 |
Search Options | |||
| Index | Site Map | FAQ | Facility Info | Reading Rm | New | Help | Glossary | Contact Us |  |
|||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Meetings, Slides, Transcripts, Meeting SRMs, and Full Written Explanation for Closed Meetings > 1997
>
05/14/1997
1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
***
BRIEFING ON PROGRAM TO IMPROVE
REGULATORY EFFECTIVENESS
***
PUBLIC MEETING
***
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Commission Hearing Room
11555 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland
Wednesday, May 14, 1997
The Commission met in open session, pursuant to
notice, at 3:04 p.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON,
Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission
KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission
GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the Commission
NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
EDGAR McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Commission
. 2
STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary
JOSEPH CALLAN, EDO
EDWARD JORDAN, Deputy Executive Director for
Regulatory Effectiveness, Program Oversight,
Investigations and Enforcement
DAVID MORRISON, Director, Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research
JAMES LIEBERMAN, Director, Office of Enforcement
THOMAS MARTIN, Acting Associate Director for
Technical Review, NRR
DENWOOD ROSS, Director, AEOD
GUY CAPUTO, Director, Office of Investigations
. 3
P R O C E E D I N G S
[3:04 p.m.]
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good afternoon. I'm pleased to
welcome members of the staff who will brief the Commission
on the Agency's regulatory effectiveness program.
The regulatory effectiveness organization is a
part of the recent restructuring of the reporting
arrangement under the EDO, the executive director for
operations, and contains four vital NRC offices: Research,
Enforcement, Investigations and AEOD. The structure
reflects the Commission's belief that the staff needs a high
level focal point for program evaluation. The organization
is independent of the line organizations with responsibility
for the day-to-day regulatory agenda.
During today's briefing, the staff will discuss
plans to independently assess and improve NRC's
effectiveness in regulating licensees. The briefing will
cover program goals, objectives, potential assessment areas,
and the role of the regulatory effectiveness offices and a
new effort that's been created and resource requirements.
I and my fellow commissioners are looking forward
to your briefing today. I understand that copies of the
viewgraphs are available at the entrances to this meeting,
and unless anyone has further opening comments, Mr. Callan,
please proceed.
. 4
MR. CALLAN: Thank you, Chairman, and good
afternoon, Commissioners, once again.
The Commission provided direction in a staff
requirements memo dated March 22nd, 1997 on the DSI, the
direction setting issue for regulatory excellence. This
briefing focuses on the implementation plan for this one
element of the overall program for enhancing regulatory
excellence. The staff is committed to provide
recommendations on the overall program for regulatory
excellence by September 1997. This briefing will be given
by Mr. Ed Jordan, who has a new title. He's the deputy EDO
for regulatory effectiveness, and Mr. Tom Martin, who is the
acting associate director for technical review.
I think behind me, we have Denny Ross, Dave
Morrison, Guy Caputo and Jim Lieberman, who are here in
recognition of the roles that their offices play in the
regulatory effectiveness initiative.
Mr. Jordan will continue this briefing.
MR. JORDAN: Thank you.
As you recall, I was the sponsor from the
Strategic Assessment Steering Committee for development of
the regulatory excellence direction setting issue 23. We're
responding to that direction setting issue and the
Commission's direction in the SRM, plus Mr. Callan's
direction to expedite the element directed towards
. 5
assessment of the quality of NRC regulatory programs. This
proposal is described in SECY 97-103, which was distributed
to you yesterday.
This independent quality assessment element is
designed to improve NRC recognition of programmatic issues
through focused review of potential vulnerabilities.
Generally most effectiveness lessons have been byproducts of
reviews, inspections or incident investigations conducted by
NRC of licensee activities. This effort is focused on
examination of NRC activities and programs in order to
obtain regulatory effectiveness lessons more directly.
Insights about specific licensees' or industry products'
performance would be byproducts.
Could I have slide 2, please.
This proposal relies on resources and perspectives
of the four offices that report to me, plus an assessment
team. The leader, Tom Martin, reports directly to me,
currently by a one-year assignment from the Office of
Research.
Tom is uniquely qualified based on his background
and experience. He has nuclear utility experience,
assessment team experience in NRC, regional inspection and
management experience, and most recently research management
experience. In addition, Tom was the engineering team
leader for the Maine Yankee independent safety assessment
. 6
this past summer. He is both exacting, tenacious and
experienced.
We plan to explain the goals and objectives of
this program, the scope of issues, the sources and methods
of selection of assessment areas, the method for handling
findings, the role of the four offices, and the
implementation plan.
I would like to assure you that this element is an
integral part of the regulatory excellence program. That
overall program will address engagement of the workforce at
the grassroots level, employee communications issues, and
improvement of NRC processes and management and support
functions as directed in the SRM. A full briefing of this
program, the regulatory excellence program, will be provided
to the Commission by the September due date. Dr. Billy
Morris of the Office of Research will be managing that
development.
We have had internal discussions of the concept of
this regulatory effectiveness element of the program with
NRR and NMSS management. We have briefed the ACRS, NRC
partnership committee, and the Office of the Inspector
General. The concept was also discussed with Energy at the
Regulatory Information Conference, and the CFO and the CIO
have been briefed on this issue.
While the basic concept has remained, these
. 7
discussions have been very beneficial in the development of
details and processes.
Could I have the next slide, please?
The goal of the regulatory effectiveness
initiative is to improve the regulatory focus and the
performance of the NRC. The concept is to select areas for
review by a systematic process and conduct assessments of
the highest priority areas through a combination of in-
house and licensee reviews.
The output of the process is constructive feedback
to the program office through a report of findings and
recommendations to the deputy executive director for
regulatory programs from myself.
The positioning of this activity is between the
Office of Inspector General, audits, and the program office,
assessments. We will carefully utilize these two to avoid
duplication. It is expected that the process for selection
of areas for review may affect future areas of program
office assessment.
Could I have the next slide, please?
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you go, Mr. Jordan --
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- have you developed what
basis you will use to judge improvements in NRC's regulatory
focus and performance?
. 8
MR. MARTIN: That's upcoming in one of the slides
in terms of the --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You're going to talk more about
that.
MR. MARTIN: Yes, we'll talk more about that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. And then the other
question I had is in terms of this feedback process, you're
describing it as being at the deputy executive director
level, and so -- but presumably you're going to flesh that
out a little more.
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I mean, for instance, will
recommendations be made as appropriate --
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- which would then impact the
program areas? And will the issues be tracked to resolution
and who will own that tracked resolution?
MR. JORDAN: Okay. Yes, yes, and the EDO.
[Laughter.]
MR. JORDAN: And we will cover that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You will cover that. Okay.
I'll wait.
