Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission
Papers (SECY) > 2003
> SECY-03-0091
POLICY ISSUE
(Information)
SECY-03-0091
June 3, 2003
MEMORANDUM TO: |
The Commissioners |
FROM: |
John T. Larkins, Executive Director /RA/
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) |
SUBJECT: |
SELF-ASSESSMENTS OF ACRS AND ACNW PERFORMANCE |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this paper is to provide the Commission with the results
of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and Advisory Committee
on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) self-assessments for Calendar Years (CY) 2001
and 2002 and to describe the actions that the Committees will undertake
as a result of these self-assessments.
BACKGROUND
The ACRS and ACNW have been directed to perform periodic self-assessments
and provide the results to the Commission. The current interval for reporting
the results of ACRS/ACNW self-assessments is two years. The results are
reported in Commission papers. The activities associated with these self-assessments
are conducted as part of the day-to-day management processes and in periodic
surveys of the Committees' stakeholders. The lessons learned from these
self-assessments are used to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of the ACRS and ACNW.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELF-ASSESSMENT
PROCESS
Both Committees have established processes to ensure that the priorities
of the Commission and the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) are
understood and addressed in prioritizing the work of the Committees. The
Chairman's Tasking Memorandum, published Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) staff schedules, Staff Requirements Memoranda (SRMs), ACRS/ACNW
Operating Plan, and discussions with Commissioners and their staff, the
NRC staff, and other stakeholders are used to prioritize work. The ACRS/ACNW
Operating Plan is being used as a vehicle for obtaining the Commissioners
and the EDO's feedback on ACRS and ACNW priorities and plans for proactive
work.
The ACRS and ACNW conduct periodic retreats during which they review
their agenda and methods of operation, set priorities for the future,
and assess their activities and planning. In addition, both Committees
review their schedules and priorities at each full Committee meeting and
make necessary adjustments to support the changing needs of the Agency.
Changes reflect feedback from the Commissioners, the EDO, and cognizant
NRC staff, and input from lead ACNW members and ACRS Subcommittee Chairmen.
The Committees have increased their interactions with stakeholders to
solicit their input on Committee activities. The stakeholders interviewed
for these self-assessments include Commissioners, former ACRS members,
NRC staff, staff from other Federal agencies, members of State and local
governments, members of public interest groups, and members of the regulated
industry. These interviews provide insights which both Committees consider
in planning their activities and preparing self-assessments.
As part of the self-assessment activities, both Committees carefully
evaluate their letters and reports to determine whether they contain advice
that addresses safety-significant issues and is (a) effective and timely,
(b) technically sound and based on state-of-the-art knowledge, (c) clear
and concise, (d) relevant, balanced, and unbiased, and (e) forward-looking.
The letters and reports are also assessed to determine whether they are
responsive to Commission and staff needs, considered in Commission and
staff decisions, and influence NRC's regulatory decisions. These assessments
have been based on evidence that the advice was accepted and adopted,
and on unsolicited and solicited feedback from stakeholders. The results
of this activity are tabulated in matrices, maintained by the ACRS/ACNW
Office staff, and are used in the assessment of the effectiveness of the
Committees. These matrices, which summarize the content and impact of
Committee letters and reports, have proven to be valuable tools for analyzing
the effectiveness of the Committees, identifying the need for follow-up
actions, and communicating information. The letter matrices are included
in the annual updates to the ACRS/ACNW Operating Plan.
RESULTS OF THE CY 2001-2002
SELF-ASSESSMENTS
- ACRS Self-Assessment for Cy 2001
and 2002
-
General Comments
- The ACRS held an annual planning meeting in January 2002 to assess
its priorities, effectiveness, and operating processes. The results
of its self-assessment revealed that its advice is generally timely,
focused on the priority issues of the Agency, and is used by the Commission
and the NRC staff in their regulatory decisions. The ACRS is using its
Operating Plan to guide its use of resources. Regular planning meetings
and communications with Commissioners and NRC staff are used to assess
the ACRS effectiveness in carrying out its mission. The Commissioners
and NRC staff derive value from these communications and the ACRS intends
to continue this practice. In particular, the ACRS Chairman and/or cognizant
members will continue to meet with Commissioners, the EDO, and NRC senior
management on a regular basis to discuss the ACRS priorities, planned
initiatives, and insights on future issues. The ACRS will use this process
to obtain Commissioners' feedback and to discuss its activities with
the NRC staff.
