Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
March 9, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3712 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF MS. GARY L. JONES ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR ENERGY, RESOURCES,
AND SCIENCE ISSUES RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
BEFORE THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE
ON CLEAN AIR, WETLANDS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NUCLEAR SAFETY
SUBJECT - NUCLEAR REGULATION REGULATORY AND CULTURAL CHANGES CHALLENGE NRC
BODY:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to discuss the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's (NRC) move from its regulatory approach which was
largely developed without the benefit of quantitative estimates of risk, to an
approach--termed risk-informed regulation--that considers relative risk in
conjunction with engineering analyses and operating experience) Our testimony
addresses (1) the views of NRC staff (based on our survey that was reported to
you in January) on the quality of the work NRC performs,2 NRC's management of
and the staffs involvement in changes occurring in the agency, and the move to a
risk-informed regulatory approach; and (2) the status of NRC's efforts to
develop a comprehensive strategy to implement a risk-informed regulatory
approach.
In addition, you asked us to provide information based on past
reports on the disagreement between NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on radiation standards.3 EPA is responsible for setting radiation limits
outside the boundaries of nuclear facilities and for establishing residual
radiation standards for the amount of radioactivity that can safely remain at a
nuclear power plant site and still not pose a threat to public health and safety
and the environment. In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed EPA to
develop environmental protection standards for the Department of Energy's (DOE)
proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. In summary, we found the following:
- Although our survey
results showed that the vast majority of NRC staff feel their work contributes
to protecting public health and safety, their views on NRC's efforts to change
its regulatory approach were less favorable. For example, less than one-quarter
of the staff believe that senior management is receptive to suggestions for
change made by the staff. While almost haft of the staff who responded to the
survey said that the change to risk- informed regulation has had a positive
effect on nuclear safety, only about one-fourth believe that NRC staff have
"bought in to" the process. Relatedly, many staff expressed concern about a
central element of risk-informed regulation--the new risk-informed process for
assessing the performance of nuclear power plants. Sixty percent of the staff
who responded to questions about this oversight process believe that it will
reduce the margins of safety at nuclear power plants. Our findings are similar
to the results of an NRC survey, which found that 70 percent of its staff who
expressed an opinion do not believe that the new oversight process will allow
for the identification of declining safety performance. Based on the results of
the NRC survey and input from stakeholders, NRC has made some changes to the new
oversight process in anticipation of its implementation in April 2000.
-
NRC staff expect to provide the Commission with a draft comprehensive strategy,
which NRC is calling an Implementation Plan, for moving to a risk-informed
regulatory approach in March 2000. NRC will then seek public comments on the
plan, and it may then take another year to put it in place. The outline of the
draft Implementation plan that was provided to the Commission in January 2000
touched on the elements we recommended be included in a strategy for moving to a
risk-informed regulatory approach in our March 1999 report.
-
Disagreement between NRC and EPA over appropriate standards for regulating
radiation levels at nuclear facilities could impact the costs to decommission
nuclear power plants (dismantle them and dispose of their wastes) and develop a
proposed repository for the plants' high-level waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. Although EPA has authority to establish a standard
for residual radiation at nuclear power plants that have been decommissioned, it
has not done so. Utilities are using a standard developed by NRC that EPA
believes is not restrictive enough. Utilities are concerned that they may
ultimately have to use a more restrictive EPA standard, which would increase
their decommissioning costs. EPA has proposed a radiation standard to protect
public health and safety at the proposed nuclear waste repository, as it was
required to do in 1992. However, NRC, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a
board of the National Academy of Sciences, and others have raised concerns. 4
The Academy, for example, stated that the proposed standard may have a
negligible impact on the protection of the public and could complicate the
licensing of the facility.
Background
NRC has been incorporating
risk into the regulatory process for many years and, in August 1995, it issued a
policy statement that advocated certain changes in the development and
implementation of its regulations for commercial nuclear plants through a
risk-informed approach. Under such an approach, NRC and the utilities would give
more emphasis to those structures, systems, and components deemed more
significant to safety. To respond to past criticisms about the lack of a
consistent, objective, and transparent method to assess the overall performance
of nuclear power plants, in January 1999, NRC proposed a new risk-informed
oversight process. Within the new oversight process, NRC developed a new
inspection program, developed performance indicators, and established clearly
defined, objective thresholds for making decisions about a plant's performance.
