Text

Submits for Consideration Final Draft Rept to Fulfill Assignment to Establish & Validate Techniques for Licensee Insp & Enforcement Indicators
	ML19256A887
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/26/1977
From:	Howard E; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
To:	Volgenau E; NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
Shared Package
ML19256A883	List: ML19256A882; ML19256A885; ML19256A886; ML19256A887; ML19256A888;
References
	NUDOCS 7901160330
	Download: ML19256A887 (61)
	v • d • e

^

v'Ib l a.- --

c

... '!g UNtfEO STATES

g NUCt.EAA RECULATCRY 00VMIS$1CN I

C e

[s' %,,, ( Is$

REClONIV 611 AYAN ou2A ORIVE. SUITE 1C00 L

g ARLt.NGTCN. TEX AS 76011 3..E,,in"'.T ,/

r

(~'

i 4

g vgf September 25, 1977 p g.

MEMCRANCL'M FOR:

Ernst '/cigenau, Direct:r Office of Inspection and Enforcement, HQ FRCM:

E. Merris Howard, Direct:r, Region I'l Office of Inspecticn and Enfer:ement

SUBJECT:

CRAFT REFCRT - LICENSEE INSFECTION AND ENFCRCEMENT INDICATCRS The final Craft Reper; cf Licensee Inspecti:n and Enforcement Indicat:rs which is intended :: fulfili One assignment :: establish anc validate techniques for Licensee Inspecticn anc Enforcement Indica: Ors is su:mitted for your c:nsideraticn. The Draft Raccr is a detailed statistical analysis which has been examined by an inde:enden: ::ntrac:cr (CE:ll) and f unc ::

be mathematically and statistica11v valid.

Suggestiens mace by CRNL are enc mpassed in the revisi n of this ce: ailed statistical analysis.

I consider the detailed statistical as both desirable and necessary sup:crtive inf:r ati:n :: any analysis Of perf:r ance inci:2 :rs; n: wever,

,, s. g... < -. n. s...,--.%....

..,x-,,

4..

i. is

.o_1+..,a.

, si,,I4,: w..

..e.i,..,

s e

requiring ::nsidera:ly less analysis was in crder.

In nn bevei:: men Of the simplifiad tecnnique, itams Of ncnc:mciiance were anigned a value, sur::ed, and :ne i sc:re calcula:ed.

F';ure No.1 is -he fi:w ciagram #:r tnese calculations. De i sc:res, wnien are the nr.mer Of s:ancarc deviaticns :ha; an Observaticn ciffers #r:m tne mean cf i s group, are shcwn en Figures No. 2 and No. 3.

The c:c:arisens between the sim:i;fied and detailed analysis are sacwn en Tables "c. I and No. 2.

An attempt was mace :: separate functional areas in the Draft Re::r: wi a what I ::nsider less nan rearing success :ue :: the lack Of da a.

appears that a clearer relatiensni: between :::a1 ncnc m:liance and :ne21 functional areas is.cre :learly :iscar.a:1e :y recalculating a cew :::

i sc:re after subtracting the ::n:ributi:n f a given functi:nal area, anc then ccmparing :ne two ::tal i sc res.

Figure a sncws -he c:ntributi:n of Safeguarcs :: :ne :::21 sc:re of -he several pressuri:ed water reac :r sites.

790116O D e

h,

- - ~; ~ --.....

a a I

Ernst Volgenau, Director, HQ September 25, 1977 This simplified ccncept uses the same basic techniques described in the Draft P.eport except for pre-weighting and it would he recundant to redescribe tnem here.

It is reccc= ended that this simplified technique be used and that an annual detailed statistical analysis be cerfor ed to evaluate pcssible emerging and presently elusive relaticnships.

E. Morris Mcward Directcr

Enclosures:

As stated cc:

J. G. Davis H. D. Thornburg e

a _ ~ _ j _ __ _ ~~

~

RAW DATA w.. ~ ~,

DEF1CIENCIES

'WElGHTED)

(CDUNTS) n.

- ~ ~, -.

n 2 SCORc INFRACTIONS L

GVElCHTED)

OVERALL (CDUNTS) li NONCOMPL1ANCE 3) 710LAT10H5

'WElGHTED)

(COUNTS) p 2

r-LICENSEE EVENT

= SCORE REPORTS

)

j LICENSEE EVENT (COU NTS)

!)

l REFORTS 9

4

' EFFLUENT RELEASE :.}

7

/

3' E SCORE I

1...LUENT R:. - n3

.t rr 4 (RANAING) 1 a

I E SCORE i'!

) PERSONNEL UFOSUT!ES?i

' PERSONNEL UFCSURESIl

- (RANKING)

.; l L*g> 3 R EM )_ j) 1

(% > 3 REM)

J

Dor = not yet evei!=ble 4

2 SCORE Fl. '.L ij FIGUR* 1 OVERALL lj RATING CALCULATICM OF OVERALL R AilSG

/

n j

NOR?ML DISTR:E:)T!C.4 ;i E SCORE FINAL ilV

l.,

e W

+

N M

e.

m o m.

=

+

=3

-O n

0 P

L=

N, in O 2

eP -

.f.

.}

O

- w w e

=

"U o u n

l... j s

e

~3 Om 0

I I :j ~ 8 o

Co 1e g re C-m M

M 1"4 w

s M

'.m d

eg I

W>

3 0

2 g

M

$11t n Ovf -OH w

c.

to A

w n

.J o

a=

O M

t M

Q N

M p

d M

U D

et z

C w

w

g LN

=

c:,

n n

c n

M o

"W w

=

g d

Q w

.c.

>x I""

64.

e o

et w

C.

m O

M n

g 4

_z W

O "w

w w"

m U

on n

a e

3 vb 5

en w

w

- w C

4, s C.

C M

nn-*mm n o m moon ce..ce o m e ine, o ?ods o naa 6ooo o do 6a d odoo 8I I li 1li g

e_ =

a n

,

2 <::

=o m

3-f

~-

-=_

xv U*

~*H U

Of oC"2 or " tem <:*or 3

=og suro-

>=>2e==t

Do-55"r:E=="E :t 5ECEx*",;

= = = =_ a m s - - - = < vo_ u <- = x - s o

2<cov==-=

<=o<-=

uc

-n -,.,..u m u.c.n

~,xs..=< vv :-- o. o -

a.

ve--

e--

.o.

-en ne

-c e

o o

N e

m v

M N

33NVildWO3NON 031HDl3/A

.3-

~=.-e.--

m

-m. em -

1 DRE5 Dill

t.9 2 IIUHOOLDI BAY

-1.0 400 3 BIG ROCK PolHi

t.3 LICtH5tp Af1ER 1974 HOMlHAL 18.7 POlH15/lH5PECilOH HOUR 4 OYSTE R CREEK

- 0.1 (teel.Jtes D. a. Av elJ)

S HIHE MILE POlHT

- 0. 2

,14

[

6 MIL L SIGH E

1.5 7 OUAD ClllE5

- 1.0 7

g 320 U

8 VERMOHT YAHKEg 40.2

/

k 9 P E A cil BOTIOM

+ t.0 6

to PILGRIM

+0A 7

0 1 COOrt a 0.1

,12

/

12 IIAICH

- 0.7 o 240

,7 13 DRU45 WICK

- 0.3 7

y 14 DUAHE ARHOLD

-1.9

/

h 1$ FIT Z PATRICK

+ 1.2

/

9 5

16 LA CROSSE

+ 1.7

/

13 17 MOHilCELLO

+ 1.5 3

5 140

/

2 "4

/

,8

,10 m

LICtH510 PRIOR 10 1975

/

HOHil4At 1D.2 Polt415/It45FECilOH HOUR

/

(t cl=Jles DeesJea saJ Millel+a*)

7-HOHCOMPLI ANCE WEIGills' 80 l

VIOL AllONS-100 lHFRACilONS-10 I0 DEllCIEHCIES-2

,17 m

0 3

6 9

12 15 13 21 f

IH 5 r t C,t g liOUR 5 BOILlHG WATER REACTORS CALENDER YEAR 1976 FIGURE N0.3 e.

\\

w C

\\

n

\\.

=

I k

\\

\\.

~

\\

e n

"o e

tD N

O M

e 8

c;:

"e a:l W l

>= i O

c::

w

=

Q.

es 27 g

m w-J "C3

.c; (

o M

I.

e w

tl::

"a 40" O

m d

C:

$.:' \\

2:

=

w O""

g;;

w c

==

e D

i N

C n

flS M

8 O

W e.

N.

6

's n

"T o

==l i

o w

ee m.

O, wi m

r,

==

o

-e N t d

o >,

=1 n

n o \\=

=

a

=

- e

".a Ci n

e n.

D e

g m:

o wq

(=

o.

m s

mw W i o

\\

n C

=

h,e

,-wem*. me-one. nam-woo-meeooo.o4

_g C

a m. o =.-o -- oac o. oo s

<w omo

n..-

=

o

= O e*

=..

o e

m

- e w

E nd 3 D""-'-aa r* o m e-omn o e-n o m e ce-*j

\\

c o-o -o-c o n-- o ooo o -o o-o o-oo.

g

,1 1II

\\,

"~

8 8 8 6k n

a w w :- -

4g to i

tw-s~-

Ev ww O,ax oce v gsw w=ge

v.,

Mo2 EkTO<-

w=g t >< O "<.3,

- O w

m 3-em

<=v<E>)w" w~,

Dw::

O <1gC :Oh[w' w

2 Ta <*

====s w

--4<v

=or-:xOsso M

m

< < O - s < - O v: m -

w < < w o < -m pouc--wawOem--mx m<vv2-rw m e m e > o @ O - m m e e e e= c C= o - ew m.

- - - - -- - - - m es m ee O

o o

o n

e O

T M

M e

33NVildWO3NON 031HDl3M I

- j.

Table i CCP.PAPATI'/E I SCORES PRESSURIZED WATER REACTCRS CALE!iDAR YEAR - 1975 Z SCCRE Z SCCRE NCitCCMPLIAllCE TOTAL CATEGCRY FACILITY SIMPLIFIED DETAILED SIMPLIFIED DETAILED SIMPLI.*ED CETAILED Yankee Rowe 0,. 2 0.3 0.5 0.5 S

B San Onofre 1.2 1.3 2.4 2.4 A

A Conn. Yankee 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 8

3 Ginna 1.7 2.1 1.S 2.1 A

A Indian Pcint #2

-5.3

-7.4

-5.0

-5.9 C

C Turkey Point

-0.2

-0.5 0.3 0.1 3

3 Palisades

-2.2

-2.7

-2.4

-2.3 C

C H. B. Robinsen 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 3

3 Point Beach 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 A

A Ocenee 0.7 0.5

-0.1

-0.3 3

3 Surry 0.0

-0.5

-1.1 3

C Prairie Island 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 3

3 Ft. Calheun 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 3

B Three Mile Island 0.0

-0.2

-0.4 3

3 Zicn

-1.7

-2.3

-1.3

-3.4 C

C Xewaunee

-0.1

-0.2

-0.4

-0.5 3

3 Maine Yankee 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 3

3 e

-.z Table 1 (cent'd)

CCMFARATI'/E Z SCCRES PRESSURIZED WATER REACTORS CALEllDAR YEAR - 1975 Z SCCRE Z SCCRE T10:tCOMPLIAllCZ TOTAL CATEGORY FACILITY SIMPLIFIED CETAILED SIMPLIFIED CETAILED SIMPLIFIED CETAILED Rancho Seco 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.7 A

A Arkansas d.9

-1.1

-0.7

-0.3 3

B Cock

-0.5

-0.9

-1.2 3

C Calvert Cliffs

-1. 5

-1.5

-0.8

-0.3 3

S Millstene 2 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 S

A Trojan 0.4 O

me

.. T._

_ _ Z._

Table 2 CCMPARATIVE Z SCORES BOILING 'JATER REACTORS CALENDAR YEAR - 1975 Z SCCRE Z SCORE NONCCMPLI/.NCE TOTAL CATEGORY FACILITY SIMPLIFIED CETAILEO, SIMPLIFIED CETAILED SIMPLIFIED DETAILED Dresden

-1.9

-2.6

-3.0

-3.5 C

C Humbcidt Bay

-1.0

-1.4

-0.7

-1.1 B

C Big Rock Pcint

-1.3

-1.7

-1. 5 -

-2.0 C

C Oyster Creek

-0.1

-0.5 0.2 0.8 T

B Nine Mile Pcint

-0.2 0.0

-0.2

'0.0 3

3 Mi11stene

-1. 5

-2.1

-1. 5

-2.2 C

C Quad Cities

-1. 0

-1.2

-1.4 C

C Monticello 1.5 2.3 1.9 2.5 A

A Verment Yankee 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.5 3

B Peach Ect::a 1.0 1.4 1.1 1.5 A

A Pilgrim 0.4 1.2 0.5 1.3 3.

A Cceper

-0.1

-0.4 1.1 0.3 A

B Hatch

-0.7

-1.1

-1. 5 C

C Brunswick

-0.3 0.5

-0.5

-0.9 3

B Cuane Arr.cid

-1.9

-2.3

-1.3

-2.5 C

C Fit: patrick 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.5 A

A La Crouse 1.7 2.4 2.0 2.7 A

A

^^

Draft Report A STATISTICAL E7ALUATICN OF THE NUCLEAR SAFETY-RELATED PERFCD%NCE OF NRC CPERAT!NG REAC CR LICENSEES CURING 1975 (Licensee Inspecti:n and E'forcement Indicat:rs)

August 197/

E. Perris H: ward, Pr: ject Direct:r Stephen K. Ccnver Robert G. Easterling Walter S. Schwink

s Chapter I INTRCCUCTICN.

~

[

A.

Backereund

" Licensee Inspection and Enforcement Indicat:rs" is the term used t:

describe the efforts of the NRC Cffice of Ins;ection and Enf:rcement ::

evaluate the nuclear safety-related managemen: ;erf:rrance of its licensees.

This draft retort addresses the management :erforr.ance of NRC's cperating reactor licensees during the calencar year 1975.

This rescr: is tne cul-mination of an effort initiated in A:ril 1975 t: cevelcp and test a methed-ology for evaluating licensee management perf:rmance, as a technicue f:r improving man;cwer utili:aticn in -he Office of Ins:ecti:n and Enforcement, and establishing thresholds fcr initiation of c:rrective enfer:ement action.

This evaluatien is made en the basis of two fact:rs that are c:n-sidered to reflect the* degree of success licensee.tanagemen has acnieved in caf rying out its resocnsibilities for safe :: era:icn and ;rc:acti:n cf the public.

These fact:rs indicate each licensee's c:::iiance with NRC rules and the numbers of ec:urrences a: a licensee's facility with :ctential safety implications. These facc:rs are analy:ed using standard statistical techniques that permit cc=:ariscns of licensee perf:rmance ba h in specific areas and fr:m an overall perspec-ive.

There are two additicnal facters ich are : nsidered : be pertinent to the Overall licensee management :erf. ence whicn were no: ::nsi:ered 'n this evaluaticn. While pertinent wnen c:nsicerec sclely en their cwn meri and exclusive of :neir c:n ributicn :: ncnc : liance anc LER's, these two factors, raciatien ex:csures at the licensee's facili y anc :ne exten: :

which the licensee limits effluents, are not an integral par: cf :nis evaluatien and in no way affect ne resui s.

As thase data bec:me available they will be analy:ec and inc:r:cratec in ne overali ?.valuaticn, ad:i g an additional increment of kncwie ge of -he licensee's managemen: perf:rmance.

The choice of measures of licensee management :er'creance reflects the concerns that licensees be measured objectively, using ;risuracia anc collectable sta :stics :na: a: ply unif:r:ly :: all ::erating reac::r licensees.

It is also in: rtan: :na: :he measures :f perf:rmance inciuce only items that are controllable by the licant ee.

The use of statistical analysis to deveico :erformance measures er indices has many precedents.

Ec nt ic indica :rs, such as the :w Jones averages, are c::::nly usec :: give the pu lic an e: reciation cf ne overall state of :ne ec:nc y.

The "Cuality of Life' incex puolishe: by the Midwest Resear:n Institute is a similar eff:r : hat ranks American cities on the basis Of weignted sums cf a num:er :# i ndi c2::rs.

Cverall :r::uc:

rankings of Censumer's Re: r:s an: "FL cuar ar:ack cankings are :her examples of :ne pr: cess c ran<ing incividuals, gr ::s, er bf ec s ac::rcing

.o sc e.,unc.< n n:.. set,.,..,s.

......,.,s,er s.,.1..a..

~

c

...2.~2.

.~.

~

Chapter I 2

In all these cases, there is s::e "Tatent variable" that is of interest, but which cannot be ceasured directly - ec:ncmic health, cuality of life, product quality, or athletic ability.

By carefully checsing and analyzing data, ene heces to deveico useful indicat:rs of the latent variables. The varicus indicat:rs are not equivalent to the latent variables; hcwever, as the measured indicaters are 12 rovec (numbers of libraries, interceptiens, etc.), cften the latent variables (quality of life, athletic performance, etc.) are also improved.

This effort to determine NRC licensee inspection and enf:rcement indicatcrs has similar objectives. While we rec:gni:e that safety" can-not be measured directly, we ho:e : im: rove it by evaluating the success of licensee management in centrolling safety-related indica::rs of per-formance.

B.

NRC and Licensee Rescensibilities Direct res:ensibility for conducting nuclear c:eratiens in a manner that protects :ublic health and safety lies with the licensee. Cne of :ne ways that the licensee satisfies this cbligaticn is by cc plying with NRC rules and regulati ns.

MRC shares this res:ensibility for creta; ting the public with the licensees. NRC res:ensibilities, as describec in law, are :: genera:e rules to insure safe c:eratiens and to verify that : hose rules are :eing folicwed. The NRC Cffice of Ins:ecti:n and Enforcemen: (II) is the arm of NRC charged with c:nducting this verificati n.

II uses its ins ecti:n force to insure cer:liance with the rules. Another i::cr:an func:icn of IE is to icentify existing rules tha need ir.prevement er new rules that are needed.

C pliance with NRC rules is a functi:n of licensee management.

n general, a 1:w level of ncnc::aliance indicates that licensee management is doing a gced jco of carrying cut its restensibilities :: NRC anc :: :he public.

Cn the c:her hand, a hign level cf ncnc::cliance may indica e a icw level of management in: ares: cr partici:a:icn in this regard.

The performance of licensee management is similarly evicen: in trends for LERs.

The presen; effor pre:cses a methcd to evaluate licensee management per-formance en a systematic and cbjective basis so tha: nega:ive trends can quickly be icentified and 50 that "managemen; breakc:wn can be prevented.

C.

Why Licensee Inscection and Enforcement :ndica rs_?

The NRC practice of f:cusing ins;ecticn atten:icn n";ccr :erf:r-cers" is weil establisnec and generally acce::ec. This evaluaticn cf licensee managemen: performance is designec to ;ernit this alloca:icn of :I

t Chaptar I ins'pection rescur:ss to be conduc:ad mere systacatically than in the cast.

