Protecting People and the EnvironmentUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
3 ***
4 BRIEFING ON IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
5 REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS
6 ***
7 PUBLIC MEETING
8
9 Room 1F-16
10 White Flint Building 1
11 11555 Rockville Pike
12 Rockville, Maryland
13 Tuesday, March 7, 2000
14
15 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
16 notice, at 1:00 p.m., the Honorable RICHARD A. MESERVE,
17 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
18
19 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
20 RICHARD A. MESERVE, Chairman of the Commission
21 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission
22 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
23 EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
24 JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, Member of the Commission
25
2
1 PARTICIPANTS:
2 PANEL I:
3 JAMES DYER, REGION III ADMINISTRATOR
4 SAMUEL COLLINS, DIRECTOR, NRR
5 WILLIAM TRAVERS, EDO
6 WILLIAM DEAN, PROGRAM INSPECTION BRANCH, NRR
7 ALAN MADISON, TASK LEADER, NRR
8 MICHAEL JOHNSON, CHIEF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT
9 SECTION, NRR
10 PANEL II:
11 RALPH BEEDLE, SR. VP, NUCLEAR GENERATION AND CHIEF NUCLEAR
12 OFFICER, NEI
13 DAVID GARCHOW, VP TECHNICAL SUPPORT, PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC
14 AND GAS
15 DAVID LOCHBAUM, NUCLEAR SAFETY ENGINEER, UNION OF CONCERNED
16 SCIENTISTS
17 JILL LIPOTI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RADIATION PROTECTION
18 PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, STAE OF
19 NEW JERSEY
20 FRANK GILLESPIE, CHAIRPERSON, PILOT PLANT EVALUATION PROGRAM
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 [1:00 p.m.]
3 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Good afternoon. We are meeting
4 this afternoon to have a briefing on the revised reactor
5 oversight process and the lessons that have been learned
6 from the pilot effort that was underway to test that
7 process.
8 As all of you know, the aim has been to revise the
9 oversight process to provide an oversight mechanism that is
10 more risk-informed, more objective and more focused.
11 It had, after some extensive efforts by the
12 Commission before I arrived, been launched with a pilot
13 program at over six months at nine plants. I know that, not
14 only from the materials that have been presented to us, but
15 also from my conversations with the staff over the few
16 months that I've been here, that there has been an enormous
17 effort by the staff to pull this together and before we get
18 to the substance, I did want to express my appreciation to
19 you, on behalf of my colleagues, as well, for your diligence
20 in pursuing this so aggressively.
21 The original plan was that we would commence with
22 the initial implementation of the oversight process in April
23 and we look forward to your discussion today about your
24 plans for implementation, as well as your efforts to assess
25 what you have learned as a result of your pilot activities.
4
1 Let me turn to my colleagues and see if they have
2 any comments they wish to make. If not, Mr. Travers, would
3 you proceed?
4 DR. TRAVERS: Thank you, Chairman. Good
5 afternoon. Certainly the development and pilot testing of
6 the revised reactor oversight process has been a significant
7 priority for the agency and I'm glad to tell you that, from
8 my perspective, the Commission will have to be the judge,
9 but from my perspective, the NRC staff have, working as a
10 team across offices and the regions, been extremely
11 successful in this effort.
12 Importantly, we have benefited from significant
13 contributions from many of our external stakeholders
14 throughout the process. As indicated in our recent SECY
15 paper, 00-0049, we have now completed the six-month pilot of
16 the revised process and have analyzed the results and
17 lessons learned.
18 Although issues remain, and we will discuss those
19 this afternoon, we are recommending Commission approval for
20 initial implementation at all operating nuclear power
21 plants. We think the new process is sound and that initial
22 implementation will provide opportunities to further refine
23 it.
24 With me at the table today are, starting from my
25 left, Mike Johnson and Alan Madison, both from the
5
1 Inspection Program Branch, NRR; Bill Dean, who is the Chief
2 of that Inspection Program Branch; Sam Collins, the Director
3 of NRR; and, Jim Dyer, Region III Administrator.
4 Sam is going to continue with the briefing.
5 MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Bill. Good afternoon,
6 Chairman, Commissioners. I'll just make a few brief
7 remarks. As Bill indicated, we are here today as a result
8 of much work and experience in the pilot program, in the
9 development of the process itself. I would like to
10 acknowledge, briefly, contributors to the process, which
11 include not only the regions, who have contributed FTE for
12 defining the process, writing the inspection procedures and
13 implementing the pilot program; the Office of Research, in
14 the risk area; the Office of General Counsel; and, many of
15 the stakeholders that will make presentations for you today.
16 It's important to note this process, not only in
17 piloting an oversight program, also piloted a new era, if
18 you will, in the office's way of doing business, and that's
19 in public form and with stakeholder involvement and
20 stakeholder influence.
21 Having said that, it is a work in progress, so to
22 speak. There will be further refinements. We'll talk about
23 those today during the course of the presentation,
24 particularly in the area of those challenges that have been
25 brought to us by our external stakeholders, and I anticipate
6
1 that you'll hear those not only from the staff, but also
2 from the other participants.
3 We believe we have a viable process identified, as
4 indicated in the SECY paper. We will focus at the end of
5 the briefing on the recommendations and the go-forward
6 manner and we will identify some of the future initiatives
7 that are presently identified, but also acknowledge a caveat
8 that through the initial implementation period, we expect to
9 refine the process and identify other areas where the
10 process can be made more viable and more effective.
11 With that, I will turn the briefing over to Bill
12 Dean.
13 MR. DEAN: Thank you, Sam. Good afternoon,
14 Chairman and Commissioners. If I could have the first
15 slide, please.
16 What we intend to cover today is basically
17 described in SECY 0049, which is a very detailed document
18 that describes the results of a pilot program. It also
19 talks about both near and long-term activities that will
20 address many of these lessons learned.
21 We will cover highlights of that Commission paper
22 today in our presentation. First, we want to spend a few
23 minutes addressing where we are in our efforts to implement
24 the revised reactor oversight process and review the key
25 lessons learned, including the positive aspects of the
7
1 process, that resulted from the pilot program.
2 At the end, we will discuss some of the major
3 long-term activities associated with ongoing process
4 improvements and summarize our recommendations regarding
5 implementation of the revised reactor oversight process.
6 Before we get started, I do want to recognize
7 Mike. Alan and I were actually charter members of the IRAP
8 way back when several years ago, and I must say that for us
9 to be here before the Commission to discuss with you
10 basically the fruits of a long labor is very rewarding for
11 us to be able to be here with you today.
12 Next slide, please.
13 This is really just a brief historical review of
14 the major events and the history of the development of the
15 revised reactor oversight process, and it finds us in the
16 mid-point of this chart; that is, we have developed and
17 refined the process through the pilot program such that
18 we're at the point where the Commission can consider whether
19 we should begin initial implementation.
20 Of particular note is the last bullet on this
21 slide, which underscores that initial implementation, really
22 is a natural extension of the pilot program; that we need to
23 come back before the Commission in a year after we begin
24 initial implementation and report on the results of that
25 process and the further refinements that we will make and
8
1 the lessons that we have learned.
2 Next slide, please. It's important in any
3 discussion regarding the revised reactor oversight process
4 to revisit the main objectives behind taking on substantial
5 change. There certainly is a tremendous record of
6 Commission direction regarding the NRC's assessment process
7 over the years, which led to the IRAP effort I described
8 earlier, and it embodies the characteristics described on
9 this slide.
10 The NRC's four performance goals provide an
11 overarching set of goals for this new process, while the
12 four specific objectives -- that is, making the process more
13 risk-informed, objective, predictable and understandable --
14 were specifically provided in Commission direction to the
15 staff and were described in detail in SECY 99-007 last year.
16 Next slide, please.
17 The major part of our presentation this afternoon
18 is going to regard the key issues and actions taken as a
19 result of the pilot program lessons learned. This slide
20 basically describes how we got that point.
21 We conducted a six-month pilot program and were
22 able to meet all the purposes described here. There's two
23 items of note that I want to point out regarding this slide
24 and those are the last two bullets. Since the pilot program
25 ended in November, we have continued to utilize the revised
9
1 reactor oversight process at those nine sites at which we
2 conducted the pilot program and have continued to gather
3 additional lessons learned and insights from continuing the
4 process at those sites.
5 Then lastly, the pilot program encompassed an
6 extensive amount of internal and external feedback
7 activities. We had a wide range of activities to get
8 feedback from both our public, state, industry and internal
9 stakeholders, and that included the pilot program evaluation
10 panel, which is the Federal Advisory Committee Act type
11 committee, an independent advisory committee, as you will.
12 We had sometimes diverse and certainly
13 considerable feedback and it was a tremendous challenge on
14 our part to accommodate all this feedback, while keeping the
15 performance goals and objectives in mind from the previous
16 slide.
17 But this led us a number of near-term refinements,
18 some that we made during the pilot program and some that
19 we've made since the program has ended, as well as issues to
20 consider during initial implementation, and we will discuss
21 those in more detail later this afternoon.
22 Next slide, please.
23 Before we get into some of the key issues, it's
24 important to note that we learned much about the revised
25 reactor oversight process that supports the general
10
1 observations from almost all of our stakeholders that this
2 is an improved process for many measures from our current
3 oversight methodologies, and these are listed on this slide
4 and described in detail in the Commission paper 0049.
5 We recognize it is not a perfect process, but
6 clearly an improvement that warrants implementation at all
7 sites to further expand lessons learned and improve its
8 efficacy.
9 Before I move on, I would like to offer, we have
10 Jim Dyer, the Regional Administrator from Region III here.
11 I'd like to offer Jim the opportunity, if he has any
12 comments regarding the results of the pilot program from his
13 regional perspective.
14 MR. DYER: Overall, the views of the four Regional
15 Administrators, based on the pilot plant results and the
16 changes to the program that are outlined in the Commission
17 paper, we feel very comfortable moving forward with initial
18 implementation of the revised reactor oversight program, any
19 refinements that are going to be made in the future and that
20 are appropriate during the initial implementation phase.
21 MR. DEAN: Thank you, Jim. We would now like to
22 discuss some of the specific lessons learned as a result of
23 the pilot program. First, I'll turn it over to Alan
24 Madison, who will discuss with you lessons learned out of
25 the performance indicators and the inspection program, and
11
1 then Mike Johnson will address the significance
2 determination process, assessment and enforcement processes.
3 Alan?
4 MR. MADISON: Thank you, Bill, and good afternoon.
5 Lessons learned throughout the pilot identified the need to
6 further develop and refine the guidance provided in NEI-9902
7 for reporting of PIs. Most inconsistencies in reporting
8 could be traced to misinterpretation issues and,
9 consequently, four major revisions to the guidance were
10 issued during the pilot to address these concerns.
11 NEI is in the process of issuing Revision 0 of the
12 guidance and we will endorse this revision for data
13 collection purposes beginning April 1.
14 We will continue to assess the adequacy of
15 reporting guidance and collect feedback from the licensees
16 and inspectors through a formal process involving an
17 industry working group. In developing the PIs, the role of
18 the barrier cornerstone PIs was intended to be fundamentally
19 different from the other indicators.
20 Unlike other PIs, their thresholds were set as
21 percentages of technical specification limits instead of
22 relying on historical data analysis. In actual practice,
23 plants operate very far below these limits and would rarely,
24 if ever, exceed them. Consequently, these indicators serve
25 primarily a public competence role to indicate how much
12
1 margin these barriers provide to release of radioactive
2 materials, as opposed to most of the other indicators, where
3 the green-white thresholds were set to indicate deviations
4 or outliers from nominal industry performance.
5 Some stakeholders have raised the concern that
6 these PIs are, therefore, not meaningful. Also, several
7 specific concerns regarding varied collection methods and
8 different tech spec requirements associated with the
9 containment leakage PI were raised. In addition, this lack
10 of consistent information was exacerbated by infrequent data
11 collection issues.
12 When combined, these concerns prompted the staff
13 to eliminate the use of the containment leakage PI from the
14 program. We will continue to closely monitor the remaining
15 barrier PIs and assess their efficacy during initial
16 implementation, while awaiting results of the effort by the
17 Office of Research to develop indicators that may be more
18 meaningful.
19 During the pilot program, all pilot plants were
20 able to comply with the 14-day reporting requirement.
21 However, significant industry feedback indicated this placed
22 a large burden on licensees and contributed to occurrences
23 of inaccurate reporting. The staff reconsidered this
24 requirement in an attempt to balance the directive for
25 gathering timely data to support the assessment process and
13
1 public dissemination of information.
2 With concerns regarding unnecessary regulatory
3 burden and accuracy of data, we determined that increasing
4 this requirement to 21 days would better achieve this
5 balance.
6 As we indicated we would do in SECY 99-007, we
7 have reevaluated all performance indicator thresholds using
8 the pilot program data and the historical data provided by
9 non-pilot licensees on January 21 of this year.
10 Consequently, we have made changes to about half the PIs.
11 Almost all the changes affect the green-white threshold. We
12 have reduced this threshold for six of the PIs and raised
13 the threshold for two others.
14 For example, several of the safety system
15 unavailability green-white thresholds have been changed back
16 to those proposed in SECY 99-007. These original settings
17 were based on a review of historical data from 1995 to
18 mid-1998. We had agreed with NEI's proposal to change these
19 thresholds for the pilot program to take into consideration
20 industry goals established by INPO and longer risk-informed
21 allowed outage times that existed at some plants.
22 However, our ongoing analysis shows that our
23 original settings more accurately reflected current industry
24 performance.
25 This will be an area we will continue to monitor
14
1 and some future adjustments may be necessary to take into
2 consideration continuing efforts to risk-informed
3 regulations and site-specific requirements.
4 We also recognize that industry has concerns
5 regarding the manual scrams performance indicator and the
6 unplanned scram performance indicator, with regard to
7 unintended consequences with these performance indicators.
8 We're exploring potential changes to these PIs and we'll
9 closely monitor these issues during initial implementation.
10 We also learned from the pilot program that
11 several policy issues needed to be strengthened and these
12 are being addressed. For example, we will incorporate a
13 process for major changes to the performance indicators in
14 the overall program guidance. This process will mirror what
15 was done for the development of the original performance
16 indicators and will provide for rigorous review and testing
17 prior to implementation.
18 Next slide, please.
19 One of the key internal issues that arose from our
20 review of lessons learned during the pilot was that our
21 inspectors were unsure what to document in an inspection
22 report and questioned whether we had established an
23 appropriate threshold. Previous guidance given to
24 inspectors under the current oversight program already
25 discourage documenting minor violations, except in rare
15
1 circumstances.
2 The Office of Enforcement has recently reissued
3 extensive guidance in this area in the form of examples.
4 The revised reactor oversight process incorporated this
5 guidance and made it the threshold for documenting
6 inspection findings. We also extended the guidance to
7 include issues outside the normal regulatory framework. The
8 intent of this change was to remove from the report
9 subjective discussion, both positive and negative, of
10 aspects of licensees' activities that could not be used in
11 objectively assessing performance.
12 This essentially raised the threshold for what was
13 discussed in inspection reports, commensurate with the
14 philosophy of the new oversight program, that there exists a
15 band of performance for which licensees should be
16 responsible, with minimum NRC interaction.
17 Many inspectors and regional managers were
18 uncomfortable with removing the capability to document these
19 observations and insights. Some licensees also express
20 their concern with not having access to these insights from
21 inspectors. Therefore, early in the pilot program,
22 clarification was provided that reinforced the expectation
23 that inspectors were encouraged to share their observations
24 and insights with licensees, as they always have.
25 We have also allowed inspectors some leeway to
16
1 document substantial observations that relate to important
2 cross-cutting areas. However, there continues to be a
3 distinct change in the inspection reports, such that the
4 primary focus is on those issues that have some risk
5 significance.
6 Balancing the scope, depth and frequency of
7 inspections with the resources necessary to accomplish them
8 is an area in which we gained a number of insights from the
9 pilot program and which will be an area of great emphasis
10 during initial implementation.
11 The Commission directed the staff not to establish
12 specific efficiency goals for the new oversight process, but
13 to determine what effort it took to implement the new
14 process. Much of the feedback from inspectors has been that
15 a number of the initial estimates were too low.
16 As the procedures were revised to reflect lessons
17 learned, adjustments were made to some of the estimates.
18 Additionally, we recently met with regional management to
19 establish a better overall estimate for initial
20 implementation to support planning activities. Of note is
21 that the pilot program showed a distinct increase in the
22 level of preparation needed, which can be attributed to the
23 risk-informed nature of the program, as well as learning
24 curve considerations.
25 We are collecting a substantial amount of
17
1 information during initial implementation so that we can
2 more accurately measure the resources needed to execute the
3 program.
4 One of the major changes from the current program
5 is the shift in emphasis on engineering activities. This is
6 the result of our review of past significant events and
7 inspection findings. This may alter the skill set required
8 of our inspectors. Several regions are already pursuing
9 hiring additional staff with engineering expertise.
10 In addition, to our experienced staff, we will use
11 contractor resources to facilitate execution of the
12 inspection program. This will be an area that we will
13 assess during initial implementation and report back to the
14 Commission next year.
15 Additional attention has also been focused on fire
16 protection expertise and we are considering training needs
17 for regional staff to support conducting these inspections.
18 We will also evaluate this area during initial
19 implementation and adjust our actions accordingly.
20 Finally, as in other program areas of the revised
21 oversight program, we have identified the need to develop a
22 more formal program change process. The objective is to
23 provide a deliberate process which will consider the risk
24 significance of proposed changes to the inspection program
25 and performance indicators, and this process will take into
18
1 consideration the effect of the proposed changes on the
2 cornerstone attributes and their relationship to the
3 important areas to measure within each cornerstone. We
4 expect this process to be in place sometime next year.
5 This concludes my remarks. Next is Mike Johnson.
6 MR. JOHNSON: Thanks, Alan. Good afternoon. The
7 significance determination process provides a major advance
8 in making our process more risk-informed, objective and
9 predictable by providing a set of tools by which inspectors
10 and others can characterize the significance of inspection
11 findings.
12 While we believe the pilot program demonstrated
13 the potential of the SDP, issues identified highlight the
14 need for continued improvements.
15 Let me first describe several improvements we've
16 made or will make to the reactor SDP, reactor safety SDP.
17 When we began the pilot, we noted that the SDP for fire
18 protection, containment and shutdown needed to be developed.
19 Initial development of the fire protection SDP was completed
20 and the SDP was exercised during the pilot program. We
21 identified lessons learned and are refining the SDP to make
22 it easier to use.
23 We developed a shutdown screening tool that will
24 enable inspectors to screen out lesser significant issues
25 and raise issues of potentially greater risk significance
19
1 for a more complete analysis. We've also developed a
2 containment SDP. We will perform a feasibility review for
3 both the containment SDP and the shutdown screening tool
4 prior to April and expect to have them available shortly
5 thereafter.
6 The reactor safety SDP was developed to determine
7 the significance of issues based on their impact on core
8 damage frequency and large early release frequency. The
9 potential impact of external events, such as flooding and
10 fires, are not reflected in the SDPs. For some plants where
11 the influence of external events is notable, this will
12 introduce potential non-conservatism into the SDP analysis.
13 I should point out that the agency's own
14 simplified plant analysis of risk fire models have yet to be
15 updated to incorporate external events. For initial
16 implementation, the staff will develop the screening tool to
17 help identify those issues that should receive further
18 evaluation to specifically account for increased risk
19 contribution due to external events.
20 To support implementation of the reactor SDP
21 during the pilot, we developed site-specific worksheets. We
22 visited pilot sites to verify the plant equipment considered
23 in the SDP as providing mitigation capability is, in fact,
24 present.
25 We also ran several scenarios through the SDP and
20
1 the licensees' PRA to ensure the results are appropriate.
