ML20148H431

Summary of 871103 Meeting of ACRS Subcommittee on Systematic Assessment of Experience in Washington,Dc Re AEOD Role in Helping NRC Learn from Operating Experience.List of Tentative Topics for Discussion Encl

ML20148H431
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
To:	Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
References
ACRS-2533, NUDOCS 8801270220
Download: ML20148H431 (8)

Text

1 a'

0&KS -a533 l

1%

CERTIFIED COPY DATE ISSUED: November 24, 1987 m

.m. _,

SUMMARY

/ MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 3, 1987 MEETING 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIENCE WASHINGTON, D.C.

A neeting was held by the ACRS Subcommittee on Systematic Assessment of Experience on November 3, 1987.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data's (AE00) role in helping the NRC learn from operating experience. Notice l

of this meeting was published in the Federal Register on Friday, October 23, 1987.

The Subcomittee received no oral or written statements from 1

i the public. The meeting was entirely open to the public. The meeting-l l

began at 1:00 p.m. and ended at 5:45 p.m.

Richard Major was the cogni-zant ACRS Staff Engineer for the meeting.

Attendees:

ACRS NRC/AE0D H. Lewis, Chairman E. Jordan C. Wylie, Member T. Novak J. Ebersole, Member M. Williams D. Ward, Member R. Denning C. Michelson, Member J. Crooks R. Major, Staff J. Rosenthal V. Benaroya NRC K. Black J. Ramsey, NRR P. Leeper R. Savio, ACRS T. McCreless, ACRS Others l

G. Marcus, OCMIKR H. fteinberg, DOE J. O'Connor, DOE hgp12]ggo871124 h,

2533 pro A. Wyche, Bechtel I. Cuffonbery, Heritage Reporting, Inc.

l U _ -

. a._J

s 1=== =

l Certified By

[/ D L

j

Minutes / Systematic Assessment 2

of Experience, Nov. 3,1987

=

This meeting was a discussion and overview of AE00. is a set of discussion topics that were covered during the meeting.

The organization of AE0D was reviewed. Since the most recent reorga-nization, the role of AE00 has been enlarged and strengthened. There are two main divisions within AE00 which are the Division of Operational F

Assessment and the Division of Safety Programs. AE00 also manages the needs of the Comittee to Review Generic Requirements.

The Divisio'1 of Operational Assessment includes functions which are new to AE00. Technical training for the agency is administered from this division.

The incident response effort is managed under this division, and diagnostic evaluation and incident investigation is conducted in this division.

AE00 has developed a diagnostic evaluation program (DEP) over the east year at the Comission's request. The effort provides a comprehensive assessment of current performance at plants designated by NRC manage-ment. This program supplements information provided by other assessment tools such as SALP and Performance Indicators. The DEP responds to specific information needs and typically examines management involvement and staff actions with regard to plant operations and performante.

DEP attempts to identify and assess root causes for Diant performance J

problems.

The Division of Safety Programs handles the more traditional AE0D operations. There are three branches in this division which include:

1 4

i ncs

Minutes / Systematic Assessment 3

of Experience, Novo 3,~1987 e i the Trends and Patterns Analysis Branch, Reactor Operations Analysis Branch, and the Non-reactors Assessment Staff.

AE00 outlined the four main sources of operating experience data that are reviewed by the Office. On a daily basis AEOD reviews the informa-tion reported to the NRC on the previous days operations. This is done with a daily conference call.

License Event Reports are screened. They are read by two independent reviewers and they are prioritized with respect to safety significance. Out of 3,000 LERs per year about 12 receive immediate attention. On the order of two hundred receive further study and the rest are of relatively little significance. AEOD reviews foreign events which are reported in the NEA incident reportino 3ystem.

There are about 100 events reported each year which were

• haracterized as, of limited value.

Component failures are reported in the NPRDS (Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System) system run by the Institute of Nuclear Powew Operations.

The quality of participation in NPRDS among the various utilities varies.

AEOD also noted that LERs are read once again at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and coded into a sequence coding system which can show rates of occurrence and is used in attempting to identify significant precur-sor sequences.

In deciding which events to review, AEOD uses their own judgment and initiatives. Watch lists are created based on their observations of operating experience. AE0D also receives requests to do studies from the Executive Director for Operations, the Office of Nuclear Reactor

Minutos/ Systematic Assessment 4

of Experience, Nov. 3, 1987 Regulation, and the Regions. The Subcommittee suggested that safety significance of an event should be one mechanism to start a review, another would be if an event appeared to be a precusor of a potentially more significant event, and if an event came as a surprise, a totally unexpected event occurred.

It was also suggested that when things you expect to happen, don't, this might be a clue to investigate the reasons behind the unexpected behavior.

AE0D uses several comunication paths between themselves and the program offices.

These patts include reports, meetings, and weekly operating experience briefings.

AEOD does exercisc independence of judgment. When recommendations are made as a result of AE0D study they are not necessarily sub.iect to peer review or negotiation.

NRC management is sensitized to allow AEOD to act independently.

It was explained that recommendations are based on AE00 findings and are felt to have safety significance.

Recomendations are formerly tracked until ultimate implementation in plants. Responses to recomendations are required within thirty days from NRC program offices. Disputes regarding recommendations have been resolved at the Office Director level and if necessary would be resolved by the Executive Director for Operations. AE0D can also bring pressure to boar when the pace on a particular issue appears inadequate. AE0D believed they have sufficient influence to accomplish their mission.