-
This self-assessment has led the ACRS to conclude that its reports
have a positive impact on the regulatory process, address issues of
importance to the Commission, are valuable to the Commission in its
deliberations, and respond adequately to NRC staff activities. Stakeholders
generally view the ACRS as knowledgeable and fair in its consideration
of different points of view. Stakeholders believe that interactions
with the ACRS have been positive and professional, that the ACRS provides
constructive input, and that an important function of ACRS reviews
is to ensure the technical quality of staff and staff-supported work.
Stakeholders observed that the ACRS limited resources are managed
such that ACRS has provided satisfactory support to NRC staff and
licensee schedules.
- The ACRS report on NRC-sponsored research was identified as being
valuable to the Commission and the NRC staff. It was noted such reports
needed to address the necessity for identifying existing work that could
be sunset along with new research needs. ACRS license renewal reviews
were judged to be efficient and timely and make efficient use of the
applicants' resources. The ACRS members were observed to be well informed
and provide useful insights and examinations of NRC staff and industry
positions. ACRS deliberations on issues related to future reactors were
described as being very helpful and focused on the right issues.
-
Stakeholders continue to emphasize that the ACRS provide advice
that is direct and readily understood, strive to provide possible
solutions with its recommendations, and be clear as to what is expected
of an NRC staff response. Stakeholders have also observed that the
ACRS should focus on important issues that are not receiving adequate
regulatory attention. Committee discussions and reports that provide
an in-depth analysis of a subject were identified as being the most
useful. The Subcommittee process was described as providing an important
forum for the discussion of complex technical issues. As an example,
stakeholders observed that the ACRS Thermal/Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee
provided an important forum for probing complex issues and developing
solutions to regulatory problems. Workshops and workshop-oriented
subcommittee meetings were judged to be valuable in that they provide
a forum for an in-depth discussion of an issue. The Committee's activities
related to future reactors and the use of probabilistic risk assessment
were cited as examples.
- Specific Comments and Actions
-
Stakeholders noted that the ACRS should be proactive in addressing
significant issues and be more aggressive in following up on actions
taken by the NRC staff in response to its recommendations. Proactive
ACRS initiatives will be addressed in the Planning and Procedures
Subcommittee process, using input provided by the ACRS members and
ACRS staff. ACRS will solicit feedback from the Commissioner and other
stakeholders as part of this planning activity. As part of its self-assessment,
the ACRS prepared a matrix of its letters and reports in which individual
reports are discussed. ACRS followup actions for the individual reports
are described in the matrix as included in the ACRS/ACNW Operating
Plan.
- Stakeholders noted that the Committee deliberations should be transparent
(that is, the issues considered and the range of member opinion) and
that ACRS letter reports should be direct and the message not diluted.
The Committee will continue to address these issues.
-
Stakeholders stated that the ACRS critical analysis of staff and
industry positions was needed to maintain the Committee's credibility
as an effective advisory body. Stakeholders also stated that the ACRS
review frequently leads to significant improvements to the staff's
or the industry's analysis of a resolution of a regulatory issue.
The ACRS has been reviewing staff and industry positions, including
differing views, on critical issues and will continue to do so.
- The ACRS members are described as technically competent. Stakeholders
recommended that ACRS continue to serve as an integrator of key issues,
review technical issues in an integrated way, and provide advice that
reflects this global perspective. The NRC staff views the ACRS review
as a means of validating and improving staff positions. Some stakeholders
recommended that the expertise needed for new ACRS members be evaluated
in light of anticipated emerging regulatory issues, such as the licensing
of new reactors. The ACRS will evaluate its expertise as member vacancies
occur and make recommendations to the Commission. The Committee will
also be using consultants to augment its expertise.
-
Some stakeholders believed that the efficiency of ACRS reviews suffered,
on occasions, from members too frequently interrupting the presenters
and not allowing the presenters the time needed to fully explain their
positions. Discussions between members on issues not directly related
to the matters at hand were judged by some stakeholders to be distracting.