2 We plan to finish issuing worksheets for all plants in the
3 next several weeks and conduct visits to all sites within
4 the next few months.
5 As a related matter, during the pilot, we compared
6 the plant-specific reactor SDP to two pilot plant licensees'
7 PRAs for several hypothetical findings. We found, in some
8 instances, the SDPs underestimated risk due to the emission
9 of certain core damage sequences. These sequences related
10 to initiating events that consequently removed mitigation
11 capability and, therefore, had a greater effect on the risk
12 than the SDP had previously estimated.
13 We refer to these as special initiators. An
14 example of a special initiator could be a loss of an
15 electrical bus or a cooling water system that simultaneously
16 causes a trip and removes mitigation equipment.
17 We will supplement the basic SDP worksheets to
18 address special initiators. Draft special initiator
19 worksheets are expected to be available before the end of
20 May. Site visits by the NRC risk analysis will confirm or
21 modify these worksheets and in the interim, the SDP
22 screening tool will be used to identify potentially
23 significant findings for analysis by risk experts.
24 I've spoken a lot about the reactor SDP, but I'd
25 also like to point out that during the pilot, we exercised
21
1 the other SDPs, the emergency preparedness, the radiological
2 protection, and the safeguards SDPs, and have subsequently
3 improved them based on lessons learned.
4 In addition to improving the SDP tools, we found
5 that process improvements were needed. We found that the
6 time expended in completing the technical evaluation of
7 issues that progress beyond initial screening, the time
8 spent documenting the results, and allowing an opportunity
9 for licensees to provide any additional information to the
10 NRC before a final decision was reached on a decision made
11 timely resolution difficult.
12 We will clarify and modify the process for
13 handling these issues to improve our efficiency and
14 timeliness, while not sacrificing allowing an opportunity
15 for licensees to provide input. We will assess the efficacy
16 of the entire SDP process as we go forward.
17 Finally, the process increases the importance of
18 the staff's ability to understand and use risk insights. We
19 will continue to explore ways to provide additional risk
20 knowledge and capability by increasing the number of risk
21 analysts, but also by increasing the overall ability of the
22 staff to make greater use of risk insights.
23 Relatedly, we are relooking at our risk training
24 to ensure it meets our expectations.
25 Next slide.
22
1 Two major issues were identified related to
2 assessment. First, feedback indicated that there remain
3 fundamentally differing views regarding how cross-cutting
4 issues should be handled in the oversight process. One
5 prevalent view was that declining performance in
6 cross-cutting areas will be reflected in performance
7 indicators and inspection results that cross thresholds.
8 Absent such performance, the NRC should not engage. This
9 view is one of the fundamental tenets of the original
10 program.
11 Others share a very different view; namely, that
12 it's possible to have programmatic breakdowns in
13 cross-cutting areas that do not necessarily manifest
14 themselves in issues of sufficient significance that trip
15 thresholds in a timely manner.
16 Historically, plants that experience significant
17 performance problems evidence early problems in
18 cross-cutting areas. Given the concerns regarding treatment
19 of cross-cutting issues, we modified the guidance to allow
20 for qualitative discussion of substantial cross-cutting
21 issues in the mid-cycle and end-of-cycle assessment letters.
22 However, the procedure provides that actions will not be
23 taken for these cross-cutting concerns absent a PI or
24 inspection finding outside the licensee response band.
25 A working group is being established to continue
23
1 the dialogue and the work on better addressing concerns
2 related to treatment of cross-cutting issues. This work
3 will continue into the first year of implementation and in
4 the interim, we plan to proceed with the existing policy
5 that I've just mentioned.
6 Secondly, feedback indicated that stakeholders
7 recognize that deviations from the action matrix will need
8 to occur. However, there was a widespread belief that when
9 deviations do occur, they be rare, that they should be made
10 in accordance with an established process, and that the
11 deviation, along with the rationale, be clearly documented
12 for all stakeholders to see.
13 We have modified our guidance to establish these
14 expectations.
15 One last area related to assessment reflects the
16 realization that the revised reactor oversight process
17 doesn't distinguish between findings involving regulatory
18 non-compliance and those findings that don't involve a
19 non-compliance, but represent an increase in plant risk as a
20 result of deficient performance.
21 If such an issue were to achieve sufficient risk
22 significance to meet the regulatory guidelines for a
23 backfit, the staff would consider a backfit. However, it's
24 possible for issues to cross thresholds for the oversight
25 process, but that do not achieve the threshold for backfit.
24
1 The staff believes that consideration of issues
2 based on their safety significance and not just whether
3 non-compliance is involved is consistent with taking a
4 risk-informed approach to regulation.
5 Therefore, we plan to apply the action matrix
6 accordingly. However, we will ensure that all requirements
7 for backfitting are met prior to implementing new regulatory
8 requirements on licensees.
9 Next slide, please.
10 A primary aim of the revised oversight process was
11 to better integrate enforcement with our other oversight
12 activities and make it a process outcome and not a driver.
13 During the pilot program, we specifically looked to ensure
14 that enforcement outcomes were consistent with the SDP
15 results and the enforcement policy, as revised, for plants
16 participating in the pilot program.
17 They were and the feedback received was generally
18 supportive of the changes made. However, significant
19 concerns were raised by the industry regarding the staff's
20 application of 50.9, completeness and accuracy of
21 information, related to PI reporting inaccuracies. We are
22 revising the enforcement policy to address these concerns
23 and to incorporate the remaining interim enforcement
24 guidance used for the pilot plants and to the body of
25 enforcement policy that will be applicable to all plants.
25
1 The draft Commission paper that forwards this
2 policy is in concurrence.
3 Bill?
4 MR. DEAN: Thank you, Michael. Next slide,
5 please.
6 As a result of SECY 99-007 and 007A and the
7 pertinent Commission briefings, the Commission issued an SRM
8 on June 18, 1999, which approved the implementation of the
9 pilot program. In that SRM, the Commission also asked the
10 staff to address a number of issues.
11 This slide summarizes four of the key issues that
12 were discussed in that SRM and these are described in much
13 more detail in SECY 00-0049, including the results of
14 stakeholder feedback that we solicited on these issues in a
15 Federal Register notice.
16 The first issue, Mike has just spent some time
17 talking about the issue of programmatic breakdowns and the
18 influence of cross-cutting issues and the fact that there is
19 a distinct difference of opinion between what's described in
20 the regulation framework and what may be true in
21 application, and Mike described what we intend to do on that
22 on an ongoing basis.
23 With respect to the next two issues, in terms of
24 overall assessment of cornerstones and inclusion of positive
25 inspection findings, the feedback that we've received from
26
1 our stakeholders, as well as ongoing review with the staff,
2 indicates that we believe the position that we described in
3 SECY 99-007 and 007A and as reiterated in SECY 99-0049
4 support the fact that no changes are planned in what we
5 intend to do in the oversight process.
6 Finally, the issue of SALP, which has been
7 suspended for several years now as we've gone through the
8 development of this process, that we would recommend the
9 termination of the SALP process and implementation of the
10 revised reactor oversight process.
11 Next slide, please.
12 As I mentioned earlier, in executing the pilot
13 program, we developed and executed a number of significant
14 and time-consuming external and internal communication
15 activities. We believe that we need to continue this level
16 of communication through initial implementation.
17 Some of the methodologies by which we intend to
18 continue to do this include continued public outreach
19 activities; for example, the regions are planning, are over
20 the course of the next six months, to visit all the
21 non-pilot sites, much as we did the pilot sites, to
22 communicate this new oversight process to the constituents
23 in the local vicinities of the plant.
24 Our external web page has been a very valuable
25 tool in providing information to the public and other
27
1 interested stakeholders. We've gotten a lot of feedback
2 over the course of the last year about that web site and we
3 are undertaking a number of changes and revisions to make
4 that a more clear and understandable and more easily
5 navigable web page.
6 One of the initiatives that the Office of Public
7 Affairs provided us great assistance in was in developing a
8 plain language description of the oversight process. We are
9 in the process now of revising and rewriting that NUREG,
10 NUREG-1649, and we will be issuing that in the very near
11 future, so that the public will have a plain language
12 description of the new oversight process.
13 We will continue our regular public meetings with
14 NEI and industry. We had these meetings on approximately a
15 biweekly basis to discuss ongoing issues in the spirit of
16 cooperation that surrounded the development of the revised
17 reactor oversight process and we will continue those public
18 forum interactions with industry and NEI.
19 Then we would look, much like we did at the end of
20 the pilot program, where we conducted a lessons learned
21 workshop which brought together NRC, industry and public
22 stakeholders, into one forum to discuss the major lessons
23 learned, and describe potential approaches for dealing with
24 those, we would intend to have a similar workshop during
25 initial implementation, probably close to the end, to once
28
1 again revisit the lessons learned that came out of initial
2 implementation and, once again, get all stakeholder input as
3 to where we should go forward.
4 Next slide, please.
5 In addition to working very closely with our
6 external stakeholders, moving into initial implementation
7 will also require continuing the substantial level of
8 interaction that we've had with the NRC staff, both in the
9 regions and in headquarters. We were at the point in our
10 change management process that where the regional staff is
11 educated about the new process and ready to go, albeit with
12 some level of skepticism.
13 In addition to regional initiatives to manage his
14 change, we will conduct a variety of activities to continue
15 to move both our regional and headquarters staff forward in
16 embracing this major process change and these activities are
17 listed on this slide.
18 Next slide, please.
19 I mentioned earlier, and I think there is a
20 general agreement among all stakeholders, that the process
21 is not perfect. Alan and Mike described some of the key
22 near and long-term activities in place to refine the revised
23 reactor oversight process based on the lessons learned from
24 the pilot program.
25 This slide lists some of the more broad activities
29
1 that may proceed over the course of the next several years,
2 in which we would utilize expertise not only from outside
3 the Inspection Program Branch to accomplish some of these
4 initiatives, but also, in some cases, utilize the input from
5 external stakeholders.
6 The first issue there is developing additional
7 performance indicators; for example, a containment
8 performance indicator. This has been described over the
9 past year in research user need memos from the Office of NRR
10 and these are encompassed, in part, by the research effort
11 to develop risk-based performance indicators and we intend
12 to continue our dialogue with the Office of Research on the
13 efficacy of that risk-based performance indicator program
14 and where we might be able to glean some additional
15 performance indicators that would support the revised
16 reactor oversight process.
17 The next item with regard to industry-wide
18 assessment and trend evaluation, once again, we are
19 soliciting the Office of Research's assistance in this
20 regard. What we envision here is having a process that
21 would provide essentially a check-and-balance of the revised
22 reactor oversight process to give us assurance of the
23 capabilities and continued efficiency of that process to
24 maintain safety.
25 This would include utilizing such ongoing programs
30
1 as the accident sequence precursor program, initiating event
2 studies and so on, and we're in the process of working with
3 the Office of Research to better define how we would go
4 about continuing this industry-wide assessment process.
5 The third bullet there, the oversight process
6 self-assessment, is in the spirit of having a continuous
7 process improvement philosophy with the revised reactor
8 oversight process. We would envision that on an annual
9 basis, that we would accumulate insights about the efficacy
10 of the program and come back to the basic framework and
11 implementing documentation for the revised reactor oversight
12 process and review that and make appropriate changes as
13 necessary.
14 Finally, we would see all of those aforementioned
15 items come together in an annual forum, where we would have
16 our annual agency action review meeting and Commission
17 briefing that we would consider to be a three-phased
18 approach.
19 One piece of that briefing would be a discussion
20 of individual plant licensee performance, where we had
21 plants that warranted agency level attention. We would also
22 have a portion of the briefing that would discuss
23 industry-wide performance, assessment and trends, that we
24 would get from our overall assessment of industry-wide
25 performance. And finally, the oversight process performance
31
1 and improvements based on the self-assessment conducted by
2 the staff.
3 The Commission should see future correspondence on
4 these issues over the course of the next six months or so in
5 various SECY papers.
6 Next slide, please.
7 As Bill Travers mentioned at the outset of this
8 presentation, the staff is ready to proceed with trial
9 implementation. As we have just noted, there certainly are
10 issues that we continue to work on and we know that there
11 will be additional refinements that will be necessarily as
12 we go through initial implementation.
13 As a practical matter, in order to meet the
14 direction provided by the Commission in its June 1999 SRM,
15 and as we described in SECY 0049, the staff has poised
16 itself, through substantial training and planning
17 activities, to begin initial implementation in April.
18 Of particular note is the ongoing efforts right
19 now where the regions are performing their annual plant
20 performance reviews and developing inspection plans based on
21 the utilization of the new baseline inspection program.
22 I think this might be a good point maybe to ask
23 Jim to possibly weigh in again with respect to the planning
24 phase that the regions are undergoing for implementing the
25 new process.
32
1 MR. DYER: I think right now, in fact, in Region
2 III, this week, we're undergoing the plant PPR process and
3 outlining the proposed inspections and reviewing the
4 performance indicators and preparing to move forward into
5 it.
6 Last week, we held our final training session for
7 the staff in Region III, which I found to be excellent.
8 One thing I wanted to pass on, a credit to NRR,
9 was the quality of training and the developments made in
10 explaining areas such as the significance determination
11 process have improved substantially from the initial efforts
12 when we were briefed going into the pilot program.
13 So it's really evolved and I think it's helped to
14 prepare the regional staff for implementation.
15 MR. DEAN: Thank you, Jim. The other two items
16 here are discussed in some detail in SECY 0049 and that is
17 the recommendation, as I mentioned earlier, to terminate the
18 SALP process and also to solicit feedback from the
19 Commission on three issues of note that Mike and Alan just
20 described, that being the role of the barrier performance
21 indicators, the issues where we have issues that might be
22 identified that are outside licensing basis, design basis
23 activities, but which still result in some risk insights,
24 and the area of cross-cutting issues, which we are
25 continuing to review.
33
1 These are highlighted in SECY 0049 and we would
2 ask any Commission input if they believe that the staff
3 approach creates any concerns, certainly we would appreciate
4 and ask for feedback in those areas.
5 With that, the staff has concluded its briefing of
6 the Commission on its recommendations regarding the revised
7 reactor oversight process and initial implementation and we
8 sit here ready to respond to your questions.
9 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you very much for a very
10 helpful briefing.
11 I think the point that several of you have
12 mentioned, that what you envision for April is initial
13 implementation, which obviously reflects an expectation that
14 this will be some period of months to get everything fully
15 operating and there will be lots of learning and changing
16 that may well be required as we go forward.
17 Nonetheless, I am rather struck by the
18 presentation, by the number of areas in which you have
19 uncertainty. You indicated that there are performance
20 indicators under development and some needing further
21 assessment. The thresholds are changing. The process for
22 changing performance indicators is only now being worked
23 out. The resources that would be required to undertake the
24 inspection is something that's under continuing evaluation.
25 You have some concerns about the expertise in fire
34
1 protection engineering that may be necessarily to fully
2 implement the program. You have additional SDPs that you
3 need to develop for fire protection, shutdown and
4 containment. You're working on screening tools for external
5 events and for what you're calling special initiators, you
6 have some of the whole SDP process timeliness issues that
7 you need to resolve, and on top of that, you have training.
8 It is an incredibly ambitious agenda to get all of
9 that pulled together and it seems to me a substantial
10 portion of it or some parts of it at least really have to be
11 in place by April.
12 Are you ready?
13 MR. DEAN: Let me take the first shot at that. A
14 number of the areas that you described, Chairman, are things
15 that we have been working on over the course -- these aren't
16 brand new issues. These are things that we've been aware of
17 for quite some time and we've had a number of efforts in
18 place to develop these.
19 For example, I'll point to the significance
20 determination processes associated with containment. That
21 is something that has been worked on over the course of the
22 last nine months or so and earlier this month, we received a
23 product from Brookhaven National Labs that has been working
24 on it that we believe is a very substantial product that
25 will be very useful and we intend to do a feasibility review
35
1 of the containment SDP next week, as a matter of fact, and
2 share that SDP with industry and allow industry to run
3 similar scenarios through that significance determination
4 process.
5 So for example, a lot of those things you
6 described are things that we believe we will have in place.
7 One of the purposes of the pilot program was, of
8 course, to shake out what I would consider to be major
9 issues, major flaws or potential flaws with the process. We
10 were successful in doing that, but we also identified areas
11 where we need to continue to refine and by expanding the
12 sample set, as you will, from nine sites to the 68 sites
13 across the country, will certainly engender a lot more
14 information and will allow the staff to more fully, I think,
15 flesh out or fully define all the areas that need to be to
16 make this process a solid process going forward.
17 We think, based on what we got from the pilot
18 program, that we have developed those key lessons learned
19 and we've fixed those or they will be fixed in the very near
20 term. But certainly there is a clear recognition that we're
21 going to learn additional information, which is why the
22 whole concept of initial implementation is what it is. It's
23 an extension, it's the next natural step from the pilot
24 program, to now let's get all plants under the same umbrella
25 of oversight, so we can fully explore and learn how this
36
1 program is going to work with all sites under that same
2 program and process.
3 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: So you really view this
4 exercise as one that's an extension of the pilot effort and
5 that there's going to be changes that will be undertaken,
6 will have to be undertaken over the months of going forward.
7 MR. DEAN: Correct.
8 MR. COLLINS: Chairman, I would just like to
9 respond also to that, because it's going to be me and my
10 counterparts in the regions that are going to go forward
11 with implementing this. I think the pilot program results
12 showed us we're not all the way there, but we would prefer
13 to implement and recognize that we have these changes coming
14 than to continue two processes with a few pilot plants and
15 try to refine everything to be completely done.
16 I think the activities and the changes recently
17 made to the program to accommodate some of our concerns and
18 these holes that are in the program are acceptable for
19 ensuring that we can implement the program.
20 So I'm comfortable with it.
21 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: One of the concerns that's been
22 expressed about the program is a fear that we will not get
23 advanced enough notice of declining safety performance and,
24 therefore, will not have the capacity to step in in a timely
25 fashion.
37
1 Ms. Lipoti, who is on the second panel, has
2 characterized the indicators, for example, as lagging
3 indicators, as she will speak to us about when she gets
4 here.
5 Is that a fair evaluation of the situation or are
6 you comfortable that you're going to be able to get on top
7 of the situations in a timely fashion before things have
8 deteriorated significantly?
9 MR. DYER: Yes. I believe that that concern still
10 exists. I believe the anxiety level from when originally
11 reported in the GAO report and more recently in our internal
12 surveys has been reduced because of the training and some of
13 the experience that we have and some of the recent changes
14 that allow cross-cutting issues to be addressed in
15 inspection reports and commented on in the PPR letters.
16 I think with respect to the performance
17 indicators, a lot of the questions were taken considering
18 the performance indicators alone and considering the
19 inspection program alone, would they be able, in and of
20 themselves, to identify this declining trend.
21 I think one of the things we've been working with,
22 at least in Region III and the other regions, is that it's a
23 package deal. So we've still got a fairly robust inspection
24 program that's accompanying these performance indicators.
25 My discussions with some of the inspectors last
38
1 week during the training is they're concern about turning
2 things over to the licensees' corrective action program once
3 they've identified them; in other words, we can't pursue
4 resolution to our schedule, that we have to rely on the
5 licensees' corrective action program. That still causes us
6 some concerns about whether or not their programs are going
7 to be robust.
8 But I believe we can still engage them in the
9 current climate, it will be acceptable.
10 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Won't you inspect their program
11 to assure yourself that it's adequate?
12 MR. DYER: Yes, sir. We'll have a problem
13 identification and resolution inspection on an annual basis.
14 That's a rather significant program review. The other thing
15 we will do is the residents and the ongoing inspections, as
16 they go month to month, will -- a part of their review of
17 the surveillance program or the maintenance program also
18 will include the effectiveness of corrective actions.