MR. JORDAN: Slide 4, please.
Three parallel paths that we are going to be
following are comprised of an assessment team -- that is Tom
. 9
Martin's effort -- to perform independent assessments, and
two paths to identify potential areas for further
assessments. We're going to spend quite a bit of effort on
the identification of areas for assessment. Measures to
collect and review information and nominate areas for
assessment will be integrated across the four offices that
report to me.
At this point, I would like for Tom to discuss the
independent assessment team activity in more detail.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Before you begin, and if you're
going to answer this in the course of your remarks, you can
incorporate them.
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: According to this previous
viewgraph and this one, you know, you have these three
parallel paths for identifying and assessing issues. The
question is, will there be a common assessment methodology
and will you generally describe the assessment process you
have in mind?
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. And are we still on
schedule to have this REGMAT, this matrix developed by the
end of the year? That was a date that I was given when I
--
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
. 10
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- had a chairman's briefing
fairly recently. We're still tracking to do that?
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. And --
MR. JORDAN: I'm not certain that that would be a
complete development of the REGMAT, but we will have a
workable tool that will identify areas --
MR. MARTIN: Concept.
MR. JORDAN: -- before the end of the year.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. So maybe as you talk,
you can give more flesh to that.
Then I guess the only other question, if you could
address it as you talk, is how many assessments do you
foresee being conducted at any given time?
MR. MARTIN: That's a more difficult question.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Right.
Commissioner McGaffigan will add ten more.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Well, I just want to,
right at the outset, sort of raise an issue of what the
definition of regulatory effectiveness is, and it sort of
comes up in this parallel paths graph.
For me, regulatory effectiveness partly is, you
know, how well do we -- do NMSS and NRR and the other
program offices carry out their missions, how processes can
be improved. The original paper, the DSI 23, listed, you
. 11
know, a whole host of processes within offices that need
improvement or where efforts have been made to improve in
the past, and how do the people who do the work get involved
in this assessment effort, you know, how does NRR say our
50.59 process, which is on people's minds, or whatever, is
working or isn't working, or the senior management meeting
process, or, you know, whatever.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's all part of this
feedback.
MR. JORDAN: Yes, but why don't I try to answer
that to help lay some of the groundwork. The regulatory
excellence program will provide the opportunity and the
process to improve agency processes you might say in general
and specifically those will be selected and worked on
independent of this.
This process is designed to identify areas that
are not as obvious that we, through our normal programs, are
not seeing and to assess them and to identify whether the
NRC needs to increase the emphasis, reduce the emphasis, or
do it differently.
So this is a fairly narrow assessment, and in
terms of if an office or if an individual or a member of the
public has an area that is of concern to them, we have a way
of collecting that information and then prioritizing and
deciding whether it is worthy of an assessment.
. 12
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I just might say, my
problem with that is if it's not obvious, it may also not be
primary. It may be, you know, secondary to the mission of
the agency, and we may be creating an infrastructure here
that sort of looks on secondary issues while we are
neglecting the fundamental --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. Leaving egregious
problems in the main program --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: We're kicking the can
down the road for a decade, and you guys are going to come
up with new areas where we can, you know, provide additional
problems for us to work on without resolving the big ones.
MR. CALLAN: Let me say something, Tom.
First of all, Commissioner, I would say that what
we're trying to avoid is, to the extent we can, surprises.
The problems we know about, many of them are indeed
challenges and some of them approach being intractable, it
seems. But we will labor on, but we also, I think, need to
devote attention, resources to try to identify next year's
problems sooner and not just focus on the problems we
already know about. That's one point.
The second point I'll make is somewhat in response
more generally to your earlier question. I think there's
probably more than three parallel paths; there's at least a
fourth parallel path. That -- Ed alluded to it -- that is
. 13
the need for the program offices to do self-assessments and
for the line to become more self-critical.
Here's an area where I think the NRC as a
regulator can learn from the regulated industry. The
nuclear industry, over the last decade at least, has
certainly shown the way here, and we can learn a lot from
them. And we know a lot about this because we have been
observing them intrusively throughout this evolutionary
process. So if there's one lesson the nuclear industry has
learned the hard way, that is you cannot rely solely on
third-party outside assessments. You have to engrain the
self-critical approach in the line. If you don't do that,
you never truly arrive, and that absolute need is well
recognized by the office directors, and it's the ultimate
goal.
We will always need an outside oversight function,
but ultimately the answer, I think, to your question is
going to be line self-assessments, validated by ED's
organization.
That's why he made a point in an earlier slide of
recognizing and I would even say nurturing more than
recognizing, nurturing internal assessments and ongoing
improvement programs, just like we tried to do the same with
the industry.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan, you
. 14
still have --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: We'll stay on this, but,
you know, there's a tendency around here for next year's
problem to have been last year's problem or even last
decade's problem and, you know, I'm just concerned about
adding additional things when they're really central issues
that we need to grapple with and we desperately need to make
improvements given the budget reality in the outyears that
we're facing.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think that the
challenge is, as you're laying out what you're going to be
describing this afternoon, is to, in fact, illustrate the
connectivity to the improvements that we all want to see in
our main-line, baseline regulatory program. So you should
keep that at the back of your mind.
Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It's the same question, I
guess, that Commissioner McGaffigan asked: How are you
defining regulatory effectiveness? You know, I think the
problem I have is I see lots of ways of assessing something,
but I'm not sure what we're assessing it against.
You know, Mr. Callan, you said something that I
think was very important, that we're trying to avoid
surprises. Well, you know, there's a concept there that I
think needs to be perhaps put in a little different language
. 15
that's more appropriate for a definition. Because we're
trying to avoid something -- that's not a definition; that's
an outcome.
But I think that really more clarity needs to be
evident here on what we really mean when we say we're trying
to assess regulatory effectiveness. The problem that I see
in what the materials are that I've seen so far is that it
seems to me we're looking out at what licensees are doing
right now as a measure of that, but then how do we connect
that?
I'll tell you, I'm just a bit uncomfortable here,
because I personally don't see much connection between this
and DSI 23, the Commission's position on regulatory
excellence. Now, if we're saying that regulatory
effectiveness is a broader concept than regulatory
excellence, that somehow or other regulatory excellence is
something we're going to look at as phase 2, but regulatory
effectiveness is what we're looking at right now, then I
would like to understand that better, because I don't have
an appreciation of that point of view.
MR. JORDAN: Let me try to respond to that.
Regulatory excellence is a larger umbrella and the
regulatory effectiveness is a slice of it. The regulatory
excellence really involves the entire agency, both the
technical programs and the support programs, and the
. 16
attitudes of the staff and management in the way we work
together and the actual efficiency, this piece of it,
regulatory effectiveness, is a narrow slice, and the intent
is that it's associated only with -- directly with the
regulatory programs of NMSS, NRR, Enforcement,
Investigation, that it's how we implement the Agency's
mandate and whether we're focusing on safety issues so that
we're being productive in putting our resources in the right
places.