NRC tested the new oversight process at 13 plants between May and November 1999
and expects to implement it industrywide in April 2000.
NRC has also
been examining various approaches to consider risk for other regulatory
activities. This includes overseeing facilities that produce fuel for nuclear
power plants; entities that use nuclear materials in medical, academic, and
industrial applications (materials licensees); and DOE's proposed high-level
nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Staff Say They Are Committed to Safety but Are Concerned About Their
Limited Involvement in Changes at the Agency
Although our survey showed
that the vast majority of NRC staff feel their work contributes to protecting
public health and safety, their views on NRC's efforts to change its regulatory
approach were less favorable. In particular, the staff had concerns about
management and their involvement in change, the move to risk-reformed
regulation, and the new nuclear power plant oversight process.
Staff Are
Concerned About Management of and Their Involvement in Change Our survey results
suggest that senior management may not be providing the leadership necessary to
facilitate change and that staff believe they have not been involved in many
ofNRC's recent initiatives.5 As might be expected, the survey results for some
questions showed statistically significant differences between the views of
management and staff with management's views being significantly more positive.
6 For example, 46 percent of the NRC managers who responded
agree or strongly agree that senior management is receptive to suggestions for
change, compared with 23 percent of the staff who agree or strongly agree.
Similarly, 34 percent of the NRC managers agree or strongly agree that senior
management solicits ideas and opinions from staff before making changes that
affect their work, compared with 17 percent of the staff.
The results of
our survey are consistent with those of a survey conducted in the latter part of
1998 by NRC's Office of Inspector General on the agency's safety culture and
climate. The Inspector General noted that the issue of management mist was of
particular concern to NRC staff. The results of the Inspector General's survey
showed that NRC staff did not believe that higher management levels trusted
their judgment and that 53 percent of the staff did not believe that the
management style at NRC encourages them to give their best. More recently, the
Inspector General reported that the large number of staff who work within the
offices of the Chairman and the Commissioners can be viewed as a lack of
reliance on and trust of the agency's staff by senior management/ In addition,
in October 1999, Arthur Andersen and Company reported that leaders across NRC
work more as a group of individuals than as a team.
NRC Staff Have Mixed
Views on Risk-Informed Regulation
Our survey results also showed that
staff had mixed views about NRC's move to risk-informed regulation. Although 48
percent believe that risk-reformed regulation has had a positive effect on
nuclear safety, about 20 percent believe it has had a mostly negative effect. In
addition, only 27 percent of the staff agree or strongly agree that the new
risk-informed approach has been accepted by NRC staff. NRC managers said that
these data are not surprising. They said that staff will be skeptical about
moving to a risk-informed approach until they see how the approach is
implemented. NRC Staff Are Skeptical About the New Oversight Process
Of
the NRC staff who answered questions about a central aspect of risk-informed
regulation-the development and implementation of the process for overseeing
safety at nuclear power plants--/8 our survey results show that
- 75
percent agree or strongly agree that utilities and industry groups had too much
input/influence in developing the process, - 60 percent agree or strongly agree
that the process will reduce safety margins, and
- 86 percent agree or
strongly agree that as time passes, subjectivity will creep into the process.
According to NRC managers, the agency has recognized these potential
problems, has monitored them during the pilot project at 13 plants, and will
consider them as it develops the final oversight process. NRC also said that the
survey results reflect the staff's knowledge and views at a particular point in
time; but as the new process continues to develop and more staff receive
training, the agency expects an increase in the staffs level of knowledge and
confidence about the new oversight process.
We agree with NRC that our
survey results reflect the staffs knowledge and views at a particular point in
time. More recently, however, NRC surveyed 94 regional office staff, including
inspectors and others who participated in the new oversight process pilot
project, which ended in November 1999. NRC found that less than half agree or
strongly agree that the new oversight process provides adequate assurance that
plants are being operated safely and about half agree or strongly agree that the
new inspection program will appropriately identify risk-significant issues. NRC
also found that 36 percent agree or strongly agree that the new process provides
sufficient regulatory attention to licensees with performance problems,
- 31 percent agree or strongly agree that the new inspection report
format adequately communicates relevant information to the licensee and public,
and
- 19 percent agree or strongly agree that the new process allows for
the identification of declining performance before safety margins are
significantly reduced.