19 But in the past, where an inspector would identify
20 an issue, then it would become the inspector's issue and it
21 would drive through with the licensee. Now, it's once they
22 put it in their corrective action program, we let their
23 corrective action program -- and there is some reluctance
24 and skepticism on that, on the ability of that to do, to be
25 successful.
39
1 DR. TRAVERS: Our experience in addressing
2 performance issues has been pretty minimal, though, in the
3 course of this pilot. We really have had no significant
4 experience with the need to identify, in a timely way,
5 declining performance.
6 We think -- we hope that stays true for all plants
7 at all times. Nevertheless, a healthy program has to be one
8 that demonstrates its effectiveness for declining
9 performance, as well as good performance.
10 This is not a program and we're certainly not
11 selling it as one that recognizes the increased level of
12 performance on the part of the industry. Certainly, that's
13 a fact, but we have to be able to demonstrate that what we
14 have in place is a program that will, in fact, recognize
15 declining performance in a timely way.
16 We think we've got that. We think, in large
17 measure, the cross-cutting issues and the insights
18 associated with the inspection program are the key to that,
19 because of, as you point out, rightfully, the lagging nature
20 of some of the performance indicators and some of the
21 inspection findings, as well.
22 Many of the cross-cutting issues, in my mind, and
23 the insights that we glean from those are going to be key to
24 the roll-up thinking that we do on identifying declining
25 performance.
40
1 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Mr. Dyer, you had mentioned the
2 skepticism of the staff and I think one of the comments had
3 been also the skepticism of the staff resonates with the GAO
4 evaluation.
5 MR. DYER: Yes, sir.
6 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: What is your sense of the
7 current attitude among inspection staff of this program?
8 Has the acceptance rate grown as people have learned more
9 about it? Are people more comfortable with it. What is
10 your sense? I realize you don't have a survey, but what is
11 your sense of the current impressions of this activity, from
12 the inspector's point of view?
13 MR. DYER: In particular, I talked to a lot of the
14 Region III staff about that very subject and I believe it is
15 improving, the acceptance is improving. I think if you go
16 back to the GAO, the timing of the GAO report, which is
17 about March of last year, and the reason it's improving, I
18 think, is, one, the training and the experience with the
19 pilot program, and the third thing is improved industry
20 performance.
21 Particularly in Region III, it was about a year
22 ago at the time of the survey, when I was just getting to
23 Region III, and we had between a third and a half of our
24 plants on the problem plant list, multiple 0350 oversight
25 panels.
41
1 So if you're talking about improved performance
2 over the past ten years, particularly in Region III, I don't
3 think that was a saleable feature at the time a year ago.
4 Since that time, I think the industry performance
5 in Region III has improved and that helps alleviate some of
6 the staff's concerns, although they're still there because
7 we're not that far away from some poor performance, as well
8 as, again, the training and the experience that this program
9 can identify issues.
10 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: There is a sort of a hook in
11 your answer, in that there has been improved performance,
12 but it's under the -- for the most part, under the former
13 oversight program. I think the question has been that the
14 staff, the inspectors have been comfortable with that
15 program, it's what they know, and they're expressing some
16 concern as to whether they would be able to have achieved
17 the same improvement with the new program.
18 And I was trying to get at the point of whether
19 you think that that concern of the inspectors has been
20 alleviated. You mentioned the training has been helping.
21 MR. DYER: It has been reduced. It hasn't gone
22 away. And I would be concerned if they weren't skeptical
23 and weren't concerned about going to a new program and were
24 they able to identify problems.
25 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Dicus.
42
1 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 First of all, on slide three, on these milestones, where you
3 suggest that in June of 2001, you will report on the revised
4 reactor oversight program, its initial implementation. I'm
5 assuming that is a report. You're not going to come back
6 and say -- with a recommendation we continue it or may you
7 came back with a recommendation to not continue it, or am I
8 asking you to look into a crystal ball?
9 MR. COLLINS: I think the obligation we have to
10 the Commission, at the Commission's direction, is to target
11 full implementation as opposed to pilot or initial
12 implementation at that date.
13 The staff believes that a report back of an
14 appropriate type to the Commission would be useful to
15 address these areas, as well as to also be sure there is a
16 clear understanding of the areas that Bill mentioned as far
17 as the periodic reviews and the Commission's desired role in
18 the annual meeting.
19 It can take whatever form the Commission desires.
20 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Thank you. Slide seven. My
21 question goes somewhat to what we've all dealt with, the
22 performance indicators, are they where they should be, are
23 they not where they should be, and I'll have a couple more
24 questions about that.
25 But particularly the issue of reevaluating the
43
1 thresholds as we go down the road and you -- they're based
2 upon some historical information and some of our own feeling
3 that what we have learned from past performance.
4 Do you qualify them beyond that or is this in the
5 going forward part of our program?
6 MR. DEAN: In terms of -- I'm not sure if I fully
7 understand. Are you talking about in terms of we continue
8 to assess and analyze the performance indicators on an
9 ongoing basis for efficacy?
10 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Right. And do you qualify it
11 beyond that? Do you have some other concern that you have
12 that you haven't expressed to us?
13 MR. MADISON: I think the performance indicator
14 program is an -- we're always trying to refine that and
15 we're always looking for a better performance indicator, a
16 better guidance, trying to refine the guidance, collecting
17 feedback so that we can get better guidance out, that we can
18 -- as I mentioned earlier, we're looking at performance
19 indicators to replace the barrier performance indicators.
20 We're looking for performance indicators that may
21 not have unintended consequence concerns regarding scrams,
22 counting manual scrams, for instance.
23 So we're trying to refine it. It's not that we
24 have a major concern with the existing performance
25 indicators, as they are.
44
1 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
2 MR. COLLINS: Commissioner, I think you asked a
3 very good question. The challenge to the industry and to
4 the NRC for quite a period of time has been what to focus on
5 as far as indicators of industry performance and are they
6 leading or are they lagging.
7 There was a time, I believe, when we were using
8 indicators that were developed by NRC, the old office of
9 AEOD had that role. At the same time, we were using SALP
10 senior management meeting inspection report messages. There
11 were INPO indicators, there were WANO indicators.
12 Part of the goal with this program is to try to
13 stabilize our process so that it's predictable. It can be
14 improved, but it still needs to be predictable. So there
15 are two messages here. One is that using the cornerstones,
16 and indicators are the cornerstones themselves, we'll
17 continue to search for a refined indicator that's meaningful
18 and agreed upon and then we'll implement it in a way that
19 doesn't create instability in the process.
20 That's the real message here. The other is that
21 we want to try to collect information and the Office of
22 Research is working with the industry to do this, to
23 understand better, perhaps even at a component level, how
24 the plants are performing, so that we can look at overall
25 trends below that of the oversight process, and, therefore,
45
1 be more far-reaching as far as indicators are concerned.
2 So that process will continue. We won't do it in
3 isolation. We're going to have to do it with stakeholder
4 and industry input. So there is a balance here with the
5 Chairman's concern over the work that's in front of us and
6 completing that work and implementing it in a way that
7 doesn't create these discontinuities or instabilities in the
8 process.
9 The inspectors are the ones who are primarily
10 affected by this. They have to know what to focus on and we
11 have to train them in a way they feel confident that they
12 can discharge their duties in a meaningful way and they have
13 to have a forum by which they can articulate those concerns
14 and be heard.
15 I think if we stick to those mandates, then we'll
16 be fine.
17 MR. DEAN: Sam, if I could add one other thing,
18 Commissioner Dicus, is that with respect to changing
19 thresholds, we don't intend to put in place a process by
20 which we're evaluating all the thresholds on an annual basis
21 and continuing to change them in response to industry
22 performance.
23 We want to establish a stable set of performance
24 indicators and if all of industry gets below those
25 thresholds, then that's great. Okay. Now, that may spur us
46
1 to look at other areas to look at that a suitable
2 performance indicator would be recognized, but we don't
3 intend to be in a situation where we continue to ratchet
4 industry to continue to improve by changing the thresholds.
5 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Good response, which leads me
6 into my next question, which happens to be on slide nine.
7 First of all, I think we all recognize this is a work in
8 progress. We've said that repeatedly when we met with the
9 ACRS last week, et cetera. So we recognize that.
10 I also want to congratulate the staff on what I
11 think was a very succinct and carefully done briefing, very,
12 very well. I think you rehearsed it. It was very good.
13 I have a couple of questions on slide nine, which
14 is good. I think it's a good idea, ask your own questions.
15 I think this would go to Mr. Johnson. You
16 indicated that consideration of external events has not been
17 reflected in the SDPs, but needs to be incorporated. Did I
18 hear that correctly?
19 MR. JOHNSON: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. And the other thing,
21 you know, obviously, I'm from the south and I not only speak
22 a little slower, but I listen a little slower. You
23 indicated that there were some non-reactor safety SDPs. I
24 got emergency preparedness, but I didn't get the other two.
25 MR. JOHNSON: Containment -- I'm sorry. Emergency
47
1 preparedness, safeguards, and radiological protection.
2 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. I thought it was the
3 rad health that I was wanting to take a look at. And you're
4 working on those. Do you think you might incorporate those
5 or you think this is one of the things you're going to have
6 to deal with?
7 MR. JOHNSON: We actually have done a bunch of
8 work on those. We were able to get to a point where we
9 could exercise them during the pilot program. We've learned
10 lessons from them and we're at a good spot on all of those
11 SDPs. So it should be ready to go.
12 MR. DEAN: They're all in place and have been
13 tested out and we've run certain scenarios through them and
14 we've refined them based on lessons learned. So we feel
15 we're in pretty good shape on those SDPs to go forward.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: All right. Cross-cutting
17 issues. It's not so much -- maybe slide ten and slide 12,
18 not so much the slide, as I'd just like to ask the question,
19 because this came up as a question I asked at the ACRS
20 briefing.
21 The importance of the cross-cutting issues and I
22 know even the staff, our internal staff has expressed some
23 concern, have we really gotten our hands around the
24 cross-cutting issues. In response to one of the Chairman's
25 questions, you indicated that one of the problems we may
48
1 have, and Dr. Lipoti will bring this up, on the
2 lagging/leading performance indicators, how important
3 cross-cutting may be to get a handle around these things.
4 Do you want to give me a little more feedback?
5 Have we identified what we think are all the cross-cutting
6 issues? And I may ask Dr. Lipoti to address that question,
7 as well, so Ill give her a heads-up for that.
8 But do you feel that we're there or we're still --
9 is that going to be a part of this learning process?
10 MR. JOHNSON: I'll talk to that just a little bit.
11 One of the things that we did on the external lessons
12 learned workshop was talk about that very issue, whether or
13 not we've captured what people believe are, in general, the
14 cross-cutting issues, and there was a good sense among all
15 of the stakeholders, the internal stakeholders and the
16 external stakeholders, that in general, the cross-cutting
17 issues that we were talking about, problem identification
18 and resolution, human performance and safety conscious work
19 environment, those do, in fact, capture what it is most
20 folks are concerned with with respect to cross-cutting
21 issues.
22 I tried to illustrate in my prepared words that
23 there really were two camps and there wasn't just an NRC
24 camp and an external stakeholder camp. There were mixed
25 folks from among those camps in terms of their perspective
49
1 on how we ought to treat cross-cutting issues, and it really
2 did come down to, in some people's views, you really do need
3 to have a good early indication of cross-cutting issues as
4 an indicator of where performance has gone bad.
5 Again, from the other perspective, it's hard to
6 know. Someone said, one of the Region I inspectors said we
7 predicted 21 of the last watch list plants. It's tough to
8 know if the issue that you find as a cross-cutting issue is,
9 in fact, going to end up being, for that plant, a predictor
10 of performance, and we tend to be conservative.
11 So we want to make sure that we've got the right
12 cross-cutting issues and we've got thresholds set
13 appropriately and we have an avenue to handle those
14 cross-cutting issues when they arise, so that we can take
15 the appropriate response.
16 MR. DEAN: And I think to add on to what Mike
17 says, I think that the baseline inspection program
18 recognizes the degree of import and the degree of comfort, I
19 think, as to how much we inspect the various cross-cutting
20 issues.
21 There's a substantial amount of effort looking at
22 problem identification and resolution activities which we
23 believe to be a very important process.
24 One of the things that this program clearly does
25 is it -- there is a distinct burden shift from the NRC to
50
1 the licensee in terms of pursuing and resolving issues and
2 the issue of do we have the cross-cutting issues captured
3 right, are we looking at them through the inspection program
4 in enough depth and frequency is a good question and I tell
5 a lot of our regional staff, when I'm asked this question,
6 that in some respects, time will tell.
7 We think we've established a good framework. We
8 think we've got it captured the right way, but it may take
9 some time before we get a situation where we see a
10 substantial cross-cutting issue result in PIs crossing
11 thresholds and risk significant inspection findings.
12 So this is going to be one of the things that
13 we're going to have to continue to do an ongoing assessment
14 and evaluation of.
15 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. And the local
16 skepticism, just -- and we all understand we do have that
17 and we have various areas, but you have a comfort level, as
18 the Regional Administrators are your counterparts, together
19 with Sam, that we have the program in place to address this.
20 MR. DYER: Yes, ma'am.
21 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. And then one --
22 MR. COLLINS: If I can comment on that,
23 Commissioner Dicus.
24 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay.
25 MR. COLLINS: I think our roles are compatible,
51
1 but perhaps separable. The Program Office's role is to
2 define the program and provide the resources and this good
3 will and access for the region to go forward and implement
4 the program.
5 This is where you get into the stability issue and
6 the change issue. We've been working with the regions to
7 identify the appropriate budget. We have benchmarked that
8 and met with each region. We know what qualifications and
9 we anticipate what qualifications it will take to do the
10 inspections.
11 We know we have an interim period where we have to
12 supplement three out of the four regions at least in the
13 area of fire protection and engineering and we have
14 contractors to do that. That's an identified issue, that's
15 a transitional issue.
16 Jim's challenge is to take the tools that we
17 provide for Jim and communicate back to the program office
18 and to the arena manager, Frank Miraglia, Jim is comfortable
19 that the program achieves the goals of the agency and those
20 goals are identified in the SECY paper.
21 We anticipate that there will be skepticism and if
22 I was an inspector, which I used to be, I would anticipate
23 that that's true. These issues are interrelated, the issue
24 of being able to communicate findings, be able to
25 acknowledge the subjective inspector instincts, to be able
52
1 to write it down in an inspection report, the ability to
2 follow your nose, if you will, as an inspector, the ability
3 to communicate on cross-cutting issues are all interrelated
4 to the overall goal of ensuring that this program is
5 predictable to identify declining trends.
6 I think we can take those in series with the
7 changes we have already manifested and provide a viable
8 process. It needs to be proofed and then we need to get the
9 feedback from Jim's staff and his counterparts.
10 COMMISSIONER DICUS: That will be very valuable.
11 I'm about to take up more -- I have taken up more than my
12 fair share of the time, but one more question, Mr. Chairman.
13 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Please.
14 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Thank you. Is the industry
15 ready?
16 MR. COLLINS: I always hesitate to speak for the
17 industry.
18 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: As you should.
19 COMMISSIONER DICUS: In your opinion, is the
20 industry ready?
21 MR. COLLINS: The industry has met their
22 milestones that have been put forth by the tasking team in
23 order to provide for this process to go forward. That
24 includes submitting the performance indicators. That
25 includes providing the expertise and the resources necessary
53
1 to support the program, both in a defining way and in
2 producing documents.
3 I think Mr. Beedle probably will be able to speak
4 for NEI.
5 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Yes. Mr. Beedle, you can
6 expect the same question. You've got a heads-up.
7 DR. TRAVERS: But in fairness to what we have been
8 doing, we have been asking that question in just about every
9 forum we've had the opportunity to ask it, and the answer is
10 yes.
11 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Actually, I may ask the same
12 question of Mr. Lochbaum, so he can get prepared for it, as
13 well. All right. And if we have areas of local skepticism
14 in the industry, are we prepared to recognize that?
15 MR. COLLINS: I think we have recognized that and
16 I think the answer is yes, there are areas and those areas
17 are fairly well identified. I think some of the performance
18 indicators could have potential unintended consequences.
19 Will an operator hesitate to scram a plant manually if he
20 knows that's being counted as an initiating event? Will
21 there be the hesitation to embark on immediate corrective
22 maintenance if you can wait 72 hours and call it preventive
23 maintenance?
24 There are subtleties like that in the program that
25 I think we have to evaluate as we go forward, receive the
54
1 industry input and be sure the program is getting us to
2 where we want to go, without these unintended influences, or
3 ensure that training and education is the key to that.
4 DR. TRAVERS: Another -- if I can just add to
5 that, for a moment. Another issue that we've heard from the
6 industry that's been on their minds is a concern as to
7 whether or not this sort of program or this program is going
8 to result in the communication of the sorts of insights that
9 they are used to getting from NRC, from the resident
10 inspector, from the region-based inspectors, from the branch
11 chief, all the way up to the regional administrator.
12 And much of the dialogue we've had in many of our
13 workshops has been focused on discussing that issue and why
14 we believe those sorts of insights, in fact, will still be
15 communicated in this new process.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Diaz.
18 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd
19 like to first make a short statement. I always try to say
20 whether I'm making a statement or a question, although
21 you're always wondering which one I'm making.
22 I really have no problem with the program as it's
23 being proposed. I think it is as good as it can be today.
24 That frames my impressions to it.
25 Having said that, I do have a small concern, the
55
1 fact that some of the last parts of the interactions and
2 questions and answers with Commissioner Dicus boiled down to
3 this single issue that I'm going to try to address, and that
4 single issue, just not to keep you waiting, is the value of
5 self-assessment and the corrective action program.
6 Now, let me just start with putting some tricky
7 questions in here. Mr. Dyer, if you are a power plant and
8 you're the senior resident inspector and you're day to day
9 to day doing things and you have to deal with what is
10 happening in the power plant, which of the three
11 cross-cutting issues comes every day into your life? Is it
12 the human performance, is it the safety conscious work
13 environment, or is it the corrective actin program?
14 MR. DYER: Actually, all three would come in every
15 day probably; human performance on the day-to-day conduct of
16 operations, safety conscious work environment in the nature
17 of the kinds of problems that are being raised, minor action
18 with the staff -- I mean, the licensee staff, and certainly
19 the corrective action program just in the day-to-day review
20 of the condition reports and things that are identified, the
21 interface with what's being fixed.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So you deal with them on an
23 equal basis as far as priorities.
24 MR. DYER: As far as priorities go, I think the
25 corrective action program is -- of the cross-cutting issues
56
1 -- that's the most important.
2 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. All right. I tend to
3 agree with you. This is a statement now. When this program
4 was started, fundamentally it was started as a data
5 gathering and processing program that essentially was going
6 to go horizontal across the issues that occurred in a power
7 plant every day and the very first thing that was happening
8 was that this transparent, open data processing program was
9 going to enhance our ability to know what was happening at
10 the power plant.
11 That was really the fundamental thing, what is
12 happening, not only us, but everybody. It was to be an
13 open, horizontal program without multiple levels. And to
14 me, that always ended up as a very robust corrective action
15 program.
16 Whatever you do with any of the things, it has to
17 end up in the corrective action program. The thing that we
18 change is that the corrective action program, like you well
19 said, there was, let's say, a transfer of responsibility,
20 somewhat a transfer of responsibility, not a complete
21 transfer of responsibility, between us and the licensee, in
22 which they would actually take more responsibility of what
23 goes into the corrective action program, how they get
24 dispositioned.
25 But we always have the capability to go into. It
57
1 is always, every day, the corrective action program is, to
2 me, more than a cross-cutting issue. It's an every day
3 cross-cutting issue and it's an every instant cross-cutting
4 issue. It's the one that is the beginning and is the end of
5 everything that we try to do in a power plant.
6 And if I have a concern, it's how we have packaged
7 this oversight program, and my concern was clearly
8 highlighted last week when the ACRS, which is an expert
9 body, says the oversight program consists of two things, and
10 those two things are the performance indicators and the
11 baseline inspections.