So our object is to give a fresh view of that, and
the regulatory matrix is a part of that that I'll talk a
little bit more about in a few minutes. But it's really
within the regulatory excellence program, and it is a fairly
narrow I'll say quality assurance, not a quality control,
activity.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz I think has a
question.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes. I think in the same
issue, I understand why we need to do additional assessments
of what our programs do, but I have the impression that what
we were going to do was look at our own programs and
actually try, you know, as quickly as possible, to provide a
serious directive to increase the effectiveness of our
programs from our own view inside before we start assessing
anything else.
. 17
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Martin has given me the
signal that he's going to speak to that issue; so why don't
we move along here. Then if not, then you can anticipate
that we're going to come back.
MR. MARTIN: We'll keep going to more detail. But
I'm ready to get started to do just that very thing.
Slide 5, program objectives.
These are the objectives of the program overall.
First, of course, is to provide quality assurance oversight
of NRC regulatory activities. Up to this point, we have not
had an independent technical quality assurance feedback
process for our regulatory programs.
The attributes in the following bullet will be
discussed in more detail on the next slide and hopefully
will address more directly your question on what is
effectiveness and how we will measure it.
The word coherency here is referring to whether
our various programs all pull in the same direction.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: How close are you to being able
to lay out a program plan for accomplishing these
objectives?
MR. MARTIN: I believe we have a program plan
already in place that we can implement on fairly short
order, and given several resources as requested, we could
undertake to get into some of these very areas.
. 18
For example, in the inspection area, there are a
lot of questions, I believe, and I'm not picking on one
certain program here, but I think it might be very useful to
be illustrative in where we're heading. You know, just some
questions that come up that may be resolved through this
process are whether the core inspection program over-
emphasizes operations and we're looking in the wrong area,
perhaps, as opposed to looking more in design, or whether
margins of safety are eroded in other technical areas.
Could the inspection program be better apportioned
based on risk, based on PRA, IPE. The accident sequence
precursor program and the kind of issues that are derived as
significant from that, could that be used to apportion the
inspection program in a better fashion?
We could analyze how much effort is being spent in
each area, and whether that makes sense relative to the
significant inspection findings that are being generated or
the significant issues that we're facing today in our
regulatory environment.
That's just some examples of --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Why isn't that an area
where NRR is given a crack at doing that first? And maybe
they're already doing it. Mr. Gillespie a few months ago
addressed us on the inspection program, and I recall -- I
think he said some of the same things you just said, you
. 19
know, we have to look at the balances and whatever.
What is the value added of your group looking at
that as opposed to NRR first taking a crack at it and then
you evaluating whether they did well or did poorly?
MR. MARTIN: That could very well be our course of
action. I'm not necessarily proposing now that we undertake
a review of the inspection program as our first effort. I
doubt that we would do that. However, I think there are
many areas --
MR. CALLAN: Let me -- on slide 3, the third
bullet, I can't emphasize -- that needs to be said over and
over again. This was a major issue in the internal
discussions leading up to this briefing. This has been a
major issue, as you know, between us and the industry, and
the same standard that we apply with the regulated industry
certainly ought to apply internally, and that is that we
will do everything in our power to encourage, nurture this
line self-assessment in this critical assessment culture
that we're heading towards.
So to use our hypothetical example, Commissioner,
it is hypothetical, but I would suppose that if such an
effort were underway, then we would do exactly what you
suggested, which is to monitor how that's going.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
MR. MARTIN: Next slide, please, the scope of
. 20
issues.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Slide 6?
MR. MARTIN: Slide 6.
I believe this may address some of your questions
about what we're actually referring to when we refer to
regulatory effectiveness.
We want to look broadly at our programs, but we
also want to be careful to focus on regulatory outcomes
rather than assessing regulatory outputs. For example, we
don't intend to emphasize conformance to NRC internal
procedures for controlling our work processes.
The five attributes on this slide frame the basis
for a regulatory effectiveness finding. The program will
focus on any regulatory program, regulation or activity that
lacks technical justification to the extent that an
inappropriate regulatory position or decision may be taken;
is inconsistent or not complementary with other programs,
regulations or activities such that attention may be
diverted from matters of higher risk significance; lacks
clarity such that it may not be understood; is
underemphasized or overemphasized relative to the risk
involved; or does not accomplish its intended purpose.
This last item is essentially the definition of
ineffective. The previous items are more representative of
the potential to be ineffective.
. 21
We also intend to focus initially on power
reactors and would intend to expand the scope of the program
to the materials area in mid-FY '98.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Would you, for instance, look
at regulations, you know, like the station blackout rule and
the ATWAS rule?
MR. MARTIN: Yes, those would be candidate areas
that we could look at from an effectiveness standpoint and
determine whether those rules, in fact, have the desired
intent, met the intent of the rule.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan and
Commissioner Rogers.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Sort of implicit in this
list is a bullet that would be wastes NRC resources or
licensee resources. If they meet some of these criteria,
then there's an effectiveness in the sense of waste
involved.
MR. MARTIN: Correct. Yes.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Should that be a
criterion or is that just implicit?
MR. MARTIN: Well, it is -- no -- it is a
criterion in regard to being overemphasized. If we
overemphasize something relative to the risk involved, I
think that is an occasion that we're not being effective.
So I would not consider it implicit; however, when we cross
. 22
over into efficiency, matters of pure efficiency, it may be
getting involved in more conformance to our own procedures
and then slip into what I would consider the broader realm
of regulatory excellence as opposed to effectiveness.
But yes, I would consider that if we're applying
too many resources or the industry is applying too many
resources in a certain area, with the zero sum gain that's
involved in the budgeting process, it would be an indication
of not being as effective as we could be.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I mean, maybe it's just a
matter of style, but it does seem to me that this slide,
scope of issues, is what you're really using to define
regulatory effectiveness.
MR. MARTIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: But you're doing it through
the back door, in a way. I mean, you're saying what's
wrong, and somehow, you know, it doesn't come across that
this is basically the basis for your definition of what you
mean by regulatory effectiveness, that it does -- regulatory
effectiveness or programs that are effective don't have
these deficiencies in them.
So it may be just a matter of how you make your
presentation, but I think that the way I read this packet
was, well, these are some things we're going to look at, but
we'll be doing other things as well; whereas it seems to me,
. 23
from what I'm gathering thus far, this is really the heart
of what you're doing, and I think it needs to get emphasized
that way a little bit.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I mean, think there's a
difference between looking to see if something lacks
technical justification as opposed to being proactive to
ensure that things are technically justified, that they are
consistent and complementary, that they are clear, that the
emphasis is relative to the risk significance of it, and
that there are metrics for ensuring that whatever we do
accomplished the purpose and they're as efficiently
administered as possible.