This effert sh:uld also all w a : re objective allecati n, because all licensees will be measured against a single set of perf:rcance stancards.

And because each licanses will be c:mpared against :ne t::al ;cculati:n Of similar facilities, the icentificati:n of cce :erformers and sucsecuen allocation of IE res:urdes to these facilities (and to specific areas a: a given facility) should be more unif rm across the NRC Regicnal Offices.

The methcdolcgy, which is discussed in a subsequent secticn, must necessarily result in a ranking of licensee management ;erformance. A numerical ranking, hcwever, is no: he inten of :his stucy ner is there any particular merit in the exact numerical rating of a licansee.

His-torical data, while lacking the precisien :: establish an exac: numerical difference be: ween facilities, can acecuately ;cr: ray these facilities ar.c areas of c:ncern within a facility wnich require addi:icnal Inspection and Enforcement 10:enticn.

The primary concern cf the NRC is the health and safety :f the ;ublic with each undertakir.; crier.ted :: ward this c:ncarn. Within tnis c:ntext, this evaluation can be rela:ec to safety of react:r facilities.

The re-lationshi: :: safe:y, Mcwever, is clearly cr.e of im:reving the efficiency of IE man;cwer res:urca all:ca:icn :: ef'e:: i ;revecant in licar.see's performance where weaknesses are datac:able.

D.

Structure cf the Re:cr:

The main becy of this re:cr is : resented at a Tevei Of cetail apprecriate f r !E and "RC management.

3rief chapters summari:e :ne methedcicgy (Cha::ar II) an results (Chap;ar III).

Additi:nal techni:al detail is Ortvided in two a:;endices :: the re:crt.

These c:nsis: Of results ()::endix A), as well as tha ::cumentation of an analysis of tne sensitivity f :verail racing results :: :ne :ncica :f weighting fact:rs (A:pendix B).

- s Chapter II METF.CCCLCGY A.

Intrcducticn This chapter describes the da:a elements that are : nsidered in -he evaluatien, the analysis :::Is that are used., and the s:acific a::r:acn taken to analy:e eacn distinct type Of data. A detailed descripti:n of the methodology is provided in Appendix A.

B.

Data Elements This analysis is based u:en two measures cf performance - ncnc:: liance hist:ry of licensees and selected Licensee Event Recerts (LERs).

TWo ::her measures - effluen: releases and perscnnel ex:csures, wnich were menticned briefly in the.intrecu,c:icn, will be included in future evaluations as ca 2

.aca er. tnese fcur measures are discussec :elcw.

bec::e aval,iacie.

Ncncc= liance iters result frc NRC regulation and ins:ecti:n Of licensei f aciil:1es, acne:maliance data c:nsist :f ::un:s" Of NRC findings in a given time pericd. These none:::liance items are classified int: :nree categories: in decreasing Order of severi y, :nese are viciaticns, inf acticas, and deficiencies.

The ncnc ::liance da a -hus consist of number f viola:icns, infracticr.s, anc deficiencies for each licensee c:nsidered.

The data are further broken ::wn to describe the licensee functicn er ::erati:n -ha is the scur:e cf each r.cnc:: liance.

Six areas are used: (1) 'cministrative Centrol, (E) C:erati:ns, (3) Emergency.:lannir.g, (a) Radiciegi:al :re:ecticn

-;. "..= l d.v.a.2 2 ur.= n e.=.

r~d ". / '. - "..= 1.. u. '. -

a n d C. n.*.. 'i,

's : ',. a '. =.c. "..= r. s,.= -

's. '

o.

6 2

of nonc::aliance ca a are : resented f:r eacn of the :nree severi:y levels.

Also, an overall measure :n ncnc:::liance is :evel :ec f:r eacn licensee

+ha. is a.W,1

.,s.

e..,....n..

-,,.w,r2

4. o. :., C.i. C s., s n a : a.i.,.

.a.,.s.

n

.... o...

w.

.u 6 3

Li c e.n s ea..v a. r..

K.=.. r...=..= * *. =. = l 2 o s *..=. =. d.

i r...= r. -... a ^ #. ".. ".. "

.. r o 2 Each licensee.

Li..s are re-Or:s su:mitte: Cy r== :Or li:3r. sees wren certain

~.

4. s. c e..= - - -... d a..=. -..=.= e "..- =.

.. i 's '..v.

s a #. =. ty' - r a. l =. = d.

a.v =...a-.--"a-3.

2 1

.a!,. a.

s..... i.. =,. =.,.., u s. e o c.., :i l. e.. e... ~6,.

,,/,..,....a l iC,ns,.a.s

_y,. e..... n :

s,

e.

i....,

v.

..s i

61..,u,..-

..w. o....,I....J:..e.n.:

o

.e-ST C.C...ll.,.al3 sf

.w... a.1,4C a..r.s 3,

i.

r7ac:cr licensees, Or sericus encu:n :: warran: NRC an':rcamen acti:n i' not rep rted by the licensee.

For this reason, only these LERs cr.aracteri:ed as "persennel errors" and " procedural err:rs" are c:nsiderec.

Effluent Rele=se data will :e ex:ressed in teres of if:ensee rankin:s.

This is done :e:ause the ac ual effluen: reasurements' ray vary Over sever 11 2'=i.=...=.

l '.. =.- s a. a. s.

.. s..e....=.=.=-=..=1.2-

.. =.. = -

or d er s o '.. ~', c... '.."". =.

32.=.s, r.3, w,s.

e.,.s

a.....4....... =. s,

../.. e...... ti,3

--x-or1,o.s. i..

4 4..,

oe.i.

2 1..

s 3

('.1.

.: e 'i..- <. -.. =.

( 3 ) '.. d. *.i "..., ( l')

.d xa.. '. d..e - "~ q.

=.a... =. '. v c-.'~ n. r. - ". c. 2,

2 Ov a. r.a l l r.'.. k"...c. s '.. - =.". 's ". e n. r a. 'l s.=. s =. 2. =.

...=4..=..

"ut- >+....'r.,-...=.i'...=r.-=.=.

2 rankings in eacn Of ne five categ: ries.

Chapter II

_2 Personnel ex:csure data for each operating react:r are re:Orted annu-ally in.:ne cr= c a acie listing the numbers Of ;ers:n: ex:csed in varicus rangesofex;csure(inrems). This evaluaticn cf licensee management's success in limiting ex:csures is measured in terms of the ;ercen: Of all people receiving measurable deses of radiati:n that received three rems er more in ene year (rather than en a " ranking" or "c:unting" basis).

C.

Analysis Tecis Three ty;es of statistical techniques are used in this analysis -

adjustment, normali:ation, and weighting precedures.

Adjustment of data is necessary because direct c: parisiens of licensee management perr:r anca are not always meaningful.

?cr example, if cne :lant has twice as much ins:ecticn effort as another, a direct c: ; arisen of -he nonc:=pliance findings resulting frc these ins;ecticns may nc: be meaningful, and it is necessary to take 1::re:riate adjustments.

ine ;ur:cse er acjust-ment is to cc=:ensate for those measurement factors that are not under the licensee's c:n:r:1. This technique is used s:aringly in tne analysis ::

preclude eliminatien of actual licensee differences.

The specific technicues used to make -hese adjustments include linear regressien, gecdness cf fit tests, and gra:nical tachniques. These methces are used to icentify and c:::ensate f:r fa:::rs beycnc -he c:n:r:1 of ne licensees that can ac::un: for differences in their :erformanca.

? r exze:ie, using the earlier exam:le, Figure 1 cecic:s the num:er of infrac i:ns f:e each operating ?'<G react:r as a func icn of the hcurs of ins;ecti:n cav :ed to each during 1975.

This enar: sh ws -ha-infrac-icns increase as ins:ecti:n effort increases. Since this relati:nshi: also has an in uitive exclana-i:n (the ::re ycu 1:ck, the cre ycu find), an a;;r:;ria a adjustment is mace.

The diagonai straight line tha* bisects ne data in Figure 1 ac::un s for a sfgnificant :cr:icn of the differences in :he ":erf:rmance' Of ne varicus licensees.

shows -hat every 100 hcurs of ins:ecti:n, :n ne average result in abcut i.27 infractions.

Thus, these licensees bel:w -he line are censidered in :nis analysis to have tet er :erfcrmance ran :nese above the line, and f r this measure, performance is essentially measurec on a " rate" basis (infractions per hcur of ins;ection).

The line re: resenting the average rate of infracti:ns can be :btained by ene of several analytical re-h:ds - linear regressicn er gra:nical acn-niques. Goedness of fit tests can be used : assess whetner the resi:ual variaticns in licensee :er':rmance (the cavia-i:ns of the incividual ;:in s frc the diag 0nal line in Figure 1) are rant:= (wha : uid be ex:e::ac :y c."..= n. = T,.

T. '. * ". =. s a.

.=s.2, s"e c.i 2 s

o"a.

". a" 4 e ".a.a.

'=e

," ahcv4.."..=....a.

.y

Chapter II.

ra.s 4. du.al,/ a r 4. 2

4. e n (,....r, s. 4,.....n. )

4. s r,..a....,. w 4.., -e.,,. s. w.. l 4. e. e_.. e.,. a_ s

.2.--

"hc=cgeneous" with res:ect tc :ne varia:le being reasured (infracti:ns)

.are and that there is no need tc Icck fcr further adjustments. A lack cf randemness indicates ei:ner actual differences between licensees er :ne need to leak fer further adjustments. The approach in this analysis has :een to take adjustments only when there is a lcgical cause and effect ex;1anaticn for the relationships identified.

The purpcse and effect cf adjustment can be seen by c:::aring Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 is a hist: gram cf the PWF. infractions ple::ed in Figure 1.

If infraction frecuencies we.e he:cceneous, -ha: is, if -he ex:ected nu=:er of infractions were :he same for all facili-ies anc Only ": hance' varia-i:ns

. ". a. n...". e ". d. e... -. =.-

shou ld agree reas:na:ly we.."a.nc' a.s.= r.'.u.11.v r.". serve.d.,

i n #. r a r..4. w., '..a...

a f'. a.c. '.=d'."~a 3 -

it w1:n :ne.301ssen c1stri,.uti:n, wnica

,.s als:

' a. i s.e.. ". i s.. i '.". *.d.

r. '. -. n 'i.v '. = ^....as.

. r sh.cwn in.:4.gura. 1.

/, a" c..= '. "..=.

.."~a e e

2 e

integer nu=bers cf infracticns. The distributicn is shcwn as a c:ntinuous curve enly for visual pur:cses.) The lack cf agreemen be: ween :he :bservec 4

i s.=.. r a.n.. s.v a.n.

n....."..

h i s '..c. ra.q. a r~d '.. a. ex. er.. =e. :. ' e.

w-...d d. 2.. ' ' "..'.

.a.

n...a. 'r - urn.a

.e r. e m. i ng,. s.",.a. s.1 n.., s. -

c :... a.

s. t....

s 2

2.

o s

-n.8.a.c.

e :.

.,s..

i 3

.2 r

w

' s i n s - c.e.*.'.. r. ".. " r 2, " a. r..= "..e =. a '. '..= r... a.

i n #.. =... d.

,, ',,a.."..=~'.=_s.=-=_

i ra r = nc/'

r t,s m= c. v..=.e. u. a. i.-.s '.,...

r a.2 r....

a.=.e.

adsu s.,. :. w. r i n c.. a.c..a...... u..c u r.,. u, e.

4 a

r histegram cf Figure 3 results.

!f after acjus: en anc neraalizati n, : e i n f r' c*.i c n

. re".,"

"~"'. a.s =. a. ".... g =. ". =.. " s,...a. n... e i r ".. s.

. c. r =.. 'a ". '; l '. ". =. =.x. = e.'..= ^.

m to ag. a.a. w 1. 5

'."~a s..' r...=. ". ~r....= 1 c '. 2 '.*. d. " "m* '..r. a. n d : i. r". =.' s r~1 s....=..= 3 r =. =. -

ment is much closer tnan :ef:re (Figure 2).

As d'.scussed., '.. i s..". a..- '.,. '... ". =..=..= 'i.v s i s. r a.d.".

.=

..".a. * =..e '. d. "..= i.

. v

-.r n.:.

e :.. e.1. :. n sas.,..

..a v a ri m,. 4. c n i n a. a.r:.

.e-.~s ee.s.. a. s e.

1.se.

. w.

2._ e. e...,

2 es.. ~

y

h i. -.. = 2 n. s..". 2. e. a r

..a..s.

a u '. #. r. c. o" =. 1.. u '..'

=..X. a. c.. b.y c.a.4. ~.a m i. o a..

- m : - " r a.,

V*r#

m.

2 i

2 S

a.

0. # #...' *..,

.=?...~-37 4 4

a, p a.q w.s g w., o-.r.. e

.q.3 72.d.

2. 2

.e. s. 4..e..

C.' I. ', f' 4

3-e3-e.q.

3

. wii.

.e

. nase oi:. :a.re.e.Ca.a e..,,..

2. t. 'i i..,. 4. a. s

7. : 1 e.. t.., e.. t. a. s.

u. a.:a..s... r a.

.. a.

T a. n..= e.2_ a_

n:

a i

3

.:e ::entifisc statis-pericr ance eva. a-i n wnic.h w,.

, :er:1: c:rrerences ::

tu ti t,.cally is rep 1,. cati:n.

.: s me licensees s :re c:r.sistently nign :ver t

.:w, then :nis :s ev; ence several :erf:rtance reasures anc ::ners c:nsisten 3./

of true differences am:ng licensees.

In Orcer c examine this ;cssibili y, 2. e. - a.. d. "..= l v =. 2- ^#.

'.0.

.: s e- ".'..=..= i.v.

' 5 e d a *.a 'a e r =. a n a. l.v. = d.

. r

..".a. #. '.. s. '. ~d s.

Cc paring and cc:cining :erf:rmance measures f:r these ruc :eri cs is tnen dc..e a s.= n a i d.. i

=.n.'. #. '/'.i.'

'1.

= asea.. '. #. #. =. =. r. ~- e. s.

7. '... c u i." ". e ~-. =."....=.

i 2

.o.

,: " z. - s e...e z.a..-a:::ee..n.

s.e a n. a. sn.e.... =.1. o e.c m

a 1, C k c;...,. t. e..4.

,,i 21 ni :. e. n..,.n e s i

i....

2...

w.

3

~..

d j ## a.p s.e c.a s a.Xi s ~.,

.a ni.v.".z..". e yi.= r a.

o

<....sI6

..- t a.

s. o...s e...= d. "./..= y s. d i..=

't s.

.ii o

data.

-% e *. = e. k. n. y ". =. s '. *. ' '..' u s - c n. c '..'.,..' =..x. '.n '.. =. d. '. n..". a.

r a. e..n d. '. 3 s

in

i. ".O. p.e. c.a_

. a. e #...e...S.e e.s #..*.

e. 4... e l. s.. c. a. c.

e. n. -2

e. -..a.2

4 e - e.. g - #.

P.2 p.s 71..hg a.g 2.hl a

~

3 a.

i.

.. r 3

v. n. #. =.

2

=r..$ V2 2 4-

- - - . a.r# c r....= "..c =.

c r.... =. c..-".i=.".*.'.V=.

c #.

2..

.w3 3.n.

.,/ a. r.s ] *i

_.~o, e....

. a. r.. -..., n. a

. h.e,v 2 r..u.,

o. e r:. rt 3 - e,..~.

.22s...s s,

4 v.

r a

e.....

s 2

jn.a.r...s c:. ins ee.

4.

5 4,..e.n.e. s. a.

3 c. 4.,/ e.. a.2,, n.,,.,. 2.. ~c e..

r o..

Chapter II.

Normalizatien is an analyti:31 technique tha: Takes these overall cc pariscns : css 1:ie.

Its Our;cse is :: transf0nn each perfcr ance measure into a dimensionless cuantity so that a st: cf difference measure is possible. The transformati:n used is a "Z-score," which can be regarded as the number of stancard deviations that an Observaticn differs frc: :ne mean of its group.

The particular Z-score used, in the case of n:nc:::liances and LERs, hcwever, is not mathematically defined in terms of standard deviaticns.

This is because tne ccel used for such c:unting ca:a is the Poissen distribution which is nct symmetric abcut its nc inal, er ex:ected, value.

In order t: reduce the asy=:etry, Z-sc:res will be calculated by Z = 2( vTi - VT ),

where NCM is the estimated ex:ected number of c:unts and X is the cbserved count. The factor of 2 is sc that the variance of I will be a :roximately that of the standard normal distributien.

Ncte also the Z is cefinec so that positive scores indicate better perf:rmance, and vice-versa.

The ac:repriate frame Of reference for Z-sc:res is the standard normal distributi:n sh wn in igure 3.

This distributica has a mean Of

er and stancard cavia-icn Of One.

.. hen ::nver:ad :: Z-sc:res, licansee performance measures can be c: pared : this distribution.

Under the standard normal cistribution about tuc-thirds cf the Z-secres wculd be expected :: fail ce: ween :ius and minus one, with ene-5ix-h en ei-her side of this interval. While these fracticns are rarely achieved exactly, the Z-sc res are still :: parable. Anc, because they are dimensicnless and c: paracle, Z-scores can be su r.ec for varicus perf:rmance measures.

Weighting is the ; recess by which Z-sceres f:r varicus :erformance measures are s.

ed in a manner :na: reflects -be relative i : r:ance

(,Ho.igh )'

2 s a w C..: *.2r.

.,.4 a..

2.2 Cn u. :....a. e.sC. rs c..n.

4.....~,

.-.3

-.l o. r, i i, 4

4 w

s.

score. The process of ransf:rming raw data fer ncnc:::liances, LIF.s, effluents, and ex::sures :: Overall licensee managemen: ra-ings is cecicted in Figure 1 While the Overali rating is Of interes:, :ne raw ca:2 anc all intermedia a results leading :: tha cverail rating are significan; resul s in their cwn right.

Because the : recess of weighting is inharanti7 jud ental 1

sens4'.ivity anal.vsis" was :encuc~ec assass 0:E in 12EUC2 07. A / a r,. e,./,

a i

-.' n e re S U '. *.a-

."-'s of alterna-ive wei ntings in 103 OV"F1,'

F1;IU33-analysis are presented in c; encix s.

In summary, -he analysis pr: cess leading : cverali evaluati:ns :f the perfermance of licensee managemen; invcives the f:lle.ving 3:s:s:

Adjust data to receve fac::rs beycnd the ::ntroi of licensee managemen:.

c Mcreali:e li:ensee perf:rmarce in each reasure : a dimensicniess I-score.

c Chtain overall ratings using weignted sums of -he Z-secres.

?

FIGURE N O. I ADJUSTMENT OF PWR INFRACTICN CATA FOR

-lN3FECTION tim E -

40 x

30 m

Z O

x x

i U

i i

20 i.

x ce Z

i x

1 x

NCMINAL: 1.2 7 IN FRACTION S g

2 PER 100 HOURS

=

a g

x

E to 1 3

xxx x

x i

O 2

4 6

8 to 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2

SITE INPECTICN TIME (HCURS I10 )

PRESSURf:ED WATER REACTCRS C ALENCER YEAR 1976 G

FIGURE NO. 2 HISTCGRAM UN ACJUSTED FRECUENCY OF IN FR AC~lCN CCCURRENCE

'5 s.

