ML052140150
| ML052140150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/2005 |
| From: | Wright G State of IL, Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML052140150 (7) | |
Text
RIC 2005 Session F-1 ROP / Inspection Program TOP Three Challenges /Solutions for CY2005 Gary N. Wright, Assistant Director Illinois Emergency Management Agency Division of Nuclear Safety March 8, 2005
March 8, 2005 G. Wright, IEMA 2
Challenge # 1 - SDP STILL TOO COMPLEX AND SUBJECTIVE True significance of inspection findings can be obscured Davis-Besse
- 3/6/02, vessel head wastage characterized
- late March 02, SDP outcome is undecided, either yellow or red
- 2/25/03, NRC issues preliminary finding of red
- 5/29/03, NRC issues final determination of red SDP not always reproducible between analysts
March 8, 2005 G. Wright, IEMA 3
Solution # 1 - SDP STILL TOO COMPLEX AND SUBJECTIVE z Consider reducing complexity of SDP by better use of simplifying techniques such as those used in the ASP
March 8, 2005 G. Wright, IEMA 4
Challenge # 2 - Problem Identification
& Resolution Program (PI&R) z PI&R program receives too little NRC attention under the Baseline Inspection program.
March 8, 2005 G. Wright, IEMA 5
Solution # 2 - Problem Identification &
Resolution Program (PI&R) z Consider making Problem Identification &
Resolution (PI&R) a Performance Indicator
March 8, 2005 G. Wright, IEMA 6
Challenge # 3 - ROP LIMITS STATE INSPECTIONS UNDER MOUS z Public Radiation Safety Inspections Limited z Emergency Response Inspections Limited z ASME Compliance Inspections Limited
March 8, 2005 G. Wright, IEMA 7
Solution #3 - ROP LIMITS STATE INSPECTIONS UNDER MOUS z Reduce constraints by which state and NRC inspectors are allowed to enter supplemental inspection procedures