MR. JORDAN: We agree, and we can define it from
the positive and the negative. I think the way we fell into
this was the idea that we're looking for areas that are
potentially vulnerable, and then we'll assess them and
identify whether, in fact, that potential area has specific
weaknesses, I'll say, consistent with this particular slide,
and then we'll make recommendations about them.
So we're working from that negative side, much as
our inspection program does and our review program does with
licensees.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Yes. Following on the same
issue, it seems to me like this is a kind of performance
. 24
measurement matrix rather than the issues. I think as
important as establishing this as criteria is prioritizing
what it is really that you're going to need to look at
first, and that really becomes an issue, because we kind of
look at everything all of the time.
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The other thought I
have, you know, is if I were doing this slide, I'd probably
have "is untimely." You know, any NRC regulatory program,
regulation or activity would probably apply more to program
and activity rather than to a regulation, but the drafting
of regulations, the drafting of reg guides, the conformance
with industry standards when we go off into code and
standard space and take forever to get around to endorsing a
code and standard, does that belong here or have you pushed
that off into excellence space rather than effectiveness
space?
MR. CALLAN: It's interesting you bring that up,
because that has been kind of a bone of contention in our
internal discussions. As Tom Martin alluded, he's trying to
avoid measuring, as a metric, measuring performance against
specific procedural criteria.
For example, we have a 30-day criteria for getting
inspection reports out, is an example. Rather than devote
. 25
resources to see whether or not a region meets that --
there's other ways of doing it. That kind of timeliness
measurement is probably not very productive in the context
of what we're talking about, but the examples you gave are
the kind of examples that we've used internally to establish
the type of timeliness that does impinge on regulatory
effectiveness as defined.
So not all measures of timeliness would --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right. But the SRM said
come up with performance measures for the NRC staff in
timeliness of, for instance, rulemaking and reg guides and
codes and standards and whatever. Is that effectiveness or
is that excellence?
MR. JORDAN: That's intended to be within the
excellence umbrella.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: So that's not --
MR. JORDAN: We would not be, in this effort,
devoting much in the way of resource for that aspect of
measuring that performance metric. We would devote
resources towards, if it came up as a high priority,
reexamining the manner of issuing regulations, the process
as a study.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think there's an issue
here having to do with as you look at things, and if
timeliness, for instance, comes into play, you have to make
. 26
a delineation between what is in the NRC's control versus
-- you know, and understand how it gets impacted by what's
external, and a focus on what we can do better. You know,
that would seem to me to be an appropriate --
MR. JORDAN: Yes. And this is NRC's regulatory
effectiveness, what we can do better.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think -- why don't we --
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Just one general comment
from my perspective. I'm having trouble with the
effectiveness versus excellence and judging the
effectiveness program on which we're getting briefed today
without knowing what the umbrella of the excellence program
is, and judging the -- I may well care more about what they
have defined as excellence than I do on some of these --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: We have a definition which is
in the Commission's own DSI, and so it will be for the
Commission to take a look and judge what they're talking
about relative to what the Commission felt it was saying in
the regulatory excellence arena and to what extent, you
know, this matches or beings to address those sorts of
concerns.
MR. JORDAN: And I would pick out of the SRM --
there were statements with regards to expediting the
development of a proactive assessment of the quality of our
regulatory programs. Those were the words that we used as
. 27
the foundation for this particular effort.
So it's a proactive, independent assessment of the
quality of our regulatory programs and those other elements
are within the excellence program, and it is up to the
Commission as to whether we're putting the emphasis on the
wrong syllable or on the right syllable.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: We're going to talk about
these things sooner or later, so we might as well talk about
them as we go.
You know, the industry has made the point from
time to time, and I don't buy it particularly, but, you
know, that we should be regulating towards safety, not
excellence, all right? So somebody is drawing a distinction
between those two. I don't necessarily buy that, but I'm
just saying.
It seems a little bit to me as if you're drawing a
distinction between excellence and effectiveness, that they
are somehow related, but on some scale they differ. The
trouble that I have with that is that it's a way of
proceeding here to get something done, but when I go back
and look at DSI-23 and the COMSECY, the Commission really
asked the staff to do certain things that it seems to me
have to be done at the very beginning of the effort.
For example, develop an implementation plan that
. 28
includes but is not necessarily limited to the following,
and then there were a number of points, and one was identify
goals with milestones and clear criteria for judging
success. Well, we're asking here, well, how do you judge
success here, you know? And measures to engage the
workforce at the grassroots level and to stimulate
management and employee communications and problem-solving.
I think we've felt, at least I've felt and
everybody else signed off on this, we felt that was really
fundamental here, and we're not hearing about that. We're
hearing about a team that's being created and so on, so
forth, and the notion of a grassroots participation with
everybody who works for this organization committed to this
goal of achieving excellence is fundamental to what we want
to accomplish.
I'm just -- I'm having trouble here because I see
these are reasonable things to do, but they're not what we
asked for. And so that may be perfectly okay as long as you
can put it in the context of what we asked for, and that I
don't see as having been done.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Why don't we proceed and see if
you did put it within the context of what we asked for.
MR. MARTIN: Slide number 7, sources and selection
of assessment areas.
I think it would be useful at this point first of
. 29
all to define what we mean by an assessment area. An
assessment area is where we intend to look for regulatory
effectiveness findings. We will present some examples of
assessment areas on the next slide.
With regard to your comment, Commissioner Rogers,
about involving -- looking at a broad area, involving the
staff at a grassroots basis, a point that we want to make
here is that we're casting a wide net to look for candidate
assessment areas. The regulatory matrix assessment tool, or
what we refer to as REGMAT, is one source of information
provided by Research. The performance information that will
be developed through AEOD, OI, OE, is another source of
information.
We will also be getting stakeholder input from the
NRC staff and management, including the program offices that
will be directly involved in our assessments.
Also, in order to facilitate getting input from
the public and industry, we intend to establish an e-mail
address, a website and a mailing address so that members of
the industry can provide potential assessment areas directly
to the regulatory effectiveness assessment staff. We would
anticipate sorting through these inputs to put the
appropriate items into the mix of our activities.
The prioritization of these areas will be based on
the potential for identification of regulatory effectiveness
. 30
findings. Areas that represent the most risk significance
or the most potential impact will be given a higher priority
and then pursued through our assessment process.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Will you make use of DPO's
differing professional opinions, DPV's --
MR. MARTIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- and allegations in the
selection of areas to review?