3 i

/ EXPECTED PCISSCN

{;(

7 DISTRIEUTlC N o

~ j.-;

u.I i

e i

.:. r m2' g/:..

i s

u.

x v,

g i

W

!?

2

+

\\

1 r-- :.! :

GT "

m

- 1, p:,

t

[

l

,,. ;:: c,

j s

.[

}

i\\

j t;

j i

=

.i

.. _c !

l L

O 5

10 15 20 25 30 NUMSER CF INFRACTION S PRESSURIZED WATER REACTCRS CALENCER YEAR 1976

7 FIGURE NO.3 HISTCGRAM - Z SCORE FCi ADJUST EC INFRACIlCN S 15-I/

/

6 3

6 l

t I

e l

l EXPECTED NCFMAL

"_,', to-l I

DISTR ! SUTI CN I

u.

O a

l l

N1

=

-lE

/..

'{

D 5

-j Z

g

.\\

l: :/

'N l'

i

. \\j

}

O 4

3 2

-1 0

+1

+2

+3

+4 Z SCCRES - IN FR ACTICN S PRESSURIZED WATER REACTCRS CALENCER YEAR 1975 w

R AW D AT A E

S CORES c ~n...

-,w et 1 Sc*egs

M l

DEFICIENCIES i

DEFICIENCIES ll (COUNTS) l}

A I

[

E SCORE i

OVERALL

. ' +.

1 Nf MCOM?t! ANCE lHFRACTIONS

[

E SCORE

]

(CDUNTS)

Iq INFRACTION S Lt 9

!]4 r-I SEPARATE VIOLATI ON S (COUNTS)

6' l

LI STING

[

Y I

ly 4

r..

E SCORE 10 LICENSEE EV ENT LICENSEE EVENT j.

REPORT 5 J

(CCU N TS) d REFCRTS L.

_l

(~....~-

(3 i

SCORE l1

[ EFFLUENT RELIASE,

I l._ EFFLUENT RELEASE l!

l:

l* (RANKlHG)

V

,s I

E SCOor iI lPERSCNNEL EX?CSURES!.

PERSONNEL EXPCSU?.IS !i (RANKlHC)

L* ( ~ " 3 3 E )

I

( - 3 RI'1)

J

Ceto not yet eveilc' le c

E SCORE FIN AL j

FICURe '.

OVERALL p)l RATING i

C ALCULATION CF OVER ALL R ATING me

s Chapter III m 6. Lv..e. S s-., --

i

x...a Introduction A.

The methedal:gy described in the previcus cha:ter has bes7 devel::ed through analyses of 1971 and 1975 data.

This cha :er summari:es the resuits of applying these analysis matheds :: cata ec:ained -in 1375.

Ce:siis of :ne

~

analysis are given in Appencix A.

The data analyzed are frc react:rs which went int: c:=:ercial c:eratien prior to 1 January 1975, with the exce:tiens cf Indian ?:in: 1 and 3r:wns Ferry 1 and 2, wnicn were shut d:wn all cr =cs: of FH75. This leaves :nir:y FWRs and twenty cne 5'..'Rs :: be c:nsidered.

A: :nis writing, cnly da a n ncncemoliances Ir.c LERs are availa:1e f:r FH75.

5ffluent reiease anc :er-scnnel ex;csure cats will be incluced in a final reper: :n 1975 licensee performance.

The preceding cha: er describes hcw the raw data are first :: be adjusted for the effect Of any identifiacie varia:12 no: uncer managemen:

centr:1, and then n:rmali:ed.

Table 1 su= ari:es the adjus::ents made f:r the 1975 data.

Selection of the indepencen: variables shcwn in Table I was based on patterns c: served in the current and previcus data anc cn :ne grcunds that they were sensi:le.

Fcr exam le, One might ex:ect :na the

=cre a react:r is ins:ectac, the T re ncnc:::liances wili :s f:unc, anc the data sup;cr this hy;c hesis. The Observe: variati:n of :erf:rtance with a varia:ie such as date of c:= ercial :: era:icn ::uld reflec: an agi.;

effect or a systematic cifference accng reac cr vintages (inciucing if cense differences).

n eitner case, it is censicerec a::r;;riate : acjas: One raw performance measures f:r this effect.

There are many c:ner cancida:e variables for use in 1: justing ;erf:rtance measures.

Al-h:ugn nc all have beer, considered in the analysis :f :nese 1975 da a, severai acj;s: cents aere incluced in :nis and revicus years' analyses.

The adjus ments sr.:wn in Ta:le 1 are c:nsi:erec meaningful, anc as shc,in in detail in A::ercix A, they do effect a c:nsicerable recucticn in the variation 1:eng licansees.

Table 1 Summary of Adjustments in Analysis of 1975 Ca:a (Adjustments are danc:ed by X)

Independent Variable ec.,,.ce

.r.Ormance,/easure 7.nstecti:n.-. r;e/ Vin age xs s

neactor. ce iy ru Phd Infracticcs 4

X Ceficiencies L. s

.s

.s SWR Infracticns X

X X

Ceficiencias LERs X

Chapter III.

e As described in the : receding cha::er, -he analysis of licensee performance data leacs :: the calcula:icn Of Z-se:res by wnica licensees can be ::::ared.

It is rec:gni:ed, -hrougn, ina: with if ited data, inexact ad.justments, and basically h:::genscus licensees, numerical

..nus,

r ;re-Z-secres may ::nvey an unwarranted sense of recisien, i

sentation of the results, the foll wing categorizati n will be used.

Z-Score Category Cesienatien Greater than 1.0 "Above Average

A Betwe2n -1.0 and 1.0

" Average' 3

Less than -1.0

Belcw Average' C

If licensee :erformance is essentially h:: geneous, after adjustmen for factors not uncer licensee cen:rci, :nen ab u: :wc-thirds of the licensees should fall in Category 3, and One-sixth in each cf the c her two.

"ote na; by the meth:d of analysis, licersees are being ::::ared against ea:n ::ner, rather than t: s:ce absciu:u r.Orms, s: :nis practically assures a mix:ure Of A'r, S's, and C's.

Licensee performan:s results f:r 19 5 are surrart:ed in Tables 2 and 3.

Given there ar: the results f:r inf-actions arc deficiencies, but 2c. r a. v..='..=.. ".v

. s-.. _01 4 2...=

e x u-1 ". d #. g ". d.

'.=.4.. n s,

'.".a.n..= - -... d. n a. d.

i.

weignting the secres for inf sc:icns in: deficiencies in a 5:1 ra:ic.

Ais:

given is One s: Ore f:r LIRs and an eversii s: Ore c5:aine: by weigntin: :ne s: Ores for ncnc:: liances arc LERs in a 3:1 ra:ic. A;:en:'x A ;ives the 3.

~ ese me:heds by whicn 0.9e sc res were deveic ed 11:ng with further resui:

include resuits f:r ne first and se :n: :.aives Of 1975 se: ara:ely as weil as fcr varicus su :ategories Of ncnc:::iiances and LERJ. A::er. dix 5 descr ibes

....4..-=.. '.

.4 a. i... d. r.

..=.. r s.

'/ 'i o..=. '.... s,

-..c v ~ =. r..= 4. r, ', n.,.

..". a.F a. s., "t o.

a.

s ens 4. '.# v 4 "./

3 2

i ie

.n

. s.e.r.,. s. a. e

e... e. a.

7, a. e. e.a.

d1'se....a.a.

i e.

c' s s.e. s. s.x3,

. nl' l a.

e.n e.

.i w

.wa.

i y 1 '6 'L... e. a.

a 't

.. a.

e.,.a.. e s..s.

a l. c. o- :. n r e 2 C n / a. n i.,. t. n. n, a h i,o n.W.,Jl.

e..u.., n a.

a...

.3 s

d-

= 1 r =. = c j'

's n... a.

..=..= :. v,

O C.=nd w.nila......=.

d... g ' r. d. '..= r. :.. *.... =. ? n.", d...

s s-wculd significan-ly reinf rce :he C categ:ri:1-icn.

Chapter III

Table 2 Sumary of Licensee Perf: r ance Analysis:

PWRs Statien Infracticns Ceficiencias "encercliance LIRs Cveral?

^

Yankee Rcwe 3

A 3

3 3

San Cncfre A

B A

A A

Conn. Yankee 3

3 3

Ginna A

3 A

5 A

Ind. Pt. 2 C

3 C

Turkey Pt. 3, 4 3

3 3

A 3

Palisades C

A C

3 C

Robinsen A

- 3 3

C 3

Point Beach 1, 2 A

3 A

Oconee 1, 2, 3 3

3 3

C 3

Surry 1, 2 3

3 3

C C

Prairie Is. 1, 2 P

3 3

C 3

Ft. Calheun 3

3 3

Three Mila Is.

3 3

3 Zicn 1, 2 3

C 3

3 3

Kewaunee 3

3 3

Main Yankee 3

B 3

3 3

Rancho Sec:

A 3

A A

A Arkansas 1 C

3 C

3 3

Ccck 3

C 3

C C

Calvert Cliffs C

3 C

A 3

Millstene 2 3

3 3

A A

Trojan 3

C 3

Table 3 SLm ary of Licensee ?erf:r ance Analysis:

3WRs Staticn Infracti:ns Deficiencies Ncnc coliance LBRs Cver211 Dresden I, 2, 3 C

3 C

C C

Humacidt 3ay C

C C

3 C

Big R:ck Ft.

C 3

C C

C Oystar Creek 3

C 3

3 3

Nine Mile Pt.

3 3

3 Millst:ne 1 3

3 3

Quad Cities 1, 2 C

3 C

Menticell:

A A

A Vt. Yankee 3

A 3

3 3

Peach Bett:= 2, 3 A

i'.

A B

A

?ilgrim A

B A

Ceccer 3

3 3

A 3

Hatch C

3 C

C C

Brunswick 3

C 3

3 3

Cuane Arncid C

3 C

Fit:;:a: rick A

3 3

A A

Lacrcsse A

3 A

ON

Appendix A Results of analysis of 1975 01:a A.

'Intreduction This appendix presents details and results Of the analysis of licensee perf:rmance data for calendar year 1975 (CY75).

F.esults are given firs:

for ncnc:=pliances, then LERs, then for everill :erformance.

Witnin each performance category the resuits for FWR's are given firs, the results for SWR's sec nd. The data ara analy:ed by six men h periods, first half and seccnd half (FH75 and SH75) in order :: 1cck for patterns in tne cata.

The react:rs included in the analysis are these which went into c ::ercial : erati:n :rier to 1 'anuary 1975 anc wnich were not shut d:wn nearly all cf 1975. This latter c:nditicn means Incian ?cin: 1 and 3r:wns Terry 1 and 2 are excluded. The ca:a feca :ne 51 reac :rs :nus c:nsicerad are tabulatad in the secciens whien pertain :: their analysis.

3.

Analysis of N:nc:::liances Previous licensee performance evaluati:ns, ba' sed en the 1971 anc . ;

data, considered cnly the :::21 r.cnc:::liances in each cf the three..

ity Mucn mere,,tr.ec categcries - violati:ns, infracticns, and deficiencies.

informaticn is availa:1e, :ncugh, and it was decicec :: use scoe cf

- in

n ; articular, :he :nree-e::ar "755"' :::es the analysis of 1975 ca:1.

establisn 10 by which each item cf ncnc:::ifance is labeled were used ::

types of ncnc:=pliance.

7hese ypes are sn wn in T2:le 1.

Table 1 Ty:e of N nc:::liance Notation 1.

Acmints:ra:ive C:n:rol (1) 2.

Admin. Centrol/C: era:icns (1,2) 3.

Admin. Centrol/Ecergency ?lanning (1,3) 4.

Admin. Centrol/Radiclogical Prc:ecti:n (1,4) 5.

Admin. Centrol/ Safeguards (1, 5) 5.

Cperaticns (2) 7.

Emergency Planning (3) 3.

Radiciogica; ?re:ecti:n (4) 9.

Safeguards (5) 10.

Quait:y Assurance (5) t

~

Appendix A 2-1.

PWR's Table 2 lists the ncnc:: liance frecuencies of the 30 PWR's being censidered by type, severity ca agories, and :y time period.

(The reac :rs are listed'in decket numcer crder.)

Also listed is the ::tal inspection time in and cut of office.

This latter is the independent, or explanatory, variable for which adjustment is meaningful and which has been indicated by previous analyses.

Because multiale reactors, er units, at one generating station have the same management and because ncnce:pliance findings a eng multiple units shew a high degree of associatien (in many instances cr,e occurrence at a station results in all units a-that site being assessed a nonc ::liance), ncnce ;11ances are analy:ed on a s:ation basis rather tnan a reac::r basis.

Staticn nonc:: liances were obtained by ta:uiating nonc:::liance frequencies by unit and by :atecary and type Of ncnc:::liance and then obtaining the maximum num:er of nonc::aliances Of each

.ype.

rcr ext =:le, for t.,.e

rst six mcnths c..., (r_..--s, i ri o

.9 / o f o

the Turkey Point infracti:ns were as fcilcws:

Type of Infractions (1)

(1,2)

(1,3)

(1,4)

(1,5)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Turkey Pt. 3 0

2 0

0 3

0 Turkey Pt. 1 0

2 0

3 0

2 0

0 3

0 Maximum 0

2 0

3 0

2 0

0 3

0 The maximum num:er of infrac-icns in each infracti:n ty;e is usec as an estimata of tne number Of distinct infrac-i:ns of that y:e at the stati:n. This estimate ends to uncerestima a :ne ac uai number of distinct infracti:ns, but nct seri:usly, because examinatien of the infracti:n rec:rds a mui-i-uni s:2-icns showed that 30-90" of the citati:ns are multi le cita:icas. The only instance in which station maxima were no: usec is f:r Millst:ne wnere :nc unit is a PWR, the c:her a EWR.

a.

Infracticns a.1.

FH75 1.

Tctal Infracti ns Previous analyses have suggested a reia-icnshi: ben;een

PRESSURIZED llATER REACTORS T el'1Lli9.2 U

U U

N h'S 11h p! M.h' S N.8 )

B N

NR h r:

M3 l

b.i I, l; M p.. M C

ig 4b

[j N Nhd ga f M i3 d TOTAL

" d. M

.o o

M.o lar..o

-! N N U N Ni$

"U 'ib h Sii h,ih h

fj d h d

hhg ISS ncT10%

..o U $ ~d '

[5 Ed b'NbNb f$bNN L1 f} U j

t l

cAncoaY CAncoRY CAucun cxrtcony caYa co.it CAuconY CAucuny

.cAICconY CAircostr cart.cc.y IN & ct;T N N F.

t 1 2 1

1 2 1

1 2

)

1 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 3 0F orrlct f. ll. -7 6 2

1 1

4 1

1 2

3 434.5 1

279.0 1 ANKE E E0'.'E 1

4 1

1 1

3 3

713.5 S.II. -7 6 2

1 1

_C:1.-,6 0 3 1

266.5 S!:: 0:a70E 2

1 655.0 f. H. - It:

2 8 3 2

911.5

5. l:. - 16

- 2 4

C.Y.-76 2

~

..h.-16 5

3 2

2 1

1 1

2 4

1 4

1 5

519.0 (O' iCI:ful VA.;r[E 1

2 1

645.0 1

3 5

4 2

3 1__

1 1

3 7

1 4

1 6

2 1

1164.0 1

1 S.H.-16

_.J :f c]ii G !t;'t A 1

2 2

2 2 1

619.9 f.II.-76 2, 2 1

2 1

1 1 1 1

526.0 3

4 2

2 2

3 2

1 3 2 1 1 2

1145.9 5.t.-7C 1

2 2

1

.'.f.-

f.n.-16 I 8 5

1 3

1 /

1 1

5 4

3 7 1 4

874.0 6

2 1

1 4

5 1

S01.5 M:r; 79:lif i2

(.y.-75 1 13 6

3 4

1 10 1

7 7

5 1

3 11 1 4

5 1

17111.5 5.H.-16 5

1 2

1 3

4 3

2 2

2 1

4 2

2 1 3 2 204.1 1 1 4

364.8 T :. ' '. Y.'U !: f # 1 2

i l. - ii.

2 1 4 3 4

618.9 f.v.

(

4 1_

2 2

2 1

6 2

'.i.-16 i

5 3

2 2

3 1

4 2

3 1 3 2 2S3.0 1 1 2

1 266.8 To:nf I'01: T 14 2

i.l..-76

-/J 5

3 2

2 3

1 6

2 3 1 4 3 2

i 564.0 i

s.

u

l PRESSURIZED IIATER REACTORS U

U U

U

$n j I:

i:

i':

r:

i:

0".1: !)

M.

~ !J S"*:>

M w

g

'. n p: 1 I. b.ici.).

..1 M p;M

.o

..o i

a t

fi g!

!.:i t:..

O. N M...

"I $

'I [~j [3 h

N 13 ONd Id

:: d TOTAL n

o

.. o

.o

" E' !i N N N !}lNBON 08 Nd8 3[$ N iN NUN *$c "

} fj (N -

ildS

}i N d I

s 30 bO UbN CAfLG01;Y CAYLCORY CAllCOGY Call'GO!!Y CA'l LGOliY CAltCORY cal r.CORY

.CA1LCORY CA10CORY CAILGO;tY Iti I. O'JT 1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 3 0F Off!CC PMIRIE 15 LAND #1 1

3 2

3 336.0 F.it.-16 1

3 1

1 237.5 S.11.-76 1

1 C.Y.-76 2

1 1

4 4

2 4

573.5 fORI Ct.ti:00fl f.II.-16 2

1 2

1 1

349.0 5.11. - 1 6 4

1 3

3 3

579.5 C.V.-76 6

1 3

5 1

3 1

3 3

928.5 l

O T.tf el f.f!.-76 3'

3 6

2 3 1 1

297.5 5. 11. - 7 6 2

2 2

'3 1

1 1

281.0 0.Y.-16 S.

3 2

8 5

- 4 1 2

1 578.5 j

lirif I;ltE ISLAND f1 i. t'. - 76 2

1 1

1

)

3 1

1 5 2 1

1 053.0

5. I'. - /6 6

3 2

2 3

4 3

1 3 1 2

1 1

632.0 C.*.-/6 8

C 2

3 4

1 7

4 4

l' 5 4 2

2 T540.0 110:; il f. li. - 16 3

2 1

2 2

10 8

2 3 1

627.5 5.'t. -i G 1

6 1

6 5

6 1

4 533.2

0. t - 16 4

8 2

15 14 2 4 4

1 I M O. 7 PJ?.\\i ti \\Gl 42 e. l: < - 7i.

I 1

1 3'

2 306.4 5.h.-/6

-1 1

1 1 2 110.5 f. Y. - / 's 2

2 1

4 3 2 416.9 110:8 + ?

.f. - H, 2

7 2

2 6

5 1

500.5

' '.-i6 6

6 4

6 1

C 400.7 C.Y.-/6 2

S 8

2 10 11 1

5 1

1010.2 e

PRESSURIZED IMIER REACTORS U

U U

N U

a i:

i:

U 5

d' D d fif.;n R.

