ML19224D735
| ML19224D735 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/1979 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Bradford P, Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7907160229 | |
| Download: ML19224D735 (48) | |
Text
-
9 t
1 c
Y. d. $ r.4 n i.
n _.. n. : n yna>=ltr\\%
'an g
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
l IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING BRIEFING ON PERF0Fl4ANCE APPRAISAL TEld45
(
Place. Washington, D.
C.
Octe. Tuesday, 5 June 1979 Pcges 1-33 357 248 l
...= _ ;
- 1 ac :::
j I,
ACE - FED ERAI. REPO RHR5. D'C.
0lficti Repone's l
.LL. Ncc, C:::itel 5:ree:
Wc r ircien. O.C. :0CO ;
NATICNWlOE COVERAGE O AILY 7
7907180'p
- CR5214 i 1
I e
DISCLAIMER This is an unof ficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on Tuesday, 5 June 1979 in the Commissions's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W.,
Washington, D.
C.
The.
meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Th.4s transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.;103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision at the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necassarily reflect final determinations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
357 249
i i
j i
l 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
i i
9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'l i
3 !
i i
4 i PUBLIC MZETING i
Il SV l
BRIEFING ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAMS 6!
i 7
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.
W.
8i Washington, D.
C.
9*
Tuesday, 5 June 1979 10 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m.
11 BEFORE :
12 DR. JOSEPH M.
HENDRIE, Chairman 13 PETER A.
B RADFORD, Commissioner 14 JOHN F.
AHEARNE, Commissioner 15 I
PRESENT:
Mesa s Chilk, Bickwit, Gossick, Davis, Thornburg, and Ong.
17 i
18 l l
i f
19 I
20 '
21 22 1 23.l l
l (W P N O# I' f.M f ?e r ?
L 25 i
I l
3 CR'5214' Heer t5
{
l jl 1 i
jl P R O'C E E DI NGS i
I I
i i
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIEr The next item is the one in a l
3l series of briefings by I&E.
l l
I Let's see, this is number 3, of either 5 or 6, and i
4 this ene is on the performance appraisal program.
S.
Why don't you all go ahead?
6 MR. DAVIS:
The Chairman has said we have a series 7
of briefings about I&E's plans.
You've already been briefed 3
on the updated residence program and the response prcgram.
9 We i'ntend to brief also the enforcement prcgram, the 10 11 independent verification, and on the trial program for licensir.,
12 for regulatory performance evaluation.
13 The IE pef ormance appraisal team, which is the 14 subject of the briefing this afternoon, was approved cy the 15 Ccmmission as an integral part of the revised inspection l
16 program.
The next slide shows what those particular 17,
- j I
18 develcpments were which were approved by the Commission.
1 19,
(Slide.)
i The re we re four principle ef forts.
The first -- we 20 e1 h ad alre adv. briefed cn -- I'm c.uite sure veu're familiar with h
w e
e b
6 4 f f
44 4
64 w
a f
h b
a t f
b all sites with creratin: rea ct:rs, the selected conrtructier
,{
- a and selccted fuel sites.
A:sJ ece r 4xrters, :,c.
25 ;
The pe r f a rnan c e app rais a_, the seccnd element le ' 1 l
357
~) G }
i c'
i
.I i
d
?
4 1'
I j i 2 1
i l
1l' talk about today; the indepen' dent measurement, which is really i
1 2'
independent verification of direct obse rvation work -- this l
3l will be the subject of a future brie fing.
1 4
4i And the last, career management and training was i
5l improved career management training, resulting in upgraded 6
training program and more systematic method of management 7
within IE, particularly career management.
8 We did not have specific briefing plan for that, 9
unless you desire to hear one.
10 (Slide.)
11 From the next slide, you will see what our concept 12 is, basic functions of performance appraisal.
It has thrce 13 assigned functions, all performed from a national perspective,
14 as opposed to the more usual regional perspective of our field 15 work.
16 Firs t, the performance appraisal function pe r f orms i
l 17 evaluation of NRC Licensees.
These are thorough and critical 18 reviews of Licensee operations by a select group of experienced 19 NRC inscectors.
t f
i i
20 i These inspections ran primarily at the Licensee's 21 total centrol of plant activity.
The orientation of tnese 22 inspections is to incorporate ar Off-site nanagement contrci, 23 as demcastrated by cn-site 1 censing pe rf craance.
24 Second, we evaluate the effectiteness of SFC A c,4 ee e,: a,conen. i r-25 '
inspecticn prcgram.
35,/
272
, a i
5 31 a l
s 1
CCMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
Let me stcp you at that line i
i 2!
ror a minute.
I l
1 3
How dces one go about evaluating on-site performance i
~
i i
l feel for of f-site management control? '
4l in a way that gives you a i
1 5!
What kinds of things are you locking at?
i l
6l MR. DAVIS:
We will be giving you some detail en l
7' that in just a few moments.
I'm just giving an overview, and 8
then Harry will take over on how we do what we think we ' re 9
doing.
10 Then we evaluate the ef fectiveness of the NRC 11 l inspection program, and in this effort the same areas of 12 different Licensees' activities are examined without regard 13 to the regional boundaries.
14 At the same time that the Licensee's performance is 15 being determined, an evaluation of perfo;. nance -- an evaluation; 16 inspecticn progran can be made.
This will aim tcwa$d such 17 '
matters as consistency between regions -- third, it's 18 appropriateness -- of the IE program to focus Licensee f
I I
19 attenticn en matters of significance.
i 20 And lastly, the third function of performance 21 l appraisal is to ccn firm the cbj ectivity of NRC inspe ctors, here i
l 2: 1 2:ain asinc. the s ame inspection effert that acccmplishes the i
t
...o
.c.,..
4 r
.~e __ n, e r f o rm y ;ce appraisal te am i c c,i u.v 2.
'l 24 indicatcrs con cerning NEC inspecto r cbj ecti cit;.
This ccces A a 4;er31 A es]r F1 i nc.
20 frcm..l e d i s C u s s i c a W i t'"-
the inspectCrs, LLCensee,
5
' L ssI t
6 il j l 4 t
I I
l 1l l'e p re s e n t a ti ve s, anC review cf inspecticn -- inspector actions.'
i For example, PAT will review inspector acticns, l
actions of Licensee events, to assess whether there is a 3
I I
cercectible bias in his reaction -- did he resc.end logically 4,
{
tc the information?
Was he less or more demanding on the 5
I Licensee?
6' CO"MISSICNER AHE ARNE -
When you focus spe ci fically 7
1 8'
_S p
s n addressing t.he objectD/ity, how about the people right above the inspectors?
9 MR. DAVIS:
We believe that, really, when you look g
at the inspector's objectivity, that how he reacts will be 11 patterned by the supervision.
g N w, one thing I would like to emphasize, that these 13 functions are performed from the same single-field ef fort.