MR. MARTIN: Yes. Absolutely.
The regulatory effectiveness assessment staff will
take the lead in compiling a prioritized list of these
assessment areas. That will be submitted for approval to
the deputy executive director of regulatory effectiveness
and provided to the Commission on a periodic basis.
Slide 8.
These are examples of the types of areas for
assessment that would be identified by the programs we are
introducing today. The REGMAT approach would be a
systematic analysis of regulatory coverage and would likely
generate the kinds of areas that may not be getting enough
attention or perhaps too much attention.
The data/experience area would rely on compilation
of various data sources from AEOD, Research, OE, OI and
others.
The types of areas that would be put into the mix
. 31
by the regulatory effectiveness assessment staff would be
developed independently as well as from stakeholders, the
public and industry as discussed on the previous slide.
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Before you leave it, could
you just help us in understanding what your thinking there
is with respect to water chemistry, as to why that's a
regulatory effectiveness area. I understand water chemistry
is very important for the maintenance of the materials in a
nuclear power plant. How does that relate to an assessment
of NRC effectiveness?
MR. JORDAN: If you'll indulge me --
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Please.
MR. JORDAN: First, I'll say this came out of the
idea of -- concept of a regulatory matrix, and if you
picture a matrix that --
MR. CALLAN: Excuse me. Let me just -- all of
you, during your drop-ins, have seen annunciator window
concepts. Everybody uses them in the industry. We're
basically borrowing from that concept when we talk about a
matrix.
MR. JORDAN: So if we described the regulated
areas -- that is, those activities that the NRC does -- as
one axis and the other axis is the utility, the licensee's
activities -- and so, for instance, for the licensee, you
could list the system structures and components like the
. 32
maintenance rule describes; you could list the functions and
activities of the licensee, operations, maintenance, and so
on. And for the NRC, you would list the regulation, or
regulations that is, you would list the codes and standards,
you would list the research documents, you would list the
training, the inspection procedures, all those elements that
drive the NRC in a particular direction, and you would then
be able to cross code. And I'll pick water chemistry as a
licensee activity, maintaining water chemistry in a primary
system of a BWR and steam generators of a PWR, for instance.
If I look down the regulatory side, I find that
the regulations are practically non-existent, that the tech
specs are extremely limited, that the guidance is limited,
the inspection procedures, there are not many, not much at
all.
If I come down to risk, I find there is
considerable risk associated with the maintenance of water
chemistry. It drives the corrosion rate of steam
generators, it has an effect on internals cracking in a BWR,
it affects fuel performance and has a significant safety
connotation.
So here is an area that has safety significance,
has very little NRC oversight and relies on the economic
effect of bad chemistry on utilities for its basis. The
utilities do have guidance and, of course, one of the
. 33
elements would be this would be the EPRI guidance for water
chemistry, and this is only an example, a thought piece, to
say, okay, are there areas that the NRC is not putting the
right emphasis on, and so water chemistry was one that came
up. I don't know the answer. I'm not sure whether we do or
not, but I know that water chemistry has caused premature
steam generator cracking, it has affected primary internals'
problems, resin intrusions in plants that were not reported.
We don't have reporting requirements for these areas.
So we're looking for, in this process, as Joe put
it, annunciator windows that would say maybe we ought to
reexamine these areas. And so if we had this matrix at its
simplest level, then we would identify those larger areas
for consideration, we would prioritize them and decide
whether or not they were worth following up.
So this is one way of identifying areas. We have
never taken what I call an integrated look at what is the
population that we should be regulating, and are we
regulating it to the right level.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz and then
Commissioner McGaffigan.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: You know, I must agree that
water chemistry is very important, but I think that the
regulatory process has always been kind of a "what are you
doing, you know, and how do we see it" type of process.
. 34
The industry has for many years put tremendous
efforts in water chemistry, and they have actually tried,
although the knowledge at the time wasn't that good about
water chemistry, and it has been changing and evolving.
You can look at, you know, what we did with steam
generators.
So the tremendous effort that the industry has put
into it, because that's where the economics are, besides the
safety, actually has made us limit our exposure into the
water chemistry area to technical specifications, but -- and
any time the fluorine passes certain limits, somebody
screams bloody murder. So we do have some flags out there
that are very, very important, and it might very well be
that what you're saying is correct, that we might need to
pay more attention to water chemistry, but I think the
question was, you know, as a fact, in the assessment area,
the fact that this comes out by itself, it seems --
MR. CALLAN: That's the issue. That's the issue.
Not that we need to do more; it's just that it will
highlight areas of vulnerability.
MR. JORDAN: It's a tool.
MR. CALLAN: It's a tool.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Right.
MR. MARTIN: Perhaps this could be looked at in
conjunction with our ISI program, which is the kind of
. 35
program where we identify cracks or, you know, the integrity
of our pressure -- certain pressure boundaries. Perhaps
some emphasis should be shifted to the prevention as opposed
to the identification after the fact.
MR. JORDAN: And I would use the next one in a
very simple, analogous way, that we have many plants -- most
plants -- with unique design features. We treat unique
design features the same as generic design features in our
reviews, in our inspections. I'm not sure that's correct.
I feel that there may be a need to treat -- to examine each
plant for what are the unique design features and then put
more emphasis on the inspection and the licensing review of
those unique features.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think -- and I know
Commissioner McGaffigan is chomping here, and I was going to
wait until the bitter end, but I'm not. It strikes me that
there are four challenges that you have, and I'm trying to
think about what you've already heard. This is before you
go any further. That is, how do you give positive
definition to what regulatory effectiveness is and what its
tie is to regulatory excellence, which is what the
Commission gave the DSI on? And how does what's in that
definition and what you're proposing to do derive, in fact,
from that DSI and how does it facilitate the implementation
of that DSI? That is, can you clearly delineate what
. 36
elements of DSI-23, what you're talking about this is, you
know, tied to?
I think there is still the question that's
bothering everyone as to what the connectivity is to program
office activities and having some sense of what is measuring
effectiveness or facilitating the effectiveness in how those
program activities are carried out?
Finally, how does the role of Research, OI, OE and
AEOD and what their responsibilities are day to day tie into
what you intend to do, not products that you're expecting
for a narrow focus effort, but how is it that what -- you
know, OI has a certain job to do; OE has a certain job to
do; AEOD has a certain job to do; Research. How is what
these offices do, okay, inform what you intend to do here?
I think that if somehow you can address those four
things, if not today, then going forward, then I think you
can begin to get at what I hear, you know, is bothering the
different Commissioners as well as myself.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'm sounding like a
broken record on this, but on water chemistry, to take that
example, or the unique design features, it does look like
we're potentially overall adding to the burden of the Agency
in one way or another.