U 5j it si i:

'^

y!

8-r:SJ Ti U (.

f Ed p.

l3' 1 u,. 3

5... o S

a J.. M, >

H.u..n n!!.u..M s

p' g

. 12 g[I} {$

$h Shd yd fi b j TOTAL i

o o

o h'Ifhd 3dN gg ygg i

d *d N

'l E h'I b NU~5U U !$ *b.h hlj U

. b!2 00 N!$dU Ixs lox i

30 UU ti C.\\1 t c0RY CATLCORY Call.CO;tY CATLCORY CATIC01tY CATLGORY CAT EC0!!Y

.CATLCORY CATLCORY CATECO3Y

!!! & OW l 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 3 0F CFFICE l'Al I$ ADC 5 2

1 4

2 1 6 1 1

690.5 f.nl.-16 4

1 2

421.0 15 C.V.-76 10 1

8 2

1 19 2 1 6 1 1

1111.5 __

5.61.-75 6

6 1

395,0 it. B. ItC'ilt:503 62 4

5.H.-/3 3

1 2

1 510.2 f. it. - 16 2

2 11 1

1 505.2 C.Y.-lb 2

3 2

1 2

5 2

l'Olul L'.t.Cli dl 2

.1 2

280.1 1 2 216.5 1.h.-/J 2

495.6 S. 't. - 7 6 2

1 2

2 1

3 2 f. V. - h>

2 1_

2 1

0'.C L d I 6

1 2

3 1 1

376.9 i 2

1 3

1 1

251.3 f.t:.

76 3

1 3

1 5.II.-76 2

7 1

5 4 1 1

1 628.2 0. f. - V.

5 1

3 1

2 CC Y.r.!

'?

6 2

2 3 1 1

218.C

5. tt. - 76 2

2 1

1 1

1 106.0 r.h.-?6 3

1 3

1 f.Y.-76 5

1 3

1 2

7 2

3 4 1 1

1 401.8

). l!. - Fi 4

5 1

4 2

1 4

4 3 1 4

1 1

440.5 5t' WY t 1

.. ! '. - F-2 1

1 1

2 2

512.2

~

6 6

1 5

3 1

6 6

5 1 6

1 1

952.7

)..7 5 i.li.-76 3

5 4

2 1

2 4

4 1 4

2 472.1 5':i :(,r 8

5.H. 's 2

1 1

1 4

2 2

2 3:5.4 f. ' 'i-5 f-5 3

1 6

6 6 1 6

2 810.5 i

l 1

a

e 8

PRESSURIZED llATER REACTORS

,] U l

a h.

u 4

y

'l.

.j d.

d.

t s.

J M

n g'b y

y'4 J '1 ij[1u.,.., '

s$

Eb

'5

0. 5 N 6

es

!is S

fM pMh3 1? j:'a 'i e

10m.

p.... u.

ny.u..u..

a.. a. n. u..

u u..9 u

o u. e p'! U, f

h "I H!;3 a

"j f U, It; SPIC 1IOY m$5 yl. o.

fj p, U

,N

o. d g g,,

m,

.n.. ",n H."

.I U U.

I! E.,j l's M.ill U f,j M I.,l,j'

'." i.}' jj l

ae m.~

g4 fl p. g CATfCORY C*1LCCMY CA1LGOKY CAT [ COJt'a' CAinCORY CATEGORY CA1LGORY

.CATCCORY CAfrCORY C41rCo?.Y IX & O' T J

og m

8 Ci s.., u p.

1 2 3

1 2 1 0F Off!CE

.! u 6 o o 470.5 2

2 1 4

1 193.0 1

1 3

? 1 _

_ 663.5 1

KGIAl.'1EE 1

1 3

f.It.-76 2

1 3

4_

1 5.11. - 7 6 2

1 1

1 320.5 C.V.-76 3

1 274.0 2

1 594:5 l'?.\\l'tif 15 LAND (2 2

2 5

1 4

1 f.!L./6 3

5 3

3 t.it.-16 3

2 3

2 389.5 c.y.-76 22

. 1 2 ml:.E Y/.:r.EE 2

2

~

l 3

1 1

1 G4.0 2

2 3

5 2 1 3 1

1 112 3.5 f.ll.-76 1

4 4.

1 4

5 2

5.li.-76 6

6 1

4 C. y. - J t.

261.0 612.2 1

2 4 2 01 E "3 LNO 11 3

4 2 873.2

'.... - 16 2

4 2_

s.

-76 2,

2 2

r. y. - > +;

1 244.0 5

2 3

323.0 2

3 2

1 I

.3 - 1 567.0 t..w *si.'

tI 2

2 6

3 l

f.!I.-/6 3

1 2

5.111 75 6

?

4 2

515.7 f.i.-/5 7

5 1

1 1 1 2

337.0 4

5 2

4 1

1 1

1 902.7 l

c.7, q 1

S 1

1_

3 2

2 8 10 1

1 _

i.1:, - 7 6 4

7 2

6 1

1 1

a.ii. - 16 360.5 C.V.-/6 5

2 1 3

4 373.5 C at'. i l: (L!ff5 #1 1

5 1

7 1 3

4 760.0 i. r, - h-2 4

2 3

1 5

7

.!d 2

4 2

3 C. '..

8;

?

l

4 PRESSURIZED \\lATER REACTORS U

V U

g5 U

"II n

n n

u N" E i3 T!ji M

n

.4 9

C

" i: n,. N 2,; M S,

E;p!

"911 8.5. -

pq 3

JN S. t; M pJ !!.[; M ji Ud a

,j,@h yd MMd TOTAI.

u 30 3 e@

S[

5%

n

.o

" 'h p Ng gh

[;@ N M)) ION a

.3

j e: d U

~ j.j Y s t:

" mot:

UND

.o o

nEN.

d NU OSUU

$NU bp E

CARCO'tY CATfCORY CAT !.CO:;Y CAliGOXY CATEGORY CATECORY CATECORY

,CA10CORY CAI LColtY CATLCO:tY IN & OUT

'd U n i; N N u

1 2

)

1 2 3

1 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 3 OT Orf!CE 4

4 1

672.5 1

3 3

2 E03.0 1

2 Hill 5 Tone #2 3

2 2

3 5

2 l'

2 4 4

1 1175.S _

F.H.-76 s.it.-76 1

1 1

4 3

1 c.Y.-76 2

311.~5 1

1 2

1 1 2

5 1

593.9 121)An 2

1 2

5 3

1 3

7 1 3 5

1 2

905.4 2

f.tt.-/6 3

s it.-76 5

2 C.Y.-76 a

P r

O 1

i I

e i

o e

.-a

~

Appendix A.

infraction frequency and inscecticn effer: and further suppcrt for such a relaticnship is fcund in the presen data.

The estimatad rela:icnship is

^INF = 1.3 (Inspection Mrs./lCO),

where Inspecticn Heurs are the total in and cut of office inscecticn hcurs at a staticn fcr the first six months of 1975. A chi-square gcccness of fit statistic for this relaticnshic shcws a cuite acecuate fit (X 2 = 25.0 cn 22 df) so no further acjustment seems necessary. Thus, I.sceres will be calculated cy VI:iF ZINF = 2 VNCM where NCM = 1.3 (Insp. Hrs./100)

11. Administrative Centrei Infracticns Total administrative centrol (AC) infracticns are cb-

...<.i.,...a....

. =.., a..e.

<.,. c..,. ( i,.,.,,,

+,<nas u.f., s.a. i. e..n 3

.. 4. n c.. ' r.

( 1,3 ), ( 1, a ), = r. ". ( 1,.: ',.'..= <...e. =.. 4.. n.

/

-.2 infractions as a function cf inspecticn hcurs yiel:2

^INFAC = 0.4 (Insp. Hrs./lCO) and provides a fit which is net particularly gecd

( w. y 2 y,iu.

v,e...i.: -..:e.

'.= 1 1 s.ua s. =. '.-'.'s.

... a.

e m.

i

'1.V A. 'I ','

".'w'

. ^...#.

=. F. - '. y $

..*r..="#,'...

g j g 4

4. "..' n.C =

-w 2

3 oi.

-..e,

7.. e -. a. 2 d1li

.2

,.2;.....-.,

in s f u.. +..h..e.T 3 4.

4.. :.

t.

i as abcve, using this ex:ression fcr ne ncminal n'.m:er of AC infracticns.

iii. Ocerations Tc w a l.. e.r.,. 2..- - e f e.c ) t e t., e.. t. -n. s a r s.

k. s t.

. a. A. u./., ?. e...,

s n.

on...

.1.a

c. "w...va.r.i.$ s..".>..

" ' d t' a es ' ?. ).= a..d.

(' l, ?. 'f.

"c '.s fr

(

n j.*

C,

'v.O d. q #.. S ".. d. v 1

..=.".".=."."Y e.C j n e.

3 r.. 4. -.. e.

me

. 6n we versus inspecticn hcurs yields AIN?cp = 0.5 (Insp. Mrs./100) 4 2 '. '.=.r -.a...'..:

an.d a cv-"u'n-as 2

' ' ' ' v.". d. - s- ". = r s.

v =. l ". a.,

v.

Arkansas 1, cf X 2 = 23.1 cf li cf.

I-sceres will :e s.C3Cd.--s n.-<

a

..,e.

.,.l

.a..64 a.th.

o

.. s 6 J

.6.

4

-e

..e Appendix A iv.

Emergency Planning Too few emergency planning infracticns have cccurred to warrant analysis.

v.

Radioicgical Protection and Centrcl Teo few radiolcgical prctection and control infractions have occurred to warrant analysis.

vi.

Safeguards Total safeguards (SG) infracticns are cb:ained by adding (1,5) and (5).

The special nature Of safeguards and safeguards instection sugges that it wcuid :

inapprocriate to acjus: SG inferma:icn frecuencies for total inspection time.

5xamining ne data indicates that the varia-icn Of SG infracticns a:cng stations is large cc parec :c the ser: cf varia-icn ene wcuic expect by chanca al:ne ( x 2 = a7.5 cn 22 df).

.urther consideraticn of safeguards ins:acticn hcurs, wnicn ranged frc 12 t: 115 'or ne 22 ?WRs in nis :eri:d, does not reduce this variaticn. 5ecause Of this heteregenei y, Z-sc:res f:r SG infracticns will nc: be calcula:ad for first-half of 1975.

This,hcwever, does not suggest that future data cann:t be usec in :ne-

~.. ann". a r d a s -

r- =.^. i... -, a. ~..~u...-'....#..=..'..~'2i e s..e.n' ~. 2.

^

.s.

i.

FH 76 was a :ericd cf changing am:nasis in ne area of safeguarcs, causing ex rece variations in 'requency and durati:n of inspections.

vii. Cuality. assurance Too few QA infractions occurred : warrant analysis.

S. --

a.2.

d/o 1.

Total Infracticns inr r., c

4. c.,.s.x.r

1..c......s.

4.. e u.. s.c u.

......2...,.

r..,s 4n.zu../e.

4..

s. T.t,

4. 4........... =...

i in.

i...

infracticn f.equer.cy anc inspec:ica neurs turns :u:

so

o w.

w

^A d. r.

1.2 (,.as3. nrs./ ivc.).

t

~

Appendix A

-e.

The chi-spuare gcedness er.

..t statistic srews tna:

t1

.wi+.h

.w... o.

.x.=,.2.on

e..., s.. 4 ens,,n 24.ec.....

4..

.y.

o..

is obtained, bu: not as gced a fit as in FH75

( y_2 = 23.0 :n 20 cf, after caitting Dalisaces and San Onofre).

Thus, I-scores will be calculated based en the above relationship.

ii. Administrative Centrol AC infracticns in SH75 were less frecuent and scre heterogenscus than-in FH75 and so were nc: c:nverted to Z-secres.

ili.

C:eraticns c lisades and San Oncfre, After caitting the data frca a

the fitted mecal is:

^INF0p = 0.5 (Insp. Hrs /lCO) cad the chi-square value obtained is 22.1 On 'O cf.

iv.vii. Tcc few infractions of these types were incurred to warrant analysis.

a..,.

CY/o

i. Total Infracti:ns i ne >.c +o.,1 nu..u.,.r. :.

a..n. :., c. < -..., :.... u. a. c. :,a:

2.,.a..-.-

.a

.ie c nsidered in CY75 was 320 anc : :al ins:ecti:n time, in hundrecs of hours, was 259.5.

7hus, re average n ::er of infracticns per huncree ins:ection rs. was 1.27, i..., i

..o.'

< n : 4. :....

.nnien is w,

-, e 2. s-i r

e._

i Chapter II.

Thus, I-sc:res for FY75 will be :ased On the relattensnip

^

- (.7nsa... s./,ivv).

,,, r. = 1.4

~,

nr t.i

-, Cn1.s-,,ar

--na...,.s.

: a...

s.,.:..i.n.

a.. s a. n.,., e.

in.

o...s.

q go.

2...

,W I *. w.n s.X r. e.. d. r e.

0., i. i..., A. s. s, 3. n., - e..,,. 3 ed.

4s

.i i

i

[ m.,#.3 ))

')

p Aq C G[. h,y *.5*

. g i.3

5. -.

-Eg e

.. i2..

o..

t Given One c:nsister.Cy sn:wn be 50enH and Sh75 results,

hi s i.e n u-.,.. e.A c e.. a.s..

o..

~ ~ - ~ - ~ ~

Appendix A

11. Administrative Centrol Results f r AC infractions were not ::nsistent f:r -he two six-centh perieds, but broadening the time s:an o the full year provides : re stability.

In particular, AC infracticns do not a: pear related to ins:ecti:n time but are essentially hemcgenecus (after :ni cing Incian Pt. 2 and Palisades,);2 = 22.2 on 20 df).

The average number of AC infractions is abcut 1.0 so this value will be used as the heminal ;;lu: in obtaining I-sc:res, iii.

C eratic_es The adjustment of C? infractions f:r bcth FH and SH 75 data was based en the relatiensnip, AINF p = 0.5 (Insp. Hrs./1CC)

C For the full year this relationship also :revides an adequate fit (excluding ?alisades, X 2= 20.7 en 21 df) and I-sceres will be based cn it.

iv.,v.

~.~.. a. r. f. n..v. P l.=.r. a.. i., 2.."

= d. '. 1.. '. r..= 1 P..*.=..'.-e e.

i There were t:c few infracti:ns of these teso ty:es in CY76 t ' warrant analysis.

vi.

Safecuards Cver the full year, SG in#ractions were reascr. ably hc.~-, a r.a.r.' s, a v a.r = : 3. : = '. ".. 1 '. r. #. r.=. '. '. e s. a. r. - - = '..n (and yieicing a x value Of 25.2 n 22 f) sc :-sc:res c

will be basec en a n::inal value of a SG infracticns.

vii. Cuality Assurance There were t:c few QA infractions t warrant analysis, b.

Deficiencies 3.1.

F.9 / D i.

Total :aficiencies

. e:,, e. ; e i),

.n z,e, m, z. z, 4, Lj, l.se -.....l

.-..e..,).

I.e.....

i.. cal...

ese

, : -..e 4..s =. n d..d i.n 4 e..e m. a e. =. 4..e u e.. pe.

3 4=

nn o.

.s e. m o s. r e.w

k. a m

..s i.

6 i - we 2 w

y 4.:=. 4.

e

g (a p

'm e.a..e a g p g 4 e.j. f e 'a. m.. f 3 e.n 4. *.

=..=.g.

4 'mJ el e a

.4

... e m.

ba l l, e m,. 3 p g v..

s

.e 1

..s e

w%....

a M.= e

nppendix n.

among deficiency frequencies is not larger than what would be ex:ected by enance alene ( x 2 = 27.5 cn 22 df).

The average number of deficiencies :er station is abcu 4.0 so this will be used as the ncminal frequency in calculating I-secres.

ii.-vii.

Deficiency frequencies, by type, are too small to warrant analysis.

b.2.

SH76

.ctal Der...iciencies i.

i As with FH75, total deficiencies in SH75 are fairly hemcgeneous, so no adjus::ent is made.

(x 2 = 32.5 en 21 df after c itting Calver: Cliffs.) The average r.um:er of der.,ciencies, :er stati:n is abcut,.0 r.er an/

s Z-secres will be based en this ncminal value.

ii.-vii.

Deficiency frecuencies by ty;e are t:c small for further analysis.

b.3.

CY75 1.

Tctal Deficiencies _

In botn FH and SHJ1, F'.4R deficiencies were inde enden-

~ #.

. s-..= 'i 2. = *. =.

o#. i a. s - =.c..4.

n '. - ". ". s, " ". w r. =.,... a. 'v.v /

..i-i.

s i e e r =.d.

t.. =. r =. i. s... v- - =. a v 'm" c.. m =. '. ^. =. '.= r.. : =..c =. '..v... = -

d over t.ie half year :eri:ds..inalysis Of previ:us years data shcwed a ;;ssible ass: cia-icn Of :sficiency ' e-quenc/ wi 1 '.".a 7: : = c. 4... = 1 - #. #. '.=..

... 4 a. 2 2 '. - i '. i.v.

e--

wa s w-.ns i.c. o.r. 2 T

.w. ev. /.:.,...

r....a.4e.n ve.

4s.r i

.... v

. i.

deficiency frecuency by regicns shcwec :r.a: iicensees in Region I incurred accu: tvice as many ceficiencies, :n the average, than -hose in tne c:her Regicns.

The ncminal values en which I-sc:res will be based are:

^CEF = 10.0, for Regien I 5.5, f:r tne c:ner Regions.

=

,he gn.c..,ss o:. :.z.. c..,.

2..,......

..r..a.s

..~..z-.2.;.,

t s...

.i,.~.

emitting C:ck anc Zicn, is 15.3 cn 19 Of.

Appendix A

.a.

11.

rd.i.ai n 12.,. a../,. r. n..,l

...e AC deficiencies are fairly hemogenecus and de net shcw an associaticn with Regi;nal Cr:1:e.

ine average frequency, per staticn, is abcut 3 AC deficiencies and a chi-square test based en this ncminal value yielce pd2 = 23.7 cn 20 af, after excluding two staticns, C:ck and Zicn. Z-scores will be based en a ncminal value Of 3.0.

iii.

C:erati:ns Two stations - C:ck and Zicn again (recall the overlac between AC and CP :::al frecuencies) - have Outlying C?

frecuencies, but the remaining are fairly h:::ger. ecus

( ;C 2 = 30.2 cn 20 df) abcut an average of 3.5 ceficiencies.

Z-secres will be based en a nominal cf a CP ceficiencies.

iv.-vii.

Deficiency frecuencies by the remaining types were t:c small t warran; analysis.

c.

Summary cf Resuits

..w e e. s.a l.

e..a... w,...r.

s. e. 3 abl e 3...v 4. s.= s,.......y.

.2 s e.

e.

t I '. 2.. - = s.

=.r..= 'i i *. ".. =..=. '. - s w- -. a.

r = =. =. r.

...2..

anal.vsis w.

