ML20055G578
| ML20055G578 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/13/1990 |
| From: | Mike Williams NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Novak T NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007230337 | |
| Download: ML20055G578 (4) | |
Text
_
- /
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
?
o e
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 206b6
%..ee /
JUL 131890 e
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Director Division of Safety Programs Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data FROM:
' ark H. Williams, Chief Irends and Patterns Branch Division of Safety Programs Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF RECENT MEEllNG WITH NUMARC AND INPO ON THE MAINTENANCE INDICATOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT On June, 26,1990, a meeting was held between NUMARC, INPO, and the NRC staff regarding the Maintenance Indicoct Demone' ration Project. The attendees are listed in the enclosure. The issues discussed focussed on two draft reports'. These reports document the basis for the proposed NRC maintenance effectiveness indicator and the basis for the industry's objection to the implementation of the indicator. The followir.g points summarize the meeting.
The meeting was opened with brief comments relative to the extensive effort and cooperation exhibited by the NRC and industry participants during the joint review of the proposed indicator.
INPO stated that NRC's use of the NPRDS to generate this performance indicator would adversely impact the utility voluntary reporting to the system. This would 3
Evaluation of the NRc Proposed Maintonarco Effectiveness indicator. Dret. transmmed by letter from T. Tipton, NUMARC to T. Novak, NRC.
AEOD/S804C, Maintenance indicator Demonstration Project. Draft. May,1990 900723o337 ~00713 FC 1 PDR REVGP ERGNUMRC I
PDC ll(
affect their analysis tools, such as CFAR, and the associated industry self-l improvement initiative.
NRC noted that the indicator utilized only the two highest failure classes that are submitted to NPRDS. Preventative maintenance activities should not be deterred since the reporting of incipient failures (failures prior to significant functional effects) were not trc.cked.
The NRC indicated that because of the scops problem with this indicator, and the difficulty of comparability between plants, it would be inappropriate for the staff to recommend its adoption as a *Maintanance Effectiveness Indicator". The NRC believes that the data does provide useful insights into maintenance trends at an individual plant and that a trend of aggregated data across all plants gives insights into industry trends related to maintenance.
The NRC stated that a major difference between the NRC and NUMARC positions lies in the failures attributed to maintenance by the industry and NRC staff. INPO noted that they would attribute some of the failures to their global definition of engineering (" big E") rather than the NRC's global definition of maintenance (" big M").
INPO noted that it was unlikely that this difference would be resolved easily given the differing definitions of maintenance.
NRC disagreed with the industry conclusion that on!y 13% of all failures are attributable to maintenance. The NRC requested the detail data that supports the industry analysis and conclusions. It was agreed to provide the data in about a week.
NUMARC agreed to obtain detailed information in support of their statement that the indicator is sensitive to equipment selection.
NRC noted that there was difficulty in using the indicator across plants for maintenance performance comparison. This difficulty related to the variability in reporting rates and practices throughout the industry. Analysis of reporting practices and the failures underlying the indicator was used to supplement the plant comparative analyses.
The NRC indicated that AEOD had a continuing interest in the use of NPRDS component failure data and in encouraging further indust.n/ use. The data base could be used more effectively by all parties if data entry continued to improve.
1
A_. < : 4 -
^ 'n The NRC indicated that a final decision relative to the direction to be pursued by the NRC had not been reached, i
1 dedJ G Ma H Williams, Chief Tr ds and Patterns Analysis Branch Di, ision of Safety Programs:
Oll ice for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data i
Enclosure:
As steted co' E, Jordan T, Tipton, NUMARC W. Smith, NUMARC
- PDRi E-3
' d_. i
Ik
+
Meeting Attendance NRC/NUMARC June 26,1990 NUMARC g
Joe F. CoNin, Exawtive Vice President Edward L Jorden, Director and Chief Operstmg Officer Office for the Anaysie (202 472 1200) and Evaluation of Operational Data r
(301 492-4848)
Thomas Tipton, Director m
Operations Management and Support Servicoe Thomas M. Uovak, Director p
(202 472 1280)
Division of Safety Programe, AEOD (301 4 92 4484)
Warren J. Hall, Manager Operatione Management and Support Servicoe Ma.k H. Williams, Chief r
(202 472 1280)
Trende and Patterne Analysis Branch AEOD Walter SmHh, Project Managei (301 492-4480)
E Jamee Shee, Director Int'l Programe, Office of (NPO Govi & Public Affaire (301 492 4318) rg Wilham R Kindley, Vice President g
Govemment Relations Cornelius Holden, Performance g
(404-98 43207)
Evaluation Branch, Office of Nuc. eat Reactor Regulation Donald Onliopie Jr., Director (301 492 1029)
Plant Support (404-980-3211)
Thomas Mdchel, Manager Analysis Dept.
(401-953 5497) t Jay C. Welle, Section Manager
- Plant Analysie Dept.
(404-953-7631) a L
m_
i, i,
.ni.
ii i. <i. i.
n
.i i i l...
A p.
4
.