I think if we're going to -- if you're a
regulatory effectiveness group, my definition of regulatory
. 37
effectiveness, you've got to figure out what it is we're
going to give up in order to have that additional focus, and
you've got to help us figure out how to -- if you're going
to add things to our rules or our overall program,
inspection program or whatever, you've got to tell us what
it is, and part of your tasking, in my view, is what do we
give up? You know, how do we free those resources up to
achieve this higher purpose if it is a higher purpose?
MR. JORDAN: My answer is not a pleasant one,
perhaps. I understood part of this charter really was to
try to avoid a Millstone type issue where the design -- the
NRC's emphasis on design basis reviews was insufficient.
I thought it was to avoid the fire protection
issue where the NRC failed to recognize the fire barrier
problem in a timely fashion.
So maybe my mission understanding is quite
different. I felt that the first priority was to go look
for areas that really contributed to safety that the Agency
was failing to see in a timely fashion, and so that's the
direction that I've launched. So I hoped to be heading off
the next Time Magazine cover story. So if that's not what
this narrow section out of regulatory excellence --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, I think --
MR. JORDAN: -- is intended to do --
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: No, no, no. Look, I think --
. 38
MR. JORDAN: Because I don't plan to propose what
we give up; I plan to identify what we must do that we're
not doing.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think there are many elements
to this. There's always a net zero sum gain or a kind of
triage that has to be done that at any given time, if there
are certain things that a judgment is made need to be given
focus and there is not some overall increase in the total
amount of resources available, there are trade-offs that
have to be made.
Presumably, and I would rather not put it in, "If
we give focus to water chemistry, what are we going to give
up, you know, in its stead," but really, that is, in fact,
what Joe's job is in terms of --
MR. JORDAN: It's a budget decision we must make.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- the integrated -- you know,
how does this play off against other parts of what we do.
So I don't think it's something that we need to be asking
you to, you know, give us a decision about or a statement
about today, but I think it's part of an overall way
resources get balanced. I mean, that's what Joe's
fundamental job in the regulatory areas turned out to be --
turns out to be.
But I think where your challenge lies is to show
clearly and to make the statement clearly as to how what
. 39
you're describing is derivative of what's in DSI-23, namely
regulatory excellence, and what elements of that, what
you're talking about and describing, this ties to. I mean,
that's where I think, you know, the disconnect. And it may
not be that -- and I don't think that one can definitively
say that you're going down a wrong path. It's more making
the ties to what's already laid out there, you know, in a
more clearly defined way, because -- and that helps you to
give flesh and focus to whatever it is that you're
purporting to do here as opposed to saying we think you're
going down the wrong path. I don't think anyone is saying
that specifically, but rather we want to see this tie to
this overall base.
Yes, Commissioner Diaz?
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I agree with you, but I just
heard something that really disturbs me, and that's
addressing Time Magazine. I really do not intend to have my
responsibilities driven by Time Magazine and I don't think
you should, either. I think the press has a role to provide
feedback and information, but we're not driven by Time
Magazine; we're driving by adequate protection of health and
safety of the public, and that has been based mostly on
operational safety. Design basis has a part in that, and
this is an important part, one we need to take care of, but
it's certainly not the whole direction of where the
. 40
Commission should be going.
It is a part that we need to pay attention to.
We're paying attention to it. I think we're getting better
at it. But that definitely I don't think was the intention
of the Commission. I don't think Time Magazine runs this
Commission; I think that's very important for everyone to
know. I certainly know that it doesn't run me. And I think
that that should be far away from any decisionmaking. We
should be aware of it because on many occasions, it does
produce important pieces of information, and it might help
us in doing a better job, but certainly it's not a driver.
MR. CALLAN: Commissioner, I would just say, in
Ed's defense, that I think that expression has crept into
our lexicon as sort of a metaphor for relying on external
stimuli to tell us where our problems are as opposed to
finding our own problems.
I don't think that Ed was referring to over-
concern about the media, per se, but we should be finding
our own problems and should not have to rely on outside
organizations, whoever they may be, to tell us where our
problems are, and that's really the context in which the
Staff focused on this.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we owe it to the staff
to hear them out. I mean, I think that, you know, until we
hear and give them the opportunity to develop what they plan
. 41
to develop, you know, with the guidance from the Commission
-- I mean, that's their job to do and we should hear them
out on that. So on that basis, why don't we proceed.
MR. JORDAN: Joe, thank you for taking my foot out
of my mouth about Time Magazine.
Proceed.
MR. MARTIN: Slide 9.
Once the assessment areas are identified, the
conduct of assessments will rely on either in-office review,
visits to licensee facilities, or a combination of both.
Even though we anticipate performing some of our activities
at licensee facilities that may look a lot like inspection,
the primary focus of our efforts will be to assess and
approve the NRC.
One thing that I would like to emphasize here is
the need for highly experienced reviewers in this process.
These reviewers must not only have applicable technical
knowledge, but credibility as well with the program office.
The regulatory effectiveness assessment staff will
provide the core of this effort and would be supplemented by
temporary assignments within the NRC as well as by the use
of contractors as we did in the recent Millstone and Maine
Yankee independent safety assessment teams.
For assessments that are site-focused, we
anticipate that we will look at a similar set of issues at
. 42
several plants in order to provide a better sample size on
which to base our conclusions. We will attempt to minimize
the impact on the industry as a result of site-focused
assessments. I would anticipate that five staff over a two-
week period should be bounding numbers for these efforts.
Also, we anticipate that there will not be a need
for site visits in some cases depending on the assessment
areas being evaluated.
When we're in the field, we don't intend to merely
plow the same ground as the inspectors before us. We may
use cultural surveys to probe -- or probe in areas such as
water chemistry or some of the other areas that were
discussed that are not routinely inspected.
Next slide.
The process for feedback and handling inspection
findings or regulatory assessment effectiveness findings
will be through a report of the findings along with causes
and recommendations provided to the deputy executive
director of regulatory effectiveness. He will then provide
them to the deputy executive director, regulatory programs.
If there is any disagreement on the conclusions or
proposed staff actions, they will be resolved by the EDO.
After there is agreement, staff action assignments will be
made to the affected program office.
Risk and impact insights will be applied to the
. 43
regulatory effectiveness findings to help us prioritize
their resolution. Staff actions will be tracked as any
other action signed by the office of the EDO and the
regulatory effectiveness assessment staff will monitor
whether the actions taken to close out the findings are
accomplishing their intended purpose.
At this point, I would like to turn the
presentation back over to Mr. Jordan.
MR. JORDAN: Could I have the next slide, please.