Although AE0D felt industry was making more use of their efforts, it was believed additional improvement was in order.

It appears INP0 is able

.l Minutes / Systematic Assessment 5

of Experience, Nov. 3, 1987 c

to get industry attention, however, there appears to be a general problem with industry focusing on information that has NRC as its source. Getting the AE0D information to the ultimate user at a utility holds the promise for the greatest impact and benefit to be derived from AE0D's efforts.

The role of trends and patterns analysis was discussed.

It is used to monitor plant performance, and in revisiting regulatory requirements.

It is also a method to stimulate industry programs.

Human factors problems, people errors, do receive attention.

In addi-tion to human error, it is also of interest to see how people can influence the course of an incident. Also under development are perfor-mance indicators. The effect of training on operations is one perfor-mance indicator under study. The remainder of the performance indicators are hardware related.

The Subcommittee discussed the fact tnat the human factors program is aimed at reducing the rate of human error.

It was suggested that improving the plant hardware to allow it to be more forgiving of human i

error may result in a higher pay off.

The Staff of AE00 explained that the nuclear plant reliability data system (NPRDS) was managed by INPO. The Staf" has been monitoring INPO's effectiveness since they assumed control of NPRDS, Currently, they felt reporting timeliness was slow.

It takes about 9 months to get a failure into the systen. There still remains a wide variety in the i

Minutes / Systematic Assessment 6

of Experience, Nov. 3, 1987 s

amount of industry participation among the different utilities.

It was felt about two-thirds of the component failures that should be reported are reported.

However, AE00's main concern in the future will be to concentrate on the quality of the engineering data.

AE0D explained Abnormal Occurrence Reports have been made as a part of the law for quite some time.

It was noted that medical misadminis-trations have been increasing.

There are not many lessons learned related to operating reactors from this effort.

Since the new LER system has been in place for several years, the Staff has been monitoring the quality of LERs. This effort has been done by INEL under contract to AE0D.

Event reports have been compared with the original requirements in the updated LER rule.

In general,f.E00 be-lieves an overall improvement in LER quality has taken place.

NOTE:

Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, t

1717 H St., NW., Washington, D.C. or can be purchased from Heritage Reporting Corporation, 1220 L Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20005(202)628-4888.

l i

)

[k /me /

i l

j TENTATI"E DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF EXPERIENCE MEETING - THE ROLE OF AEOD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1987 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.

1:00 p.m.

1.

Chaiman's Introduction, H. Lewis (10 Min.)

1:10 p.m.

2.

Description of the organization of AEOD (30 Min.)

and the various assignments of the two divisions of the office (Operational Assessrnent and Safety Programs).

1:40 p.m.

3.

Where does the focus come from when (10 Min.)

deciding which issues to pursue?

1:50 p.m.

4.

When recomendations are made by AE0D, (10 Min.)

how are they tracked to be sure they receive the attention they deserve?

2:00 p.m.

5.

What are the communicat' ion paths' (10 Min.)

between AE00 and other entities within the NRC? Say between NRR, RES, Regions, Comission, ACRS, etc.,

How are good ideas disseminated, for example, a promising area for research, i

the need for a new regulation, correcting a poor regulation? How formal are the paths? Must ideas be the result of much study and report writing or just concerns that evolve out of observation and experience?

2:10 p.m.

6.

What influence can AEOD bring to bear (10 Min.)

on its recommendatiens offered in reports on operating experience?

How is AEOD's advice accepted by the agency?

2:30 p.m.

7.

How is industry using the information (10 Min.)

AE0D is developing?

2:20 p.m.

8.

How does AE00 measure their own (10 Min.)

effectiveness? Where does the feedback come from? How can AE0D be sure they are concentrating on the right issues? Is there a system for peer review, other NRC offices, INP0, EPRI, NUMARC, etc.?

2:40 p.m.

9.

How does AE00 ensure they are exercising (10 Min.)

an independence of judgment?

TENT. SCHEDULE NOV. 3 MTG.

2 SYSTEMATIC ASSES 5 MENT OF EXPERIENCE 2:50 p.m.

10. Brief Status Report on Performance (15 Min.)

l indicator work I

3:05 p.m.

BREAK (10 Min.)

3:15 p.m.

11. Could AEOD review coments being (15 Min.)

prepared regarding the Comission meeting of Sept. 10, 1987? Those not already covered above? e.g.

process by which AE00 results are classified as recommendations or suggestions, who makes them, how are they made?

3:30 p.m.

12. Are there statistical analyses that (10 Min.)

can be used +o identify important events? These might include those that are:

important to safety have an unnecessarily high frequency of occurence 3:40 p.m.

13. What is the role of trends and patterns (10 Min.)

analyses in the evaluation of operating events?

3:50 p.m.

14. Where do Abnormal Occurence Reports (10 Min.)

(AORs) fit in?

4:00 p.m.

15. To what degree does AE00 track the (10 Min.)

{

NPRDS system? What analyses are done?

4:10 p.m.

16. To what degree is AE0D involved in (10 Min.)

human performance? Do they plan studies that correlate training with performance? Do they examine drug related events and accidents involvin nuclear)g personal injury (non-

?

4:20 p.m.

17. How is the quality of LERs checked?

(10 Min.)

How is this information factored in the SALP process?

4:30 p.m.

18. General Discussion Wrap Up (30 Min.)

(Time has been scheduled for a subcommittee report during the 331st Meeting, Nov. 5-7,1987) 5:00 p.m.

ADJOURN