2

..w.m.....

1.0 is indicated by an A, bet een -1.0 ar.d 1.3 by 5, and belcw -1.0 by C.

Cenerally, but c: always, :he :::21 I-sc:re is an " average' Of the I-sc res by y:es.

Exce:-icr.s car cccur wue 'ww ' n." s".= 'i l y-i..= r : =. c r... 31 1 #. =.. ". =. r. 'i =. c.=..~ uc...~..=./. =.

d a

.w o#. r.e.n e...... j j.a rm-o.

f. +s r

,.a n i c.a. e. a. a.n r.s..s 7_. s o-a - s..e v< a r e.

i. w 'w

a..-..s d. a. =. d.

-a i

c r

.a.r..s iJ s e s c / s.e s.'t s w.- e. 2.s - c. 2 r

.2

.= a p d. c. e. *t..a. g w.t n s.2 4 ". - 2 d

a b

aai n _

tal sc:re acr:ss :ne borderline.

Appendix A

-g-Table 3 Su=ary of Licensee Perfer ance Analysis:

P'dR ficnccmpliance TYP3 CF liCliCC:4?LIAtiCE Admin.

Cper-Safe-Centrol atiens guards 7CTAL Station Period I!1F C3F I;iF C3F I!;F CEF I:iF C3F FH76 3

C 3

3 3

3 A

A Yankee Rcwe SH76 CY76 A

A 3

3 A

FH76 3

A C

C 3

A A

San Oncfre SH75 A

CY76 A

A A

A C

A 3

FH76 C

3 3

3 C

Conn. Yankee SH76 A

A 3

CY76 3

3 A

C 3

3 3

FH76 3

3 3

A 3

A C

Ginna SH76 A

CY76 3

3 A

A 3

FH76 C

A A

C 3

3 Indian ?t. 2 SH75 CY76 C

C 3

FH76 C

3 3

3 Turkey Pt. 3, a SH76 CY76 3

3 3

B 3

3 3

FH76 3

3 3

C A

C C

A Palisades SH75 CY76 C

A C

A 3

C A

FH76 3

C 3

3 A

A 3

C Robinsen SH76 CY76 A

A 3

3 A

A 3

FH76 A

A A

3 3

Point 3each 1, 2 SH76 CY76 A

3 3

A 3

FH76 3

3 C

3 3

3 A

3 Ccenee 1, 2, 3 SH76 CY76 3

A 3

3 3

FH76 3

3 3

Surry 1, 2 SH75 3

CY76 3

C 3

3 3

Appendix A

- Table 3 (cont'd)

Su=ary of Licensee Perfcrmance Analysis:

PWR tiencemcliance TYPE OF NCNCCMPLIANCE Acb:in.

Oper-Safe-Centrol aziens guards TCT;L Statien Pericd INF CEF INF CEF INF CEF INF CEF FH76 A

A A

A 3

3 A

C Prairie Is. 1, 2 SH76 CY76 3

3 3

B 3

B s

FY76 3

3 3

3 A

3 3

3 Fort Calhcun SH75 CY76 3

A 3

A A

3 3

FY76 3

3 3

3 C

3 Three M. Is.

SH75 CY76 C

C 3

3 3

Fii76 A

C C

3 C

3 Zion 1, 2 SH76 CY76 3

C B

C 3

3 C

FH76 A

A A

B 3

C A

Kewaunee SH76 C

CY76 A

A B

3 A

3 3

FH76 3

3 A

3 3

3 C

3 Main Yankee SH75 CY75 3

A A

B A

3 3

FH75 A

3 A

A A

3 3

3 Rancno Secc SH75 CY75 A

A 3

3 3

A 3

FH76 C

C 3

3 3

3 A

3 Arkansas SH75 CY75 3

3 C

3 A

C 3

FH75 C

C C

A C

3 Ccck SH75 CY75 3

C C

C 3

3 3

FH75 A

A A

B A

C C

C Calvert Cliffs SH75 CY76 A

3 3

C C

C 3

FH75 A

3 3

3 C

Millstene 2 SH75 A

A 3

CY75 A

3 A

3 3

FH75 A

3 A

A 3

3 C

3 Trejan SH75 CY75 A

C 3

3 C

Appendix A

. 2.

SWR's Table 4 lists the ncnc::cif ance da:2 ar.d ins:a:ti:n hcurs f:r -he 21 SWR's censidered. As witn :WR's, the data fer T.ulti-unit stations will be ccnvertec :: frequencies pertaining to the station.

a.

Infractions a.l.

FH76 1.

Total Infracticns BWR infraction frequencies, by staticns, again shcw evidence of an ass:ciati:n with ins:ecticn hcurs, but the pattern is nc c:nsistent acrcss stati:ns as it was among PWRs.

In particular, the fcur EWRs which :egan ec=mercial c:ers-icn (CO) in 1975 shcw a: cut wice as many infracticns pe.r hcur of ins:ecticn as dc :he remainder.

ine reia:1:nsnip it: tac is

^INF = 1.0 (Insp. "rs./lCO, if C0 prior tc 1975 e

n, n ~i / =.

u..n. s. / ~i.0 ), 1 :.

. 0 (r.s,y.

=

v.

m

.a. r. h i - s -".= r a.

-rda.es c.'.

'..h i s..c H. =_ 'i =. e. "..= 'i 2

~

2 ir 23.3 cn 15 df.

7hus, I-scores will be calcula ec wi n ncminal values given by the abcve expressi:ns.

ii.-vii.

Infracticn frecuencies, by type, are either

'. o

.e...= '. l ^ r '.. c.*. a.a r.. = r. c.. "e s o e.= *.. =...= r..a l j"s i. s.

a.2..

S.7e-n ioc. a i,i n ;.,.,. -.. -..

a i.

.2 The asscciatien nctec in :"76 of infracticn f ecuer.cy 4

,d1.h C.2.3 C.e C.... o..r. 4., !

., r,.4.

n i s. r. r e..,. 2..=,.

.d....

i any censistency - two of :ne f ur staticns ani:n began cccmercial c:eraticn in 1s,<: ha3 an unusuaity n1;n m

c... =.,. :..,..

1~.

nu,n. b,r,e r <i n :..,. a. n...e.,

e......, r e. s..-

..s 2

u.,,1.<. ;.. e..,.,.., i. e.u. c:. ie 2..,. i... s,., - _

s n o- +.

i.

= de ".a'.al

. i.. '..v..'. a.. -. a. 'n AI"F = 1.0 (:nsp. Mrs./ICC).

The gecdness of fit chi-square value being 11.7 :f :

cf.

96M P

Il0IllNG llAlER REAC10RS M

I!

ll

!?

t.'

l' tt j r:

i:

[43 g

Ed t.

5 E. D d

.d" d Y'

D

)

a. !4 "1 J il n,; 3 11;:t: 3 l

h.

f.}, {.!; :1

.9 a,ij r: o a

J' o:

o tt N::o

!! $ [3 h l

o aono

?:e Ohh

' {i h

.o o

8 U iIl 3.l2..;[J u4 7j o q

.l[i i

'jX. jl o d tj Ul l$ U 3 M *E a.d.i.ju Q v o>

oqon t!

zi

!* f )

TOTA t.

ii

!: a'i !

s r

ti 9.c o.' n!;

1

';i t a n; of.

mstrction

,. n CATICORY CATECORY CATECORY CATLconY CATrCORY CAIEGORY CATI CORY

.CAllCORY CAli cony CATrCC:sY IN f. O'JT 7,, c 1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 1 2 3

1 2 3

or OrliCC ORESDEll #3 F.fl.-76 1

1 1

2 1

1 9

316.0 5.11.-76 1

2 1

2 C.Y.-76 1

3 1

3 3

2 2

250.0 5

3 1

10 2

574.0 QUA9 CITIES #1 F.ll.-76 1

1 1

5.!i.-/6 2

1 1

2 500.5 3

C.Y.-76 3

2 2

1 1

5 2

2 1

1 1

2 3r.).0 8

2 2

2 1

3 1

2 861.5

!!0*iTICELLO F.ll.-76 1

1 1

1

.I 1

594.0 5.11. - 7 6 i

1 1

C.Y.-76 2

1 1

1 I?7.0 1.

203.0 QUA0 ClilES #2 F.lf.-76 1

1 3

2 1

2 303.0 5.11.-76 2

1 1

2 2

2 1

1 3

3 426.0 C.Y.-76 2

2 1

1 1

1 5

2 2

3 1

3 3

3

??9.0 VECO IT YNJrEE F. fl. - 75 1

1

.3 2

1 2

1 1

409.5 S.II.-76 2

3 2

4 4

1 1

3 2

FrA. 5 C.Y.-76 3

3 3

3 6

5 1

2 2

1 3 2 1 :s'A. 0 Pietet 80r103 g2 f.II.-76 2

3 3

2 3

7 2

1 1.11. '.>

5. II. -76 1

5 1

3 1

1 6

6 1

3 581.5 C.(.-76 3

8 1

6 1

2

'l 9 13 2

1 1

3 1.1i6.0 PEACil 00110H #3 F. II. -76 2

3 3

2

'2 5

2 1

403.0 S.11.-76 4

3 1

5 6

1 3

51' 0 C.Y.-76 2

7 6

2-1 7 11 2

1 1

3 921.0 fe l

j 9

9' e

t I

i e

B0ILING llATER REACTORS i

u e

v e

y:

i:

1:

g i:

i:

g u

.1

.. n s rs n

..n 0

p.

up U!?

8. I:,

3, n

rJ u,5 N N "s i:. U...n. d,u.n..

r.i. l. : 3 an 9i. 4. 3..

J,I h d

.M r

d TOTAL l} 09 =ggtm i

O U b} h

,j N d*

dd NNd s.]

.e uii!!

E u[lNi!"$3!!s 3HUd h[us Sia "EEN 92H 9,3 e

N

[

8 n

C A TI (.Oit Y CATLCORY CATLGORY CATICOnY CATLCORY CAltCORY CATLCORY

,CA7fCoaY CA3i:CORY CATf ORY I.*f & Otf r.

I 7 3

1 2 3

0F. OFFICE '

LR[5 DEN f) 3 3

1 9

1 325.5 F.it.-76 1

3 1

1 1

219.5 S.11.-76 4

4 1

10 545.0 C.Yd/6 I

3 1

-3

'U:'.:010I IIAY 4

9 330.5 '

3 1

5 1

581.5 I.!I.-/6 5.11. - 7 C 3

1 3

1 9

10 926.0 C. 't. - / *.

3 1

El0 100, I'd!:lf 6

2 3

1 679.0 t.!.-76 2

2 1

1 1

1 2

2 1

291.5

.. it. -io 2

2 C.V.-76 2

4 1

1_

1 1

a 3

2 3

2 2

976.5 i.i!. - M 3

3 1

2 1

4 1

4 3

4 1

4 831.0 OV$lt R fistf K 5.li. '6 2

1 1

2 1

1

?

1 461.5 f. 's. - 4 6 3

5 1

2 2

2 1

2 4

2 6

1 1

7 3

5 1293.3 i.il.-76 2

1 1

1 I

4 1

2 3

610.5 fil :L MllE PolHI il S.it -76 3

1 2

1 1

4 4

2 2

1 609.5 f. v. - i..

5 2

3 1

2 1

5 5

6 1

2 2

4 1420.0 09f.'t's.2 5

4 1

3 1

600.2

..i.-16 1

3 1

3 1.1;. - 7 0 2

1 1

2 3

2 2

1 192.0 f. Y - M.

3 4

1 4

2 8 6 2

1 4

fl 1

792.2 i.l:.-i6 3

3 3

1 2

5 1

2 3

1 1

2 821.0

!s t t M.)!.. 31

:6. - : t; 4

3 1

1 6 3

1 1

1 1271.0 2.i.-i.-

?

3 6

1 1

2 1 11 4

2 4

1 1

2 2

2092.0 l

BOILIRG, g Q lEACTORS U

U U

n gn n

4 ny-n n

~ni ra n

un

" C.

d 1

p$ U

[?. $

[}

k. 9

'.. '!, [?. *o 7

n

[

I O, [ U i

$ t.

s g*

N.l.I,N gp n.o t

.j.

$ d'I 92l}

- l:

hd!!

mggIm o

a

,,o 8 il d lj d TOTAL.

co Y[t[100HEUU Uij NN[]$

!I[] N g'.

E!

f; Ei $

'l U H en i

n 003 00H CAftG01Y CATIElJtY CAT!GO'Y CAllLOLY CATLCol(Y car 0 colly CA1FCorsY

. CA1 LC01tY CATLCORY CATLCO.1Y IN 1. OLT 1 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 1

1 2 3

1 2 1 cf.0FFICE Pit f.RIl1 il 5

1 5

2 779.0 F.ll.-76 5

1 4

1 5.11. - 7 6 2

1 1

1 4

2 2

1 2

3 695.0

--f.Y.-76 7

2 1

1 5

1 1

4 7

3 5

3 2

3 1474.0 UNI?I nt 1

1 5

2 434.0 l.l.,-70 1

1 3

1 597.0 5.11.-/6 1

1 1

1 2

2 8

3 101).0 C Y.-16 2

1 2

1 IIAICl ?!

8 1

1 2

2 526.2 i.l!.-76 2

1 1

S. i t. - ) t.

u 2

7 2

1 10 3

2 595.5 2

2 1121.7 f. Y.. ) ti 10 3

ft 2

1 18 4

2 l'

f. ii. - 7 (,

23 1

3 1

4 8

3

.2 2

3 606.5 bl.t'i.'.tlit f k 2 5.11. - 7 6

)

1 2

1 1

4 2 1

1 1

450.5 r v..;$

5 4

3 4

2 11 10 4

3 3

3 10'27.0 i.it.-16 I

1 1

1 7

4 5

1 76fl.0 016.t / :!Ui D S. II. - /6 6

6 10 4

8 440.5 C.Y.-/6 7

1 7

1 17 4

4 13 1208.5 3

9 1

1 4

5S0.5 fil/tAIKitK' I.iL.it 3

3 2

3 1

2 652.0

.t..-,(

5 2

3 2

t.).-i6 5

5 3

5 2

1 10 11 1

1 4

1212.5 t. it. - It.

I 1

1 2

1 577.5 1 A fl ut'.1 343.0 s. it. - /ti 3

3 3

C.Y.-/6 1

3 1

925.5 I

Appendix A.

i i. -v d. 4.. ~ ~ c '. =..v 'i a '., = r. d.....e, "..v '.",. =, w a. r =. 1.. c"... =. d.

warrant analysis.

a.J.

Cv. / O a

1.

Total Infractions The results of the analyses of FH and SH75 data suggests that, for the most part, ::tal SWR infracticns are related to inspecti:n eff:r: ty AISF = 1.0 (Insp. Mrs./1CO).

i ne r ; ;t ed re. a::. ' l ". =.=.r

'i =.= 's

'..a

.v a. r '.". a. #ui s-..e C.-...b i n i n.c. '..". a.

d..= *..=

2 i

nsnip :ec:mes retinement.

^INF = 0.9 (Insp. Mrs./lCO) if C0 price to 1975

= 1. 6 (,.n s p... s. /,i cu ) i t.,0 i n F:/ c nr u

.:. u. t..

2 -...s a. i,

-..e chi.s...,,, :.r,3.na..e.e c:s.....

i s....

cmitting Crescen an: :tane Arncic, is 19.5 cn 12 df,

..*..= *. ~. 2 -.. =. s a i 'i i ". e..= s a. d.

sw whiw-h is =d=cu= =ly e...=i cn nc=ina. va ues given by this re:1:1:nsnip.

11. n d..1 1....../,..... 1 a 2....

As with PWRs,.1C ir.f-actions a:: ear t: te fairly h:20-genecus, inde:er. den: cf ir.s:ecti:n eff:rt, and :: average abwu *w A. =. r s..=. d.. ".. #....-'.i'.

( i h.a..n i - s -"a.= r =. v = 'i ",. =... r s

s..as.4.. g :. r n _-- -=. 1.1.,.

a. c..,,..'..

o.g-. 'i n i.

3.:.. ;'

i

.2 n

2 e

3.

e. : n..o n... w. i a-e

.... s. e.

..s.e =. s.cn s.

F.,

a. r. 2 I av t**

2 sCmrs.s d.ii

u. a.

u o

frequency of 1.0.

iii.

C:eratier.s As with PWRs, BWR C? infracti:ns a; ear related :

inspection hcurs, the fi :ec relaticnship beir.g

^INF p = 0.1 (: sp. Mrs./iCO).

C

.... i. g. a., :... u. i..,

.....n,

-., e e, - e. s..,. g g.c. :,. : :...- bi. 5 - n..,n..

i g.2

e. p.

a.i f.' ;

m..y e. l. 4 4.a n;......

2.e.

... a.

. ' p. e.. a., j e.

W, W

=

c O

Appendix A iv., v.

Emergency :lanninc and Radic1cgical Prc eccien Tcc few E? and RP infractions were incurred to warrant analysis.

vi. Safeguards Safeguards infracticns were quite heteregenecus - 3 cf the 17 SWR staticns incurred 30 cf the 28 SG infraccions in CY76 - so Z-secres will net be calculated fer this type of infracticn.

vii. Cuality 'ssurance The variat,.cn ancng c,a. intr $ccion trecuencies was s1:1,.ar

.o that or. e-.u infractions, so no -sceres w1ii be ca,icu-w lated.

b.

Deficiencies b.1.

Fu.. / O

.otal Cer.iciencies t

ic.., l

.s r,. c. e n c.a. e.s.c n n.. s.u.c..d

,,n a.e.e. n., n. :.

a a

.n sa wi..<.n

-na, wi+.5 ins e..'.1

..-".2,

" "... a. i..". a. ". "'..h. a. v =. a..=... - ". a.

u C.u*.D I 2.. 2 'i,v '.. #.".... =.C c.". u s.

~ ~. a..'.. a 'i,v s '..t

c. e ' '. *.s

*. r O 'n'. s-r i.

s.,- 0 s *.., e

n. s 1 n a e.,.4. n :. :. e t.

n.,. ~.

a. t :. :. z..e a..n. s e.

33 s

W Rs

a..h.. u.

.'.t i - =.

.' s.. a,v ". =.. 'i w i. n.. '. =. s.. =.. r. e. "... =.

.s

', e m.

o d a.

,v 1 I Co.n s n a.S 4. m.ci n i,.a.lec..an2re..

('i.-ar.a.

De

... r e. s.

ii 3

vu w) j i p.3 :. e. e. v a..e. c. n. e.

~. u..~ e a :.( o. a '13 p i...,

t.. : e.e

. p.

~ s na n a

t-n

~

i a n.d

. w r '.".. - i c..:..=,v,.=. d. O., r".. s d..k '...... o. - :='..-..

4

.a

'l

".a.

'.v...q

.." a.

.V 2.."'.,v..-.2'..<

=.- a.

.R.CWeV a.r,.'.' W '4 i

~ = s s =. e...,. i. e../

a.,. a...n.

a. s n..e. c. ~.... =. e =.e.. ',

Cn n s. d =.r e.s.,

a i

e Z-sceres wi,il s.e basec :n na r...cticwing nc=1r.at vatuss:

^ee. =

v.-

S. 0, r.cr.,-egion I

= 4.0, for Other Regicns ii.-v.1.

