Nuclear Regulation: Regulatory and Cultural Changes Challenge NRC
(Testimony, 03/09/2000, GAO/T-RCED-00-115).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed regulatory and
cultural challenges facing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
focusing on the: (1) views of NRC staff on the quality of work NRC
performs; and (2) status of NRC's efforts to develop a comprehensive
strategy to implement a risk-informed regulatory approach.

GAO noted that: (1) although GAO's 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; (2) while almost half 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 into the process; (3) 60 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; (4) GAO's findings are similar to the results of a 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; (5) 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;
(6) 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; (7) NRC
will then seek public comments on the plan, and it may then take another
year to put it in place; (8) the outline of the draft implementation
plan that was provided to the Commission in January 2000 touched on the
elements GAO recommended to be included in a strategy for moving to a
risk-informed regulatory approach in GAO's March 1999 report; (9)
disagreement between NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
over appropriate standards for regulating radiation levels at nuclear
facilities could impact the costs to decommission nuclear power plants
and develop a proposed repository for the plants' high-level waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada; (10) although EPA has authority to establish a
standard for residual radiation at nuclear power plants that have been
decommissioned, it has not done so; (11) utilities are using a standard
developed by NRC that EPA believes is not restrictive enough; (12)
utilities are concerned that they may ultimately have to use a more
restrictive EPA standard, which would increase their decommissioning
costs; (13) 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; and (14) NRC, and others have raised concerns
about whether the proposed standard would have an impact.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-00-115
     TITLE:  Nuclear Regulation: Regulatory and Cultural Changes
	     Challenge NRC
      DATE:  03/09/2000
   SUBJECT:  Nuclear powerplant safety
	     Nuclear waste disposal
	     Radiation safety
	     Nuclear powerplants
	     Regulatory agencies
	     Safety standards
	     Occupational surveys

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************

Before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and
Nuclear Safety, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate

For Release

on Delivery

Expected at

9 a.m. EDT

Thursday,

March 9, 2000

NUCLEAR REGULATION

Regulatory and Cultural Changes Challenge NRC

Statement of Ms. Gary L. Jones, Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-00-115

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, NRC's
management of and the staff's 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. 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 half 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. 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-informed 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 of NRC's recent initiatives. 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. 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 trust 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-informed
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-- 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 staff's level of
knowledge and confidence about the new oversight process.

We agree with NRC that our survey results reflect the staff's 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. 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 risk-informed 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 millirem per
year from all sources, including groundwater. 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 EPA groundwater 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.

(141408)
  
*** End of document. ***