12 I take objection to that, because I think that's
13 the problem that you're hearing from inspectors and I have
14 been hearing. The problem is that there is a robust
15 underlying structure to the performance indicators and to
16 the baseline programs and that very robust structure is a
17 strong self-assessment, corrective action program, and that
18 is at the very front.
19 To me, this process has three components. The
20 first one and foremost is a data processing ending in a very
21 strong corrective action program, followed by the
22 performance indicators and the baseline and the corrective
23 action program should cross-cut into the performance
24 indicators and vice versa. They should all go back.
25 I think we are really not expressing the
58
1 importance of the first phase and the last phase of the
2 program, which is a corrective action program underlies
3 everything that we do.
4 And by the way, you know, I hate to admit that
5 INPO can make a shorter statement than I can, but I'm going
6 to read you from INPO today, this is probably a first right
7 now. INPO's reviews today, self-assessment corrective
8 action, and let me quote, Mr. Chairman.
9 It says, "Self-assessment and corrective action
10 programs are vehicles for identifying and successfully
11 implementing change." I agree. As such, these programs are
12 important contributors to safe and reliable plant operation.
13 They are also an essential element, and I fully agree with
14 this, in the revised reactor oversight process being put in
15 place by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
16 My statement is that I think that we're doing the
17 right things. I think we're in the right place. But I
18 believe that we cannot put the emphasis only on the fact
19 that we have very new models with performance indicators and
20 baseline inspection, that there is a very new powerful, open
21 self-assessment and corrective action program that will make
22 our oversight better.
23 In fact, I will go on the limb and say if that's
24 all we do, if that's the only thing that we do, we'll be
25 better off than we were before.
59
1 Therefore, I'd like to get some comments back on
2 the relative importance of our inspectors and the industry
3 to value the new self-assessment and corrective action
4 program as a major cross-cutting issue that will go into the
5 performance indicators.
6 My drive, you know, baseline inspections will go
7 back and reinforce what we're doing. That was a statement,
8 Mr. Chairman.
9 MR. DEAN: I have a response, Commissioner Diaz.
10 I have to say that in terms of the importance of having a
11 strong, robust self-assessment and corrective action program
12 really is an underlying concept with this revised reactor
13 oversight process and we have been, I think, fairly
14 aggressive in publicizing that issue with our stakeholders
15 and telling licensees that this is a key element of this --
16 we called it a responsibility transfer, but it really has a
17 direct implication of the capability of them to have that
18 appropriate self-assessment and corrective action program
19 and it's recognized.
20 Mike talked about the whole issue surrounding
21 cross-cutting issues and the fact that there's two camps.
22 Embedded into our process is that recognition that if you do
23 not have a robust self-assessment and corrective action
24 program, then we would expect to see, over time, PIs
25 crossing thresholds. We would expect to see
60
1 risk-significant inspection findings emanating from our
2 baseline inspection program, and those are the types of
3 things that we have been promoting on an ongoing basis.
4 There is not a total buying on that concept yet
5 and that's why we had a discussion earlier about there is
6 still some skepticism about that as being an integrated part
7 of this oversight process.
8 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: But wouldn't a well analyzed
9 corrective action program be the precursor to declining
10 performance?
11 MR. DEAN: I think that you could certainly look
12 at the corrective action program as being a font of
13 potential information that would give you leading
14 information, and that's, I think, what we have embedded in
15 the program, the whole concept of having the risk-informed
16 thresholds that we have, that would allow us to integrate or
17 to provide a greater regulatory response as licensees cross
18 performance thresholds.
19 I think there is a recognition of that, that there
20 is a band of performance where what we call the licensee
21 response band, that a licensee is responsible for their own
22 issues within that band, and it's only when we start seeing
23 things that emanate, that cross thresholds do we have to
24 engage at a level beyond the baseline inspection program,
25 and that's a defined philosophy intended of the oversight
61
1 process.
2 MR. MADISON: I'd like to add to that. We also --
3 I'm sorry, Sam. We have recognized this in the baseline
4 inspection program. Ten to 15 percent of all inspection
5 activity is focused on the corrective action program,
6 problem identification and resolution.
7 We have a major inspection, annual inspection at
8 every site focused on a problem identification and
9 resolution program. We've begun to establish an internal
10 and we'll eventually get both an internal and external
11 working group asking the question what more -- what
12 different areas do we need to look at in the problem
13 identification and resolution program, what are the issues,
14 what are the standards and the criteria we need to judge
15 good programs on, and INPO has begun that work in developing
16 their principals document, which we're going to incorporate
17 into that effort.
18 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner McGaffigan.
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Let me start by
20 complimenting the staff. I think given all the boundary
21 conditions under which you work, you've done a tremendous
22 job to this point. I don't know, I wasn't around and I
23 wasn't paying attention to the NRC in the mid '80s or early
24 '80s when SALP was put into place, but I can't imagine that
25 when we put that process into place, we went through
62
1 anything like the process we've gone through this time,
2 interacting with stakeholders, and I firmly am of the
3 conclusion that this is better than SALP, which isn't much
4 of a standard, as David Lochbaum would say.
5 Let me ask a process question to start. Given all
6 of the issues that the Chairman talked about that are going
7 to have to continue to be worked, and I'm going to ask some
8 questions about them.
9 Is there an advantage in continuing the FACA
10 committee, as well as the other activities you have
11 underway? There's a lot of -- on one of the slides, and I
12 won't try to find it, there's a lot of talk about ongoing
13 interactions with the industry, but it seems to me that
14 there was some real advantage in the FACA process during the
15 pilot process and in some sense, we're now piloting with 103
16 plants, or 101 until Cook catches up.
17 And so what is your answer on that?
18 MR. DEAN: The goal of the pilot program
19 evaluation panel, the FACA committee, was, I think, very
20 valuable in the fact that it brought together a wide variety
21 of stakeholders and, matter of fact, probably the pertinent
22 spectrum of stakeholders, to look at the oversight process
23 and come to some consensus about what did all the
24 information that came out of the pilot program tell us about
25 readiness to go forward, and I know that Frank Gillespie
63
1 will talk to you later today about the efforts of the PPEP,
2 the pilot program evaluation panel.
3 We've discussed, as we go into initial
4 implementation, the potential for having a similar endeavor
5 and I think our current thinking right now is that probably
6 towards the latter half of the first year of initial
7 implementation, after we've had a couple quarters of getting
8 information out and we can develop at least some sort of
9 trends or patterns about the new -- about implementing this
10 at all 103 plants, is that it would probably be a good time
11 to revisit having such a body come together and provide an
12 independent assessment, as you will, of what are the results
13 telling us about the efficacy of the oversight process.
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: My reaction to that is,
15 partly, that I would think that having them involved the
16 entire way through the process, as you're learning, not just
17 so that they -- you just don't pull them back at the end and
18 get another report card, it might be better to keep them --
19 PPEP would become IIEP, but we'd have to think of a better
20 acronym, initial implementation evaluation plan.
21 But it strikes me, just off the top of my head,
22 that given all these issues that are going to be worked and
23 you have various timeframes to work them, some in April,
24 some in May, some in June, some in July, and they're going
25 to worked all the way through, they won't be working off of
64
1 data, but they can be working off of the various issues.
2 So that's just a reaction.
3 The significance determination process, when we
4 started this effort, I thought there was only one, so
5 forgive me, but we now have multiple significance
6 determination processes. One issue is going to be do they
7 -- and I remember the conversation we had about there would
8 be 100 things, 100 inspection findings a year, you guys may
9 want to back out of this, but I think it's on the record,
10 you'd have about 100 a year that would truly enter the SDP
11 process and about ten big ones would pop out and move an
12 indicator from green to white or yellow or red.
13 I don't know what the numbers are today, but if
14 you have multiple processes, you have an issue of
15 consistency across the processes, and how is that being
16 handled?
17 MR. MADISON: That was one of the major questions
18 and concerns raised at the lessons learned meeting, that and
19 do we have the same input, were the inputs equal going into
20 the significance determination process, and we did an awful
21 lot of looking at each of these significance determination
22 processes, both the reactor and the non-reactor, and
23 comparing findings, level of significance, to assure
24 ourselves that we -- a red finding in safeguards had the
25 same level of weight as a red finding in a reactor SDP.
65
1 We do feel that there is consistency across those.
2 MR. DEAN: And in fact, I would add to Alan, I
3 think that in the effort to achieve consistency in our
4 process, the significance determination processes are
5 perhaps the greatest advance that we have made in developing
6 the revised reactor oversight process, to try and assure
7 consistency, because what it does is it forces inspectors to
8 take their findings and then lay down what are the
9 assumptions that they're making with respect to that
10 finding, so that the licensee, his management, his or her
11 peers, can look at those assumptions and judge the risk
12 characterization of that inspection finding with those
13 assumptions in front of him.
14 So it lays out the playing field, as you will, for
15 discussing the characterization of the issue.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Now, the way the SDP
17 process works, there are a lot of findings out there, many
18 of them are going to be green findings. But what a resident
19 needs is a mechanism for quickly screening out the green
20 from the potential hundred or the ten.
21 My understanding is that you're trying to have
22 screening tools for the residents. They will probably
23 initially test those tools a lot, so that's the learning
24 curve you talked about.
25 Once you enter into the hundred space, I'm using
66
1 the number you guys gave, I'm begging for you guys to
2 correct me, but once you enter the hundred space, it really
3 becomes the senior reactor analyst or somebody who is more
4 into heavy lifting on PRAs that is going to work that with
5 the licensee.
6 Is that correct?
7 MR. MADISON: Initially, there's going to be an
8 awful lot of involvement from the SRAs, we think, but we're
9 also trying to focus attention on the training and educating
10 the resident and senior resident inspectors so that they can
11 begin that conversation early.
12 We expect during the phase two that that will be
13 the inspector talking to the licensee to gather that
14 information, to further refine that at the latter part of
15 the phase two and into the phase three review, yes. The
16 senior risk analyst will probably be involved in that.
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But if you're going to
18 get timeliness, isn't it important that things get kicked
19 into the -- you talked about -- and Jill will talk later,
20 Dr. Lipoti, about this being a long negotiation, you have to
21 improve timeliness, quicker, it gets kicked out of the
22 resident's world into the detailed process of trying to
23 decide whether this is a truly, truly significant finding
24 that's going to move an indicator, is the better.
25 So how do you make that -- if I'm a resident, I'm
67
1 a resident here and I'm trying to screen this, I think it
2 may be one of the hundred, so I'm going to pass it on. Do
3 you want him to err in the direction of documenting and
4 getting quickly onto the more detailed process, that he's
5 probably not going to do, or do you want him to err on the
6 side of not passing things on? Where is the err going to be
7 in the initial implementation?
8 MR. JOHNSON: Let me try to talk to that.
9 Initially, the resident will find an issue. They'll apply
10 that every early screening that you talked about. It takes
11 very little time to do that. If they got at the issue as
12 one of the ones that pass through, I'm not sure the hundred
13 is a right number, but it's one of the ones that you pass
14 through.
15 In addition, there is a phase two part that I
16 didn't talk about in the SDP that is the actual
17 plant-specific worksheet that, as Alan indicated, we really
18 want the resident to be able to apply that phase two
19 screening, and we think you can do that, you can work on
20 that during the inspection, the regular interval of the
21 inspection, and, in fact, we really want to be able to get
22 to a point where, at the end of the inspection, that period,
23 and the report that gets issued, we can talk about a finding
24 that is a potentially risk significant finding, so we can
25 right away begin to engage the licensee in terms of their
68
1 understanding of the significance of the issue.
2 So the process that we're setting up really does
3 try to drive towards getting sort of a timely presentation
4 of our concerns that are potentially risk significant,
5 again, gone through that initial screening, gone into that
6 second screening and had the SRA look at it, had us in
7 headquarters take a look at it, and then be on the docket so
8 that there can be response.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So that's part of --
10 I'll ask Jim Dyer. I'm listening to this, I can understand
11 some of the trepidation in the resident core, because
12 there's a lot that we're asking them to do that they haven't
13 had to do in the past, have they? I understand the initial
14 screening, but during this inspection, they're going to be
15 simultaneously talking to the senior reactor analyst,
16 filling out some of the flesh on whether this is a
17 significant risk.
18 MR. DYER: I think it will be initially,
19 Commissioner, but I think the true value of the SDP process
20 lies in the phase two worksheets and those are still being
21 validated for the plant-specific characteristics, and that
22 is where I see, as a result of the training I had last week,
23 as really the link to save our SRAs from being completely
24 overrun with consultant activities to the resident
25 inspectors for everything that comes up, a risk-informing
69
1 training tool for the resident inspectors and the
2 inspectors.
3 This phase two worksheet, I was very favorably
4 impressed with the logic breakdown that it took you through,
5 that an inspector or a branch chief could follow through
6 based on their site specific knowledge and come to a
7 decision as to whether or not the finding or the event
8 needed to pass on to phase three of the SDP.
9 MR. JOHNSON: And if I could add on to that. The
10 value, I've said this a number of times, the value of the
11 SDP is in the process as much as it is in the result, and
12 that's what Jim is talking about.
13 We could perhaps build a computer system where you
14 could enter the finding and have it kick out a color at the
15 back end, but the value is in the exercise that the
16 inspector goes through and using that, applying that phase
17 two worksheet to see what the significance of the issue is.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Let me ask -- I have
19 lots of questions. I'll ask one more. Dr. Lipoti, in her
20 prepared testimony, says something that I think isn't true
21 and you've already addressed, but I'll just -- the new
22 program is prescriptive in preventing NRC inspectors from
23 getting involved in non-safety-significant issues.
24 You've already said that you have -- I think there
25 was some misimpression early on that residents were -- there
70
1 were some exit meetings that lasted ten seconds or whatever,
2 because they didn't find anything.
3 That's all changed, right? You've made clear to
4 the resident core that -- I don't know what a
5 non-safety-significant issue is, but if it's no level four,
6 which I think we defined as non-safety-significant, it goes
7 into the CAP, it goes into the corrective action program and
8 gets dealt with by the licensee, but it's still something
9 they should talk about.
10 Furthermore, they can even talk about, as you said
11 earlier, cross-cutting issues, where they have something in
12 the pit of their stomach telling them that there's something
13 wrong or whatever.
14 So this is a problem that has been fixed, hasn't
15 it?
16 MR. DEAN: We've made adjustments to the process
17 to try and address those concerns. You're correct,
18 Commissioner, in that early in the process, there were some
19 situations where residents felt they had to restrict their
20 ability to communicate with the licensee and we were made
21 aware of those early and got the expectation out there that
22 we're not trying to do anything to truncate their
23 communication.
24 What we're trying to do is make sure that our
25 inspection reports capture issues at the appropriate
71
1 threshold.
2 I do want to add one other thing in talking about
3 -- to try and help you with the numbers, at least give you
4 an update on the number of issues, based on the pilot
5 program. We had -- and these are approximations. We had
6 about 100 or so green issues that were identified during the
7 pilot process and about three white issues that emerged or
8 were originally characterized as white issues.
9 So if you were to take that and multiply that by
10 about nine or so to indicate the full number of sites and
11 then the number two to indicate it from a six month to an
12 annual, you're probably talking on the order of anywhere
13 from 50 to 75 issues that we might deal with on an annual
14 basis that are more than a green issue.
15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So that's more. That's
16 more than you expected once. Based on the pilot, there
17 could be 75 issues. That also helps explain why you're
18 asking for more screening at the plants, because if there
19 were only 100 in four regions, I mean, 100 things that have
20 to go through the screening process in some elaborate way
21 resulting in ten findings a year, then that's not that big a
22 burden on -- you know, there would be 25 per region, that
23 would be two a month.
24 But if you're talking these numbers, then it gets
25 to be a more significant burden.
72
1 MR. DEAN: One of the things that we did in terms
2 of trying to estimate resource planning for initial
3 implementation to help the regions out is that we came up
4 with an estimate that for each site, we would have about one
5 and a half white issues per year that we would have to deal
6 with, and we used that as kind of a planning assumption.
7 So at least we could go forward with having -- and
8 that was based on the pilot program results.
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I've gone over my time,
10 so I quit.
11 MR. COLLINS: Commissioner, let me respond to one
12 of your questions. I think Bill did it partially. The
13 issue of does the program -- is it prescriptive, does it
14 limit the inspectors. The answer to that is yes and it's an
15 intended issue. The goal of this program was to be able to
16 focus limited resources towards those risk and safety
17 significant issues.
18 The value here is that the processes you mentioned
19 have the tendency to do that. That means we have to change
20 the shift in focus and be able to let go of those issues
21 that historically we did place some focus on, whether they
22 be level five or four violations, that unintendedly drove
23 licensee resources, because they were NRC findings.
24 Even though they weren't safety significant or
25 risk significant, the licensee had to respond to them.
73
1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But we still --
2 unfortunately, a level four violation was a violation of
3 something.
4 MR. COLLINS: Yes.
5 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: We're not going to not
6 find violations.
7 MR. COLLINS: The difference is that the
8 licensee's corrective action program will then determine the
9 priority and the licensee's resources will be focused on the
10 overall prioritization of that issue, along with the
11 backlog. If there is a risk significant issue, we would
12 expect the licensee's program to acknowledge that, based on
13 the type of work that you mentioned with the SDP.
14 The priority of that would become greater, would
15 be agreed upon, and the resolution of that issue would
16 become the priority.
17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Maybe the word
18 non-safety significant, but in the past, I think we have
19 defined in the enforcement policy level fours as being
20 non-safety or risk significant, yet they are level four
21 violations and they are currently put into the corrective
22 action program. So it may be semantic, but I would hope
23 those things are still being found according to the
24 corrective action program.
25 MR. COLLINS: Yes, sir, I'm sure that is the case.
74
1 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Merrifield.
2 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3 I want to add my comments about the staff, as well. We've
4 come a long way on this program. There's obviously a
5 further way to go, but I think certainly I want to add my
6 appreciation and congratulations to the staff for, I think,
7 a very large amount of work done in a relatively short
8 amount of time.
9 The first question I have, we did have the meeting
10 last week with ACRS and there were a couple issues that they
11 raised that I'd like to have you all make a brief comment
12 on.
13 The first one is that the performance indicator
14 thresholds may be so high, that it serves a disincentive to
15 improve plant performance. That's the first issue. I think
16 Dr. Lipoti has a similar concern.
17 The second one is that the significance
18 determination process is cumbersome and will bog down our
19 inspectors. Mr. Lochbaum stated he believes the SDP, as it
20 currently stands, is unworkable and SECY 00-0049 has raised
21 similar concerns. So I'm wondering if you have any comments
22 about either one of those issues.
23 MR. DEAN: I will address the PI threshold
24 question first, Commissioner Merrifield. Some of the
25 experiences that we've gotten from the pilot program, and
75
1 Mr. Beedle might be able to reiterate or talk to this
2 further, is that a number of licensees have looked at
3 trending their performance within the green band. In other
4 words, they want to assure that they're not going to get
5 their performance close to that threshold, where they can
6 risk going into a green-white and get it enhanced during
7 increased regulatory action.
8 And so I guess my own personal belief is that we
9 have seen nothing in the pilot program and from our
10 discussions with industry that would give us an indication
11 that those thresholds serve as a disincentive.
12 Now, we talked earlier, Alan talked about the
13 effort that we took to try and adjust those performance
14 indicator thresholds based on the pilot program information,
15 as well as historical information, and balancing that
16 against the original thresholds that were established in
17 SECY 99-007, but we think that those actually serve as good
18 guide posts for what we believe to be appropriate licensee
19 performance and we think that just by having those
20 thresholds out there and having the public observation of
21 how licensees are doing against those thresholds serve as a
22 tremendous motivator for licensees to perform and be low
23 within the green band.