The ACRS Chairman and ACRS Vice Chairman plan to address this issue.
- The ACRS was described as doing an excellent job of providing oversight
of significant NRC staff activities and ensuring the quality of staff
and staff contractor work, but needed to be more selective in its reviews
of routine NRC staff work, and needed to look for efficiencies in its
conduct of statutory reviews. ACRS will continue to address these needs
within the structure of its Planning and Procedures Subcommittee activities
and its discussions with the Commissioners and NRC staff. The ACRS/ACNW
Operating Plan will be used to focus the ACRS and staff efforts to keep
the Commission informed of Committee activities.
-
It was observed that a strong and proactive ACRS staff is an important
asset to the Committee, and that coordination between ACRS staff and
meeting participants is essential to proper member preparation, the
identification of review issues, and the success of Subcommittee and
full Committee discussions. The ACRS staff was judged to provide excellent
technical and administrative support. Pre-meeting identification of
ACRS members' interests, information needs, and the issues/questions
that are likely to be raised are needed for the efficient use of meeting
resources. It was noted that particular attention needed to be given
to participants who have infrequent contact with the ACRS. Some stakeholders
suggested that packages containing material describing members' backgrounds
and ACRS responsibilities would be useful to these participants. The
ACRS staff intend to direct stakeholders to the ACRS website postings
of this information and continue to focus attention on pre-meeting
preparation of meeting participants. The ACRS/ACNW staff will also
continue to develop task plans for specific ACRS activities and to
share these plans with our stakeholders.
- It is believed that the ACRS should plan its work carefully, being
sensitive to NRC staff's schedules, and take the time necessary to do
in-depth, informed reviews. Early, pro-active ACRS input is believed
to benefit the staff, support the efficient use of staff resources,
and to facilitate timely completion of ACRS reviews. The ACRS will continue
to plan its reviews carefully to avoid unnecessarily disrupting staff
schedules and to work with the staff in identifying and developing task
plans for its in-depth reviews.
-
Stakeholders have stated that the ACRS should be actively engaged
in the NRC's safeguards and security activities. ACRS has established
a Subcommittee with this responsibility. This Subcommittee has met
with the staff on three occasions and has established its task plan
for FY 03 and early FY 04 that reflects the Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research (RES) and Office of Nuclear Safety and Incident Response
(NSIR) staffs' expressed needs. The ACRS and ACNW have obtained Commissioners'
feedback on areas for the Committees' focus. The ACRS staff has also
worked with the NSIR staff in developing a Commission paper on NSIR
use of security consultants and external technical expertise. The
ACRS and ACNW will review specific technical issues associated with
safeguards and security.
- Day-to-day operations of the ACRS are guided by the processes described
in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the ACRS and the EDO,
the processes in the ACRS procedures manuals, and monthly meetings with
our OEDO, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), RES, and Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) coordinators. We intend
to reevaluate these processes in FY 2003 in light of our lessons-learned
and new activities .
-
ACNW Self-Assessment for CY 2001
and CY 2002
- General Comments
-
The ACNW held an annual planning meeting in February 2002 to assess
its priorities and operating processes and to update its Action Plan.
In addition to the ACRS/ACNW Operating Plan, the ACNW Action Plan
is developed annually and provides the Committees' tier one and tier
two priorities. The updated plan was published and placed on the ACRS/ACNW
website for use by the stakeholders. The ACNW prepared a matrix of
its reports, which it used in its self-assessment to evaluate its
effectiveness against the goals and objectives in its Action Plan.
The results of the self-assessment have led the ACNW to conclude that
its advice is generally timely, is focused on the priority issues
identified in its Action Plan, and is used by the NRC staff and the
Commission in their regulatory decisions. Stakeholders' responses
generally reflected a positive view of the ACNW. The ACNW issued an
Action Plan in CY 2002 and has recently updated its Action Plan for
CY2003. Stakeholders input on areas that should be emphasized by the
ACNW are addressed in this Action Plan revision.
- The focus of the ACNW's efforts in CY 2003 will be on issues associated
with high-level waste and the anticipated Yucca Mountain License Application.