The object here is to identify the role of the
four offices in support of this particular effort. The
Office of Research will be responsible for developing this
regulatory matrix assessment tool, for developing the
workplace environment and safety attitude assessment tool
and providing risk insights to support the team and the
identification.
AEOD has the lead for compilation of performance
information from the four offices and to provide an input of
the proposed areas for regulatory effectiveness assessments
to Tom and his team, and to conduct case studies of
regulatory issues which are a derivative of the present case
study approach that AEOD applies.
The next slide, please.
The Office of Enforcement will provide insights of
both licensee and industry performance from enforcement and
. 44
to develop regulatory effectiveness insights from their
enforcement perspective.
Similarly, the Office of Investigation would
provide insights on both licensee and industry performance
from investigations and provide those insights from
investigations. Their data source information would then be
compiled by AEOD for Agency use.
Could I have the next slide, please.
The implementation plan consists of some eight or
so steps. First of all, to assemble a regulatory
effectiveness assessment staff, and that's part of the
reason for being here today, is to obtain Commission
approval to proceed with assembling people to support Tom in
this effort.
One of the first products would be to develop a
Commission policy statement that would be provided as a
Federal Register Notice for public comment in order to
obtain external views of our definition of regulatory
assessment, how we're -- regulatory effectiveness assessment
and how we are intending to go about it, to develop a draft
management directive that the staff would apply, to
implement programs to collect the performance information.
This is those four offices combined providing this input
information. To develop the regulatory matrix assessment
tool and to establish the process for input by the public
. 45
and by industry for potential areas for assessment, and then
to develop a prioritized list of assessment areas that we
would then periodically reprioritize and add to, and to
begin the assessments. So that's the sequence of the plan.
Next slide, please.
The resource requirements in order to do this
portion assumed -- and maybe it would be helpful if I
described it -- assumed an 18-week evaluation cycle; that
is, a four-week development of the assessment areas and
preparation for the reviews that would be done within the
NRC offices and at licensee sites where necessary; a two-
week review cycle, and a sufficient sample by going to three
sites if it requires site review in order to make a case,
provide a basis that is, in fact, sound; and then a four-
week report preparation time. We would expect to handle
something like six areas for each of these assessments and
would expect to be able to do two assessment cycles in a
year. So that would be some twelve assessment areas in a
one-year period for the reactor program. That would
require, during the remainder of this fiscal year, some 2
FTE that would be imbedded in doing this work, 7 FTE in 1998
and 8 in 1999 fiscal years.
MR. CALLAN: That includes materials oversight,
too; it's not just --
MR. JORDAN: It would begin materials in April of
. 46
'98. So we would go through one year of reactor and then
begin development of materials assessment in April of '98.
The complement of personnel would be an SES
manager, six technical staff, and one clerical. The full
implementation, the additional 8.5 FTE, those are between
three FTE for rotation from other offices for expertise.
And this is what we would be expending, some 3 FTE in AEOD
that would be performing the data collection, compilation,
analysis and associated case studies, and the 2.5 FTE in
Research that would be devoted to developing the regulatory
matrix and the workplace assessment tool. The financial or
the dollar resource of 1.3 million is for development of the
regulatory matrix, the database development and contract
support resources.
Now I would like to try to go back and reconnect
what seems to be the biggest stumbling block, the idea of
excellence and effectiveness. The understanding I had --
and as I started, I was the manager on the strategic
assessment committee that expressed the regulatory
excellence DSI, and our object was to have an overall
program and that we are addressing with an overall program
the idea of the safety attitude of the NRC staff and its
goal or its objective to reach excellence, that we're
providing the tools necessary for the staff, we're providing
the training, we're providing the management support and
. 47
seeking in every way to have a staff that's dedicated and
seeking excellence.
That of itself creates or should create an
effective regulator. In the process of doing that, though,
we want to look proactively for areas in which the agency
ought to put resources or ought to take resources away that
have grown by the iterative process that occurs within an
agency of this sort, not necessarily having grown in a risk-
informed environment that we now have, that we can now
apply.
So the genesis of the effort that Tom is dedicated
to at this point was to provide this fresh perspective of
the Agency's emphasis on clearly safety issues in the
regulatory program.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Did you have some final
comments?
MR. CALLAN: Yes, Chairman, just a couple points.
One is I think underlying some of the questions is a concern
that a process similar to this robust oversight process
would actually encumber the staff and create distractions
and actually cause the staff to lose focus on the major
issues that we have to deal with.
That is a concern. There is certainly a concern
voiced by some of the program offices, probably all the
program offices in discussions, and it's something that we
. 48
have to be vigilant about.
The intent here is to establish a process that
doesn't polarize, that actually builds team work, actually
adds to cohesion of the team, the NRC team, and makes us
feel better about ourselves. We're finding our own
problems. And we know it can be done because we've seen the
better utilities in the country do it. We know it can be
done. They're not mutually exclusive. Ten years ago, I
think the conventional view was they were mutually
exclusive. We know that's not right. We know it can be
done.
My second point I just lost. Oh. And it's an
important point. As Ed said, Ed Jordan said at the outset,
part of the reason for this briefing today -- actually, it
was supposed to be a week or two from now -- but part of the
reason we're having it this spring and not in the fall is
because of the sense of urgency and impetus that I
personally provided. I feel a sense of urgency about this.
I think what Ed described and what Tom Martin described was
largely a process. What's lacking are many of the things
that were identified during the discussion. But it's a
process.
My view is and I think our collective view is that
no matter what we end up with, at the end of the day, we
will need a robust oversight function of some sort, some
. 49
independent oversight activity. We wouldn't accept anything
less than that from even a so-called SALP 3 performing
licensee. I mean, it's -- we need a lot more than that, but
we do probably need that of some sort.
So the discussion today focused on setting up the
-- establishing the groundwork for establishing such a
process, and we have a lot of work to do, we understand, and
the final matrix will have to be integrated clearly with the
overall umbrella of regulatory excellence which, as I said
at the outset, is due before the Commission in September.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Commissioner Rogers?
COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, we've all said a lot,
and I know you've gotten, you know, comments and thoughts
and points of view. The other one -- I'm not going to
repeat myself here, but I do think that the problem that I
see with what you've sketched out here is that it seems to
be such a top-down driven effort when you really -- if you
really want a buy-in from everybody who is going to make an
important contribution, and we hope there isn't anybody here
that won't, I don't see what the mechanism for that is.
You know, we've seen lots of effort in the
industry from TQM and things like this that frankly I've
never really been sold on, but I do think that it is
terribly important to engage everybody at as early a stage
as you can in some way.