F. a '. 'a c 4 =.. c v #, =.. ". s... w '. a. s,

'.,v '..v =., w a. r. =... w-4 6.

infrecuen: c warran analysis.

D6W..Wh 9

..i.

e Appendix A.

b.2.

SH75 1.

Total Ceficiencies Fewer deficiencies were' incurred in SH75 than in FH75, but the asscciatien with Regicnal Office ;ersistac.

The ncminal values wnich will be used to obtain I-scores are:

ADEF = 7.0, for Regicn I 2.0, for other Regicns.

=

The chi-square value fer gcedness cf fit of this relatien-ship is 12.5 on 15 df, witn no stations excluded, so the fit is quite adequate.

ii.-vii.

Ceficiency frequencies, by type, were tcc small to warrant analysis.

b.3.

CY75 1.

Total Ceficiencies For the full year, deficiency frecuencies, by Recic,

lead to tne fcilcwing nc=inal values:

ADEF = la, fer Regica I 5, fer other Regicns.

=

ine en1-sq are value fer ;ccdness of fit of this relatien-ship is :(

= 21.9 cn 15 df (anc 13.7 en la cf if

. i. 4.. C. s,., 4

.w.

4 4.,.m-

2. 4 e,w-=..-...., 14.,

-s 4,

4

_6 6,..d 6 b.$ 43

.6 J

1.. i.

l..a.

.3 s.

663 4

so 7. 3s.,r s w1: 1 a..,

l.,.,s. e...a

.w=.s

._.o.. 2 i

, w

11. Adminiscrative Cencrcl AC deficiencies are fairly hcccgenecus ( y; 2 = 17.7 en 1 5 d '. '. e r..'s. i r.,.".-- :.=.r. a. i.,v ',,.=.. 6"

. -. a. = r.. ". a.

.. s c 4. w.r.., *I

,- 2 4.. 3..

w l a.s.e.m s.n d 3.r.. 4 e.

e r. s. e r..4. w n..v-,. - 3.r.r.

a i.. a.

2 w.

i w

av a. r.' c. a.r. ".. ~- *. r. #.

.L. ~. " 2 ?. 4. ': 2..*. c. #. 2 s. *. *. 2. '. '... "..'s_'.".'.'.

~~

3.0 and I-secres will :e based :n.nis r.cminal v=1.e.

~

Apcendix A.

iii. 0:erati:ns Three statiens - Peach Bott:m, Brunswick, and :it::atrick -

had ateu: three times as many CP deficiencies as :Me remaining staticns.

Amcng :ne remaining la stati:ns the GP frequencies were cuite hemcgenecus ( y;2 = S.5 en 13 df).

As two cf the three Outliers are in Region I, the Regicnal difference :: served am:ng :::al ceficiencies suggests itself, but the evicenca does nct warrant a separate ncminal value f:r Regi:n I.

The ncminal CP value used in Octainir.g Z-secres will be 4.0.

~

iv.-vii.

Deficiency frecuencies for the remainir.g types were too smali :: warran: analysis.

c.

Summary of Results The results Of calculating the Z-sceres based en the preceding ana1ys,. s c _ :,n..x ncnc:::iianc as are g;ven in, acte :.

Appendix A

~

. Table S Sutmary of Licensee Performance Analysis:

3*AR Nonccepliances Tyce of Ncnc:mpliance Ad:.ai n. '

Ccera-Centrol tiens Total Statien Period INF DEF INF DEF INF CEF FH76 C

3 Dresden 1, 2, 3 SH76 3

3 CY76 3

3 3

3 C

3 FH76 3

C Hamboldt Bay SH76 B

3 CY76 3

A 3

A C

C FH76 C

A Big Rcck Pt.

SH76 C

3 CY76 A

B C

3 C

3 FH76 3

C Oyster Cr.

SH76 8

3 CY75 3

C A

B 3

C FH76 3

A Nine Mile ?t.

SH76 3

3 CY76 3

3 3

3 FH76 3

3 Millstene 1 SH75 A

A CY76 C

3 3

3 FH76 3

A Quad Cities I, 2 SH76 C

C CY76 3

3 3

A C

3 FH76 A

A Menticello SH76 3

A CY76 A

A A

A FH76 3

A Vt. Yankee SH76 3

3 CY76 3

3 3

A

Appendix A

, Table 5 (cont'd)

Su=ary of Licensee ?erfor ance Analysis:

5',a Ncncompliances Type of Ncncomcliance C; era-Admin.

Centrol tions Total Station Peried UiF DEF INF DEF INF CEF FH75 A

3 Peach 3cttc=

SH75 3

3 CY75 3

C 3

C A

3 FH75 A

A Pilgria 5075 3

C CY75 C

3 A

3 3

3 FH75 C

3 Cooper SH75 3

3 CY75 A

A A

A 3

3 FH75 3

3 Hatch SH75 C

3 CY75 C

3 C

3 FH75 3

C Brunswick SH75 3

3 CY75 3

3 C

C 3

C FH75 3

3 Duane Arncid SH75 C

A CY75 C

A C

3 C

3 FH75 3

3 Fit patrick 5H75 3

3 CY75 3

3 A

C A

3 A

A FH75 Lacrossa SH75 A

3 CY75 A

3 A

3 e

Appendix A

' C.

' Analysis of Licensee Event Re:crts (LERsl The data analy:ed, in the case of multi-unit stations, are the t0:21 LERs, cf the ty:es listec bei:w, ever the units at a stat;cn.

ihis :er-fermance measure is used because examina-icn cr. L__s detai,is indicates :.s.a:

these events are re:cr:ed singly; One event does nc: resul-in multiple LERs, in contrast to the situaticn with ncnccccliances.

In additicn to considering t::al LERs, it was determined tha varicus types, cr subcategcries, of LERs c uld be identified.

Frem reading the LER files, each LER was classified ac :rding to the follcwing matrix.

Personnel Error Precedural Error Operatiens Maintenance Env. & Health Physics

, 2. l,a.. s e r.,. s i en,.,...,...,..,..

s Cr.u.er.,/.s n:,==.. s, s., - h,. s C..... e n. e.e...

s w.

w.

' i. ". $. n e c.a.

r * *. 2 s

a. #. 't. "..#i V a.

' a-no *. j nC i,e, s.s.

4.

..w. s.2..3 t.v e. i s. a.r.s,J s o.

W e.y..= c. a.

w ie w..

i

. ~....

o performance.

Thus, an analysis can te c:ne c: c : eren: types c:.,-s, oa ng....

] j i e.c.m 3.

gr.y. c.y.r,

e l,y - j a-

- e.

24 gj 47.,p.-

wo i.

3. r o.p.

.y r. e.

g.

m

... s

w. 4.

a..q 2 2

o

e.. e. r,....c.. e.

.-..i =. c. e. r. :.".

..".a. L.:.'s.v

a. s w i 'i s e n i v ". = v e o s i.- = re..

r 22.,;-

4 the yearly :: als.

F'.;R and E'.4R LER :::a are given in Tables 5 anc E, respectively.

1.

PWRs a.

FH75 and SH75 1.

ic +s., i.

I_ _r e.s

n w c 'w"i s #. x..^ 1 *..*. " a. ". d..' " s, '..' '..' ' '. 7 0. s V ' #.'

d. ~..~*.*..-^".F.

s

~

A s.,.1 n e. s...,.,.. cana..d C,J 't. o c

.X - a.,...= s.

i :. i: :,., e..e. n. a. = s a

u-r o

i m... -

.a c.. z e.., s.

.. e. =. e. =.X....e... 2.. 4. e, n e. :.....s.>

w.

..s..

wn.

,We ra.

4

.m.e - - - i..s. s e.

J...,.

s a. a..

4ind4C.s..ss

.s... 1..:.0

e. e.c.e. s.e.r.i.a.s

.s o.

u aw w

ilew=.F a.

3 4.

s

.a..w

..,...s /..... r i..:. :. a.

..a..m n., t.. r.

... a.

i s

w o

.o 6.

.es

m t

O yddeup;x y

-t6-129lB 9 d%,E ljE JJEbnBuoiGs dsascuust 3;;;;

daccapnatL 3;; a g;tp ou eapop 0: sata cu s

<r.u--

pu.i c g 3:saru cus

.i t. u.

p u.r - c -c L

iHL9 i

Aeuzas go;'s SH49 L

3A49 l

AHL9 gru cuo;JB SHL9 DAL9 iHL9 L

L 3cuu Atu%ss SHL9 L

3Af9 2

i iHL9 2

L DbUUE 9HL9 3AL9 2

L 3HLS 2

I c

)..

c c

,up

>4 av c

~

3149 t'

2 1

3H49 ina%EA d ~-

SHL9 L

3149 L

3HL9 2

L dttistpss SHL9 L

L 3A49 E

2 3HL9 L

2 goq;uscu sH49 E

DAL9 1

9 iHL9 2

L d~

20734 SHL9 DAL9 2

L dHL9 t

t L

L 2

Docusa SHL9 E

C L

L 3kL9 L

L 2

2 2

3H49 L

L snJJA SHL9 E

2 DAL9 T

1 2

l

Appendix A

Table 6 (cont'd)

FWR L2R Frecuencies Persennel Error

?recedural Error Station Period C:eracicns :ta n c.

Env. & :-P Caera uns

.lainc.

inv. & n?

Prairie Is.

FH76 2

3 1

SH76 2

4 1

1 CY76 4

7 1

2 3

FH76 2

1 1

Ft. Calhoun SH76 1

2 1

1 CY76 1

4 2

2 FH76 2

2 2

2 Three M. Is.

SH76 1

2 1

CY76 3

4 1

2 2

FH76

'4 2

1 Zicn SH76 3

1 CY76 7

1 2

1 FH76 2

1 1

Kawaunee SH76 2

4 3

CY76 4

4 3

1 1

FH76 1

Maine Yankee SH75 1

CY76 2

FH76 1

1 1

Rancho Seca SH76 1

1 CY76 2

2 1

FH76 2

1 Arkansas SH76 3

2 CY76 6

2 1

FH76 3

1 2

1 Ccck SE76 4

1 2

CY76 7

2 2

2 1

FH76 1

Calvert Cliff SH76 1

1 1

CY76 2

1 1

FH76 3

Millstcne 2 SH75 2

1 i

CY76 5

1 1

FH76 6

8 Trejan SH75 2

1 2

CY76 S

1 3

2 e

Appendix A trend is not a r:c h cne, but rather a dich0t: y

. e :.,. t l Cw1.,, C w.n l r.,.. :.

.e.... i u.., 'i s-

- is '.,.,.a2 in -

CC.JT.a.

.w

.w w

values:

^

LER = 2. 0, if C0 date is ;rier to 1973,

= o.0, 17 C0 ca:a is.-._ cr later.

ina For culti-unit stati:ns, the C0 date used is -hat of the first unit in c eration. After excluding t.vo FH75 observations ire;an and v,c: nee - the chi-square values cbtained (20.9 :n 19 df and 24.0 n 21 df, f:r FH75 and SH75, respectively) indicate an adecuata fit sc Z-sc0res will be calcula:ad ac Ordingly.

CY.-

/0 1.

Total LERs_

...a r.= 3... n

..". e. r =.. =.d. i. :

'he ca n e. i s..=,.. ya*w.= r. s....= d u

i e

.o over FH and SH75 Of necessity carry Over :: -he CY75 i4. =. = ". a. r '.

s.

r."...

s r. " #. '..::.s.=....n

... a.

s. i d. =.".

'wo t.= l s.

.. 2 r.. :.F

.w... s.

s *wo.4. O ns (,.-

g-,4. w r.C

--s 1 s

.2 w e..J.

2

./.)

~. *.a#.1. ) i s r e"..a i n. i -C.

.c. $ ~.d. a. n s \\' =.X.'s u. i..C. I.

... a.a.

2.. d.

2 d

u

4..n..s 1

0.0, 2.-,

w3.s2./ 2. '.., a. s < 4 7. ]

.e.

.-2 x e.n..

2....

w 2-w a 0iJ *.

i

-.,. a

,.1

- 4

.3 '! c..J. 2

4. n 3

. s.., r e. s.

1..

4..

a ev. / Q

.e.r.L,3 n r. m -2 i

1:9 w.

==5 b

w s

2.

eCCo a.es 0:,

a.../,'i

a. :- e.

.Ni2 r a. i..s. a. - e. e u. a..

a.

2 s -,o,., e a.

3 y

-l '. :...I.V 2 '.*. V a.

.." 2 "...c.."

#. #."..,=..=.....'t.,

3

' O. " #.

3].a*

C11 i

s e..r.w..er 3r 4..-

..er..

ku t 0 *%

2.n r L, w,. m.

.n 2.r s..n.t

.ov 2

a o

n ii.

PersOnneI Er-rs 2 u ". -. = '6 2. #. * ::e i n /. l '/ '.,

ih e v a. f a. '.....=...-..,..". a.

erso nna'i a.r.. s

.. i t..w s = s '.. 4. '. =. -.=.. = r.,.

.=s...=....

to *w.,1 I.:.:.s (.,.- r.,....=.,..:,ar.,s.=..,ii,

32-,r era...n,.i

.. g er. rs. -. e-

.r...i..,1

./., l u = 2

r. +., a... e.., r..

s o

APERS = 3, if C0 prior to 1973 8, if CO in 1973 cr after,

=

.a n d

'..h a. c ". *.

c. e,". ' - a. v = '. ". a.#..r

=e-c..ess

' a-.C.',.-.

i A:

2 iii. Other Ty es of LEES 4..

, +..-..s i. s,

.c o. w.H.2 s. T. r..=/... r.s '1 s.r

.T2,

.-. s. r. s...,

C *w.w. r 1. :3.-

2 a

so.

i

..g j n *. a r a. r.s,

2.. a. =..r. y..... e..r. 3 'l

.s.r.. - e m. i..,. ~r v, e. ". C. 2 r =.

d w

i

0 i n :. r e. r... a..n...T

..v n.o..a.r..:a...a.r...s.-. see.

.. 2. 2. ?...

4..

J a

n..

2 2.

a

Appendix A c.

Summary of Resuits Table 7 summari:es the Z-sceres calcula:ed for FWR LIRs.

Table 7 Summary of Licensee Performance Analysis: ?WR LERs Total LERs Statien Personnel Pn76 5H76 CY7ei Yankee Rcwe A

3 3

3 San Cncfre A

A A

A Conn. Yankee 3

3 3

3 Ginna B

B A

3 Indian Point 2 3

A B

A Turkey 2t.

A A

B A

Palisades C

3 3

3 Robinsen C

3 3

C Pt. Beach 3

3 A

3 Ocene?

C C

Surry C

3 C

C Prairie Is.

C C

Ft.Calhoun 3

3 3

3 Three M. Is.

3 C

3 3

Zict.

3 3

Xewi;unee C

3 C

3 Maile Yankee 3

3 3

3 Ran:ho Seco A

A A

A Arkansas 3

A 3

3 C0c k C

3 3

C Ca' vert Cliffs A

A A

A Mi'.1stene 2 A

A B

A Trajan 3

C 3

C 2.

3WRs a.

.R.75 ar.d SH73 1.

Total LERs As with ?WRs, LER recuency shcws a dich:::my relat3d to age.

H0 wever, One 5 li; Oc;;rs 1~ a Ci##3 rent tite and is m0re pr0ncun03C On3.1 Wi a EMES an is als0 n;;

_ m Acpendix A.

-X

..n... u...s e t.., a.s.

nui s.a. so Consis.a.n

,Va.g. a. s.

t

.n.e.

s1

.w wihe ncmina.l va, lues, :n wnich,-se:res f:r

,u.-n, ns will be based are a

FH75: LER =

3, if do prior t: 1972, 14, if C0 in 1974 or after.

=

A SH76: LER =

3, if C0 prior to 1972, 10, if CD in 1971 or af ter.

=

After excluding Cresdan in both :erieds Inc C ::er in

~ H7 6, '..". e r. " '

s- -". =. r =. - - - ~ ~. c. c -. '. '. i. v =. '. '. =..c

'.~.#.

.'. 'i s 3

w.

.2 r

T. :. 2 e.n '14 4:

...n.d.s n a. ze., s. s :t.. (',. /.

ra.'l a w i en s..t -

=

st-u

+w ir a n r.u./ v: \\.

c

,l2.: nn 't se.

i Cr r../ C.2nw

-a a.

2 sw j

=

w b.

CY,/0 1.

Total LERs ih a. ra.c.ul.2

'..".a. ". r a. r..= d. '... ; s =.r. '. #.... l=.="

.w-

.v. '/ :.

i ncminal LER frequencies as f:i':ws:

^

L,=

c, or u0 :ric r..c,i:< -

n e,n, i t e.0 a. n t :i-cr af er

=

c Wi +.5..e o..xr o.r..i c., c. -. s o' '.'.

.q d n

a..$ c.";... -.,..- =..e. =...

e...

.= n d C w-e.r,..". a. '4.

'. s c,' i '.=..= r. =. r,"u a..= /,,v. 2 = i 'i..

a

.- r.

13 df), so I-sc:res will te based cn this reia:icnship.

11.

erscr.r.el Er*:rs n.!

, :: e ';

re :

~

. :Xs i n./C ~l,e a. e. r ers. I.~!

, e... r e

(', u n.,.,.

ww.

L.

c s o.. 3 3-.3,n in.. 2 1.7.: .s.

in3 r..... d a..s I 4

1

e. nl l r.W

.w.

-2 e.....

w

./ alt,es c6 3.

c.o. e.,....

... s..1.a

.2.,

.4 A

PERS =

4, if C0 pricr to 1974,

= 20, if CD in 1974 or after.

-s.e C. i t. s L,, r.

./.3.,.

r..i i a

.e. st.s. 4... s.. e.

4. s....,i.

u, 4.

w a...e., e n ( jl. 9 :.

.s 11

.s. s..s.e. 4..

4.. ;. e. a. e.. g e...-..e.e.

e s

0.. *i n

.1 s

o Cw+ C e er ').m 4nd4..s..m

.a n a.r. =.r.. r s s

4..

. i i.

r

Appendix A Table 3 BWR L2R Frecuencies Persennel Errer Precedural Errer Station Period C:erations Pa:n:.

inv. &..;,C: era:1cns Fa:nt.

inv. &;

FH76 6

1 2

Cresden SH76 1

5 1

2 CY76 1

11 2

4 FH76 2

2 Humboldt SH75 Say CY76 2

2 1

FH76

,1 Sig Rcck Pt.