In addition to the issues NRC identified through
the pilot project, NEI, utility and state officials, and representatives of
public interest groups identified 27 issues they believed should be resolved
before NRC implements the new process in April 2000. The issues, identified
during a recent workshop on the oversight process, included the need for
guidance for NRC staff and the industry on the enforcement actions that NRC
would take when utilities report inaccurate plant performance data and
inspection issues that cut across all aspects of plant operations (like human
performance). The need for performance indicators for the security of nuclear
power plants were also identified. The workshop participants identified another
22 issues that NRC should resolve during or after the first year of implementing
the new process.
Despite these unresolved issues, NRC staff, NEI
officials, and other stakeholders, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists,
believe that the new oversight process provides a more objective and clear
approach that is fundamentally more sound and will produce better overall
results than NRC's prior process to assess overall plant performance. However,
during the pilot project at 13 plants, NRC found that about 99 percent--or
nearly all--of the performance indicators were acceptable and only three
inspection findings were not. Two members of NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards, reacting to this information, believe that the performance
indicators are not sensitive enough to identify degrading plant performance.9 In
addition, 70 percent of the NRC staff who provided opinions to an agency survey
indicated that the new process will not allow for the identification of
declining safety performance. When taken together, the question arises: How good
is a process that tells NRC, the utility, and the public that overall plant
performance is acceptable but cannot tell NRC when performance starts to
decline? This overall question was raised by some members of the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards at a recent meeting with NRC staff. In
responding to the Advisory Committee, NRC staff said that the oversight process
is not "set in stone" and will continue to evolve during its initial
implementation. NRC staff expect to evaluate the process by June 2001 and
provide the Commission with recommendations to improve it.
NRC Is
Developing a Strategy to Implement a Risk-Informed Regulatory Approach
NRC agreed with the recommendation in our March 1999 report on risk-
informed regulation that it should develop a comprehensive strategy to implement
a risk-informed regulatory approach. The staff expect to have a draft strategy
for the Commission's consideration by March 10, 2000. However, NRC will not
finalize the strategy until it obtains and addresses public comments on it,
which could take another year. NRC staff did provide the Commission with a
memorandum on January 13, 2000, describing their proposal for the development of
a comprehensive riskinformed strategy. The outline mentions many of the issues
that we raised in previous reports and testimony--it discusses the need for
goals, objectives, performance measures, timelines, and training for staff. NRC
staff and other stakeholders, including NEI and the Union of Concerned
Scientists, will meet with the Commission at the end of this month to provide
their views on the draft strategy.
NRC and EPA Disagree on Radiation
Standards
NRC and EPA disagree on the level of residual radiation that
can safely remain at a nuclear power plant site after utilities complete their
decommissioning. EPA has authority for establishing radiation standards for all
aspects of decommissioning, including acceptable levels of residual radiation.
To date, EPA has not issued such standards. In the absence of EPA's standards,
in 1997, NRC issued standards that utilities must meet to decommission nuclear
plant sites and terminate their NRC licenses.
We previously reported
that EPA does not agree with NRC's residual radiation standard, NRC's standard
sets a dose limit of no more than 25 minirem per year from all sources,
including groundwater.l To put this standard in perspective, the average level
of natural background radiation in the United States is about 300 millirem per
year. In fact, the disagreement between the two agencies has been characterized
by both its length and its acrimony. EPA started to develop residual radiation
standards in 1984 but has not yet finalized them. Nevertheless, EPA's position
is that NRC's licensees should be required to decontaminate nuclear plant sites
to a level of 15 millirems of residual radioactivity per year and to clean up
groundwater to the same limit as drinking water standards. EPA's Administrator
has stated that the agency may apply the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to sites that have been or are being
decommissioned if NRC and EPA do not reach an agreement on the applicable
standards.
Currently, NRC's licensees are using NRC's
regulations and related guidance to plan for or to decommission their nuclear
power plants and related facilities. However, if NRC's licensees are ultimately
required to comply with the stricter EPA standards, they may have to perform
additional cleanup activities and incur additional costs. Neither NRC staff nor
EPA officials could estimate the amount of additional cost, but both said it
could be very high. To ensure that NRC's licensees do not face dual regulation,
in 1999, the House Appropriations Committee strongly encouraged EPA and NRC to
adopt a memorandum of understanding, which is being developed, to clarify EPA's
involvement at NRC sites and to report to the Committees on Appropriations by
May 2000 on their progress. Although the nuclear industry was encouraged by the
directive to resolve the stalemate through a memorandum of understanding, NEI
has said that the industry is uncertain given EPA's history whether the
memorandum will be completed and/or resolve the problem. NEI also stated that
the Congress may need to intervene to resolve the conflict between the two
agencies.