We ja don't have three cifferent efforte doing these threee dif ferent 15 functions, but we draw these conclusions from the same field 16 effort.
j7 l j
l f
18 +f We review and evaluate the results frcm different 1
I pe rspe ctive s, cermittinc PAT to perform these three functions.
19 l i
i i
Ncw, H ar ry Ta c...o
., who's the Director c: the l
-lo 9 Division o f Reactor Instruction and Inscection, will c rie r -/cu 21 i I
a cn the details of this p ro g r am.
It ccmes under his management.
(Slide.)
l 1r the next 31 de V7 THO?S3CEG:
The next 31.de
,J '
i AM A af e r 3# A cco r te r t ta; '
We '. ave laid Cuc the 96.formance 2?pral3al Cbje2t17:3.
Of
~
9bk
'i
- 3. [3 c'
JA D y
i i
l i
1!
course, one of our primary cbjectives is to impace pcsitively I
I 2l on the ef fectiveness of licensing management and nuclear pcwer l
I 3
plant safety.
I i
l 4l We believe that, of course -- I think, as many other l
\\.
i 5!
people believe, that strong Licensee management is instrumental' i
I 6l to safety.
And when you concentrate the man-nachine interface, 1
7!
we believe that's important.
i 8
We believe that management is at the top of the human 9
reliaoility chain f rom whc ce direction ecmes, technical and 10 engineering knowledge.
11 We believe that management, of course, is at the tcp 12 of the human reliability.
13 COMMISSION AHEARNE:
Harry, you're going to have to 14 talk up a little louder.
I i
We believe that management is i
~
l 16 !
important, because from this level ccmes direction, technical t
17 and engineering knowledge, administrative control systems, I
18 l motivation, safety attitude, cositive and necative rewards for
~
f e
19 crcr. e r ce rf o rmance or 1.o. roc. e r c. erf o rmance, rescurces, the i
i 20 ability and captaility to collect and collate experienced 21 informaticn f rc.T their plant and other plants and feed it back i
22 j into their cperation, training, 2nd 30 fort?.
i t
23 ~
So we believe that 1 is p rcpe r to devote a ".ig?
l
'I 24 le '.'e l cf attenticr at the T.anagement level.
Ne be lie'Je that m.,.~,_,.,,,
25 ; we will r a i., a r.aticn al pe rspe cti /e or pe r f o rm an ce appraisal 357 255
8 l
I ji 6 I
l 1l threugh this effort.
We will have an independent grouo doinc l
i t
tha work.
It will ccme through a ccmmon filter and give us a 2 pi 2'
new dimension for inspections.
L i
4l We hope to be able to isclate seme of the pcsitive 5'
and negative performance trait indicators on the part of 6
Licensees.
Of course, I mentioned the national perspective 7
is possible.
Wa can do it consistently.
Hopefully it will lead to intelligent and effective 8
9 resource allocation.
This effort is not duplicated elsewhere 10 in our inspection program.
And we believe, also, it is 11 important to direct a high level of attention to the management 12 level now anc to the interface between corporate management 13 !
in the field, because our concentration now, on assigning 14 field inspectors and resident inspectors to the fie ld, might 15 tend to lower o'ur view co what gces on at the site an' Taybe 16 ll might distract us somewhct l
from what goes on at high ' l:vels
+
in the organization, from whence we think all these things 17 l
I 13 -
come.
I l
I 19,
We believe this will give i s an independent internal i
20,
IE-mcnitoring function.
We believe it's gcod business to audit 21 cur cwn activities internally.
22 !
We, fuer all, enccurage cha Licensees tc dc this
.i 23 1 cor c f th ing,
.:e believe that independence will lead to more r
i 20 Cbjectivity on our part.
We t hi n >. it Will erhance prCgr2m
.anwr a.w.v, m
_denti ff scme cf 25i effectivencss.
We believe ee'll be
'H'a f
\\
c' f l
3 R _/ v/
1
jl 7 9
s I
ti our inspectica practices and strategies that may be more or I
i i
2 less effective than ocners, and which would lead to l
3:
deemphasizing scme of the less effective stuff and increasinc i
a!
emphasis on these things that are more effective, thereby I
I l
'I
+
5 enhancing our program.
6)
And then it might even lead us to -- at some point to assess the impact of our program on Licensee pe rf ormance.
7; I
That I think would be our ultimate goal -- if we could do 3:i l
j 9
scmething in our inspection program and see scme effect in i
f i
10 :
Licensee performance, that would be our ultimate geal.
- I 11,
And here again, John mentioned the confirmation of i
12 inspector objectivity.
I don' t have to dwell long on how 13 important objectivity of inspectors is.
14 I We believe that any lack of cbjectivity would cccur 15 ;
with a low frequency, but we don't want to tolerate the 16 beginning of it even.
These inspectors are in a ne' situation; 17 f they will perform under somewhat rigid Ocde of conduct, and we r
I 13 :
want to make sure that they remain cbj ective.
1 i
I p7 To de it, we would start with our impression of the 20 '
License e, based en our inspection e f f orts, compared to what the fie'- 4 r-assion was.
And f che./ we re c. re at1/ different, one a
I
- e..
wculd as? c r e t e l f, wh.* ? - and then becin to ccme dcwn that h
- m. -
chain cf 1ccic until.ecu ca~e cc the p ein e whe re T.aybe, cu t
d so w
=
44 ea
- w w.,:..,. aem,..n. x
- 3 CC:O' 35:CSER AMEA.SE :
Marri, lec 7e ask '*cu a
357 257 I
j1 8 10 i
i i
I 6
l 1!
questien ab cut that particular item.
l l
i 2
In many of the other points that you've been talking e
I 3
about, it sounded very much like internal IE, inspector l'
I 4i general type function -
your going out and inspecting and i
i 5j evaluating, and evaluatir g e f fectiveness.
6 MR. THORNBURG:
No way.
7 CCM'4ISSICENR AHEAPl!E :
The word "confirmaticn," as l
l 8I opposed to " verification," leads me to ask, when this team I
9 arrives on the site, does it have, as a specific item of its 10 task, to reach a conclusion as to how objective the inspector 11 has been?
12 MR. THORNBURG :
No, sir.
This would come later at 13 some point after they get reviewed.
14 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
But is it a specific function, 15 that they are to perform?
l 16 MR. THORNBURG:
Yes, it is.
l t
i 17 CCMMISSICENR AHE ARNE :
So the inspectors knou that I
18 !
when this team is going, that one of the conclusions that at i
}
19 some s tage, whether it's while they're there or scmetime after i
20 they've been there, there will be an evaluation of their i
21l cbjectivity.
l
.v. u... t ; v.. w~a v~.