SH76 1

2 3

1 CY76 2

2 4

1 FH76 1

1 Oyster Cr.

SH76 1

CY76 2

1 1

FH76 1

2 Nine M. Pt.

SH76 i

2 CY76 1

2 1

2 FH76 2

1 1

Millstene 1 SH75 1

2 CY75 1

2 3

1 Quad Cities FH76 1

2 1

SH76 2

1 1

CY76 2

2 2

2 FH76 Menticello SH76 1

2 CY76 1

2 FH76 2

1 1

Vt. Yankee SH76 1

1 CY76 3

2 1

FH76 6

2 2

1 Peach 5c: tem SH76 2

4 1

2 CY 7

6 6

2 1

FH76 3

1 1

Pilgrim SH76 CY76 3

1 1

~~

~

Appendix A

Table 3 (::nt'd) 5WR LER Fesquencies eersennel Er-cr Preceder21 Er-r Staticn Peried 0:ers:::rs "a;,.

i,v.. s e C:ert:::ns,- a i n t.

ir.v. i - ?.

FH76 1

Cceper SH76 1

6 1

CY76 2

6 1

FH75 3

9 3

1 Hatch SH76 6

3 1

CY76 14 12 1

3 1

FH76 9

6 4

1 Brunswick SH76 4

4 1

1 CY75 13 9

1 4

2 4

FH76 3

4 1

Cuane Arr.cid SH75 2

6 3

CY76 5

10 A

4 FH76 6

4 Fi::;atrick SH76 1

1 1

2 2

CY75 7

4 1

1 2

2 FH75 Lacr:sse SH76 1

2 1

CY76 1

2 1

Appendix A

. c.

Summary cf Results Table 9 summari:es, by A, 3, and C, and -secres f:r 3'.!R L3Rs determined fr:m the analyses cf the previcus sectier.s.

Table 9

...R L gs Summary of Licensee erf:rmance e.nalysis:

n r

Total LERs Statien Persennei FH75 sh75 0f75 Cresden C

C C

C Humboldt Say A

3 A

3 Big Rock'Pt.

3 3

C C

Oyster Cr.

3 3

Nine M. Pt. 1 3

3 3

3 Millst:ne 1 3

3 3

3 Quad Cities 3

3 3

3 Menticell 3

A B

A Vt. Yankee 3

3 3

3 e 2 r. w. =. e......

3

,a, 3

3 Pilgrim 3

3 A

3 C:::er A

A 3

A Hat:h C

C 3

C 3runswick 2 3

C 3

3 Cuane rnc..ic e

3 3

s Fit: patrick A

A A

A Lacrosse 3

A 3

3 veasures D.

Cverall :erf:r ance In order :: ::tain an Overall :erf:r ance reasure, the in:fvicuai

. I l c.W i ".": W.2,V.

..-.'"."..'."a

% " r $. s W a. r a. " " ~.. ' #. 1.: d.

J 2~.

a e r. o. r*....*.*. "..* ~.. $. 2.* ". *. *.

. 'i. a..-.=..r a n.d d e #. i. '. =. e.v. s w-.*. =.= w. = r. e.

.... '.. =.. ". v 6 a. i :... -

'4 n. =..=.'..

y a

..n

./a.e,l'.

a.-.,a. : r o-. r.e....

.1' n. e. c e. s.

.. a. - s w. e a., u>.<..a. a. n..-....i.-.=s.

w b s.., t..

w s

s.

%s

.. '1 "t

'..d 7 - s c " #.$. #.

r '. ". ' s... '.

2..' "..i s '..' ': $.

w n..".

2.

d a. '. ~:.~. ~. =. ".

A

~

r a ' ',. '.w* #.

In

.2

^ #.

~..".A.

c. ] w J ].,.m. A.,. a. s.

s ".1. i s r.* *~-...$ 'i#.'*.".

".,Y d #. V. ". #..*. *3"e y'

.".5

..~".2.**.

4 i...

s t,..

j-o w.

s

. - e.

... a.

-..dy s..n. S

4.. i 4..y 4

w.s. 4a.s.s 1.

a e

a.d

.a..e.

o..r. r. e. X s

s...

s Suq. o f e w-... r e. s e i n.:

-./c.r,l i y,.r.

r ~.,...,

..o.,.aw

.s,,.

..-.... s.

4.,.

..i,.

.e.

c..o <i c e, a,.n. 4.,:...

a.,.

w

.2 Cha:ter I':.

Appendix 3 Sensitivity Analysis of Weichting : actors The overall licensee :erf:rmance measure, ex;ressed as a Z-secre, is obtained by taking a linear c:: ina icn f the Z-sc:res f r infracticns, deficiencies, anc LERs. Table i sh:ws the wei n s used in :nis linear a. i. 3 o. s,. n,.... i. c.+, r m. e u *i. : - -,:: =.,..

e -,.

+

c.-b <i n..i c n

,.n d

..u.,.

r...c.a-n

..o,

.m 2

r

.w.

w.

-.= 't a. d. --..*..='...a.ir en the ova.r*ll 7-s.-.ra..

o" c +..=....=.... a.w. a. i...a-

= r a.

2w

=w 3

sum of squares ecuals 1.0.

ints is so tha:.the evera,il,-s: Ore will be c

~= 's.

i,

~5.. 'a s,

cc...ra r =..-l a.

.-... a.

=..'....= r d.

n.c -m.= 'i d e. s.. e. " u ' '. n.

i.i

.= n i

increase in II.1: by 1.0 resu.ts in the everall Z increasing by 0.93; ZDEF increasing by 1.0 results in a 0.19 increase in everall Z; anc the effect of ZLER cn everall Z is 0.32.

Table 1 Weights en Z-Sc res ar.d Resulting Effect en Cverali I-Sc:re Performarce "easure Wt 1 Wt 2 Wt 1 x Wt 2 Infracticns (ZI."4.:)

5/ \\/25 0.93 3/ T/io Ceficiencies (Z:E.:)

1/s/lif 0.19 LERs (ZLER) 1/ s/10 0.22 ih e cb.. 4..=.

. wei 3..2b - d.s

".ae-d...'."-..c.r.'..

.=2

..- '.. ". =. r a. i. =.. '. v =

'o.. v-. -

.c o

.= ". =. r. : =. a.

3..r.~'.. e i.n d =.v 'i *..... s #....

a n.c a. whi.h e.".uid. ". =. =...'.".a.d.

w r..

--...a

=. X. =..n. =.. 'i.. ' rv.

...=.=2"..=.2,.'n.

.=s a"w.i i2. w-t h e. *..".. a. a.

- a. r #....=.. c. =

sv p

.w 4..,,....,.

s. 4..

s.

4

. i. 3...../,.

4. :...

-r c r. u.s.

2..<

...,r..-,ae..,

2, 54......

..a

...w m.

" a. r a. =. d. 'i y =. V.2 '.. -

i T'r, a.

a.f #. a... ~ #.

= ~..f.-...=.r c...4...=. #.

s. 'i...a u.' -o

', a bl e ?..

n

~="'3 7

..,s b.y

3., ] 'i w y j r...,

e.. r-...'. C.

i..i The effects shcwn in Tables 1 ar.d 2 are in terms of Z-sceres. The

-+.,....i..=.s.

.:. u.,. :r,.,.L.e n n.,.s v.:.

...--la.,.

c.,s = s., :a.

.a e f :.,.C. s i n.,,...a.

....~..s o

r a. r.., 'i i i n c.......- s.- - " a. s =. r $.

s. a a c... '..'. 'i,'/ - '.'....- c.. s. #.

-..$. d..' r " ". c ". d..'. '....?

'i k,,y 2

.~.~..#....

.... ". 2.."i. ' $. s.

.- ~.~.'."'..3.- d..'..',

=.. d.

~..".a. 0. '..t

= b wV s.

o r ". a. 't w *..". a.

o 2.

w e,i n.

no..a 1l.

.2.

.a./.s.4 n is..,

e-..,,,

Cis t.

,J.1wn,

.a.,

e. s e e..s e.

-s

.iv

..... w w...

o.

w.

...o

.s,sw.tue In.:

.=.e.~stX.

m,

-. e.. 4.,, "i n o

... 'i i.,.e. c,.

1. ~s t.: A :,,,.. n e.

i. e..

.s e..,.,..

s C ns.,n..,

w.o..,,...,.,. :... a. w o-e.

n. :. s.. n. a..,, ;, u,, a.

w

...a

..........e

. e.. e,. a.

,nn..

s, -,.,

n

~..

.= r~ e~c. '. c.q.= 1 v~ #. #. *..a.

J.a.w a.v a.

, s w-... e..-'.'

a*.= ". =. -'. e s s.- ' n.

=..s=...-

$*...=.

d a

3 idea of the sensitivity Of :verall Z : n nc:cpliances and LERs.

.= ".... 1. 4 1nf r.a c'. d.

r.

.. a..". a.r.c '. = s,

. r '.w.*.. W.. s.=.. ".:.'.o...-.= v e. r = c =. d.

1

".. m../. :.

w i i..e..r.

4. q.

4

.. m. p,2 j.n:, g. 3 a.

, p j. w j.a.... r.

4. w p.

'..op.2.

9 4

. y o. r. s. :.

a..

.w

.r...

.s

4. 2

.4

2cV-wC.. r 2, e.,. e., o. o..r., e e.,.. 4...., *i n.

,e

e. r...../.

4...,>

Wa s w,. w L,.

t w.

,w*, i,. -

..,n, 4

4 a beu. *i s:.

w.,s.

...n. e....,, s.

,,/..,. 4.. n i s.....

4,....

i s.

is 2..n

>=.c.e.,, s,.

e. :., - -, -

1' 3 :.., e.. a...n..a. 4. 'i. -, e.. 'i. 4 o-1

...,., e =.

-.,' i. c,. #.

. = *.

in wVa.r_='l ~. w#. 0.0'/1 = 0.?.^.

" b " s, i.

1. *.'w'i.' '.. ' >. =..=

i 2s.

a in

~

n e. a. X., -. i,..

s..

e.,. e,....

, 3

.,s

. n w /,.,., '. i.

i n T, C. z, n s -

.~e./,.

v, v.

.m

.s o

Appendix 3 '

Table 2 Alternative Weights On I-Sc res and Resulting Effects en Overall Z-Sc:re Perfe mance Measure Wt. 1 Wt 2 Wt 1 x Wt 2 A ZI iF 2/ 6 0.85 3/ VTO ZOE?

1/ 6 0.42 ZLER 1/ W 0.32

~

B ZI;{?

8/ V65 0.94 3/ { M ZCEF 1/ V65 0.12 ZLER 1/ (III 0.32 C ZI:{F 2/ 6 0.53 ZCEF 1/ 6 0.32

~

ZLER 1/ {T C.71 0 ZI?iF 5/ V55 0.59 1/ Y 2 IcEF 1/ VTT 0.14 ZLER 1/ yT 0.71 E ZI:i?

S/ YTI 0.70 ZCEF 1/ YTE 0.59 ZLER 1/ yT 0.71 p

G ee e

Appendix 3 Ncminal deficiency frecuencies varied Over Regions ar.d reac::r ty:es,

.v =. =.

T.. ". s

..". =. s.#. #. s. e... '.

".u *. a.v a r.=. a s. =. -. ". 9. a r. s..=.4..r.

v a r... a.

=

decrease of cr.e deficiency is increase everall I ty 0.19/3 = 0.05.

Cnly in carginal cases ::uic a swing :f a few ceficiencies result in ne overall Z-scere ::ving fr:m :ne ca ascry : ane:ner.

The average number of LERs varies ::nsidera:iy, but a r: ugh :verall

.cr this average of 5 LIRs is ade:uate for use in evalua-ing sensitivi y.

average, a decrease of :ne LER results in an ir. crease in Overail I of 0.32/ sXs = 0.13.

Thus, an LER has abcut twice One effe: of a deficiency and half that of an infraction.

These relative weign s are fel: :: be reascnable and appr:priate ana 'Or :nese reasons were used.

e h

m

y

[ jp g {

a.m o r.sm fiUCLE AR REGUL Al ORY CO:.U.UsSto!J Ulpp

/;i. c s/. c was siuc T o.,. o. c. 2cscs

'N.SY[

]

y p

Heb. b M Dear j

The enclosed Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff paper, POLICY SESSION ITEl.' (SECY-78-554, dated October 25,1978) with subject "Licerisee Regulatory perform 5nce Evaluation" describes three approaches tried by the HRC staff -for evaluating the ' regulatory performance of.op'erating nuclear power plants.

These approEches were preliminary cfforts tmicrd developing a technique for evaluating the regulatory per-formance of N:10 licensees on a rietionwide basis.

The staff has requested Com,ission approval of a two-year trial program to further develop and test an evaluation technio,ue.

l

}

If successful, licer.see regulatory performance evaluatien should give

!iRC staff the ability, on a nationaids basis, to distinp'cish benteen i.

levels of.licencee regulttory performance.

This could iei.c to more l

effective use of the acency's inspection and :mforceant resources and to identification of plants that need further exar.in:, tion by the agency.

The NRC staff emphasi.res that, while an evaluation progrc:a may be

{

useful in focusing staff attention of the plants that 6c7 art from the l

performance of th.e majority of plants, the menns of assuring adecyacy e

of plant safety will not be changed.

This assurance 'il' continus to rest on detailed reviews of plant operations by tne Ofi :ce of. Nuclear l

Reactor Regulation and plant-by-plan judgments made as a result of l

inspections by the Office of Inspection and Enicrcement.

The three evaluation approaches which have been tried are:

J

.s

}

.1.

The " statistical method," based on evaluating te eecures ef; 4

'., performance: the number of noncomoliance finding r:d the nu'.$#,

j of events, considered directly controllable by the licensee of the total events required to be reported to the IT,C.

These f

1

=

t

. ' ctors then were weighed by taking into account such things as the severity of the items of noncompliance and the amount of staf f inspection time required to identity individual items of noncompliance.

Under the statistical method, reactors or sites were identified as being in one of three groups - A, B, C.

2.

The " trend analysis method," based on a detailed review of ' events which licensees are required to report to the iiRC.

An effort then was made to identify trends, repetitive problems, or those linked to similar causes.

3.

The " regional sursey method," which collected expressions of opinion of fccilities by HRC inspectors and regional management.

For the trial effort, HRC field inspector personnel were asked i

to express the:selves on a scale, frcm acceptable to exceptional, about factors concerning operating reactors.

t The Staff Paper, SECY-78-Sa4 and its-enclosure including the reports describing the apprce.chts tricd by the NRC staff, are enclosed.

These i

documents are being sent to each licensee whose facility is mentioned in the paper or reports and to other individuals exprcssing an interest in this matter.

Copies, also, have been placed in the URC's Public Document Roon, 3717 H Street, N.U., Washington, D.C., and the Commission's P.egional Offices--G21 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; Suite 3100,101 l'Orietta Street, Atlantr., Georgia; 799 Rooseveit Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois Suite 1000, 611 Ryen Plaza Drive, Arlington, Texas; i

and Suite 202, ~1910 !c"th California Boulevard, Walnut Creek, California.

I Sincerely,

Enclosure:

USNRC Policy Sesslon Item, SECY-78-554, dtd 13/L5/78, w/encls.

~

S e

.- A

=

October 25, 1978 SECY-78-554 rm sans NUCLEAR REGULATORY CoMMISSloN He w

=

POLICY SESSION ITEM Qq g

nr Y

LN ic TY a:

For:

The Comissioners From:

John G. Davis, Acting Director M

Office of Inspection and Enforcement 3=-

hf Thru:

Executive Director for Operations / 1 d

.]

Subject:

LICENSEE REGULATORY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Purcose:

The purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission regarding the status of efforts by the Office of Inspec-tion and Enforcement in licensee regulatory performance evaluation and to obtain Cc= mission approval of a two-p year trial program.

N g

Discussion:

IE has been working to develop techniques for evaluating IL the regulatory performance of NRC licensees for several f-years, with intensified effort over the last two years.

m

" Regulatory performance," is ineant to convey the ability of the licensee to meet regulatory requirements and to avoid reportable events that appear to be directly under the control of the licensee.

" Regulatory performance" T

does not involve reliability, availability, earnings, or y

other measures which may be used to measure performance.

y Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation (LRPE) is the effort to evaluate the regulatory perfomance of licensees

=

on a national basis.

It has as its objectives:

g Identification of factors that lead to different levels of regulatory performance.

F Effectiva and efficient use of NRC inspection resources.

w Information from the evaluation process also t.an be used M

to evaluate aspects of the NRC inspection program, p

b Et E=

Ccntact:

M H. D. Thornburg, RCI g

4g-28484 jQl [ U ]Q D 0 L

~

\\

=

[2

-2

==c The basic method of LRPE is to identify licensees whose GM regulatory perfomance is most different from the majority

E

of licensees in the same class.

These "different" 225 licensees are examined on a case-by-case basis to 2

identify the characteristics that lead to the differences.

==

Actions then can be taken, if needed, to upgrade licensee

!=s regulatory perfomance.

The thrust of LRPE is an upgrading,

'51 as appropriate, of perfomance.

g The enclosed paper, entitled " Licensee Regulatory h

Performance Evaluation," defines the concept of licensee 5.

regulatory perfomance, describes why IE wants to evaluate

[.?!

it, and suggests the uses that may be made of the results.

m:

The paper also describes the evaluation approaches that

'l.7 IE has considered and offers some ideas how IE may 1:=;-

develop and use an " integrated methodology" that incor--

j.~~

porates selet ted aspects of each of the three methods ir considered to date.

Finally, the paper provides a p

sumary of value-impact considerations and plans and

'E~~

schedules for future actions.

Defining and agreeing upon the reasons for LRPE and suitable methods for its conduct have been difficult.

Concepts and positions have been modified as new insights 7

are developed.

Staff agreement still has not been achieved. The results of efforts in LRPE have not been b;.=

made public.

No public nor industry comments have been requested.

IE management believes that the potential e

benefits--resource management and performance upgrading--

1 are sufficient to move forward into a trial program of j

LRPE.

~=. ;

IE proposes to implement a trial program for evaluating M

the operating reactor licensees on the basis of 1978 and 3;

1979 data.

As the program proceeds, IE will monitor its W

results to identify changes which may be needed.

An M

interoffice steering group will be appointed for the fg trial program in December 1978.

The trial is scheduled

=

for completion in December 1980.

By March 1981, IE will

=

evaluate the trial and report to the Commission with F

recomendations for adopting LRPE as an ongoing program-g@

matic effort, modifying the trial program, or abandoning g

this approach to evaluation.

5 5EM

~ 17

.,y.....

.*,mee.

be.eo.--

. + * * -

==ee.mi m.ene.am.

.. =.

T.1"O.

t..

==

The documents upon which this staff paper is based (these

.jB are listed in Attachment 1 to the enclosed paper) have

=

been treated as predecisional information.

Upon Commis-rg sion approval of the trial program, IE recommends that

=-

these documents be released to the Public Document Room.

M The necessary logistics probably will take about 10 days.

g Coordination:

The Office of Management and Program Analysis and Standards Development concur.

The Office of Nuclear Material Safety 32 and Safeguards has no objection to the proposed program.

gp NRR concurs with the intended objectives of the trial program.

However, because the mechanism by which these objectives are to be achieved has not yet been developed, g

NRR cannot offer a view as to the overall acceptability.

k Accordingly, NRR recommends that the overall program be p=

subjected to periodic program office review.

f._

The Executive Legal Director has no legal objections.

l p

s

=-

~

n, l

.?

?.