The ACNW is in the process of preparing a detailed plan for its involvement
in the review of this License Application and will seek Commission approval
of this plan. The ACNW's involvement in pre-decisional matters will
be in accordance with the procedures described in the MOU between the
ACNW and the EDO, and will be consulted with the Commission.
-
The ACNW's reports were judged to be well written and of high quality
and focused on broad high-level regulatory issues. Stakeholders thought
the reports provided adequate explanations for the conclusions and
recommendations and were focused on relevant issues. The ACNW is viewed
as providing valuable input to the solution of waste management safety
issues. Feedback received from the Commission indicated that the ACNW
is addressing all of the Commission's priority interests that are
within the purview of the ACNW. Regular communications with the Commissioners
and the EDO and the use of a published Action Plan help to ensure
this result.
- The ACNW keeps itself currently informed through meetings with the
NMSS staff, attendance at public meetings, and the review of relevant
documents. ACNW will be directing more attention in the future to following
up on NRC staff actions on ACNW recommendations. The communications
between the Committee, the Commissioners, and NRC senior management
were judged to be excellent. Continued interaction between ACNW members
and NMSS senior management was observed to be important.
-
External stakeholders generally continue to comment, very favorably,
on the ACNW's performance and willingness to provide a forum for the
discussion of their views and NRC staff activities in waste management.
Interactions between the ACNW and its stakeholders have been open
and professional, and the ACNW continues to be viewed as an important
contributor to the open discussion and resolution of issues.
- Specific Comments and Actions
-
Stakeholders emphasized that the ACNW should continue to address
broad technical issues and focus on the most risk-significant issues.
A few stakeholders suggested that ACNW carefully examine the limitations
of applications of risk -assessment methodology and critically examine
the results of this type of analysis. The ACNW will continue to conduct
such examinations and, as needed, discuss the issue in its reports.
The ACNW also plans to continue to evaluate work being conducted at
the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis and report its findings
to the Commission.
- Stakeholder feedback from the ACNW's November 2002 workshop on transportation
issues was generally positive. However, ACNW received negative feedback
from representatives of the State of Nevada for not including them on
the agenda as speakers during this workshop. An opportunity was subsequently
provided during the April 2003 ACNW meeting during which representatives
of the State of Nevada expressed their views. Future workshops will
involve various stakeholders.
-
The reactions of stakeholders to the ACNW's meetings in Nevada and
the ACNW's interactions with Yucca Mountain stakeholders continue
to be positive. There was, however, little support for ACNW meetings
that were solely directed at public outreach. Because of resource
constraints, the ACNW does not plan to have more than one meeting
a year in Nevada, but will make use of video teleconferencing to provide
enhanced interactions with the Nevada stakeholders. Opportunities
will be provided for the Nevada stakeholders to contribute to the
agenda planning and to participate in these meetings. Public outreach
efforts will be included as part of the scheduled discussion of technical
topics.
- A technically strong ACNW staff that assists the meeting participants
in their preparation for ACNW meetings and helps the ACNW members in
their review of the relevant documents was observed to be very important.
As a result of this staff support, the Committee advice to the Commission
has been effective and efficient. Scheduling of meetings on complex
issues and identification of ACNW issues and meeting objectives, well
in advance of the meeting, were also judged to be important. ACRS/ACNW
Office support of the ACNW in identification of review topics, planning
reviews, and coordinating with NRC senior management was judged to be
essential to the efficient and effective operation of the ACNW.
-
The information posted on the ACNW's public web site was criticized
by some stakeholders, who rely on this site to plan interactions with
the ACNW, as not providing timely and accurate information on ACNW
meeting agendas. The ACRS /ACNW staff will take additional measures
in the future, including posting draft agendas, to ensure that agenda
information is provided as early as possible and that the web site
reflects the current agenda information.
- Day-to-day operations of the ACNW are guided by the processes described
in the MOU between the ACNW and the EDO, the processes in the ACRS/ACNW
Office's procedure manuals, and monthly meetings with our OEDO, NRR,
RES, and NMSS coordinators. We intend to reevaluate these processes
in FY 03 in light of our lessons-learned and new activities.