,a e
,3,,._o,.
e i
23 j COM'4ISSIC::ER AHE AF2:Z :
Then I wculd suggest fcu 23 cGe tha tc rd evaluaticr," rather char "ccnfirmaticr.'
A ce > 2er si Pix-r en. i-c
.N S.
A[ bl Ne 33e CCC 1rmaIiCI e C a C 3 'J We bO *S7e Q
35/
<)3u i
11 3.1 9 l
l 1
i t
i 1
l 1;
they start cut objectively, and we would hope they would -- we i
f 2,
would determine the continuation of that obiectivity.
Other ways one might reach conclusions l
l 4
regarding their objectivity -- you knew, when the team is the re 1
5 I cbserving and scmeone may make an allegation, but we are not f
i 6
going to go and track the guy -- we're not going to go to the l
7' local saloons and show his picture to the people and see if l
8 they know him.
9 MR. DAVIS:
I might say this, Commissioner Ahearne --
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Is that why I get a lot of 11 requests for photographs from the Commission?
12 (Laughte r. )
13 MR. DAVIS:
A couple of years ago we began to look l
14 into this, and we went to other agencies to see if there was 15 any agency that had what we hoped would be a preventive or a loss of cbjectivity, approach to a lack of objectivity, l
16 i
17 l and we were unable to find one.
13 l Most agencies, I guess, wait for allegations and I
!9 then react to allegations.
Wha we wanted to do is to develop i
20 an ongoing prcgram where one c# t.e things that cur PAT has t
21 in mind as they go through what they're doing is tc give scre 22 censide ration to this.
I perscnall; think -- ?.ere will it he derenstrated?
24
- will be demcnstrated more sub tif th an openly, I suspect --
ht*
24* M At x r*?*1 sec 20 SuCP thin 0s as
-~ V Olant this" and ' m *, 01350 that'. - -
Tuch 1
,5 5,/
c)
12 j
j l' 10 l
i i
i 1
things as if we look at how our inpsector, our resident, in I
t I
I 2,
interfacing with Licensee management, is he demanding en that i
l 3i Licensee management, or does he tend to rationalize actions i
l I
i 4i th at they have taken or not taken?
l i
5' I think it is a f airly subtle thing we will be 1
6 dealing with, i
7 MR. THO RNBURG :
In the next slide --
8 (Slide.)
9 MR. THORNBURG:
-- with the next slide, I would 10 like to discuss performance appraisal team composition.
11 !
COMMISSION BRADFORD:
Before we le ave the last slide',
l, 12
-- and again, can you give me a better idea than I came away 13 with earlier as to just what the mechanics of Ehe operation la are?
How lo they go ibout, for example, confirming management 15 !
performance by what they see on the site?
l 16 l MR. THORNBURG :
Well, they go two places. ' They i
17 spend a week in corporate headquarters and a week at site.
i la '
And before they go to the site, they will get e erything they 19 l can find.cn the management control program f or that facility, i
t 20 that particular facility, that part out of the AFSR, the 21 Sectica 5 out of the Technical Applications, the LERs, and the whole history en the p lan t.
Then the whole team will get q
a 23 tCgether 2nd go thrCCgh everything t h e';
Can Oc learr hCw this h
24 g uj cperates, 2nd ther they w;11 g
- the headquarters, or A ce f e-:e<v R ew es me.
25 the cc! PCT 20e leafquarterS, 3nd inte r*4 1eV TayDe Up IO b) pe Cp le.
357 260
ji 11 13 i
1 at the headquarters and at the site, saying, "Okay, you are i
i is 'our idea of 2i suppose to do such-and-such-and-such.
What l
f f
I l
3 your responsibilities and how you discharge them?
And do you I
i 4
have a charter' And let's see some evidence -- you know, like 5t reports "
6 If we ' re talking to the committee, the Review 7
Committee, "Let's see the minutes of the meetings and how you 8
guys carry out your function, and who talks to who," and try 9
to get some idea of whether it's really happening or a pro forma l
10 sort of thing, and then go to the field and do the sar.e cort I
11 of thing.
12 And if you start then, if you see scmething lika an 13 item of nonccmpliance, you may go out and go clear back to 14 the machinery and talk to the operators and review the l
l 15 procedures, talk to the managers, just look for, first of all, I
t 16 in our first -- and if I digress too far, I will get mixed into; I
17 some of t._
other techniques.
l i
i la We have principally this management appraisal 19 technic.ue, where we go to the sites and to the rec,ional I
l c
20,
offices, and where we seem to see if they haze a management 21 program and if it's effectize, and if it is really there or
.. l in sCIT.ecne,3 imaginaticn.
4.
.l 6
_w
.,w,,
, -.,,..n 3,
y v.,
m.J e., -..n
..,,.3, 0,.w
.)
... a.
3,,
~..--.#
--u...
f N
the pc.cer while
.t's tht.
just say c the pecple ir the w cw n ;,u n ec.
25 ' cen:rci r cm, cr at least thcse who '. ace recenti; ceen ir the d
I
\\
j 35/
ac
jl 12.
14 i,
i i
I i
1l control room, to say, 'You have a loss of feedwater event with,
i i
l l
2!
the following characteristics, what would you do?"
l I,
3 MR. THORMBURG:
You mean sort of an operator-testing l 4ll sort of thing?
I 5
COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
Yes.
l 6'
MR. THORNBURG :
We had not put th at into our program I,
7!
at present.
We are considering some innovations in the program i
i 8'
based on some of the things that occurred at Three Mile Island.
9 I would sure like to kncw a lot more about -- I 10 l would like to do a study of whether people comprcmised systems 11 when they put them back into service following maintenance 12 and testing as a rule, whether their procedures are good 13 enough, or whether the administrative controls are good enough.
14 I would like to do a serier of inspections in that 15 area.
I, 16 I had thought of the possibility of doing scme more l
l 17 work in the area of cperator qualifications.
This is an area i
18 I think that Licensing is working on, too, in one of their i
19 l tests.
And I think at some point, before we engaged in that, 20'l ws wculd want to make sure we didn't get in their way, or that I
21., screbcdy did it, and we cccrdinated it.
l 22 And we cculd begin inquiring in scme of these areas.
.i 23 It is not part of cur prograr at this ccin.
24 l And I will get into scme cf cur techr.iques.
As far me em :e =vtees. !rc compcsition cf the team, we le n t arounc to tne 0
as tne o
35_/
262
33
.o
.s I
l 1
Regioncl Directors and said, " Hey, fe llows, who are your most 2
qualified inspectors?"
3 And they told us, and we selected them.
The next 4l time I went back and asked them that question -- well, they l
5 gave me the right answer again.
But I must say that they were 6
absolutely overj oyt i ab out it.