John G. Davir Fr A'cting Director F

Office of Inspection E

and Enforcement

[

Enclosure:

h

" Licensee Regulatory

!C _

Perfonnance Evaluation b=

Paper"

=i p%l i#

. = = -

This paper is scheduled for consideration at an Open Meeting during the Week 3

of October 23, 1978.

Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission i;W Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.

g EX)

==

DISTRIBUTION Commi ssioners

};g Commission Staff Offices Egg Exec Dir for Operations EE Regional Offices 3==

Secretariat

~...

7:.*:

LICENSEE REGULATORY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION A REVIEW 0F PAST EFFORTS, STATUS, AND FUTURE PLANS

=M Introduction

=

==

By the term " licensee regulatory performance" the Office of Inspection

=

and Enforcement (IE) means the ability of a licensee to meet regulatory

;

requirements and to avoid events whose occurrence appear to be directly

=Jr.

controllable by the licensee.

This does not include availability, 555 reliability, earnings, or other measures sometimes used to evaluate the jyi:

performance of utilities.

r==

p The Office of Inspection and Enforcement (IE) has been working to develop techniques for evaluating the regulatory performance on a nationwide p-basis since early 1976.1 Studies of various techniques have revealed J_

draw backs that have precluded adoption of any one technique.

Yet, IE

~"=

management believes that the ability to distinguish between various levels of licensee regulatory performance will give NRC a better basis for managing IE's inspection resources, by focusi-, inspection effort where it is most needed, and for identifying licensees whose performance T;

should be examined.

IE believes that a trial program should be initiated to further develop an acceptable technique and to test the technique.

This paper defines the concept of licensee regulatory performance, describes why IE wants to evaluate it, and suggests a number of uses that may be made of licensee regulatory performance evaluation (LRPE)

F~

resul ts.

The paper also describes the LRPE approaches that have already

~

been considered by IE and offers some ideas of how IE may develop and use an " integrated methodology" that includes, but may not be limited

==

to, selected aspects of each of the th"ee methods considered to date.

=

Finally, the paper provides a summary of the costs and benefits of LRPE and a schedule for completion of identified milestones.

1 A review of the regulatory practices of other agencies has been conducted 33 by Teknekron, Inc. under contract to IE.

An initial survey of inspection eiE and enforcement programs of twenty agencies revealed the following:

j.;;

- 16 identified some kinds of criteria that could be used to

-31 assess their own effectiveness 4

- 7 have an assessment process that was a clearly defined element

. i of program policy.

M EE.

- 4 compare regulated facilities in terms of performance

};((

- 7 use ratings in absolute terms.

p Ref:

NUREG/CR-0051 Vol. 1.

I i

Purpose and Objectives f

Licensee Regulatory Perfomance Evaluation (LRPE) is an attempt to

[

systemize, on a formal basis, a method of evaluating the performance of j;;

licensees, in a regulatory sense, on a nationwide basis.

==

eili The objectives of LRPE are:

y M

Identification of factors that lead to different levels of regulatory perfomance q.;

Effective and efficient use of t1RC inspection measures Informaticn from the evaluation process also can be used to evaluate aspects of the iiRC inspection program.

l tp Conceptually, the results of LRPE could be general groupings of licensees

(

according to their perfcrmance.

Most probably there will be three i

groupings (1) a " majority grouping"of licensees that include the average perfomance (2) a " majority +" grouping that performs better than the

[

majority grouping and (3) a " majority

" grouping that does not perfom L

as well as the majority grouping.

[_

If LRPE is successful, it would enable IE to identify on a national

=-

basis:

F V[

1.

A group of licensees that appear not to perform as well as most others.

These licensees then could be examined to determine:

Whether, in fact, their performance is not as good as others.

Whether the level of performance is general within the plant's operations or specific to certain areas of the plant operations.

Causes for the level of perfomance.

~~'

Corrective actions to improve perfomance.

:

2.

A group of licensees that appear to perfom better than others.

These licensees then could be examined to determine:

Whether, in fact, their performance is better.

If it is better, what are the factors that influence or cause

1. .5 the perfonnance.

p.-

Z.7..

. i=

If the technique proves successful, LRPE could be used in several wt ie:

=

1.

Managing of IE resources by directing various levels of inspection attention according to groupings.

W WT 2.

Identifying the characteristics of the " majority +" perfoming D5 licensees so that the industr could have access to these charac-55.

teristics (if not proprietary for improvement.

[55 p

3.

Identifying causes of " majority

" performance and focusing on p

causes so that improvement could be realized.

4.

Informing the public and licensees, in a summary fashion, on a I

periodic basis of the licensees' regulatory performance.

5.

Serving as a basis for periodic meetings between NRC regional management and licensee management for discussions of licensee j7 perfomance.

[h In addition, LRPE will give IE management the ability to manage this

[~:

"further examination" rather than rely to a high degree on regional judgments which by their very nature lack a national perspective.

D()

Backaround Over the years, a form of licensee regulatory performance evaluation has i"

been done on a individual licensee basis.

The manner in which a plant has perfomed against regulatory requirements has been reviewed, on a case-by-case basis, as a part of the routine innpection effort.

Differences in inspection attention given by IE to licensees has been determined largely by the " problems" the licensee encounters and usually has been done on a regional rather than national basis.

There has been no fomal 3

program for considering licensee performance on a national basis, and

=

little program for reacting to licensee perfomance other than specific reaction to identified areas when IE believes improvement is needed.

g In trying to systemize a method to evaluate the regulatory performance of NRC licensees, IE has undertaken three separate efforts, each involving a distinct approach.

The first, which can be described as the " Statistical Method," produces single-valued dimensionless ratings (or Z-scores) for each licensee in a given class (in this case, operating reactors) that

=

reflect relative numbers and types of noncompliances.

The numbers of those Licensee Event Reports (LERs) attributable to personnel and procedural errors and the extent of personnel exposures and effluent f~~

releases attributed to each individual licensee are also considered.

~M

i The second approach, which can be characterized as a " Trend Analysis r.

Method," involves detailed examination of licensee events, identification of those events that are repetitive or " causally-linked," and an evalua-e.-

tion of the responsiveness of each licensee's management in reacting to

.(

such events.

g The third approach, the " Regional Survey Method," is more subjective; it d

involves a compilation of the qualitative judgments of regional managers W

and inspectors on a number of factors associated with the safety and

~~

security of licensed facilities. Work on these three approaches has

=

been accomolished both in-house and under contract and reports developed.2 More detailed descriptions of each of these methods are provided below.

Although the basic data used for the " Statistical Method" and " Trend Analysis Method" are available in publicly available i

records, the reports themselves have previously been treated as " pre-i decisional" information.

Licensee Reculatory Perfomance Considerations i

Experience, thus far, shows us that the data and other influences make perfomance evaluation and the attendant assignment of licensees to any groupings imprecise.

The concept of performance, like the concept of safety itself, is elusive.

Consequently, any grouping, particularly at this stage of development of LRPE, should be considered, at best, a

" director of attention," pointing IE's attention at a group of licensees worthy of more specific examination.

I I

A hazard of proceeding into LRPE is that the groupings would be considered to sharply distinguish between the safety of operations of plants.

Our efforts thus far do not support this.

The fact that a licensee appears in the "maj&ity " grouping does not mean in a quantifiable sense that the licensee is less safe than licensees in the " majority" and " majority 4" groupings.

The groupings give IE management the ability, on a national level, to identify licensees for further examination aiming at improvemeat if necessary.

g Each pirr is subjected, on a plant-by-plant basis, to a fomally described h

and cor.ccted inspection program and continuing review by the Office of s

Nuclea; Reactor Regulation.

The plant is evaluated, on a continuing f'

basis, as to its ability to operate with regard to safety.

The NRC is charged with the protection of the public.

Hence, the continuatior. of authority to operate a plant attests to the judgment of the NRC that the Q

plant is operating with adequate safety.

LRPE does not change that g

judgment.

g 2A list of License Performance Evaluation reports is provided ir.

Attacheent 1.

The tendency in an approach such as LRPE is to focus on the " majority "

group.

However, IE has a strong interest in the " majority +" group.

IE

=_

intends also to examine those licensees on an individual basis to deter-

1=

mine whether their grouping is appropriate.

If so, IE hopes to identify thii the characteristics, within these operations, which contribute to these h

" majority +" regulatory performances.

If these factors can be identified C..

they should be publicized (unless proprietary) for the benefit of the i.EE i ndustry.

H A second hazard of LRPE is that it could -- because it involves compara-E tive grouping rather than absolute assessments -- become a constant "ratcheting" technique.

Comparatively, some group of licensees could always appear " majority ".

As experience is gained in LRPE, an attempt will be made to identify a " threshold" above which no special actions would be taken by IE. The goal of LRPE and the IE actions would be to achieve an industry-wide condition where all licensees remain above such a threshold.

Summary of Licensee Perfomance Evaluation Methods The Statistical Method is a technique developed in-house that was applied to the evaluation of operating reactor licensees.

The analysis is based r

upon four measures of perfomance:

numbers of noncompliance findings, numbers

' licensee-controllable events, amount of effluent releases, r-and amounts of personnel exposures.

For each of these measures, each licensee's perfomance is described relative to that of the other licensees in the same class. This relative perfomance is then converted to dimensionless ratings, or 2-Scores, for each licensee.

An overall rating (Z-Score) is obtained by computing a subjectively weighted sum of i

ratings for each of the four factors.

The methodoiogy at. ommodates different severity levels of noncompliance and adjusts nor. compliance l.

ratings to account for differences in the amount of HRr inspection time required to identify the noncompliance in esch case.

The Statistical Method resulted in each lw.ensee receiving a numerical b

score.

Licensees could be given a relative ranking based on these scores.

This was not the intent of this method; however, the ability to

=

rank licensees relative to their peer group is inherent in a statistical 7

approach to licensee evaluation. The assignment of a level of precision, which could lead to such a ranking is neither supported by the technique nor the data used in the calculations.

Concerns about this methodology expressed by various staff members are:

C

.W l.

One product of the evaluation, a single-valued ranking of licensees,

~ 9 =.

may not be warranted by the precision of the data and is affected

==~

by the subjective weighting of factors.

. 2.

Numbers of items of noncompliance may not adequately describe the w._

level of safety or security of a licensed facility.

Variations

=

among licensees in the significance of noncompliance will affect the quality of the Z-scores.

p 3.

Inspection differences between regions and individual inspectors f=l may mask the relacive performance of the various licensees or be p

inseparable from licensee performance.

p 4.

Requirements for the various licensees (i.e., technical specifica-tions) may vary significantly enough to render the number of items of noncompliance an inadequate measure of performance.

1 L

5.

Other exogenous variables may make it difficult to isolate the

[

impact of LRPE on licensee perfomance, e.g.

Revised Inspection Program, pending increase in civil penalty authority.

n

~

Each of these concerns involves judgment and differences of " degree";,

each has been considered at length by staff.

Despite these differences

=

of opinion, some aspects of the Statistical Method should be considered in any LRPE method.

First, noncompliance findings are a direct output of NRC's regulatory program; no LRPE method is complete without some consideration of noncompliance findings.

If there are some regulatory deficiencies that detract from the meaningfulness of noncompliance a

findings (e.g., nonuniformity, variations in safety significance), then these regulatory weaknesses should be corrected or acknowledged as impacting LRPE accuracy.

Numbers of noncompliance findings, are believed to be reasonable indicators of licensee regulatory performance.

I The Trend Analysis Method is an approach developed by Teknekron, Incor-porated under contract to IE.

This method involves detailed subjective I

analysis of LERs for the purpose of categorizing them as " facility" problems reflecting reliability or similar problems beyond the direct E

control of the licensee, or as " personnel" or " management" problems that I:

reflect human failure.

By separating all LERs as to the reactor sub-system in which they occur and by analyzing patterns of LERs for each subsystem, Teknekron believes it is possible to identify trends of repetitive or " causally-linked" LERs that characterize a marginal h-perfomer and may allow NRC to predict the occurrence of actual IT incidents.

.2'6"..

Staff concerns about this Trend Analysis Approach are that its predictive h

capability has not been established because Teknekron has conducted only

=h a limited number of case studies based only on historical data, that it

=E-may be costly in terms of manpower required to conduct such analy;.es on a routine basis for all major NRC licensees, and that the NRC automated data base may not be complete enough to support the analysis at present.

E The main advantage of the method is that it is based on analysis of bI actual safety or security related events.

Some treatment of these

otentially significant events, at an appropriate level of-detail,

=

should be considered in any LRPE approach taken in the future.

F=

??=

The Recional Survey Method involves the assessment of each facility by Efhi NRC inspectors and regional management.

The judgments of other NRC grg staff members familiar with the facilities may be appropriate for future 4r efforts.

In the only effort of this type undertaken to date, IE obtained the assistance of Hay Associates, in developing a questionnaire and conducting a survey of those employees involved in inspection of operating reactors.

Each survey recipient was asked to assess the "importance to y

safety" of a number of potential rating factors.

Then, each inspector and regional manager was asked to rate each of the operating reactor

[

sites he was familiar with in terms of its:

(1) overall safety (on a scale of " acceptable" to " exceptional"), (2) site safety in specific e

areas of operation, and (3) the stringency of its requirements.

Each recipient was encouraged to offer narrative comments on the safety of.

each site.

In many cases there was a significant variation in the i-rating of a given facility by individual inspectors.

t-Subjective judgments of selected NRC staff members are an important F

element in any LRPE program, because the people who work with plant l

employees and facilities on a frequent basis often have insights into l7" performance that are not immediately apparent in an isolated review of I

noncompliance and licensee event data.

Yet, the Regional Survey Method j

should be recognized for what it is -- collected opinions.

As any opinion survey, care must be exercised in its use.

The opinions are L

subjective and may be affected by the make up of the individual.

They E

may not be clearly supportable by fact.

Also, the judgments may be unduly influenced by the "last contact" with the licensee and the personality of licensee representatives.

Even with those concerns judgments of qualified HRC employees are highly valued by NRC and IE F

management in making operating and program decisions; a systematic and explicit compilation of these judgments will be a valuable component of any LRPE program.

NI~N As indicated above, each of the three LRPE methods had strengths and shortcomings in the view of the IE Staff.

The results of tne Trend Analysis Method especially with the present limited sample cannot be compared with the results of the remaining two methods, the Statistical

==

Method and the Regional Survey Method.

The results of the latter two

==

methods did not agree completely.

For these reasons it was apparent z.23 that a method should be adopted that takes advantage of the strengths

^*

and compensates for the shortcomings of the methods attempted to date.

sJE

=

i.

E'

=

Accordingly, IE believes that an Intecrated Approach is needed for Licensee Regulatory Perfomance Evaluation.

This method could include what IE considers the best portions of the Statistical Method, the R"

principles of the Trend Analysis Method, the general approach of the i

Regional Survey Method and other techniques to be developed.

A liceCsee's regulatory perfomance might best be described by a combination of

~~..

factual and interpretive infomation.

The factual component of per-M fomance could include the licensee's noncompliance history over the period, a description of significant licensee events, any escalated enforcement sanctions taken by NRC against the licensee, a description of management meetings held between NRC and licensee management, and any other information considered pertinent to the licensee's perfomance.

It should be noted that enforcement history would be factored into LRPE.

Future enforcement action would not be predicated on LRPE, but rather

[

would remain based upon the specifics of noncompliance at issue. The interpretive component of the perfomance evaluation could include the t'

Region's assessment of the significance of all the factual infomation i

and a general description of inspection activity planned during the nexu i

year by the Region to cause improved regulatory perfomance.

Included

[:

in the Region's assessment could be an assessment of the significance of

[

the licensee's noncompliance.

During development of the Integrated Approach a foremost concern will be g.

whether the results provide a true measure of licensee performance.

~

Qualifications of the validity of results will be articulated.

f:

These integrated analyses would be documented in a report that would be made available to licensees, the NRC staff, and the public.

The results b

of these analyses will be used as a basis for periodic meetings with h

selected licenses.

[

Value-Imoact Considerations Licensee performance evaluations have been perfomed in the past by both

=

Headquarters and Regional staffs using a variety of techniques.

By consolidating these fragmented efforts, IE will be able to systematically

=

conduct these necessary evaluations within existing resources.

An estimated 3 man years per year will be used to develop, conduct and

.=

evaluate the trial program.

IE does not believe that the adoption of a systematic LRPE process will have any direct resource impacts on licensees, excluding possible costs to the licensee to upgrade his performance.

hi i

i

-9 IE believes that the benefits of being able to evaluate licensee

=.

regulatory performance could provide a means for improved management of

=

inspector resources and for identifying factors to be use' for upgrading

5 of regulatory performance as appropriate.

~y Plans and Schedule

-[

.=

If approved, IE intends to move promptly to develop the Integrated

((.5 Approach to Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation.

The integrated

.=

cpproach will serva as a basis for the Trial Program using 1978 and 1979 data. As the Trial Program proceeds, its progress will be monitored and

~~

modifications made as appropriate.

By March 1981, a report to the

==

Commission will present an evaluation of the Trial Program and recom-mendations concerning LRPE.

IE will document the findings of the Trial Program in three reports ---

[

one for the 1978 analysis of operating reactors, one for the 1979 analysis,

[. =

and one assessing the LRPE Trial Program.

Each of these will be made.

available to the public.

H Milestones associated with these plans are:

Before December 1978 Release existing LRPE reports to the PDR i

December 1978 Appoint interoffice steering group for Trial Program February 1979 Initial Trial Methodology for Integrated Approach complete

j. '

April 1979 First report (for 1978 data) complete April 1980 Second report (for 1979 data) coniplete December 1980 Assessment of Trial Program complete

=

March 1981 Report tu Commission on LRPE k

h.::..;E M2

~

i

...m...

The Licensee Regulatory Performance Evaluation Reports prepared by and for IE and listed below:

E 1.

Draft Report - An Evaluation of the Nuclear Safety-Related b

Management Performance of NRC Operating Reactor Licensees During

.T;_

1976 - February 1977, E. Morris Howard, Project Director.

[fg ge 2.

Update of Draft Report - September 26, 1977, E. Morris Howard to p

E. Volgenau.

3.

Individual Site Ratings from the IE Employee Survey on Evaluation

~

of Licensees - April 1978, S. K. Conver, IE Study Group.

4.

Licensee Perfomance Evaluation, Phase I Report, NUREG/CR-0110, Teknekron, Inc. - May 1978.

e..

-ee.

' yh..

s

l b

lj

4

..a

.i 1

, O 4

+

g i

i

.)

s i

.. i

.i

./

LICENSEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION l

/

/'

s s

N

'A

.s

\\

/'

i

\\

3 DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:

g Teknekron, Inc ano $79/80749'26 W A S H I N G TO N, 0.C.

No. of pages:

) }./

~

.- 'J

-'~

-

ML19256A887

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

,

>=>2e==t

Enclosure:

Subject:

E

Enclosure:

;

:

Navigation menu

ML19256A887

Text

SUBJECT:

Enclosures:

,

>=>2e==t

Enclosure:

Subject:

E

Enclosure:

;

:

Navigation menu

Search