24 MR. COLLINS: Commissioner, I think there is a
25 theme that runs through the ACRS presentation which is
76
1 valid, but it's looking down the road a little bit perhaps,
2 and that would be that if the performance indicators could
3 be more risk-informed and plant-specific, then they would
4 acknowledge the differences in plants, and, at that point in
5 time, the plants would acknowledge, based on real
6 indicators, where the value is in reducing those risks.
7 We acknowledge that and that is perhaps a future
8 vision that we're working with the Office of Research in a
9 pilot way to determine if that's feasible.
10 In the interim period, we are where we are and
11 we're just not at that point yet. Although the process is
12 risk-informed, the specific indicators are not.
13 DR. TRAVERS: The only thing I would add to the
14 question of disincentive or not is that we've been fairly
15 strident about not equating green with good. In that
16 respect, we recognize green as an area within which
17 additional NRC attention is probably not warranted, based on
18 the risk significance. It doesn't mean that we are trying
19 to transmit that this is a good thing.
20 When I talk to licensees, various other factors,
21 business factors really drive them to make gains in
22 performance that transcend the green zone even. They can
23 trend based on issues being identified.
24 So I don't necessarily agree with what ACRS said
25 relative to not being able to trend.
77
1 But we're very careful about characterizing green
2 in the acceptable zone of not entailing any further NRC
3 interaction as opposed to anything else.
4 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: In that meeting, I
5 indicated my belief, as well, that that was not -- that that
6 particular theory that the licensee would track the
7 performance indicators was not at all -- didn't correlate at
8 all with the discussions I had with the licensees.
9 I also asked about the significance determination
10 process. Any comments about that one?
11 MR. DYER: I think, Commissioner, I would just
12 re-echo what I said two weeks ago. I think I would have had
13 that same understanding, the results of -- since I was -- I
14 went to the training and particularly saw how the phase two
15 SDP worksheets are being implemented or are intended to be
16 implemented when we get them validated, and I'm optimistic
17 now.
18 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: In her testimony, Dr.
19 Lipoti refers to our new oversight process as a voluntary
20 program. Mr. Lochbaum indicates that there is a perception
21 of self-regulation. Obviously, these are concerns we ought
22 to address.
23 For the record, could you discuss what our
24 response as an agency would be if a licensee withdrew from
25 the process by not providing performance data?
78
1 MR. MADISON: We have developed an inspection
2 procedure that would provide guidance to the region and the
3 inspector in what to do if, for various reasons, the
4 performance indicator data is either not provided or we have
5 determined that because of inaccuracy problems, that the PI
6 has become invalid, and we would direct them to either --
7 depending upon the performance indicator, either go out and
8 collect the data ourselves, if it's easy, and if not, go
9 back to the original documents, the diagrams that describe
10 the attributes, important attributes and important areas to
11 measure in each of the cornerstones, and focus the
12 inspection on those activities that the performance
13 indicator was trying to provide information on.
14 So we would replace the performance indicator with
15 inspection activities.
16 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: As a follow-up to that,
17 are there any circumstances -- I mean, it would be hard for
18 me to believe that a utility would withdraw from this
19 program and providing that information given the extreme
20 reaction from stakeholders and the financial community.
21 Would you disagree with that characterization?
22 MR. DEAN: No.
23 MR. COLLINS: I think I agree with it. However, I
24 believe that the program has to play out and demonstrate
25 value. We can differ on how we define value.
79
1 Some of that would depend on what is the overall
2 inspection effort that's necessary as the process is refined
3 and can the agency legitimately substantiate that level of
4 inspection effort given varied plant performance.
5 Are we going to credit industry initiatives or
6 industry audits, self-assessments, for those plants that
7 perform in the higher areas, for example? Do we stay
8 coupled with our stakeholders so that the performance
9 indicators have validity and, therefore, credibility?
10 Those areas, as Commissioner McGaffigan mentioned,
11 I think, are going to be ongoing activities, so the program
12 stays at a level where people have confidence in them.
13 If that's true, I think the answer will be we will
14 not encounter that problem.
15 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Okay. Getting back to
16 the significance determination process, Dr. Lipoti made what
17 I believe is quite a damning statement, and she states that
18 the SDP turns regulating into negotiating.
19 Now, we haven't heard her testimony yet and she
20 may flesh that out, but at least the impression that we have
21 turned some of our regulatory responsibilities over to
22 licensees, would you like to respond to that?
23 MR. DEAN: I'd like to try first. I do take some
24 exception to that. I think that the significance
25 determination process, as I mentioned earlier, does an
80
1 outstanding job of laying out in front of both the licensee
2 and the agency what are the issues that contribute to the
3 potential risk significance of an identified inspection
4 finding.
5 I think what she refers to in terms of negotiation
6 is exactly as Michael described earlier, that we want to get
7 to a point where we describe that issue, its potential
8 significance, and what surrounds our assessment of that
9 significance, and then share that with the licensee, so they
10 can provide a response to us.
11 I hate to compare it to the enforcement process,
12 but there's a certain amount of due process --
13 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I was going to try that
14 very same analogy.
15 DR. TRAVERS: It's really just a tool and the best
16 way this tool works is with full information brought to bear
17 on how you process the information.
18 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: But ultimately, we have
19 the choice and we make the call.
20 DR. TRAVERS: That's right.
21 MR. COLLINS: I think the difference is, between
22 the old process and this process, that in the past, when we
23 engaged the licensees, the first order of business was
24 disagreement on the process, are we a SALP-1, are we a
25 SALP-2, why am I a problem plant, why am I not a problem
81
1 plant, is this or is this not risk significant, why is it a
2 level three if it doesn't have risk.
3 The purpose of this process, as it's defined
4 currently, is to take that off the table and engage on the
5 issues and not on the process and once there is an agreement
6 on what the issue is and what is risk and safety
7 significant, then it becomes a matter of corrective action.
8 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: My final question. We
9 are moving away from the SALP program, which was noted for,
10 among other things, its subjectivity and unpredictability.
11 Those were two of the more significant charges against it.
12 In reading the paper SECY 0049, one of the things
13 that the staff intends to do is to deviate from the
14 specified action in the action matrix when it deems it to be
15 appropriate.
16 That strikes me as adding a level of subjectivity
17 and unpredictability, which is precisely what we're trying
18 to get away from.
19 I think that puts us on a slippery slope and I'm
20 wondering if you can outline your intentions about that. I
21 also was wondering, if you feel strongly about that, how you
22 would react to having the notion that the Commission should
23 approve any deviations from that matrix.
24 MR. DEAN: If I can take a first shot at that.
25 One of the lessons, we actually had an actual experience in
82
1 the pilot program that provides some credence as to why
2 there certainly needs to be in the process a consideration
3 of situations where a deviation from the action matrix may
4 be warranted, and I'll describe the situation.
5 At Fitzpatrick plant, they had an issue with their
6 high pressure coolant injection pump that resulted in the
7 pump being declared inoperable and in going back and trying
8 to figure out how long the pump had been inoperable since
9 the last time that they tested. It resulted in a
10 substantial unavailability time period that caused the
11 performance indicator threshold for safety system
12 unavailability to from a green to a white performance
13 indicator.
14 In inspecting this issue, our inspectors
15 determined that there were some performance issues
16 associated with the cause of that pump being inoperable for
17 that time period. So basically what you had was you had --
18 and it ended up being characterized as a white inspection
19 finding.
20 So that basically what you had was that for the
21 same root cause, for the same reason, you had both a
22 performance indicator crossing a threshold and you had an
23 inspection finding that was characterized as white. So you
24 had two issues crossing thresholds for essentially the same
25 underlying cause.
83
1 MR. COLLINS: Double jeopardy issue.
2 MR. DEAN: Basically a double jeopardy issue. And
3 so if you were to follow the action matrix explicitly, it
4 would tell you that you had two white issues in the same
5 cornerstone, you had a degraded cornerstone, and that would
6 result in a more substantial NRC interaction and regulatory
7 response than was probably warranted by that singular issue.
8 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: That may be a fair
9 example. I'm just generally concerned about our tinkering
10 with that action matrix. To the extent that there are
11 suggestions to do that, I think we need to work with our
12 stakeholders and Mr. Lochbaum raised significant concerns
13 about this in his testimony, and make sure that that is
14 scrutable, understandable and clear up front, so that
15 everyone is comfortable about that kind of a circumstance
16 and not lead us to a place where it would be an ad hoc
17 subjective determination.
18 DR. TRAVERS: I think you're exactly right. Of
19 course, the intention is to have in place a process,
20 Regional Administrator, Director of NRR, that would set into
21 motion a review and deliberate decisions on what is expected
22 to be rare instances where we would deviate.
23 So in that sense, we fully agree that we need a
24 structured process and we need to explain it and it's really
25 our burden, we think, when we go outside that matrix.
84
1 MR. COLLINS: I think the intent of providing
2 stability has actually created this need to have a kickout.
3 The stability is that the process should handle the vast
4 majority of the cases, but it can't be so refined and so
5 complex that it handles them all.
6 So where there is an exception, there needs to be
7 a defined process by which high levels are engaged to deal
8 with that exception and, therefore, leave the process
9 stable. That's a little bit of a tradeoff here.
10 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'd like to thank the staff for
12 a very helpful briefing. We much appreciate obviously the
13 huge amount of effort that's gone into this and it's very
14 helpful.
15 We are going to be hearing from another panel.
16 Let me suggest, however, that we take a very short recess
17 and return with the second panel.
18 [Recess.]
19 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Why don't we get underway.
20 Before our second panel begins, let me introduce them. Our
21 second panel is constituted of Mr. Ralph Beedle, who is the
22 Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer for the
23 Nuclear Energy Institute. I believe Mr. David Garchow is
24 intending to be here, who is the Vice President of Technical
25 Services for Public Service Electric and Gas. Mr. David
85
1 Lochbaum, who is a Nuclear Safety Engineer and who is with
2 the Union of Concerned Scientists. Dr. Jill Lipoti, who has
3 been mentioned several times here, is the Assistant Director
4 of Radiation Protection Programs at New Jersey's Department
5 of Environmental Protection. And Mr. Frank Gillespie, who
6 is a manager here at the NRC, but is appearing before us
7 today in his capacity as Chairman of the pilot plan
8 evaluation panel, about which Mr. McGaffigan asked some
9 questions.
10 Why don't we get underway and just proceed along
11 the table. Mr. Beedle, would you like to start?
12 MR. BEEDLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
13 Commissioners. Before I start, I would like to go back to
14 July of 1998 and a quote by a Commissioner by the name of
15 Mr. Nils Diaz, when he said that the need to change the
16 regulatory process is not an indictment of the past, but is
17 a requirement of the future.
18 That kind of went through my mind as you quizzed
19 the staff on the development of this new oversight process
20 and a lot of questions, and I thought they were good
21 penetrating questions, good food for thought. I'm convinced
22 that the staff has given a lot of thought to many of the
23 questions that you asked, but I think your questions will
24 spur them on in a number of areas.
25 But the process that we're looking at is one that,
86
1 while it's not perfect, it just seems to me a whole lot
2 better than what we had in the past with the SALP and the
3 watch list process. So I think it gives the staff, the
4 licensees and the public a much better view of plant
5 performance from the safety point of view and focuses the
6 resources of the agency and the licensees on those things
7 that are significant.
8 So with that, if we could have the first slide,
9 lessons learned from this pilot process that we've just
10 completed. As I indicated, it's not perfect, but I think
11 we've seen a significant improvement in our ability to
12 measure the -- there was quite a bit of discussion on the
13 self-assessment and corrective action program, one of the
14 three key cross-cutting issues, and that is one in which
15 INPO has taken a major step in providing some guidelines for
16 the industry, such that we could have some consistency.
17 And as the agency focuses more on the
18 self-assessment and corrective action programs, I think
19 consistency is an important part of that evolutionary
20 process and INPO has, I think, done a good job in developing
21 that.
22 While you're looking at a guideline that was
23 issued by INPO that is not particularly voluminous,
24 underpinning that guideline is a tremendous inspection
25 evaluation effort on the part of the staff at INPO, regular
87
1 inspections, one that look at all facets of the corrective
2 action program, and I might add they have been doing that
3 for a number of years.
4 This is not a new area of evaluation for the
5 Institute of Nuclear Power Operations.
6 The third area, greater management oversight
7 needed on data collection, and I think that is one that has
8 been evident as we went about the development of the
9 performance indicators for the reactor oversight process.
10 We collect, in the industry, thousands of data
11 points every month. We collect them for FERC, we collect
12 them for INPO, we collect them for WANO, we collect them for
13 EUCG and NUMARC and everybody else, and it becomes almost a
14 routine kind of process to go collect data.
15 When you're collecting data to support a
16 regulatory process, it places a great deal of significance
17 on it that wasn't there before, and we're finding that a
18 greater deal of fidelity is necessary to deal with that. So
19 I think all in all, that's good. It will probably improve
20 our overall performance indicator data as a result of that.
21 And then the process is more risk-informed and
22 provides for improved safety focus. As mentioned earlier by
23 the staff, one of the major outcomes of this process over
24 the ones that we've had in the past in trying to assess
25 performance has been the significance determination process.
88
1 It asks the question, is the situation and the
2 condition that you're looking at today one of safety
3 significance and if it is, you appropriately place resources
4 on it to deal with it. If it isn't, although it may be a
5 violation of regulation, if it has no safety significance,
6 then perhaps it's one that's deserving of correction
7 ultimately, but not with the same level of intensity that
8 you would place on one that had safety significance.
9 Another way of saying that is that given two
10 violations, which one would you put the most significance
11 on, and the answer is the one that's safety significant. So
12 I think that's really where our benefit is.
13 The fact that there is a wide range of safety
14 determination or significance determination processes I
15 don't think is particularly disturbing and in many respects,
16 to be expected, because of the different significance of
17 some of our programs. Fire protection, reactor systems,
18 security programs, they all have a different nexus to
19 safety. We need to determine what that is and I think
20 that's been well worked out and we'll continue to refine the
21 process for the significance determination process.
22 Next slide, please.
23 Now, industry concerns. Before I start this
24 series of concerns, let me preface it by saying the industry
25 is in full support of this process and is ready to go
89
1 forward with the next phase of the program. So we'll start
2 that out.
3 Now, does that mean that everything is perfect?
4 No. And so we'll talk a little bit about the performance
5 indicators.
6 To digress just a bit, Commissioner Merrifield
7 asked the question about these performance thresholds and
8 performance indicators and how do they work. I have never
9 envisioned that the PIs for this oversight process
10 represented goals for the industry. However, I would tell
11 you that if you set a green threshold at four, the industry
12 is going to try and stay above four or less than four. If
13 you set one at two, I assure that you they will try and get
14 into the two range.
15 So to that extent, they do represent goals that
16 could ultimately and will cause industry performance to
17 change. Let me just give you an example. In the area of
18 emergency preparedness, we had a goal that talked to the
19 number of people that were trained in our emergency response
20 teams and had you taken a snapshot a year ago, I'm sure that
21 you would not find that they're all green.
22 But having defined a threshold at which green and
23 white would occur, there isn't one plant that wants to be
24 white on that particular area, so they're going to go do
25 more training in order to make sure that they satisfy that
90
1 what is perceived to be a goal on their part.
2 We also talked about the gradation within the
3 green area, where the plants have established internal
4 thresholds to keep their performance well above the break
5 point between the green and white, because they don't want
6 to be white.
7 There is a clear perception on the part of the
8 industry that white invites more attention. They don't need
9 more attention, and so they're going to try and keep it
10 green.
11 I think the public is going to view this the same
12 way. Regardless of how much margin to safety you have in
13 the white area, if the plant goes into the white, the public
14 is going to react to it.
15 So with regard to the PI thresholds, I think we
16 need to recognize that they do have the potential for
17 ratcheting, and I'll use that term, since the staff used it
18 earlier, they do have the potential for ratcheting the
19 behavior of the plants, and I think we need to look at that
20 behavior and ask whether or not it's the kind of behavior we
21 want.
22 Need for more stakeholder and review comment. I
23 would encourage you to continue the engagement of
24 stakeholders, not only NEI, industry, but David Lochbaum has
25 been a major contributor to it, other stakeholders have been
91
1 involved in this thing that bring a different perspective,
2 and I think it's been healthy and is a major change in the
3 way the agency has gone about this.
4 I think the admonition from one of the
5 Commissioners in the past has been that the earlier you
6 engage the stakeholders, the better the product turns out to
7 be, and I think that's borne out in this case, as well.
8 Consistency with other regulatory requirements.
9 One of the problems that I think we're going to face is that
10 as we try and establish thresholds, we're going to cross
11 some of the boundaries with other programs that we have in
12 place, and let me just give you an example.
13 In our technical specifications, we have an
14 emergency AC power system allowed outage of about 3.8. We
15 have a maintenance rule acceptable outage of 4.1 and then we
16 come in with a PI threshold of 2.5. So the utility sits
17 here and looks and says, well, what's the right answer,
18 where do I have to be; well, I've got to be 4.1 for the
19 maintenance rule, but I've got about 3.8 for the tech specs,
20 and a 2.5 for the PIs to satisfy that requirement.
21 They look at that and say, well, what is the
22 requirement, where does the rubber meet the road on this
23 thing, and I think we need to be careful as we set these PIs
24 that we don't set unnecessary restrictions on the operation
25 of the plant for which other programs have already evaluated
92
1 and determined acceptable levels of performance.
2 The last one on this slide is sufficient data to
3 justify changes. Current definitions for some of these PIs
4 truly represented historical performance, others did not.
5 So we need to make sure that as we go about the process of
6 establishing these thresholds, we do it with full knowledge
7 of the performance and the historical behavior of that
8 particular performance indicator.
9 Next slide, please.
10 Need for continued checks and balances to ensure
11 consistency across the industry. I think that's been one of
12 the major objectives in this process, is to try and get a
13 consistent application of the process to all the utilities,
14 from region to region and within the regions.
15 I think that having the suggestion earlier to have
16 a group of stakeholders that continue to look at the
17 process, I think would be very helpful, and I think that
18 brought together the regions in a way that they hadn't been
19 brought together in the past when we had those meetings. So
20 very helpful.
21 And then the NRC process for future changes in the
22 program. The issue of continually increasing the thresholds
23 is one that is of concern to us. I will not back away from
24 that. We need to make sure that we are in a position where
25 consistency over time is something that's relatively assured
93
1 in this process.
2 Now, that doesn't mean that we are reluctant to
3 see change or that we're reluctant to see new and viable
4 performance indicators, but we've got to make sure that we
5 don't take the performance indicators we have and try and
6 use that as a means of driving the performance of the
7 industry. We need to continue to keep our focus on those
8 things that are necessary for safety and assurance of public
9 health and safety.
10 The next is overreaction to the white inputs, and
11 I think Commissioner Merrifield, in his discussion on the
12 action matrix, was -- that's a good point. All of this
13 falls by the wayside if not only the NRC's reaction to the
14 action matrix or the licensee's reaction to the action
15 matrix or the public's reaction to that action matrix, all
16 of those things play together, and if we don't try and keep
17 this in perspective and continually preach the lessons of
18 the green is an acceptable band of performance, it doesn't
19 mean good or bad, it's an acceptable band of performance,
20 and white means that you've departed from the margins
21 slightly, that you deviate from the industry's normal
22 performance, and that perhaps some more investigation on the
23 part of the NRC is warranted does not mean that you're an
24 unsafe plant.
25 We've got to continue to remind the public of
94
1 that, as well as ourselves.
2 Next slide, please.
3 Industry implementation. As I indicated, we are
4 ready to implement the next phase of this program. I think
5 the characterization as an initial implementation with the
6 clear notion that we're in a continuing process of change
7 and revision and refinement, that we will have a continued
8 feedback and dialogue to understand how those changes take
9 place, get feedback from the various stakeholders in the
10 process, I think is all a good and positive indication of
11 the vibrance of this program.