7 We have selected the best pecple that we can finn.
8i We've concentrated on operating people, to begin with.
We have 9
several construction people.
We are recruiting some health 10 physict people.
We cannot duplicate the spectrum of skills, 11 l
but I would like to get a crosscut so that we could do most i
12 ?
every kind of perf ormance appraisal job.
I3 COMMISSICENR BRADFORC :
How do you choose which Id plants to go to?
15 MR. THORNBURG :
To begin with, we wanted to get some I0 comparison of sites that had residenct inspectors against sites i
17 that did not have resident inspectors -- BWRs versus PWRs.
18 j
Recently we have reason to want to lock at some B&W I
19 l plants.
We wanted to select cre or two in each region, to
,i 20 with.
So we've set out to make a selection -- and some with 21 performance, some that were rated more toward the top of the
,", c! scale and scme T.cre toward the bot:cm.
1 l
U And then we began to see if we cculd tell differences, m=e cur plan is eher tc taxe a sa=g1e, xcrx ce th a,
>=e ec=e 12, ae a s a e.,o rers. ' nc.
- i cc:,1:h a year 1y arsressai rescr and tr c0 sa.
.,s a : we l
357 263
16 3 _3. 3_,.
i i
t 1
though t we determined -- try to make some statement on overall u
t 2!
inspector objectivity and this sort of thing.
I l
i i
3-We have done -- and, here again, I'm getting off of 4
the outline -- but we'v_ done four now.
We've got some j
t l
5' insights.
i i
1 6-CCFD1ISSICNER AHEARNE :
Which ones have vou done?
1 l
7 MR. THOFNBURG:
We've done Palisades, San Onofre, I
8 Peach Botten, and B runswick.
And you can see, it is sort of a l 9
spectrum there.
Some are P's and some are BWRs -- ve haven't i
10 done a B&W yet.
Arkansas is next on the lis.t.
11 And as I said, one in each region -- some near the
'l t
i 12 top of some of the lists, and seme near the top of other lists,
i 13 or near the bottom -- dif ferent ways that we a* tempted to 1
14 perform this evaluation.
.!qua rte rs 15 We have a team leader in this team, in 16
-- an experienced inspector from Region 2, and on the l
l t
17 headquarter's staff, and one s taf f member in headquarters now.
18 The rest of the people are scattered in the field at this 19 coint.
t l
20 CCBDiISSICNER AHEARNE-
'r cu me an chey ccme together 21 for each of these?
Fcur will ccne togecher -- well, they 23 '
- rill clan their inst _ecticn, cn, maybe a week or a week and a 4
l 24 half ahead cf time at the ragicn21 office -- four cf chem 111 i
separters. ;rc. ;
AC?- P *C e f 3, 25 ' come oc che regicnal cffice and gather.
}hk l
jl 15 17 1
I i.
i s
1 i I might get there for a day or so, at least for the i
t 1
I i
2 preparaticn.
And they will meet and get their plans all set 3j and then go out in field and do the work.
l 4l CCMMISSICUER AHEAR"E:
But is there one team?
No, we have 10 pecple now, and we t
6j split them several different ways.
i 7'
I described the management appraisal inspection I
i I
t 8I awhile ago, where we went in and really did a management-level i
t 9j lock in the field at headquarters, and this would take four i
10 !
people witn a designated leader.
I 11 l And we have another series of inspections where one l
12 man goes out and takes a very narrow subject and cutc as 13 deeply as he can into it at a number of facilities.
And that 14 is a different type of inspection.
15 Right new I've got three of my people in the Three I
16 Mile Island investigaticn.
I 17,
So, as I say, we cut them several different ways.
l 18 l MR. DAVIS:
I think that, Commissicner Ahearne, righ t I
19 !
now they are housed in their region, but they do not belcng to i
I 20 the regicn.
'l C N. '_' '. '_ o~ 0 ' u Fm.D
'".r_.c'.. A" r -
"a " ".
"'.m..
3 _
4.'. 3~ "e n' o_
-a v
s 22 < impressicn that they may end up spending a lot Of their time 23 -
doi.'.g re gi on business, l
I 2a '
MF. CI"IS:
Nc, sir.
They belong :: the PAT.
w g ews wc..s. sc 3.
. C RU E ?.G :
Cr One cccasicn, We JalkeG Che lines i
t; e
"P f
j1 16 18 i
i jj at Brunswick, because they were in there and they wanted th.it 1
checked cut.
So we did that jcb for the regicn, but that's 7l I
3, ab out the only regicnal work we ' ve done.
i l
COMMISSICNER AHEAPSE:
And is the reason that they 3l i
5 i are still in the regicns because you have identified them i
6' there?
7 MR. DAVIS:
One of the basic reasons is, while we 8
were af ter extremely good guys -- and we think we have them --
9 the way the Regional Directors screen then, we must have end t5 10,
gotten scme good guys.
11 12 13
'4 15 16 17l i
la l I
4 1
19 i
l I
20 2!,
i 6.
I 24 l
.a..v.
ammes. 'ne
- C.1,
C.n 5214 46 HEER/PV 19 l
l l
I There is a reluctance en the part of our inspectors l
2 to move to headquarters, a strong reluctance.
S o, wh'a t we ' re 1
i 3
doing right now in the developmental stage is leaving them in 4
the regions; fully knowing they belong to our P AT, and then 5!
organizationally we haven't placed them yet.
6 Onc of the things we have mentioned conceptually i
7 several times is, "Well, maybe we need a national field office, 8
something supportive of the whole nation.,
And, if so, perhaps j
9 this would be a logical place for that."
But it has been pri-10 marily because of the negativity toward moving to headquarters.
II MR. THOFliBLRG :
We have trained these people and I2 qualified the:.., or we will qualify them, as accident and inci-13 dent investigators in a risk assessment oriented training scheme I4 that was adopted by DOE several years ago.
It is a risk assess-l 15 ment logic, and whenever I can, I would like, to the extent we Io I would like to go from a deterministic oriented inspec-
- can, I
I7 tion program to a risk assessment criented approach.
i t
i 18 l And so we have concentrated on giving these pecple l
i, I9 i that special training.
l 20 (511de.)
21 Ncw, in the next slide, we talk a' cut methcdology, m" '
and I descri'ed the management appr__ sal inspections.
And we c
I 6.
e w
+b a6 s p ea 4
4 l
deep cne; 2nd c2 have cur 11:ensee regula: cry perferrance
~
e :.,, w a w ert r-
'C e73 ua51Cng W n.. C we C7e sOussed 0." a previous OCc22 ICD.
4
pv2 20 I
l l
i l
And we do scme special investigations.
2 (Slide.)
4 3
Now, in the next slide,. we get into more detail on I
4 the management appraisal inspection.
And, as I said before, we,
f 5
really want to kncw:
Loes management knew their job?