-
ACTIONS RESULTING FROM PREVIOUS SELF-ASSESSMENT
- This section describes actions taken by both Committees in response
to previous formal self-assessments and related activities.
-
ACRS
- In the past, stakeholders have commented on the importance of ACRS
to continue to maintain a good understanding of plant operational and
regulatory issues. The ACRS has had regular interactions with industry
and other stakeholders on operating plant issues as well as emerging
regulatory issues. The ACRS members continue to conduct annual visits
to a regional office and a plant in the selected region and to visit
certain plants seeking license renewals. Regular discussion and analysis
of plant operating experience, led by a cognizant ACRS member, are scheduled
during the ACRS Full Committee meetings.
-
The ACRS has searched for ways to conserve its resources and improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of its reviews. The ACRS has evaluated
its use of resources on its annual review of NRC-sponsored research
and plans to continue to perform an annual review. The ACRS currently
plans to perform comprehensive program reviews every two years and
to focus its attention between two-year reviews on topics of emerging
importance. Lessons learned from each review are used to make subsequent
reviews more efficient. The ACRS report for FY 2003 focused on research
issues associated with the licensing of new reactors and was issued
to the Commission on March 13, 2003, to support the Commission's review
of NRC research program. The report for FY 2004 will be a comprehensive
report addressing the whole research program.
- The process for conducting license renewal reviews has also been
improved and streamlined to free resources for emerging areas (e.g.,
new reactors and safeguards and security). The new process was highly
effective and significant resources were freed for other activities.
Industry participants stated that the ACRS license renewal reviews were
efficient and timely and made effective use of industry resources. ACRS
members were described as being well-informed and providing useful examinations
of NRC and industry positions.
-
The ACRS has worked with the NRC staff to develop a review standard
for power uprates which will be used to streamline this ACRS review
process. This review standard was developed because of recommendations
from the ACRS. It is expected that both the NRC staff and the ACRS
will realize resource savings from the use of the review standard
and that the quality of these power uprate reviews will improve.
- In the last ACRS/ACNW self-assessment, it was noted that some stakeholders
believed that attention should be given to better member preparation
for ACRS meetings. This required that the documents needed by the ACRS
for its reviews be received in a timely manner. The processes in the
revised ACRS/EDO MOU and interaction with meeting participants have
been used to enable better member and meeting participant preparation
for ACRS meeting discussions. We will continue to work with the NRC
staff to obtain timely submittal of the documents needed by the ACRS.
-
ACRS has engaged itself in an in-depth review of a number of important
topics in response to its finding that this is an especially effective
way for the Committee to add value to NRC activities. Examples are
reactor safety-related activities in foreign countries, new reactors,
use of risk assessment in the regulatory decisionmaking process, the
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, thermal-hydraulic code improvements,
license renewal, and safeguards/security. The ACRS activities related
to future reactors, the annual review of NRC-sponsored research, and
Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena Subcommittee discussions were identified
as particularly valuable.
- ACNW
-
Some stakeholders stated that the ACNW needed a member or a regularly
engaged consultant with expertise on health physics. A fifth member
with strong health physics expertise has been added to the ACNW's
membership.
- A number of stakeholders asked that ACNW provide more opportunities
for stakeholder involvement in ACNW activities. The ACNW staff contacts
stakeholders and requests presentations related to their work on issues
under review by the ACNW. The ACNW also has taken the initiative in
soliciting the views of stakeholders not directly involved in developing
the particular work products under review by the ACNW, examples being
the ACNW's workshops on research and performance assessment and the
outreach meetings conducted in Nevada. Teleconferencing has been used
extensively to facilitate viewing and participating in ACNW meetings.
Resource constraints have prevented the suggested Internet-based broadcasting
of ACNW meetings. There continues to be concerns on these issues by
stakeholders and the ACNW continues to work to address these issues.
SUMMARY
The results of the ACRS and ACNW self-assessments reveal that both Committees
provide advice to the Commission in an efficient and effective manner,
add value to the regulatory process, and contribute to the accomplishment
of the NRC mission. The Committees will continue to monitor the effectiveness
and efficiency of their operations and make improvements as warranted.
Contact: |
Richard P. Savio, ACRS/ACNW
(301) 415-7362 |
|