. 50
Now, obviously management has to play its role in
the end and see that things happen, but the problem that I'm
hearing here is that it seems like this is, you know, a bit
of -- what I've seen and heard, and maybe you have something
more in mind, but, you know, a team of people that is going
to go out and start to lay this all out, and then hope that
people will get engaged, and it doesn't work that way if you
want to capture people's hearts and minds. You've got to
get them in very early.
So my comment simply is that I would hope that
before you go too much further, that you find a way to
capture the participation of the broad base of people who
work for NRC.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus?
COMMISSIONER DICUS: Yes, I have to agree
essentially with everything that I've heard today from
fellow commissioners on what we have had presented to us,
including the fact that there appears to be some sort of
disconnect between what the DSI said or what we thought we
were saying in the DSI and what we have been given back, and
I think that's perhaps the basis of some of the concerns
that you've heard.
I agree that I think what we wanted to achieve
with this particular issue is to try to ensure that we do
find our own problems, we do avoid Millstones and things of
. 51
that nature; but as I looked at what is being presented, I
see a very labor-intensive, resource-intensive program being
developed, even taking on its own life, perhaps even its own
-- becoming its own bureaucracy that could, in fact, have
the result of preventing us from seeing our own problems,
becomes so, so abstract and so, at the same time, forceful
on the staff from, as Commissioner Rogers said, the top down
that we don't find the problems and we wind up with the
opposite effect.
I should just suggest that you really go back,
restudy, re-review the DSI and the intent that's in it, try
to simplify the process, and perhaps even look at outside
the Agency. I mean, we almost may be reinventing the wheel.
Other, perhaps, agencies or industries or groups have done
this, have found what is an effective program, and might be
somewhat helpful to us as we try to really address what is
in the DSI.
We have a lot of rather detailed questions which I
won't go into at this time. They may surface if we go
forward with this SECY, on the vote on it, but I would just
suggest kind of -- I think you need to go back and re-review
what the intent is here.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Diaz.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I think I would like to say
that I was kind of anxious about the value of this meeting
. 52
when I saw the documents this morning. I think this has
been a very valuable meeting because it has shown a great
disconnect between the way the staff was thinking and I
think the way the Commission was thinking, and in that
sense, I think that's of tremendous value, rather than
thinking that we were, you know, arguing about points, I
think it's extremely important.
I would like to go back and try to go back to,
again, this issue of excellence and effectiveness, and I
think that Mr. Jordan, you know, really clarified, you know,
why the narrowness of the approach -- because I think you
said, and I don't know whether I'm quoting, but it's close,
that you were focusing on the issue of the design basis, and
that drove, you know, your intention of avoiding, you know,
significant gaps in the design basis and who that drives the
--
MR. JORDAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: -- regulatory effectiveness.
And I think that's the main issue, is that we actually
envisioned something much more comprehensive, much more
holistic that actually, you know, pervaded the organization
and the structures and not just, you know, focusing on the
design basis issue, which is an important issue, but it's
not the only issue. With that, I think that showed the
disconnect.
. 53
A final point is that, you know, to summarize my
perspective of what we wanted in very simple words is we
really wanted to have a QA of the NRC that considered
everything that we're doing and it involved, you know,
everybody.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Jordan, you wanted to make
a comment?
MR. JORDAN: Yes. I wanted to clarify that by
raising the design basis issue, it was an example of the
kind of problem that we want to avoid, not that we want to
probe further into that particular problem that's already
been exposed. So that was the intent of using that as an
example.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Oh, I'm sorry. I understood
when you said it that it actually meant that when you
thought of the process and when you were put in this, the
main driving component was to address the design basis
issue.
MR. JORDAN: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Comment?
MR. MARTIN: No. I think Ed clarified that.
That's just one example. As a matter of fact, that wasn't
even on our top 10 list, the hit parade, right now.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I will try to be a
. 54
broken record only briefly.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Let's try to break new ground.
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The fundamental issue,
as other commissioners have said, is the disconnect -- the
Chairman has said -- between what you're saying today and
what we read in DSI-23.
I have DSI-23 in front of me, and the option 2
discussion, and I've re-read the couple of pages while we've
been sitting here this afternoon, and I can find a passing
phrase in the couple of pages of description of option 2.
You know, eliminating barriers and minimizing
vulnerabilities occurs on page 11, and there's a place on
page 12 where you could justify arguably that some part of
regulatory excellence is what you're talking about here
today. But the vast majority of the discussion on those
pages is on something quite different.
My concerns, you know, in the last few viewgraphs
you went through -- the policy statement in this area, I
don't know what it would be, and I'm not sure there's
anything I've heard today that rises to the level of a
policy statement, but I think there were in DSI-23, there
might be.
But 50 percent of the resources -- I mean, if --
and it's apples and oranges, but the resources that were
going to implement DSI-23 that we were told about were on
. 55
the order 18 to 30 FTEs, steady state, and zero to $2
million of contractor support. Well, you know, by the year
2000, you're talking about 17.5 FTEs in this area, which is
most of 18 to 30, and most of the zero to $2 million of
contractor support.
So it strikes me that, you know, if you just read
where the resources are going, which is what I tend to do,
coming out of the Hill, you're talking here about most of
the response to the regulatory excellence DSI, and I was
much more interested in the long list of things that were on
page 11, you know, fundamental processes of the agency, core
processes of the agency, where we clearly have a long ways
to go to make improvement.
So that is, you know, a heartfelt reaction to
seeing this paperwork in the last 24 hours. I'll leave it
at that.
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Well, you have heard it here
first. I would like to thank you for what has been
informative to the Commission, because I think it has given
the Commission some sense of where your thinking is as to
where you think you ought to go compared to what the
Commission thought it wanted you to do.
So it's going to obviously give you guidance, but
the Commission does owe it to you to let you try to
structure an appropriate process, and I think that, again,
. 56
you have to give a positive definition to what regulatory
effectiveness is and how that ties to regulatory excellence
as laid out in DSI-23, and how whatever it is you
specifically lay out to do programmatically derives from
those elements of that DSI, because that is, you know, kind
of the template, and how what you're proposing to do
facilitates that, you know, how it's tied to the major
elements of that DSI, how it ties into what the program
offices or the Agency as a whole does, and how the offices
under your specific purview inform that process.
If you are going to develop a policy statement, it
gives you the opportunity to make this kind of a tie-in. If
you are going to develop a management directive, it gives
you the opportunity to talk about how what you're going to
be doing ties to the elements of the DSI as well as how the
connection is to what -- you know, the major programs and
people of the NRC.
If you're going to implement a program to collect
the performance information, again, it gives you the
opportunity to talk about how the offices in your specific
purview tie into that and how that, in fact, strengthens the
existing day-to-day regulatory programs.
So with that, I'll just leave it at that, and
we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:29 p.m., the briefing adjourned.]
|
Privacy Policy |
Site Disclaimer |