Is there i
I 6!
evidence of a systematic approach?
Is it effective?
How do 7
they operate at the corporate site?
What is the qualifications l
8 availability of their technical support?
What kind of a manage-l 9
ment control system do they have, and do they believe in, and l 10 this sert of thing?
11 i Now, our method, of course, is to do in-depth inspec-12 tions by teams c2 four inspector 0 at both the site and the 13 corporate office.
We have a preparations phase, where we 14 review the licensee's -- his administrative plan and LERs and
,I 15 inspection reports and this sort of thing.
And we may inter-i 16 view up to 50 people.
And as far as we can go into this broad I
17 scope, this is it.
And we just tend to interview people, see i
18 if they knew their jobs, and then if problems cccur we track e
I 19 ;
tnem ccwn to the machinery or the site, and we hold management i
i 20 meetings with management at the end of the session and give i
21 l them cur initial impressions -- at least identify any items of l
22 j ncncompliance or any items that might represent scme scrt of 1
i a n im.T.e d i a t 3 s a f e O';
prchlem.
- think, ch'cl aus l;' at Three le Islanc e.
149 - e fC ef 51 4 E Nf'f rs. l aC.
1, 357 z;64'rtiCu12r 3C=0 Cf the areas that ce shCuld emphasi23 in thi
pv3 I
1 21 1
approach would be from the management standpoint:
Where do you 2
get your engineering support?
How much engineering support do I
3 you have?
This type of thing.
How do they communicate?
I 4!
The agency communicates fairly heavily with the I
i 5
licensees at the corporate office, and the cuestion we will 6;
have is:
Well, what do you do with this information?
Does it l
7' get to the site?
In other words, do they get LER reports?
How I
8 do they handle LER reports?
And do they learn from the experi-9 ence of other plants?
This type of thing.
10 MR. THORNBURG:
Our findings are' expected to find a 11 national perspective on licensee regulatory performance.
We would 12 like to be able to identify licensee performance indicators, the 13 positive and negative ones.
We would like to measure our pro-14 gram implementation consistency.
And we believe it will give us 15 l insight into inspector objectivity.
I don't think it would 16 measure it as we sit up there, but we can certainly gain insighti 17 into that.
18 (S lide. )
l 19 l Now, on our next slide, our prcgram appraisal inspec-i 20 tiens, as I said, are narrcw, deep cuts into scme aspect of the I
21 '
licensee's operation.
22 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Give me an example of what ycu 23 i mean.
24 MR. CHCENEURG:
,lell, we fid a series just recentl2 cr A C* J * ' e' Ji l eOC ri e r i, i." C.
i the testing of systems, safety systems, where the licensees are 25 357 269
pv4 22 l'
i i
required to test the safety systems pericdically.
And we d'.d i
l l
l 2l this cut to see if they were doing it, and, if they were doing i
3l it approximately on the frequency.
And the next cut we wanted l
i i
I i
4l to cake was whether their surveillance testing -- well, in this I
l S'
case we will revisa the schedule and look to see that the sur-6 veillance tecting negates the systems or ends up in some sort 7l of a negative safety situation, rather than the positive one we l
I i
8i expected.
And we may do a series on components.
9~
We have had some problems with diesel generators off 10 l and on.
We may want to go cut and lock at the procedure s for 11 testing, and the results and generally how they do, and this I
12 sort of thing.
l 13 Or we may want to go.nd look at one o f our inspec-14 tion modules.
What does it turn up.
And in this case, and when' I
15 we get done with this sort of a series of inspections, we can l
16 begin to infer whether our auditing methods really are fruitful, i
1 17 whether we ought to go into more depth.
If we see about the i
18 same thing, taking a deep, narrow icok that we do in our audit-19 '
ing methods, then it gives us much more confidence in that type 20 cf apprcach.
And that is one reascn why we wanted to select il 21 '
this specific appr:ach.
22 Our findings are expected to prcvide us a degree of
'l d
23 " appraisal of cur cwn prograr.
Here again, there is inference t
1 i
24 i regarcing the inspectcr ccjeccirit. and 2r ec;10aticn Of the M? -.Jer s. R f N r teri. l*C.
i 20 per:Or32nce cf the l_; ens 920, '/e ndO rL, and contractor 3,
'ie get Il 7
" [b l
/
t
pv5 1
23 l
t If, some ideas of whose procedurcs'are better and who takes the t
2 approach in surveillance testing that would tend to eliminate i
3 the possibility of starting the system up with it not co_rectly 4
valved in or with the breakers closed.
Give us feedback on our 5!
regulations and our licenses and our codes and standards and 6
regulatory guides and that sort of thing.
7 (S lide. )
8 On our next slide, we talk about our licensee regu-9 latory performance evaluation.
And recently, maybe a month or 10 we sent a note down and said we wanted to take another so ago, II look at causally-linked events.
I think our Three Mile Island 12 experience tells us that we don' t go plunging ahead with an 13 integratec approacn that doesn't take a look at what causally-I4 linked events tell us, and we are negotiating now trying to 15 reestablish our contract, and we are in the midst of that right 1-6 now, of getting this contract hammered out, and then we will ask 17 Techniken to go back and take a look at some of these types of 18 plants and tell us what they infer frca that.
l9 l COMMISSIC::ER AHEAR:7E:
What is the relationship with 20 them, thcugh, to the PAT?
21 '
MR. THCE:3CRG:
The PAT will he doing, at. east
~2j initially, scme of the develcpment of licensee regulatory per-23 formance.
They vill certainlf feed into it i.- the final icng
,, i.
" j term, and they will get feeds cut of it.
w...m s. n ecc c.,s. ac.,
m, i
LL b
I bb b*
b1 uI C
sn I 3 3EeCi iC t
.I
-? 9]\\
~
- Js i
i
pv6 l
24 i
l l
1 1
1; function as the previous functions that you have, the two types i
2!
of inspections?
This is not a third type?
1 I
3 MR. THORNEURG:
It i3 not an inspection.
It is an l
l 4
evaluative function.
And I believe that has to do with -- we
!l ao the
/aluation in order to be able to survive, and we will 6
be doing other -- an evaluation other than some of these pro-i 7l cedures, at least in the licensee regulatory performance evalua-8 tion.
9 MR. DAVIS:
But you will recall, Ccmmissioner, we were' l
10 down scme months ago talking about this, and the old AEC approach.
11 We hope that if we do end up with an integrated approach, that-12 does give us some value.
Of course, as Harry said, PAT will 13 input into it, but rare than that, PAT will output from that.
14 That is, where do they go to look.
It will strongly influence 15 that.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
It gets to the point of how 17 do you choose the plant?
18 i MR. DAVIS.
Right.
t 19 MR. THORNBURG:
In the next s lide, we do. talk about i
20 evaluations.
