings take too long. For example, performance results from Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral)' January, February, and March are reported in late May.

• Since the performance indicators are lagging indicators and not Current ROP - 2 (somewhat) leading indicators, the timeframe for posting information is excessive and does not lead to proactive resolution of performance issues.

I I tI Vi I

(4) Does NEI 99-02. "Regulatory Assessmhent *This document supports more prompt reporting of performance Performance Indicator Guideline" provide' clear guidance indicator information regarding Performance Indicators?I Initial ROP Implementation - 2 (somewhat)!

Current ROP - 1 (very much)

(5) Is the information in the inspection reports useful to

• By the time we receive an NRC inspection report the information is you? old so the report becomes archival .

__

• The most useful information is the analysis of any findings because Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) I this has consequences to the licensee Current ROP - 4 (somewhat less then needed)

I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(6) Does the Significant Determination Process yield

• Judgement about the Significance Determination Process depends on equivalent results for issues of similar significance in all the inputs it receives and most of the inputs are in the mitigating ROP cornerstones? systems cornerstone so it is impossible to conclude anything about this question Initial ROP Implementation- 3 (neutral)

• The significance determination process should be designed in favor of promoting plant safety, and therefore, generate more colors that Current ROP - 5 (far less then needed) move licensees in promoting plant safety. The current system forces licensees to avoid any color, in spite of plant safety.

• We believe that the overall significance determination process is more relaxed now then when the ROP was implemented. This is evidenced by all NRC findings moving from higher color to lower color in every case and the increased use of "potentially greater then

_green"_when the NRC indicated that this would be rarely used

i I

I (7) Does the NRC take appropriate actionrs to address

• The NRC follow-up actions for licensees outside the Licensee performance issues for those licensees outside of the Response Column focuses on a very narrow area of inspection Licensee Response Column of the Action(Matrix?

• Usually by the time the follow-up inspection takes place the event is old news and the issue has long since resolved itself

• The NRC should expand follow-up inspections to make them more Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral)] valuable when they occur i

• It appears that non-ROP identified events are driving the NRC to Current ROP- 4(somewhat less then needed) inspect larger areas of plant performance and obtaining better results neee in promoting plant safety (8) Is information contained in the assessment reports

• The NRC licensee assessment letter is one page long - what report?

relevant, useful, and written in plain English?

• Since this letter is the final word on~ the assessment of the plant for a set period of time and an opportunity to outline future plant Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) expectations more assessment and value added is necessary

• The application of the ROP ignores assessment and focuses on color Current ROP -4 (somewhat less then needed)

(9) Are the ROP oversight activities predictable (i.e. . Enough evidence exists through the number of fines and the amount controlled by the process) and reasonably~objective (i.e. of fines that the ROP is slanted toward licensees based on supporting facts, rather then relying on

• The ROP maintains the status quo and is not designed to promote subjective judgement? continuous improvement over the long anticipated life of nuclear power plants Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral)

• The goal of the ROP should include ensuring that plants operate seamlessly, without incident, and safe for potentially 60 years Current ROP - 2 (somewhat less then needed)

(10) Is the ROP risk-informed, in that the NRC's

• Overall, the ROP is moving toward a risk-informed process actions are graduated on the basis of increased

• The biggest concern is the way the findings are handled by the NRC significance? and the licensee

• We reviewed most findings and most are aggressively defended by the licensee to lower the color finding because the licensees know that the probabilistic risk assessments have a lot of uncertainty and can be massaged in the direction of the lower color Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral)

Current ROP - 2 (somewhat)

I (11) Is the ROP understandable and are the processes, procedures and products clear and writteniin plain

• We understand it more now then we did when it was first introduced English?

Initial ROP Implementation - 4 (somewhat less then needed)

Current ROP - 3 (neutral) I (12) Does the ROP provide adequate regulatory

• Davis Besse, Hope Creek, Salem 1,Salem 2, Oyster Creek, and assurance when combined with other NRC regulatory Indian Point are a few examples that put into question the ROP processes that plants are being operated and maintained safely?

Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral)

Current ROP - 4 (somewhat less then needed)

I1

(13) Does the ROP improve the efficiency, The ROP is more efficient and more real but, as we have already effectiveness, and realism of the regulatory process? addressed, not as effective as it could be Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) I I;

Current ROP - 3 (neutral)

(14) Does the ROP ensure openness in the regulatory

• Even in an environment where the NRC issues no financial penalties, process? fthe licensee still fights any color, other then green, as a financial penalty, instead of an opportunity to improve performance Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) 1f Current ROP - 2 (somewhat)

(15) Has the public been afforded adequate opportunity to participate in the ROP and to provide inputs and

• The NRC does an assessment of the ROP each year but it is for the comments? benefit of the NRC staff to make slight adjustments to the process Initial ROP Implementation - I (very much)

Current ROP - 3 (neutral)

(16) Has the NRC been responsive to public inputs and

• The licensees were heard and the ROP evolved to their benefit comments on the ROP?

• More public involvement existed in the beginning of the ROP

• The ROP has not changed to include leading indicators, and as such Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) is only documentation ofpast performance and not a predictor of future performance. Yet it is used to determine future NRC resource Current ROP - 4 (Somewhat less then needed) assignments. This does not make common sense and has not bee addressed.

ri

(17) Has the NRC implemented the ROP as defined by program documents?

• We have noticed an increase in the use of "potentially greater then

__ green" when the process stated that this would be used rarely Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral) I

• We have noticed that the licensee still has tremendous influence when we expected that the ROP would support the NRC inspector Current ROP - 3 (neutral) findings (18) Does the ROP reduce unnecessary regulatory

• It reduces necessary and unnecessary regulatory burden on the burden on licensees? licensee Initial ROP Implementation - 4 (somewhat less then needed)

Current ROP - 4 (somewhat less then needed)

(19) Does the ROP minimize unintended

• Not sure consequences?

Initial ROP Implementation - 3 (neutral)

Current ROP - 3 (neutral)

(20) Please provide any additional information or

• Indirectly, this question is asking if anything is being left out of the comments related to the Reactor Oversight Process ROP - either missing performance indicators or baseline inspections.

• Safety Conscious Work Environment has emerged as an area which is overlooked in the ROP I