12 Enhancement is a disciplined process. I think I
13 just talked about that. I think that is an essential
14 element of it. And then the use of senior NRC and perhaps
15 chief nuclear officers meeting on a regular basis to discuss
16 the development of the program I think is almost crucial to
17 its success.
18 Overall benefits of the program. I do think it's
19 far more objective than our SALP process. I think it's
20 predictable, certainly provides safety focus through that
21 significance determination process. I think it's
22 understandable. I use my son as kind of a test on some of
23 these and I say go to the NRC web site and what do you
24 think, and he says, oh, wow, that's pretty neat, you know,
25 graphs and charts and things like that, and it's fairly
95
1 easily navigable, although I think it could be refined a
2 tad. But it's pretty clear. He seems to understand that
3 well.
4 Better use of industry and NRC resources. I think
5 that's really the bottom line. We're not embarking on this
6 program to try and make the nuclear plant operation cheaper,
7 but we're trying to use our resources more effectively, and
8 from the regulator's point of view, it has to be a focus on
9 safety. I think that's really the point that many of our
10 chief nuclear officers involved in the pilot program would
11 make is that this program gives me the ability to focus on
12 the things that truly represent safety for my plant and I
13 don't have to worry about some of the less significant
14 issues.
15 And that's not to say that regulations aren't
16 significant, but they don't all carry the same safety
17 significance, and that gives them the ability to
18 differentiate.
19 So yes, the industry is ready and hopefully we've
20 answered that question, Commissioner Dicus.
21 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Good. Thank you very much, Mr.
22 Beedle. Mr. Garchow.
23 MR. GARCHOW: Good afternoon, Commissioners and
24 Chairman. My background in this process is I had the
25 opportunity to get sent to attend the initial workshop and
96
1 it's been sort of a gift that has kept giving all the way up
2 to today. So I was on the NEI senior management task force.
3 Our utility was committed to this process through
4 NEI and I was volunteered as a senior management rep to work
5 with the NEI and the rest of the industry, spending several
6 days a week and a month in Washington, DC over the last
7 year, year and a half, and I happen to be on the pilot plant
8 evaluation panel, which I thought had an end, but in
9 deference to Commissioner McGaffigan, that may be a gift
10 that continues to keep giving.
11 So I am giving my comments as a representative of
12 the pilot plants. I represent Salem and Hope Creek Station,
13 and we were two -- we were one site that actually had three
14 units in the pilot process reporting indicator data for
15 Salem Unit 1 and 2, as well as Hope Creek.
16 So we found the new process to be an improvement
17 over SALP, as has been mentioned, and it actually shows us
18 some objective safety performance measures, both by
19 inspections and PIs focusing on those issues that truly are
20 important to safety.
21 And in the deregulated environment, it is very
22 clear that our focus has to be on safety or we're not going
23 to get the reliability out of the plants, nor are we going
24 to be economically viable. So the new oversight process is
25 exactly consistent with the strategy we need to do to
97
1 competitively and safely run nuclear power plants.
2 We will continue at PSEG to support this process
3 and its implementation as we go forward. We accept our
4 responsibility to create the healthy work environment in our
5 plant that does allow us to find and fix our own problems.
6 That is consistent with our safety theme of focusing on
7 safety, and I agree with Commissioner Merrifield's view on
8 the corrective action program that a low threshold, high
9 volume programs have screening to screen out risk is
10 important for us to be able to operate our plants safely,
11 and as Mr. Beedle said, we have incentive to try to stay in
12 the green, as it were.
13 We also need to focus on the communication for the
14 process and we challenge implementation with continued
15 feedback with NEI, the industry and the NRC is crucial. The
16 interactions have been very positive to this point in time.
17 We need to continue that positive vein as we go forward to
18 initial implementation.
19 Relative to the performance indicators, we see
20 those as positive. The objectives, I think they are tied to
21 the cornerstones appropriately, and they do include,
22 especially at the white-yellow and yellow-red thresholds,
23 they are risk-informed.
24 I guess the danger would be as we continue the
25 trend of improving industry performance, I think the
98
1 discussion of whether to reset the green-white thresholds
2 along the way as the industry performs will need to be
3 looked at carefully to make sure that, in fact, doesn't
4 cause some unintended consequences as we keep tightening up
5 the green band relative to the issues Mr. Beedle talked
6 about on the public perception of going into white, because
7 I don't believe the public would understand that five years
8 from now, we've raised the threshold and what was white five
9 years from now might have been green today, and I think we
10 have some confusion.
11 So I think we need to be very careful on
12 adjustments to the green-white threshold, while continuing
13 to do the research on the white-yellow threshold to make
14 those as performance-based as we possibly can and make sure
15 that there is an appropriate band as licensee performance
16 goes from green to white and white to yellow. So I would
17 add that caution.
18 PI accuracy, we've had some learnings at Salem and
19 Hope Creek, and I believe that the industry, as well as us,
20 the senior management team at the facility, need to continue
21 our vigilance in defining the process to make sure that the
22 PI data is reasonably accurate as we can provide.
23 I think we need to clarify and really come to some
24 grips of what an honest mistake that has no impact at all in
25 crossing a green-white threshold means relative to 50.9. So
99
1 that is still an open issue, in my mind, and we need to work
2 through the resolution of that, because I'm not sure it's in
3 the NRC's, the public's or the utility's best interest to be
4 having extended discussions over 12 minutes of
5 unavailability of a safety system, and there are examples
6 out there where there are differences of whether it was
7 unavailable or available for ten minutes and in the whole
8 scheme of things, I'm not sure that's an appropriate level
9 of discussion that we would need to have for something
10 that's really in the green.
11 That being said, we need to strive to get our data
12 collection as accurate as we possibly can.
13 Next slide.
14 The inspections during the pilot at Salem and Hope
15 Creek we found to be very thorough and we saw the
16 significance determination process as very well done. There
17 were differences of opinion throughout the industry on the
18 SDP. We had an opportunity to exercise the fire protection
19 SDP and we found that to be very thorough, focused on risk,
20 and I would agree, I believe with Mr. Collins, who said that
21 during the interaction with the NRC, the focus was not on
22 the process, the focus was on the true defense-in-depth that
23 existed relative to the issues that were being discussed.
24 So we moved it away from the process and on to the actual
25 issue, as Mr. Collins said.
100
1 We believe that the new process does reduce
2 unnecessary burden and focuses both the NRC and the
3 utilities towards safety, while recognizing that we still
4 have an obligation to comply with the regulations, and, as
5 Mr. Beedle said, it does provide a good screen on any given
6 day, we have our resources working on any number of things.
7 This gives a good filter to make sure that we're working on
8 those items that have the most safety significance when they
9 come out through our corrective action program.
10 So in summary, we are committed to continue to
11 address the areas for improvement. We've heard from many
12 stakeholders and you'll hear more this afternoon there are
13 areas to improve as we go into initial implementation, and
14 we need to, like I stressed, keep the open dialogue between
15 the stakeholders and the NRC through initial implementation,
16 so that we don't get misperceptions or misconceptions about
17 some of the changes that are going to occur as we roll this
18 out and so that we an stay on fairly consistent.
19 So I appreciate the opportunity to address the
20 Commission, and I can answer any questions during this
21 proceeding.
22 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you very much. We'll
23 come back at the end with questions. Mr. Lochbaum.
24 MR. LOCHBAUM: Good afternoon. Slide two, please.
25 I wanted to start with the bottom line, but first I wanted
101
1 to point out that the dotted line by no means implies any
2 uncertainty or anything like that. That's just a standard
3 header that we use.
4 We recommend that the Commission adopt the revised
5 oversight process as it is today. Industry-wide, in April
6 of 2000, or soon thereafter as possible. Having said that,
7 we recognize that various stakeholders, including UCS, have
8 concerns that should be resolved after implementation.
9 We're not ready to give up on our concerns so far, but we
10 don't think any of our concerns would prevent industry-wide
11 implementation.
12 Slide three, please.
13 The reasons we like the new process are longer
14 than this list, but I want to hit the top four, the first
15 being that the performance in the new program is assessed in
16 27, roughly, areas instead of four broad categories. In
17 addition, performance is assessed 30 days, roughly, after a
18 92 day period instead of 180 days after a 730 day period.
19 So it's more timely.
20 In addition, the NRC response to declining
21 performance is predefined instead of being ad hoc or
22 arbitrary and lastly, or at least on this list, we think a
23 big benefit is that the performance information on all
24 plants is made available on the internet instead of some
25 information being available for some of the plants.
102
1 Slide four, please.
2 Some of the concerns we have about the new process
3 kind of fall into five categories. One is the perception of
4 self-regulation by the industry. The second is concerns
5 with the significance determination process. The third is
6 what we call the missing link. The fourth is the deviations
7 from the action matrix. The fifth is cross-cutting areas.
8 I'd like to point out, again, that despite our
9 concerns in these areas, we don't think any of these issues
10 would prevent industry-wide implementation. I guess I can't
11 stress that enough.
12 Slide five, please.
13 Dealing with the issue --
14 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Mr. Chairman? What do
15 you mean by missing link?
16 MR. LOCHBAUM: I'll get to that. It's a slide
17 coming.
18 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Okay. Sorry.
19 MR. LOCHBAUM: The first issue is the perception
20 of self-regulation by the industry and we see a number of
21 problems that give us evidence or suggest the impression of
22 that. The first is that the new process depends heavily on
23 plant owner cooperation, both for performance indicator data
24 and also for the significance determination process.
25 The plant owner can voluntarily decide not to
103
1 submit performance indicator data or can slow down or
2 virtually stop the significance determination process, and
3 that doesn't seem to be good, from a public perception
4 standpoint.
5 The second problem we've found is that throughout
6 the program, although the involvement of the public and
7 various stakeholders, including UCS, has been better than in
8 the past, we still have the view that the NRC's primary
9 stakeholder is the nuclear industry and we and other public
10 stakeholders are treated as second-class stakeholders.
11 It could be a step up from third world treatment,
12 but I guess we're aiming for separate, but equal.
13 The last concern is we feel that to date, the
14 NRC's public communication's haven't been very good. The
15 issues -- the reports that have been issued haven't been in
16 plain language or plain English.
17 I heard the previous panel, the NRC panel talk
18 about going out and scheduling regional talks and also
19 revising NUREG-1649. It would be good if the NUREG were out
20 prior to the meetings with the public, because otherwise the
21 public has very little to look at and prepare for before
22 these meetings.
23 I think that was a problem during the pilot
24 program, that information wasn't made available to the
25 public when they were asked to come in and provide their
104
1 views.
2 Slide six, please.
3 The significance determination process, or what we
4 call pick a color, any color, as long as it's green, we
5 felt, as a member of the pilot program evaluation panel,
6 basically that the pilot did not show that the significance
7 determination process worked, because none of the findings
8 that were determined to be potentially not green were ever
9 resolved in the lifetime of the pilot program evaluation
10 panel.
11 We felt also because of the heavy reliance on
12 plant owner negotiation or participation, it would be better
13 not to use that input. Instead, use SPAR models or other
14 means that the NRC controls to determine if something is
15 significant or not.
16 Also, the significance determination process
17 itself is fundamentally flawed, because it looks at core
18 damage frequency and large early release F, and I forget
19 what the F stands for. There are other things that can cause
20 harm to plant workers and the public and that would be spent
21 fuel pool accidents, whether criticality or loss of water,
22 leading to overheating.
23 There's also a lot of tanks on-site that contain a
24 large amount of radioactive material; if they were to be
25 vented straight to the atmosphere, it could cause a lot of
105
1 concern.
2 The significance determination process ranks all
3 those as nothing, basically, and any process that --
4 anything that's called risk-informed that omits any
5 significance on those issues seems to be flawed.
6 We also look at the significance determination
7 process for physical protection and in our view, that's more
8 of a measure of terrorist performance than it is of plant
9 owner performance. If the NRC determines or finds, an NRC
10 inspector finds a bomb taped to the reactor vessel, but it
11 hasn't gone off yet, the significance determination process
12 will rank that, at worst, a white, perhaps a green.
13 Also, if a bomb gets inside and goes off, but
14 blows up a warehouse or something not very important, the
15 significance determination will, again, rank that, at worst,
16 a white and perhaps a green. That, in our view, is a
17 measure of how successful the terrorist is and not how
18 successful the licensee is preventing the bomb from getting
19 inside the plant. So we think that's totally messed up.
20 As totally messed up as it is, it's better than
21 the old process, so we don't think it should prevent
22 industry-wide implementation.
23 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: As he repeats this, I'm
24 not sure of the depth of --
25 MR. LOCHBAUM: It's sincere. I practiced all last
106
1 week. Slide seven deals with what we call the missing link.
2 There's been some -- as we attended some of the workshops
3 and meetings over the last year, the industry has wanted to
4 try to use the significance determination process for all
5 NRC findings and when you apply that to findings in the
6 physical protection area, the security area, it simply
7 doesn't work, because PRAs and IPEs don't consider any
8 threats from sabotage or terrorist acts. So therefore,
9 because the risk assessments don't include that, you can't
10 apply the results from those processes to evaluate the
11 significance of problems in those areas.
12 So we think until you do or anybody does risk
13 assessments that account for terrorist and sabotage acts,
14 then you have to, by definition, consider physical
15 protection cornerstone problems separately from
16 risk-informed situations.
17 Slide eight, please.
18 I guess as I get older, my counting isn't as good,
19 because the previous panel, Mr. Dean said there was one
20 deviation from the action matrix during the pilot program,
21 and I counted three. There were two involving -- it was
22 Fort Calhoun, Quad Cities and then the final event involving
23 Fitzpatrick, and yet three deviations, at least that I know
24 of, from the action matrix over a six month period over a
25 limited number of plants, that seemed far from rare and the
107
1 reasons might have been very well justified, but they
2 weren't open because they weren't very clear or well
3 documented.
4 So I think there is a problem in this area. We
5 think that any deviations from the action matrix, as
6 Commissioner Merrifield pointed out, could be subjective and
7 are, therefore, potential threats to safety and in any
8 event, they are tangible threats to public confidence.
9 Anytime a regulatory agency says they're going to
10 do one thing and does something else, the public confidence
11 has to be eroded. It cannot be -- at best, it's going to be
12 held the same. At worst, it's going to be eroded. So the
13 NRC must take safety warnings from this while process
14 seriously and not deviate from the action matrix. That
15 defies the whole purpose of it.
16 Slide nine is the cross-cutting areas. As
17 important as the cross-cutting areas were, and I kind of
18 forgot which camp I was in throughout the process so far, I
19 think I understand, I believe, the fundamental tenet that
20 the cross-cutting areas will manifest themselves in one of
21 the PIs or inspection findings.
22 But regardless of which camp I'm in, we think it's
23 important that NRC not handle findings in cross-cutting
24 areas via the significance determination process, because
25 that could improperly downplay safety problems.
108
1 If an NRC inspector finds that the corrective
2 action program is totally out to lunch on non-safety-related
3 systems, we think that requires an extent of condition
4 evaluation to determine if that program is broken across the
5 board or if that was the isolated example.
6 That extent of condition could be done by the
7 licensee or could be done by the NRC, but simply to dismiss
8 the issue because it's a non-safety-related system is wrong.
9 Perhaps with the risk-informed guidance, the NRC
10 inspectors won't be looking in non-safety-related systems
11 for those things, but be that as it may, if the findings are
12 there, you have to -- we think that there's a possible --
13 it's responsible to pull the string and follow up on them.
14 Slide ten, I go back to that bottom line and
15 basically I repeat we think despite these problems, which we
16 feel need to be fixed, but not necessarily before
17 industry-wide implementation, we think this new program can
18 and should be extended nationwide.
19 Our view is that the current program, which we
20 call the bride program, because it's something old,
21 something new, something borrowed and something blue, hasn't
22 been tested, either in a pilot or anything else. SALP and
23 watch list have been suspended. We're operating on an
24 interim program that's not the old, not the new. If the
25 honeymoon ends on what we call the bride program and there
109
1 is an event or a serious near miss at a plant, the public is
2 not going to be real happy about this.
3 If this is the best oversight tool that we have,
4 we ought to start using it at every plant as soon as we can,
5 and our view is that this is the best we have and we should
6 use it starting next month.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you. Dr. Lipoti.
9 DR. LIPOTI: I am reminded of the story about the
10 Emperor's new clothes and I like the material, I like the
11 cut of the suit, and I like the style, but like the little
12 boy in the story, I'm not afraid to say that the Emperor is
13 in the parade in his underwear.
14 The theory of this oversight process, with its
15 risk relationship, its quarterly reports, its
16 predictability, the web site, the visibility of the program,
17 which brings accountability, that's all wonderful. But the
18 practice, as we have seen in the pilot, needs work and I
19 really don't want to see NRC in your underwear, so I'm going
20 to give you some comments that I think should improve the
21 program.
22 Poor Sam Collins and Bill Dean kept having to say
23 almost all stakeholder support, and I'm that hold-out. And
24 I'm so pleased that all of you have read the comments.
25 One of the main problems I have with declaring the
110
1 new oversight program an absolute triumph of the existing
2 program is that you have decided that there is a good enough
3 level for nuclear power plants.
4 The threshold between the green and the white is
5 the ad hoc good enough level and your regulatory system no
6 longer encourages continuous improvement.
7 You're willing, maybe for the sake of economic
8 competition and in this era of deregulation, to accept a
9 good enough level. Now, my value system says that
10 continuous improvement should be encouraged and that the
11 good enough threshold combined with the economic pressure to
12 produce power at a competitive rate will instead encourage
13 the nuclear power plants to strive for the lowest green
14 parameters they can without passing in the white zone.
15 Maybe the reason I feel so strongly about this is
16 because I've been faced with the same decision to set a good
17 enough level for X-ray programs and I haven't been able to
18 bring myself to do that. I know that there's plenty of
19 differences between regulating X-ray systems and regulating
20 nuclear power plants, but when it comes to setting
21 performance standards, performance indicators, what's good
22 enough? Is 95 percent of the X-ray images that attained the
23 quality standard good enough? What if that still leads to a
24 physician missing a diagnosis?
25 So why not encourage continuous improvement? Your
111
1 direction to staff was to set the good enough thresholds and
2 even that, the staff has only partially fulfilled. The
3 performance indicators need to be a way to be a leading
4 indicator, as you indicated, and so far the PIs chosen are
5 lagging indicators.
6 Certainly there are criteria for good performance
7 indicators, whether they correlate to safety, equate to a
8 risk number, be anticipatory, predict safety in the future,
9 and accurately portray the need for additional inspection
10 resources beyond the baseline.
11 The thorough inspection identifies problems before
12 they escalate, but you need the resources to perform those
13 thorough inspections. That green to white threshold has
14 emerged as the most important, as Mr. Beedle as stated, even
15 though it's defined as just department from the margin.
16 The nuclear power industry has decided that a
17 white finding is so detrimental to their image, that it's
18 always contested. When the white threshold is crossed,
19 rather than really searching through their nuclear power
20 plant for what might be an early warning that operations
21 need some additional scrutiny, during the pilot, utility
22 management has instead attacked a system that led to the
23 white finding and said go back, let's change the SDP
24 process, it must be wrong; go back, let's look at the PIs,
25 they must be wrong.
112
1 The SDP process has been evolving at a tremendous
2 rate. I learned just today about this Brookhaven report
3 that's going to influence the SDP process, it will be out in
4 two weeks. The definitions of PIs have been refined and
5 what has happened with all of this change, this tremendous
6 fast change, is that the unnecessary regulatory burden which
7 has been lifted has turned into an unnecessary negotiating
8 burden, where the oversight process becomes more negotiation
9 and less regulation.
10 Is that a function of the pilot? Perhaps it was.
11 But in allowing the oversight process to be applied to all
12 the nuclear power plants in the United States, calling it
13 initial implementation instead of full implementation,
14 you've kind of opened the door to negotiation in the
15 regulation of all 103 plants.