We do intend for PAT to do some investigations.
21 (S lide. )
22 At leact the initial part of sensitive investigations.
t 22. At leact where.nspector cr regional objectiz_t; might be ir I
i 2d I cueCtion, I think there is a time 'Nere CIA beccme5 SO e p l; AWece a, A e:orter s, ue.,
- S, in'JOl*/ed and We heCome less deef i.9 v o l le d,
2*.
19255 f there 357 272
.pv7 25 l i
~
I I
j is a potential question.
2!
CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Le t me address that specifically, i,
I 3i Let's say there is an allegation, some regional head or branch i
l chief of a region giving specific directions to his inspectors i
4 5l to do something that's wrong.
t 6
MR. DAVIS:
That is an CIA investigation.
However, I 7
guess we have had one example of what this refers to, when we 8
had the North Anna allegations on construction.
Those allega-9 tions, at least inferentially, cast doubt on the region's 10 inspection program or how they had used it.
So, rather than use 11 these regional people to go up and investigate the technical 1
12 i issues which were brought up in those allegatlons, we used other' 13 people to do that.
14 And this PAT would be a pre-form nethod of doing that 15 - before we had the ad hoc.
And we just called the inspectors 16 in from other offices to do the investigation.
1/
CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But that sounds more like 1
18 l like examining an issue from outside the region because of a i
i I
i 19 challenged implication of cbjectivity, as opposed to examining i
I l
20 the question of cbjectivity.
21.,
MR. DA7IS:
That's right, sir.
We consider CIA to have J
I m
-x,-
m
., examine any
,,,m-,-,
ns ma~,
'cainst IE abcu:
7 l
-u 1
1 er OcN5uCt of its ir70stigationS.
,a
,-.-y t
24
'd R. THCEN3 CRC:
I thi.9% fCur Statement
_3 prchablf w.,, o =,x,m,. m 25 ' center than the s lide.
Then there eculd be scme cases where PAT f
M #
1 bDI LI I
.pv8 l
26 i
l I
l apertise or independence would be recuired, that it Le more l
ji i
l 2l favorable to acccmplishing the task.
i l
3l (S lide. )
In the next slide, we talk about the acccmplishments a
I 5
of PAT.
We have sent most of our crew now to risk reduction i
3 courses.
CCMMISSICNER AHEARN.:
What is " MORT"?
7 MR. THORNBURG :
That's " management oversight risk 8
acronym for the risk reduction approach.
9 trade."
That's an i
10 I don't like that acronym.
But we processed most of our gang l
11 througn the first portion, and about half o f the second portion 4.
i i
Our management appraisal and program appraisal and inspection 12 l 13 l procedures have been developed.
We have done four management I,
14 appraisal inspections, as I indicated.
We have done one program i
i 15 appraisal inspection series where we looked at tech spec com-i l
16 pliance and testing.
And we have one investigation in progress.'
17 (Slide. )
i i
ja ;
Cur plans for --
I I
19 ;
CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Can you speak-to that investi-l 20 gation, or would you rather not?
- k4s is a ma'~^
' hat involves San 21,1 7
Cnofre and allegations made about San Cncfre.
i a
Ckav.
cur rian3 for FY 1930, le want to d: -ine y
24 7.anagement appraisal inspections, seven prcgram appraisals, a
CT EMef al P E Ce r*e rt ' Sc, e
kh E O 50g IEC
[
333 3I n C.e $w c ~ 'j' e a r
.r a hrCgr3m CI I l
3 5,*C 2/4 1
pv9
?
27 I
!,I l
1; perforr.ance evaluations, issue an annual appraisal rerort where l
l 2! we try to combine scme of these things together, do a risk assesc-i i
3 ment -- continue our risk assessment and accident investigator I
4 training, and continue any assigned special or tentative investi-l t
5
- gaticns, i
6l And I would like to arrange a contract to help us i
7 develop risk assessment techniques and help in developing our a
performance appraisal inspections.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEAFSE:
Harry, when you gave the first i
10 'two, the nine management appraisal inspections and the seven 11 program appraisals, is that workload a workload estimate, or do 12 you have specific plans and specific programs that you have now 13 identified?
14 I MR. THORNBURG :
Well, we have a schedule laid out with 15 our staffing projections.
And I guess the answer is really both.
16 At least, I have got the next several legs on the program 17 appraisals.
I wouldn't say that I have -- that ae have thought l
1a, through what all seven of them would be.
But I want to keep I
I 19 ; going cown the business of surveillance testing and this sort I
I 20 of thing with the first few of them, because that seems tc be an 21 area that has impcrtance.
I don' t knew where I iculd say the k
2; '
last three wculd he.
1 i
e e es v aa v esee n seems amea
=
m V4en b1
[m 4ee e
(*e [me %
e e
e
%st nie e a a
e, l
.u!
MP. WHIT:
les.
We have abcut sevcn additional erlants w - e,- 3, a,0c m. me,
25 that we are ico).ing at, based cn cur regicnal recommendations
pv10 tl 23
- l and en cur needs, and part of them based on Three Mile Island.
l We are going to leck heavily at the B&W nlants.
This dcesn't 2 l.
i
! mean we're going to lock at every o;te of them right away, but we, 3
will look at them a little heavier than the others, and, of 4
l 5! course, one restraf.nt on our schedule is we need to lock at each; I
l 6!, region sort of equally.
And I believe right now we have I
I scheduled Arkansas, Davis-Besse, Pilgrim, Oconee --
7 COMMISSIGNER AHEARNE:
You have answered my question.
8 I was just trying to get to it in a dif ferent way.
9 MR. THORNBURG:
I don't want to lose our sampling 10 11 approach entirely.
(Slide.)
12 Our manpower projections are shown in the next slide.
13 ja 10, 15, 17, and 26.
Our current level of staff is 10.
(Slide-)
15 16 In the next slide, then, we have a little summary of i
l 17 the inspection program.
We believe it will have a favorable i
13 impact on licensee management, o n nuclear satety, give us a 19,
national perspective on performance evaluation; it will give us l
n ',
an independent cchesiveness; it will e.nhance our program 1
effectiveness and give us some insights into -- just a mcrent.
21 Let me lock at the right phrase here.
The evaluation of
,. q
! inspectcr cbjectivity.
73 l
- a 4
CCOCSS:CNER AHEAR'!E.
?cu had menticned back, I thin %,
i e-:. a t R eoer en, t c. i 7:
ScTeWhere in an earlier plaCQ, that VCu intend tO Cut Out an u g I
j 357
,Z I o[
9
pvll
'l l
29-I l
1 appraisal of the prcgram.
i MR. THORNBURG:
An annual appraisal report.