NRC and EPA also disagree on the radiation standards that
would apply to DOE's high-level waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 made NRC
responsible for licensing the construction and operation of DOE's repository for
high-level radioactive waste on the basis of general environmental standards to
be issued by EPA. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed DOE
to investigate a site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada; and the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 directed EPA to develop a specific health standard for the
Yucca Mountain site. In August 1999, EPA issued a proposed rule
in the Federal Register on the environmental radiation protection standards for
Yucca Mountain. In the standards, EPA proposes that DOE not
only limit exposure to an individual from radioactive material to 15 millirems
per year from all sources but also protect groundwater to drinking water
standards. In commenting on EPA's proposal, NRC noted that EPA has not
demonstrated a need for a separate groundwater limit or that the 15 millirems
limit was necessary to protect public health and safety and the environment.
NRC is not alone in its objection to EPA's proposed requirement for a
separate groundwater standard--NEI, the National Academy of Sciences, and others
have also raised concerns. For example, NEI noted that far from enhancing public
health and safety, a separate EPAgroundwater standard could result in a
repository design that is actually less protective of public health and safety.
NEI noted that meeting a separate groundwater standard would require smaller
waste containers in more tunnels, spread over a larger area which would require
more ventilation systems. NEI said that a larger, more open repository would
release more naturally occurring radon during excavation and the repository's
operations, thereby increasing the total radiation dose. Likewise, the National
Academy of Sciences' Board of Radioactive Waste Management commented that the
separate groundwater standard appears to duplicate the protection provided by
the 15-millirem-per-year standard. The Academy also said that a separate
groundwater limit may greatly complicate the licensing process and have a
negligible impact on the protection of the public. It further noted that the
Academy does not believe that a scientific basis exists for establishing a
separate limit.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes our statement. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may
have.
FOOTNOTES:
1 NRC differentiates between "risk-informed"
and "risk-based" regulation, noting that the latter approach relies solely on
the numerical results of risk assessments. NRC does not endorse a risk- based
approach.
2 To obtain a diversity of views, we surveyed 1,581 NRC staff;
1,076, or 68 percent, responded. See: Nuclear Regulation: NRC Staff Have Not
Fully Accepted Planned Changes (GAO/RCED-00-29, Jan. 19, 2000).
3
Nuclear Regulation: Better Oversight Needed to Ensure Accumulation of Funds to
Decommission Nuclear Power Plants (GAO/RCED-99-75, May 3, 1999) and Nuclear
Health and Safety:. Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public Is
Lacking (GAO/RCED-94-190, Sept. 19, 1994).
4 NEI includes members from
all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear plants in the United
States, as well as nuclear plant designers, major architectural/engineering
finns, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations
and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. NEI establishes unified
policy for the nuclear industry on such matters as generic operational and
technical issues.
5 For the purpose of the survey, senior management
referred to managers at the Deputy Office Director/Deputy Regional Administrator
level and above, including the Chairman, Commissioners, and Executive Council,
and mid-level management refers to section chiefs, team leaders, assistant
branch chiefs, branch chiefs, and deputy and division directors.
6 The
percentage of management agreeing with the statement is significantly different
from the percentage of staff at p < 05. This means that 95 times out of 100,
a difference this large would not occur by chance.
7 Special Evaluation
of the Role and Structure of the NRC's Commission (OIG/99E-09, Dec. 23, 1999).
8 About 33 percent of the NRC staff who responded to the survey neither
agreed nor disagreed, did not know or had no basis to judge, or provided no
answer to the questions.
9 The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
is a statutory committee established to advise the Commission on safety aspects
of proposed and existing nuclear facilities, as well as to perform other duties
as the Commission may request.
10 Nuclear Regulation: Better Oversight
Needed to Ensure Accumulation of Funds to Decommission Nuclear Power Plants
(GAO/RCED-99-75, May 3, 1999). 11 Rem is a unit of measurement of the effect of
radiation doses to human beings. A millirein is one thousandth of a rem.
END
LOAD-DATE: March 10, 2000