16 Now, maybe in those negotiations, as Sam Collins
17 said, you'll engage on the issues and not on the process and
18 maybe that will be a good thing. I just don't know.
19 To make this new oversight process really useful,
20 it will have to be made more rigid and less subject to these
21 lengthy arguments and substantial changes. Yet, at the same
22 time, we know that the program, as set forth, needs
23 improvement.
24 It must be understood what the performance
25 indicators and the inspection program that fit together and
113
1 the thresholds stand for and how much uncertainty there is
2 in that number. Right now, the thresholds are chosen by a
3 variety of different schemes and I know the Office of
4 Research is working on a white paper.
5 In that white paper, the risk level has to be well
6 defined, and the rationale thoroughly explained, and an
7 uncertainty analysis performed that addresses the
8 uncertainty in the risk assumptions and the propagation of
9 uncertainty through the whole process.
10 That's going to require the balance between the
11 generic PRA and the plant-specific IPE.
12 My last point has to do with a thorough
13 explanation of the rationale for the thresholds. That
14 explanation, that rationale has to be viewed not only as a
15 regulatory tool, but as a communication tool to make your
16 regulation understandable to the public.
17 The public will look for the explanation of your
18 indicators as their leading indicator, the public's leading
19 indicator for their concern or lack thereof about nuclear
20 power. Excellence in regulation is what can change public
21 perception about nuclear power, allowing it to be part of
22 the energy mix for the nation.
23 So don't allow your agency to abandon a continuous
24 improvement approach for regulation and settle for a good
25 enough approach, and continue to communicate your rationale
114
1 and your philosophy to the public.
2 I know there were a lot of questions that were
3 asked about my testimony provided and I'll try to answer a
4 few of them, if you'd like me to now, or if you'd like to
5 wait for questions.
6 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Have you completed your
7 statement?
8 DR. LIPOTI: My statement is over.
9 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Okay. Why don't we come back
10 later? Mr. Gillespie.
11 MR. GILLESPIE: Good afternoon. My presence on
12 the second panel, representing the pilot program evaluation
13 panel rather than speaking as part of the staff, I think
14 represents kind of a unique approach to stakeholder
15 participation in this development effort.
16 I would like to thank all the participants and we
17 kind of a microcosm of the group here because the two Daves
18 were both on the panel.
19 I think the strength of this effort was in the
20 time and I'll say even emotional involvement on the part of
21 the members through the whole process. We were established
22 as a Federal advisory panel, with all the various bells and
23 whistles, we kept transcripts, we kept notes, and even
24 beyond the final report, which was -- we really focused on,
25 it was supplied actually in December and I think the
115
1 Commission was supplied a copy in December. So it was kind
2 of a forerunner.
3 We actually supplied the staff with the individual
4 members' views, packaged with that final report, and asked
5 the staff to deal with those individual views, also.
6 The panel was chartered to actually use the same criteria
7 that the staff established that they would measure the
8 performance of the program against and which Bill Dean went
9 through in great detail and it's included in the paper, so
10 I'm not going to repeat each one of those.
11 But in our first meeting, we rapidly adapted and
12 went through and went through a review with the staff of
13 those criteria and I do have to say that from stage one, the
14 staff was reasonably responsive to our comments on the
15 criteria and we did have a consensus letter report that we
16 sent to the staff to make some adjustments to the criteria
17 and virtually every recommendation was taken.
18 So that set the stage for both the panel and the
19 staff to be using basically the same yardstick as we went
20 through this process of information collection.
21 The panel recognized in what it was doing and I'm
22 going to stay away from any personal views, I will say that
23 right now, because I know Commissioner Diaz knows me, we've
24 talked before, and I'm representing kind of a consensus
25 view, and so I'm going to focus strictly on the view of the
116
1 panel.
2 But the panel saw itself needing to supplement its
3 views, so we actually invited five states, in addition to
4 Gary Wright, from Illinois, who was a permanent member of
5 the panel, to come in and give us some additional state
6 insights, New Jersey, Ms. Lipoti's staff came in. So we did
7 get extra insights from them. Mr. Riccio from Public
8 Citizen came in.
9 And we had a meeting where we allowed these people
10 to actually almost participate as panel members and ask the
11 panel itself questions, so the panel allowed itself to be
12 subjected to why are you thinking this way processes.
13 So I think we had a very open process and we went outside
14 where the personal views or the personal insights and
15 experience of the panel might have actually been kind of
16 limiting. So we did try to expand, but we expanded only in
17 those areas where we felt we needed to bring extra insights
18 in.
19 We also had an inspector come in, a regional
20 branch chief, and we deliberately picked people who had
21 expressed fairly vocal opinions during the process, and so
22 we were very open with those opinions.
23 And even through all that, let me focus on not the
24 details, because everyone has kind of gone through the same
25 details, but just on the final conclusion to reinforce what
117
1 David has kind of really already said and he kind of
2 repeated this panel's conclusion, and we sent this to the
3 Commission in December.
4 That the overall conclusion of the panel is that
5 the framework provides a more objective, clear and
6 risk-informed approach to oversight of nuclear reactors.
7 The program should proceed to industry-wide
8 implementation. The panel has identified several areas that
9 need refinement before industry implementation. In
10 addition, industry-wide implementation will be needed to
11 gather data to judge the effectiveness of the program and to
12 allow further improvements.
13 And this was done in the context of this program
14 really does appear significantly better and using a
15 significant larger volume of information than our old
16 program was based on, and that was the context of our
17 recommendation.
18 Let me just cover the membership of the panel just
19 a little bit. Deputy Regional Administrator was on the
20 panel, three Regional Division Directors from three of the
21 regions, all the regional views were considered, the State
22 of Illinois, David Lochbaum, four of pilot plant
23 representatives, all managers from those pilot plants, and I
24 think it really did represent a synthesis of views and was
25 kind of the unique part of the process where these views
118
1 were kind of put at a single table with a single vision to
2 come out with a consensus on things we could come to a
3 consensus on, and that was the nature of our final report.
4 And with that, I think that's really kind of
5 covered the essence. It was a unique process and people had
6 a lot of time invested in it. And the success of the
7 process was from the first day, we had a vision of an end
8 product and an end date, and to maximize the usefulness of
9 the information, we set out, I think, right from the
10 beginning, saying in December of this year, and this was
11 starting in about June was our first meeting, in December of
12 this year, we are going to have a report, even if we have to
13 lock ourselves in a hotel room, to get it to the staff, to
14 make maximum usefulness, given the staff's schedule.
15 And people did a lot of homework, a lot of extra
16 reading, and while the State of New Jersey wasn't on the
17 panel officially, Jill's staff showed up for every single
18 meeting and we let them speak up at every single meeting.
19 So they were kind of like almost like de facto members.
20 I think the strength of the report was in the
21 consensus process and the strength of the views was in the
22 delivery of those consensus views in a timely way, and those
23 views have now been overcome with corrective actions or
24 things that the staff has done to address them. So I think
25 going through those again at this point would not be all
119
1 that beneficial.
2 With that, I'll just end my statement.
3 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'd like to thank you all very
4 much. Mr. McGaffigan is going to have to depart, so he's
5 asked if he could have an opportunity to first crack at the
6 questions.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8 I guess I'll start with the last statement and ask other
9 members of the panel, I think Mr. Gillespie has essentially
10 -- I've come up with a better acronym rather than IIEP --
11 IMPEP, implementation evaluation panel, and we already have
12 an integrated materials performance evaluation panel. So it
13 would be NRR IMPEP and NMSS IMPEP.
14 But do the others have a view as to whether having
15 an ongoing activity, Mr. Beedle mentioned the value of
16 having the regions involved in the ongoing activity, as this
17 is initially implemented, whether we should wait, as the
18 staff suggested earlier, till towards the end of the year,
19 maybe January 2001, or whether having a panel that involves
20 the states, involves the regions, involves the public
21 interest groups, involves these additional people who can
22 come?
23 It's just a place to vent, even if you don't reach
24 consensus, and also a place to keep things on track. Is
25 that worthwhile? David, do you have a view?
120
1 MR. LOCHBAUM: I guess it did have value. I'm in
2 DC anyway, so I could have gone to the meetings. So the
3 PPEP was a nice opportunity for me, but I had access anyway.
4 I think what I gained most from that was hearing
5 the resident inspectors and the regional inspectors, what
6 their views were. Sometimes I had concerns that went away
7 after they explained why that wasn't a problem and I thought
8 that hearing that face to face was something I couldn't have
9 gotten any other way, I don't think.
10 So from that standpoint, I think it was
11 beneficial. The one thing I'd like -- I kind of represented
12 the public, but I don't speak for all the public.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I understand.
14 MR. LOCHBAUM: In fact, I disagree with most of
15 the people I work with in this issue, which puts me in an
16 awkward position. So I think the frequently asked questions
17 system that the staff had for the industry, if something
18 like that were set up for the public side, it was developed
19 very late, I think in January, after the comment period
20 ended.
21 If something like that were set up for other
22 public stakeholders, I think that would supplement anything
23 that was done in terms of an advisory panel.
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: How about you, Dr.
25 Lipoti, do you have any view about the value of having an
121
1 ongoing evaluation, a formal ongoing evaluation process as
2 opposed to waiting till next January?
3 DR. LIPOTI: There's a lot of value in listening
4 to the staff's views and what the inspectors themselves are
5 finding when they try and take the theory that is beautiful
6 and apply it to inspecting a real plant.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: That's my view. I'd
8 almost love to go and watch some of this stuff play out
9 myself. I think Commissioner Diaz is nodding his head, too.
10 In some sense, the advisory panel is a proxy for
11 playing out some of those issues.
12 How about Mr. Beedle or Mr. Garchow?
13 MR. BEEDLE: I think there is tremendous value in
14 being able to come together and air your concerns. I'm not
15 suggesting we do this on a daily basis, but I think a year
16 is probably too long. You need to do it at an interval that
17 gives you the ability to take the input and do something
18 with it that makes some sense in terms of the program's
19 development. So it's kind of an ongoing lessons learned
20 process. Now, I know Dave --
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Dave does not have to
22 keep on giving. We could get a different --
23 MR. BEEDLE: I think he'd probably volunteer.
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay.
25 MR. GARCHOW: One suggestion I'd have,
122
1 Commissioner McGaffigan, is I've never been on a Federal
2 panel before, so I wasn't sure of all the rules, and in some
3 respects, getting through some of the formality limited, to
4 some extent, some of the dialogue.
5 So I think there is value of getting the right
6 people together and having and being able to hear from the
7 NRC staff and the inspectors and the regional folks and even
8 some of the industry folks from some of the plants that are
9 just picking this up, so we've heard from the pilot plants,
10 but there's now a whole other category of plants that could
11 surface even some issues that had never come up before.
12 So I would say there s probably a benefit to have
13 that not be a year. Whether the FACA process is the right
14 vehicle for that I guess would be worthy of some discussion
15 that Frank can carry on for the NRC, that I think we can
16 accomplish the same way through some workshops scheduled at
17 the right times, where people have an opportunity to provide
18 input and still get to the same gain without some of the
19 formality that was around the -- what you call the PPEP
20 process.
21 MR. BEEDLE: I think one of the things that we
22 need to continually remind ourselves of is that this
23 oversight process is the NRC's policy mechanism for dealing
24 with oversight and assessment of the plant performance. We
25 haven't changed any of the regulations yet.
123
1 In fact, I don't know of one regulation that was
2 changed as a result of this. So all those regulations that
3 were in place two years ago are still there today and we
4 have to abide by them, we're still governed by them.
5 And the value that we bring here, I think, is
6 comment and critique on a process that affects us profoundly
7 and one that I think we can add a dimension from an
8 assessment point of view, because the NRC has caused us to
9 be very conscious of our own self-assessment.
10 So I think we've got a lot of history that we
11 bring to bear in this process of assessment. So I think
12 that's probably the value added from the licensees.
13 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think part of the deal
14 of going first is I won't prolong this very long. The value
15 that I'm trying to get, and I don't know whether a formal
16 FACA process is needed or not, but some sort of ongoing
17 evaluation and involvement of the people that David talked
18 about as being second or third class citizens, making sure
19 that -- and I think we have some in our own internal
20 stakeholders, making sure the regions and the inspectors and
21 whatever get to speak frankly their views and the public
22 stakeholders get to speak frankly their views, the states,
23 so that it doesn't appear and it isn't and it hasn't been an
24 industry and NEI thing.
25 One last question. I want to pick up on David's
124
1 notion of the bride program and the Emperor having no
2 clothes that Dr. Lipoti talked about.
3 It strikes me that if the child were looking at
4 the SALP/watch list process, he'd say the Emperor is buck
5 naked. So underwear may be a significant improvement and
6 maybe someday we'll have cloaks and look like real emperors.
7 But I think that David has it right when he talks
8 about the bride program. We have this interim program that
9 is -- we don't have anything. We have SALP, which is gone;
10 we have the bride program, which is something good,
11 something old, whatever.
12 So I do want to put in a plug that I do think it's
13 an improvement. We may be in our underwear, but it's a step
14 up.
15 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you, Mr. McGaffigan, I
16 think. I was really struck in the juxtaposition of the
17 comments by the two Davids here, that one characterized the
18 significance determination process as enormously valuable
19 and David Garchow talked about having gone through it in
20 fire protection and how that was a very helpful process, got
21 to the crux of the issues, rather than fighting over the
22 process, and how useful it was.
23 Whereas your slide six, David Lochbaum, was
24 basically -- said it doesn't work at all and we ought to try
25 something different.
125
1 I'm trying to reconcile those two statements and
2 I'm also wondering, the staff has admitted that there are
3 some failings in the significance determination process and
4 they have discussed today a whole variety of things they
5 have underway to try to strengthen it, and I'm curious as to
6 whether you are comfortable with that aspect of the process,
7 David, and how it's evolving.
8 MR. LOCHBAUM: Yes. I think so, because even with
9 the process the way it is today, which we can say is not
10 perfect, the information is reported in the inspection
11 reports and it comes out fairly quickly thereafter.
12 So from our role as a monitor, we can see the
13 information and we can see the problem. We would probably
14 have a different significance determination process that we
15 use than the staff is using. So at least it gets us -- if
16 it's -- we believe it's a concern, we can engage either the
17 region or whatever the right direction that needs to be
18 taken, so we get the information and we can respond on it.
19 So it's helpful to us. The coloration means very
20 little. The example that I go back to, what's wrong with
21 the significance determination process, is an event at Quad
22 Cities. They had a problem with calibration of diesel
23 generators, I forget the exact mechanical problem, but it
24 impaired the performance of all the diesel generators at the
25 plant and it existed for roughly an 18 month period and it
126
1 was -- the significance determination process looked at that
2 and it came out green because there wasn't a loss of
3 off-site power during that 18 month period, which is
4 splendid, but that doesn't address whether that's --
5 As Mr. Beedle said earlier, if you had two
6 findings, one where the diesel generators, all the ones at
7 the plant were broken or impaired for an 18 month period is
8 a little bit more than some of the other things that came
9 out.
10 And if the SDP allows those kind of end results to
11 be presented, there is something wrong with it. But even
12 with that problem, I saw the data that said that diesel
13 generator is broken, so we can do what we need to do.
14 So from our standpoint, we're given the
15 information we need to get engaged and to follow safety
16 issues.
17 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: And I would take from the
18 staff's comments that they recognize that there were some
19 problems in it and they're trying to address them.
20 Mr. Gillespie, you mentioned in passing that the
21 report had a whole series of issues that it thought should
22 -- of your group -- that it thought should be addressed
23 before implementation. I realize you can't speak for the
24 group, because they haven't reassembled yet, but I'm curious
25 as to whether, from your personal view, those issues have
127
1 been satisfactorily enough addressed so that implementation
2 in April is appropriate.
3 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, I believe they have and I
4 think Dave and Dave could reinforce that. In our report,
5 there was about a two-page summary which tried to iterate
6 what was pre-April, what was kind of post-April.
7 There is one important document that has come up,
8 it's a post-April document that I would say the staff has
9 committed to, and that's a basis document and it's come up
10 in several forums, to try to articulate all the whys,
11 because this program has been moving so fast that we haven't
12 necessarily kept pace with recording, in a very orderly way,
13 why is this indicator exactly the way it is, why is that
14 one, why did the inspection program come out this way.
15 And it's not the how to implementation inspection
16 procedure document, it's literally the basis. And we had a
17 basis document when we started, but it didn't get kind of
18 maintained up to date, and that's become a very kind of, in
19 many discussions, including with ACRS, an important document
20 to focus on over the course of next year, and also before we
21 change the program a long after the next year, I think it's
22 important we need to write down, and the committee found
23 this, write down that basis -- before you change your basis,
24 write the first basis down.
25 But that was a more extended IOU, because
128
1 basically we have all those people participating in the
2 program today, so we haven't lost that insight. So that was
3 an okay to start in April, but, boy, let's keep an eye on it
4 over the next year, because we do need to get that reported.
5 So I think all the near term things have been
6 addressed by the staff.
7 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Good. Thank you. Dr. Lipoti,
8 you had made a whole series of forceful comments about the
9 program, but nearly everyone else has told us it's an
10 improvement and it's something that we should go forward
11 with.
12 You haven't given us a comment as to whether you
13 agree with that.
14 DR. LIPOTI: I hear a train. I think it's going
15 forward. I may be a naysayer that says, well, I think you
16 should fix a few things before it goes forward. There is
17 really no point in my saying that. It's going forward.
18 So now what I want to do is just offer
19 constructive criticism for improving it as it goes forward.
20 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Thank you. Commissioner Dicus.
21 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Thank you. Let me start with
22 Mr. Beedle. I appreciate your answering the question that
23 the industry is ready to go forward and so forth, but I
24 think you also recognize that you do have some pockets of
25 skepticism. Are you prepared to deal with those?
129
1 MR. BEEDLE: I think that both the industry, as a
2 body, and the agency reflect the effect of change and just
3 as the agency is dealing with some apprehension and concern
4 and how do I fit into this and what do I do and what's my
5 role, I think the industry has the same concerns.
6 We've got concerns over the 72 hours, we've got
7 concerns over the 4.1 versus the 2.5 versus the 3.2 and all
8 those things bubble up into anxiety on somebody's part.
9 If I were to wait until everybody was absolutely
10 satisfied that everything was perfect, we'd all be dead. We
11 just would never get there.
12 So somewhere along the line, we've got to, as my
13 dad used to say, fish or cut bait, and I think we've already
14 been told today that you don't have a process I place today.
15 We've got kind of one foot in never never land and the other
16 foot is in this new assessment process.
17 So I think for the sake of your sanity on the part
18 of your staff, you need to make a decision one way or the
19 other. Either go back and reinvent the SALP process or move
20 ahead with this oversight process. I think we've already
21 heard enough about the characterization of the SALP process,
22 that we probably don't want to go there.
23 So I think this offers the best chance of giving
24 the agency the ability to effectively assess the performance
25 of the plant in an objective, predictable manner that's
130
1 visible to the public, to the agency, and the licensees.
2 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. PSE&G;, in your summary
3 statement, you say continue to address the areas for
4 improvement, but you didn't go into them, but we've heard
5 where there are problems. Is there anything you would add
6 to or subtract from all the concerns that we have heard
7 today?
8 MR. GARCHOW: Specifically, for PSEG, we found no
9 issues that were different than what had led up to the PPEP
10 or the NEI process, because we were involved in both. So we
11 had to opportunity to hold any issues we had specifically to
12 the pilot implementation at Salem and Hope Creek into both
13 of those forums and they were adequately addressed to our
14 satisfaction. Same as Mr. Lochbaum, sine we're apparently
15 now forever going to be the two Daves. I'm still thinking
16 of what that means.