2l 3
CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
When do you expect to do that i
i for this first period?
a!
l 5'
MR. THORNBURG:
At the end of this calendar year.
It i
6 may not have licensee regulatory performance data to go with it, 7
but we will try to write up what we infer from our first year's 8
experience in the prcgram.
9 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Would you hcpe, then, to get 10 that into the annual report?
11 MR. THORNBURG:
We could.
12' COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
It would seem to be a useful i
13 thing to do.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The staffing projections, that went!
l 15 10, 15, 17, 26.
Do those go with overall I&E?
16 MR. THORNBURG:
They track the resident inspectors, I
17 generally.
At this point, we haven't really begun an inspection 18 I of the site that the resident inspector has been stationed at i
i 19 very long; not long enough to lupact the site.
We are trying I
i t
20,
to get cur reference establishe d and to get our precedures set 21 and tuned up.
And then we would expand this prcgram to a rate 22 ] we could handle curselves.
de are a litcle behind thac manning 3, 9,
.e,ua.
I 24 VOICE:
Correct me f I am wrcng.
But actuall;, ycu
- c, - e v e a.xw,. w:
for c'a Ccngr2ss of che encire rev zed 25 ' wil. ' e doing a repcrt r
r 55
,2/--
/
pv12 9
i i
3C i
)
+
1; inspectica program and an annual letting of the centract, so this l
f 2 > will be ene of at least three elements covered by the special I
i i
3< report to the Congress and CMS in January, and we shculd be i
1 ! coming back to the Ccmmission.
i, 5
CCMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
Is that contract let?
6l VOICE:
Almost.
I 7:
CHAIFl!1d! HENDRIE :
Peter, did I see you leaning for-I 8* vard into a question?
9 COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
No.
10 COMMISSICNER AHEAR'IE :
This is exactly the kind of 11 view that I was hoping to get on that.
12 MR. DAVIS:
We think we will get a great deal of pay-13 off with a fairly minimum investment here.
We think these rela-14 tively few pecple will give us a lot of insight, and we will be 15 l.
able to answer questions in this regard that we simply have not i 16 l been able to answer before.
17 CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now, as a final prc uct, as, A
i 18 '
say, one of those r anagement appraisal teams, you say they go l
i 19 ; thrcugh an exit interview with the management.
Do they end up I
I 20 writing the final report?
21 MR. THCRNEURG:
Accually, unfortunately, they will 22 wrice tuo repor:2, reall2 There will 'e an inicial repcrt, c
i
- 'specifically cr ncncamp1_ance, ir che issues thac need imme d.at e 24 !resciution, cha_ 1eed to 'ce rescived in a closer time frame.
w mv a, u.,. n,c.
t 25, And chen we w2nc to write a 7.cre considered appraisal repcr t.
t i
J t
LIG
Evia 31 I
l i
i o
1l Wo can't appraise them perscnally very ef fectively unti2 we cet l
I l
2l some backdrcp or scmething to compare it to.
1 3
COMMISSIONER AHEARME:
Well, you say you finished four.
4j Hava ' hey written reports on those?
t I
(
MR. TH ORNBURG :
I think we have the initial reports l
I 6
out on two of them.
Three of them are backlogged.
Our key peo i!
7 ple are at Three Mile Island on the investigation there, and it 8
is a little cruel to bug them for their inputs on this.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you send me a copy of thei l
10 ones that you have?
11 MR. WHIT:
We have the one compliance report issued on 12 I Pallisades.
Tb-t is the one we can send you.
I 13 We also have some of these program appra sals ' hat we i 14 can send you.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEAPSE:
Fine.
Thank you.
l l
MR. DAVIS:
Another aspect to this overall approach 16 17 is that we are working now towards an appicach where regdcnal i
1 18 ' management meets en a periodic basis, corporate management of i
end46 19,
the utility.
And this would be an input into that.
I 20 21
.h
-- q 6
t a
a ACT F eO f' 31 N f;)0 f t e r s, i rc.
- C sa
- 7. 9 7
')
~
.~
CR 5 2.'A 32' HEER t-7 mte i
1 MR. GOSSICK:
Mr. Chai rman, let me mention one item i
2 in Sam's memo.
As a result of one of the Commission meetings --
3' I guess it was on May 1st -- you asked us if we would bring i
I 4
forward a prcposed FY '80 supplemental budget request in the l
5l Inspection and Enforcement area, and particularly on the i
6 resident inspection program.
And this was made May 29th.
7 John has given me his package on a supplemental for
'80.
I I
l 8
As I have told you, I think at another meeting we 9
are addressing the overall supplemental matter for fiscal 10 year '80 in conjunction and in parallel with the formulation II of the '81 budget request.
12 However, 'you did ask for this one explicitly and I I
i 13 wanted to get your feeling as to whether you would like to have; I
14 this ahead of the others or would you like to get briefed on 15 it, and at the same time that the BRG takes a look at it, along 16 with the other possible candidates for the '80 supplemental.
17 COMMISSICNER AHEARNE:
When do you expect the other 18 !
to be done?
I l9 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, we will be down with the '81 i
20 budget and the '80 supplemental sort of together, tcward the 21 en5 of July.
i
,,I guess f o r my s e, :-.
v u.M._ c_ o_. u h._ R
.'. s :
..w.e n er..
.n n s.s l
23 h would like to see that then.
4 MR. GCSSICF The SRG ton't ha'/e had a chance tc go
- .ce-se em nexeen, we.
25 ]
through and sort af balance this cff against cther things that o
l 357 280
(.
4 33
. >. e o-t
~
i 1
are in other budgets, other pecple's budgets, and sort of I,
I 2
scrubbing it.
i i
3l CCMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The BRG's approach is going to' I
l, 4
be to look at the supplemental and 31 at the same time.
1 5i MR. GCSSICK:
That's right.
They have to do that i
6 to make it hang together.
And of course, other people have l
l 7l got ideas about the supplemental requests for
'80.
And then l
8 we kind of put this all together and scrub it down as hard as 9
we can.
l 10 Since you did ask for this one explicitly in one II of the secretary's memos, I just wanted to ask whether you 12 wanted to have it sent down as something for. you to be looking 13 at, or just how you wanted to handle it.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don' t you send it down and 15 put a note on it indicating that it will also be considered 16 against other requer,ts.
I 17 i MR. GOSSICK:
Well, there's the possibility that you ;
I8
- may be asked about it.
At least this is an initial look.
I I
CHAIEMAN HENDRIE:
Well, it will be useful in the Ie
20 same way as havin_ scme of Saul's first cuts were helpful the d
21 other day when we were asked about pcssible research.
i 22 i MR. CA'/IS:
Cf course, accelerating pecple or site 23 depends :n hiring.
e. e
- u. -
= c. i 4
t-~-
.<~.o a.~--~*w.-.~c..
. a -,;
sCu.
l
- ~,,
n
-c
%..A
..o
.s LN *<' e r s. R
- py te 's
\\ ~c.
-t Ihank yOu lery T.CCC-(Whereupcn, at 2: 45 p<
., the T.eeting was ad:curned.,
I
/
g
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEid (PAT)
U
-a m.
I REVISED INSPECTLQ!1 PROGRAM RESIDEllT INSPECTORS PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL INDEPEllDENT MEASUREMEllTS CAREER MANAGEMENT AND TRAlf1ING u
LJi
..a N
w
~
53;--g.
i
...,..p.-.---.,
,,.,g,,,.
'ij
'ii::
.j
'iji fll
.jj i:
n!!
ii:!
iil j ;
i:!-
g.
EERE0BHMlCE APPRAISAL FUNCIl0RS FROM NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE:
EVALUATE PERFORMANCE OF NRC LICENSEES EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM CONFIRM OBJECTIVITY OF NRC INSPECTORS u
1 Es
.p>
,---,m-,.
__r..m-,...
m.
' !ii i!
- j -
jj
3 PEREQMBNCE APPRAISAL _QBJECTIVES IMPACT ON EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSEE MANAGEMENT AND NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY NATI0tlAL PERSPECTIVE OF PERFORMAtlCE APPRAISAL IDENTIFICATI0fl 0F PERFORMANCE TRAITS ALLOCATION OF IE RESOURCES INDEPENDENT INTERNAL IE MONITORIrlG FUNCTION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS C0tlFIRMATION OF INSPECTOR OBJECTIVITY u
l
?$
ui m:
- m"mr-
......r-..
mmm-mm e
.j.
- g
!!Iiii Lij i!
h h!! i!
3;;
i!
Fi!
n;;
e PERFORMMICE APPRAISAL TEAM COMf0SITI0rl llIGilLY OUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED FIELD INSPECTORS TEAM LEADER AND SW.LL STAFF IN tiEADQUARTERS TRAltlED AND QUALIFIED ACCIDENT /INCIDEtlT IllVESTIGATORS u
LD
%1 N
Cn3 m :. ' n!!
g:!. j g
.;g; - - - - -
8 4. ll m'Ejj
(.i; P!-
m
" T r'""""
P!!
i
' 'j!
I!!!!
- !fl{iii ' '!j j; i
j
s METil0D0 LOGY MAllAGEMEilT APPRAISAL INSPECTIONS PROGRAM APPRAISAL INSPECTIONS LICENSEE REGULATORY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS w
Es
~
!I
.:! !;.j ; 'i i
- jj
~
- i : !i::
u:
'ie
- i!
c>
MHAGEMEllT APPPALSAL INSPECILONS MET!!0D
~
IN DEPTil INSPECTI0flS BY TEAf10F FCllR INSPECTORS OF LICENSEE MAllAGEMENT AT CORPORATE AllD SITE DOCUMEllT REVIEWS INTERVIEWS MANAGEMENT MEETINGS FINDIflGS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE FOR LRPE IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSEE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS f1EASURE OF IE INSPECTION PROGRAM IMPLEf1ENTATION CONSISTENCY MEASURE OF INSPECTOR OBJECTIVITY u
i Es co Lil
?!i Li!
R!
- j ;]i!
,:.J !!
!!!!L!!
U
!i gii
- ij i
i
7 P30GP13M A'-PRAISAL INSPECTIONS METil0D IN DEPTH INSPECTION AT SERIES OF FACILITIES BY ONE INSPECTOR MODULE ~ SERIES SAFETY RELATED SYSTEM SERIES COMPONENT SERIES MAtlAGEMENT MEETINGS FINDINGS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE
!E INSPECTION PROGRAM APPRAISAL MEASURE OF INSPECTOR OBJECi!VITY EVALUATION OF LICENSEES, VENE0RS AND CONTRACTORS FEEDBACK ON REGULATIONS, LICENSE, CODES AND STANDARDS AND REGULATORY GUIDES U
so rr- -
- n-in:
>q;; >
I'
!l
. lli;
.5 ;
LICENSEE REGULATORY PERFORMANCE EVALUAIl0ll OBJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSEE PERFORf1ANCE TRAITS TO PROVIDE A f1ECilANISM BY WilICil Tile NRC MAY MEASURE LICENSEE PERFORMANCE TO ENABLE MORE EFFECTIVE ALLOCATION OF IE RESOURCES METil0D INTEGRATED APPROACil STATISTICAL SUBJECTIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS (TEKNEKRON) wb 5o h! !:i:
' I!
I'l!l:l!
i i!!!
ijj n !!!
!!?I i
n?ii oi.
u o
wo n-
t UNESTIGATLOR SENSITIVE - INSPECTOR 9R REGIONAL OBJECTIVITY SPECIAL - PAT EXPERTISE OR INDEPENDENCE REQUIRED wW
-~ ~t Ns' s
!;f fi l!. j!
II
- i;
!F iin I,
' i i;- !:i! j ii li
'il il!i i: l i !i!!!
!l
ACC0FPLISilNEt!TS l' ORT AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR TRAINING P.A AND PA INSPECTION PROCEDURES DEVELOPED FOUR f!ANAGEiiENT APPRAISAL INSPECTIONS OflE PROGRAfi APPRAISAL INSPECTION SERIES (TECH. SPEC, C0tiPLIMCE AND TESTING)
INVESTIGATIONS
ll ELAN 3 FOR FY 80 NINE MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL INSPECTIONS j
SEVE,! PROGRAM APPRAISALS ASSIST IN TWO YEAR TRIAL PROGRAM FOR LRPE ANNUAL APPRAISAL REPORT MORT AND ACCIDENT INVESTIGATOR TRAINING SPECIAL AND SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIONS ta LD N
FV O
U o
?""
" -' ~ T**?:
i :
T-T ~ r " " * *'"' r' :
f'
't rm7"
- *t'! ? ' M " t? *? ' f ' "~ t ? T
- .17t" r'-
" " - ~ ~
l j j;.j :
" H i""
li lL ' !!it ui in
- iin
1 1
9 1
8 6
Y 2
F S
l 0
f 0
8 I
7 T
Y 1
C F
E JO R
P R
E l
k 0
P N
9 A
7 M
5 Y
1 F
0 1
8 L
7 E
0 V
Y 1
E F
L TN E
R R
U C
u jn
- 6
t PAT
SUMMARY
IflTEGRAL PART OF REVISED INSPECTION PROGRAM:
IMPACT OF LICENSEE MANAGEMENT ON NUCLEAR SAFETY l1ATI0ilAL PERSPECTIVE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IllDEPEllDENCE PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS CONFIRMATION Ot-INSPECTOR OBJECTIVITY t.$
_.i ry
.