17 But I think that we have the same -- we need to
18 move forward and address the issues, as we've described.
19 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. And, Mr. Lochbaum, you
20 had indicated that we need to do some more plain English
21 communication with the public and you did mention in your
22 comments that, for example, some of the documents going
23 forward into the meetings, so the public had those and could
24 better understand them.
25 That helped a little bit, because some of the
131
1 reports that we send back and forth to the licensee are
2 technical reports, from techies to techies, if you will.
3 Were you referring to those reports, as well, that
4 some of those needed to be put in plain English for the
5 public's consumption?
6 MR. LOCHBAUM: I think, in my mind, there is a
7 distinction between reports. Inspection reports are more
8 meant for vehicles between the NRC staff and the licensee,
9 and the responses are also in that category.
10 There's a separate category of documents that are
11 meant for a broader audience, for other than the licensee.
12 I think the plant performance reviews are now being used in
13 that category, but they're not written in that style, and I
14 think the six month -- I forget what the thing is called,
15 every six months, a letter goes out that says here is what
16 we're going to do for the next six months to you.
17 That letter is very difficult for people to
18 understand. So I think there could be an improvement.
19 When I first joined UCS, our director of
20 communications sat down with me at the very first meeting
21 and said I know you're an engineer, but when you talk to
22 people, pretend like you're talking to your grandmother, and
23 I'm not saying I do that today, but that was some of the
24 best advice I had since joining the UCS.
25 COMMISSIONER DICUS: We appreciate that. Okay.
132
1 And would you care to make a comment on whether you think
2 the industry is ready to go forward?
3 MR. LOCHBAUM: I talked to Mr. Beedle at the break
4 and he said they were. He's never let me down so far.
5 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. And, Dr. Lipoti, even
6 though you have a lot of reservations about this program, I
7 notice you are wearing green. I don't have any further
8 questions.
9 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Diaz.
10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd
11 like to observe that although I'm normally one track minded,
12 I'm more one track minded when I have the flu. So I have
13 one question for everybody, it's the same question, and I
14 would like to start from Mr. Gillespie.
15 Mr. Gillespie, you must realize that although you
16 come here as a Chairman of PPEP, in reality, we know you
17 better than that. We are going to go back and ask you for
18 some of your early knowledge of the program.
19 The question is going back to the same thing. It
20 is the fact that I believe there is an underlying set of
21 rules and regulations that haven't changed. There are
22 underlying value in the way we do inspections and we relate
23 them to plant performance.
24 There is a lot of things that really have not
25 changed significantly. There is a new dimension added.
133
1 Everybody looks at performance indicators. Since everybody
2 looks at them, I don't anymore. I just let everybody look
3 at them and I look at something else. It's just my contrary
4 nature.
5 The issue becomes if the performance indicators
6 are no good, do we have other things that really happen
7 every day, that happen every week, that take place in the
8 plant that provides the confidence level.
9 So the question is, from your perspective, can you
10 quickly tell me what the role and value of the open data
11 gathering and processing is, the fact that this data
12 gathering and processing has a periodicity that never
13 existed before, and its value to a robust corrective action
14 program?
15 Do you want me to repeat the question? No, you
16 got it. I thought so.
17 MR. GILLESPIE: I think the value is much in the
18 structure and many questions have been asked. Have we got
19 the perfect set of PIs, and I think the real question is do
20 we have a good enough set of PIs to reflect across a profile
21 of performance, and I mean a profile that we have basically
22 18 performance indicators.
23 And if we had turned those into one weighted
24 indicator, we, I think, have a flaw, because one could
25 outweigh the other.
134
1 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I'm sorry. That's really not
2 the question. Let me ask it again. You have to go back to
3 the very fundamental level of what happens every day, how
4 people put data into their plants, how they collect it, how
5 that data has a periodicity, how it's upgraded, how people
6 look at it, how it goes into the corrective action program,
7 how that can impact on a performance indicator, how can
8 performance indicators go back to it.
9 So it is at the level of data gathering,
10 processing, going into the corrective action program. What
11 is the role and value of this? Will it get better? Will it
12 give us more information than we had before? Will it
13 interact on a day to day basis with the safety assessment of
14 the plant?
15 MR. GILLESPIE: I think that that structure, from
16 the collection of the data all the way through, and the fact
17 that the data then gets publicized, with visibility comes
18 accountability, all the way down to the person who is
19 recording that number, who is doing the maintenance, who is
20 putting it into the system.
21 So I think with that accountability, and I think
22 that has some bearing on, in fact, the INPO initiatives that
23 you heard briefly on corrective action programs, that this
24 is one of the more significant impacts on safety that's
25 coming out of this program.
135
1 Given that structure and visibility, and it goes
2 across everything in the plant, if we've picked our PIs
3 right. So the exact PI isn't important as the fact that the
4 breadth of the PIs and the fact that it goes down to the
5 person doing the work and then rolls up to the visibility of
6 the utility.
7 So I think we have a tremendous safety benefit
8 from this structure.
9 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: And our role in that, an every
10 day role?
11 MR. GILLESPIE: Our role is verifying that the
12 data is correct, that it represents what we think it
13 represents, and that's the role of inspection. The role of
14 inspection is to verify and to also provide independent
15 looks at the same processes and equipment and systems to say
16 that the PIs are telling us what they're supposed to be
17 telling us.
18 So that it's a checks and balance in the whole
19 process. The PIs do take on a visible role, though.
20 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: All right. Thank you. Ms.
21 Lipoti?
22 DR. LIPOTI: The performance indicators help you
23 to prioritize your inspection resources. There's no
24 question that you don't want to spend time inspecting
25 something which is already in good shape. You want to spend
136
1 your inspection oversight in those places where there could
2 be a problem.
3 But to me, one of the issues which is not measured
4 by PI is the cross-cutting issue of the corrective action
5 program and Bill Dean said earlier that time will tell. My
6 definition of time is inspection time and I think you need
7 to put additional time on the cross-cutting issues, like the
8 corrective action program, like human performance, like
9 safety consciousness.
10 And I think that in your inspection guidance that
11 you write for your inspectors, that it needs to be written
12 by NRC and be a NUREG and not an NEI guidance.
13 I think you have to look at statistically
14 significant issues from the whole corrective action program
15 and the corrective action program that was part of the pilot
16 at Salem, they have 30,000 issues that are in the corrective
17 action program and they add them at 3,000 a month.
18 The inspection, which was an in-depth inspection,
19 picked out 20 to look at. That's not a statistically
20 significant number. Now, I know that there's additional
21 inspection resources that's provided by the resident
22 inspector and that their presence and that they look at
23 corrective actions. But I think that the guidance in
24 inspection for corrective action is not yet ready.
25 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you.
137
1 MR. LOCHBAUM: I think my answer would be based on
2 my experience working as a consultant at good performing
3 utilities and plants that weren't in that category.
4 I think the performance indicator, the value of
5 the performance indicators is instilling the right culture
6 or approach to safety or approach to business, because if
7 you're doing business right on the performance indicators,
8 you're not going to operate 180 degrees out on other areas.
9 So that gives the plant owner and the NRC and the
10 public an insight into how performance at the plant is
11 proceeding, if performance is in the green or the acceptable
12 category, there is a higher confidence that other areas are
13 being handled well, whereas if performance is not in those
14 categories, doubts are raised.
15 So I think that's the importance we place on the
16 performance indicators and the reason we like so many, not
17 too many, but a larger category rather than four big
18 categories of SALP, was that you can detect declining
19 performance hopefully sooner.
20 So I think that's the purpose of it and we think
21 the NRC's role is to step in and when performance declines
22 are detected, remind the licensee of the necessity of
23 promptness in turning that around.
24 MR. GARCHOW: I guess I'll take an action item
25 here to show the difference between notification and that
138
1 which goes in our corrective action program as an Appendix B
2 issue. We have a low threshold, high volume system, of
3 which any deficiency, discrepancy, good idea, gets written
4 up in a notification.
5 I'm not sure we even have quite 3,000 of those,
6 but that's probably close. Out of that, there are several
7 hundred of those that we track, that typically run in the
8 three to 400 a month that actually make the screen into our
9 corrective action program.
10 I can share that with you in one of our regular
11 interface meetings what that is. But I think that you did
12 -- Jill actually hits on the issue, though, and we can
13 debate the number, but the issue that gives me comfort is we
14 do surveying for safety conscious work environment, so we
15 know and I have data to show that our employees feel free to
16 raise safety issues and do, and we have a process that's
17 very low threshold, high volume.
18 Every day, those get screened by license operators for
19 immediate plant impact and then get screened every day by a
20 team of engineering maintenance and ops folks to determine
21 what is the significance, what is the time we want to
22 resolve it and who is the appropriate group to resolve it.
23 So that process is a living, dynamic process and
24 the only way that we are going to get to excellent
25 performance over the long term is to really encourage people
139
1 to identify every good idea, some of those may or may not be
2 in the quality program, but they're still -- we don't put
3 the burden on the employee to make that determination. We
4 want it written up and submitted and I can tell you that the
5 improvements that we've made at our facility were driven by
6 the corrective action program and our self-assessment
7 program and we have room to grow in that area as we continue
8 our climb at PSE&G; to raise the performance of Salem and
9 Hope Creek.
10 So I'm convinced that the direct answer to your
11 question, the corrective action program is the key and we
12 put the issues in wherever they come from. So in our
13 routine interactions with the NRC inspector, if the NRC has
14 a concern in an area, we'll document it in our corrective
15 action program to go pull the string on it. It may turn out
16 to be something significant, it may not, but the value is in
17 the dialogue and in getting it in our program.
18 We saw in the pilot where every single inspection
19 module that comes into the plant, whether it be a team
20 inspection in an area or whether it be the routine resident
21 inspector, has a portion of time, upwards of ten to 15
22 percent, where they are pulling the string on corrective
23 actions in every area on an ongoing basis, with the risk --
24 with a risk significant screening.
25 So I think it's wroth reviewing that. Whether
140
1 that's appropriate, the pilot program did test and we were
2 able to see as the recipient of the program the fact that
3 the inspectors were in the corrective action program
4 continually with every inspection, as well as the team
5 inspection for corrective action, which happened to be done
6 at Hope Creek for the pilot.
7 So we did get to see that and there were probably
8 some areas for improvement that the NRC captured in their
9 ability to do that inspection better. That was one of the
10 first corrective action inspections that was done as part of
11 the pilot and I think there were several improvement areas
12 that were learned as a result of that inspection at Hope
13 Creek.
14 MR. BEEDLE: Commissioner, I'd like to approach it
15 from two different levels. One, and I think it has been
16 covered by Dr. Lipoti, where she talks about the data, raw
17 data and performance indicators and how that gives you some
18 sense of performance in an area and where you aren't covered
19 with a performance indicator, you do inspection.
20 But I think I'd like to take your question to a
21 different level and you talk about the day to day activity.
22 These plants collect data of all sorts moment by moment and
23 it starts with the watch standards and the reports that they
24 make on the performance of their equipment. It goes to the
25 management reviews. It's the plant oversight reviews. It's
141
1 the off-site reviews. It's the self-assessments, it's
2 condition reports, extent of condition, and all of those
3 things roll up into the corrective action program, but
4 they're all driven by the safety conscious work environment
5 that's created by the management team at that facility.
6 So when we look at these three cross-cutting
7 issues, I think they fall into kind of two categories.
8 There's the process issue that we're calling self-assessment
9 and corrective action and then there's the safety conscious
10 work environment and the human performance issue, and both
11 of those two areas are driven more by the attitude of the
12 managers than anything else.
13 I don't think you can regulate a safety conscious
14 work environment. I think you can, though, see the evidence
15 of that and the viability of that work environment in the
16 way the corrective action program functions and that's
17 reflected in the way the plant behaves.
18 So I think we're -- a lot of data that's
19 collected, it all ends up in that corrective action program
20 and that's what drives the performance of the facility.
21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: And is the disposition of that
22 corrective action program important to safety?
23 MR. BEEDLE: Absolutely. I don't think anybody
24 would argue that it's not an important element in this
25 process of managing the facilities.
142
1 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: Commissioner Merrifield.
3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4 I guess, first, I want to say I appreciate the thoughtful
5 testimony that our witnesses have had today. I think it's
6 very helpful for moving forward and improving this program.
7 Also, I would want Mr. Gillespie to transmit my
8 appreciation to the other members of the panel who are not
9 here today, but we obviously appreciate the strong work that
10 they've put and perhaps will be a continuing effort in that
11 regard.
12 Dr. Lipoti, I want to follow up on the line of
13 where the Chairman was going. I was reminded of the
14 testimony we had last week from the ACRS and they raised a
15 number of areas where they thought the program had some gaps
16 and as we got down into that level, I was reminded at that
17 time and made a comment that one has to strive with the
18 perfect being the enemy of the good.
19 I was reviewing your testimony and in it you say
20 the question to be answered now -- this is on the first page
21 -- the question to be answered now is not whether the new
22 program -- new oversight process is perfect, it is not. The
23 question is not whether the new oversight program has merit,
24 it certainly does.
25 But it is whether the new oversight program is
143
1 better than the existing oversight program. I think the
2 Chairman was trying to get that out of you and I couldn't
3 get it out of your testimony and I was wondering if you
4 could give me an answer to that.
5 DR. LIPOTI: Well, page two of the testimony
6 compares the two and the comparison with the existing
7 oversight program and certainly the existing oversight
8 program has little linkage to risk significance and the new
9 oversight program has a great deal of risk significance.
10 And it helps to focus your resources, and that's a
11 good thing. But I worry a little bit about the incredible
12 cooperation that has developed this program between NEI and
13 NRC. I think that's unique in terms of a relationship
14 between a regulator and the regulated community.
15 I wonder if that kind of cooperation really
16 inspires public confidence. After all, you have several
17 milestones or key milestones that you are using for a
18 measure of whether the new oversight program is good. One
19 of them is public confidence and that one I don't think has
20 been adequately measured.
21 Certainly the existing oversight program with the
22 SALP comes out every 18 months. The new one has quarterly
23 results that are put on the web site and the web site is
24 visible and with visibility comes accountability. Those are
25 all good things.
144
1 But there are still some issues that give me
2 pause.
3 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: What about you have
4 sitting next to you David Lochbaum, who is one of our --
5 clearly one of our most significant public interest group
6 participants. He talks a lot about the public. Mr.
7 Lochbaum has come before us at least as long as I've been a
8 Commissioner, and probably ten or 15 times in the last 15
9 months, and there isn't a single statement he doesn't make
10 where he talks about the public interest.
11 His bottom line was that we ought to move forward
12 with it.
13 DR. LIPOTI: And he also qualified It by saying
14 that he's not sure he does represent the public. And I
15 certainly wouldn't stand before you and say I represent the
16 public. But I have had inspectors that have gone on the
17 inspections at -- and I've expended more resources on
18 looking at this new oversight process than almost anything
19 else in my program in the past nine months. And we have
20 said that where the rubber meets the road, where the
21 inspector is out there trying to apply this process, there
22 are still very significant problems, and I'm not sure that
23 you can see them from the level of the management and the
24 theory of the new oversight program.
25 And I just want to warn you that inside this
145
1 program, the devil is in the details and the details are
2 very difficult and there remain many, many things that need
3 resolution and they may not pop up to the level that comes
4 before the Commission again. They'll be resolved at staff
5 level.
6 But think about how this program, this new
7 oversight program, does it give you the comfort level that
8 you will know where to spend the NRC resources on inspecting
9 the right plants and in the right areas.
10 Do you feel that it really will? And that's the
11 question that you have to ask yourself as a Commissioner.
12 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you.
13 DR. LIPOTI: But I do want to go on to say one
14 more thing.
15 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: I've got some other
16 questions I've got for some other witnesses.
17 DR. LIPOTI: Sorry.
18 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Mr. Beedle, one of the
19 questions that was raised earlier today was that the new
20 oversight process is a voluntary program. I'd like to get
21 your thoughts on that assertion and whether you think it is
22 possible a licensee may elect not to participate in the new
23 program.
24 MR. BEEDLE: The voluntary nature of this program
25 really goes to the production of the performance indicators
146
1 and the submission of those indicators to the NRC. And I
2 would remind everybody here that there is more to this
3 program than the performance indicators.
4 It's the performance indicators, balanced with the
5 inspection process, which is the dominant element of it,
6 along with an assessment mechanism that helps the inspectors
7 and the licensees understand where the inspection process is
8 going.
9 So the voluntary nature of this is in the
10 submission of the data. I don't think that any utility has
11 balked at providing data. They all get that data in on time
12 in January for the historical look. I have no indication or
13 belief that anybody is going to not submit the data.
14 Personally, I would think that anybody that sat
15 there and said I'm not going to provide this data to assist
16 the NRC in determining where they're going to allocate
17 resources for inspection would run the risk of having an
18 awful lot of inspection to cover those areas that the
19 performance indicators would normally cover.
20 I don't think that's in their planning. So I
21 would expect that all of them would provide that.
22 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Mr. Lochbaum, could you
23 give us your perspective on two comments made by ACRS in the
24 March 2 meeting? The first one being that the performance
25 indicator thresholds may be so high that we and the
147
1 licensees will be unable to identify trends and that they
2 are so high that they serve as disincentives to improve
3 plant performance?
4 MR. LOCHBAUM: I think on the first one, even
5 though you get a color on any of the boxes, you can look at
6 the underlying data and draw trends even within a green box
7 or any box you want to. So I think it's possible to.
8 I think if the performance indicators -- we had
9 concerns with the containment leakage one, because it would
10 not provide trending because of a lot of the problems that
11 the previous panel talked about.
12 The remaining performance indicators we think can
13 be trended, even if they're all green. That doesn't
14 necessarily mean you have to react on it, but I think you
15 can.
16 And could you refresh my memory on the second one?
17 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: That they are so high as
18 to serve as a disincentive to improving plant performance.
19 MR. LOCHBAUM: I guess I don't agree with that. I
20 think as many other panelists have said, that if you're
21 white, that's perceived to be bad, even though it's not
22 necessarily unsafe, and there's going to be peer pressure or
23 accountability to try to maintain all the indicators in the
24 green, whether they're performance indicators or NRC
25 inspection findings.
148
1 So I think that pressure or accountability is
2 there in the new system. I don't think they're too high, so
3 I guess I don't understand that view.
4 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Mr. Garchow, the staff
5 has indicated that they're going to revise the process for
6 documenting inspection findings to allow our inspectors to
7 document observations associated with programmatic
8 deficiencies and cross-cutting issues, even if those don't
9 necessarily raise to a level of being on a performance
10 indicator crossing a threshold or in a significant
11 inspection finding.
12 Do you think that's a good idea or a bad idea?
13 MR. GARCHOW: Well, I think the answer is I have
14 no problem with it being documented. We're getting that
15 information as a licensee by virtue of the resident exit
16 meetings and through the pilot process, we saw improvements
17 in the exit meetings for inspections.
18 They weren't -- as the clarification got down to
19 the inspectors, I think it was Mr. Madison that indicated we
20 saw a marked difference. They weren't perfunctory. They
21 actually were very good dialogues of what areas were looked
22 at and what they saw and any observations or senses that the
23 inspector had. Those started to come out towards the end of
24 the pilot program, and that was beneficial for my staff to
25 here as we're assembled in an exit meeting.
149
1 So we were getting the information, I believe,
2 from the inspection exit meetings that are held. Whether
3 those comments show up in a report or not, I see no issue
4 with them being in the report. I got the information from
5 the exit meeting, so I see no issue with them not being in
6 the report.
7 COMMISSIONER MERRIFIELD: Thank you.
8 CHAIRMAN MESERVE: I'd like to thank you all very
9 much. It was very helpful to have your insights on this
10 program and appreciate the time you've spent with us this
11 afternoon.
12 With that, we're adjourned.
13 [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the briefing was
14 concluded.]
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
