ML20154S539
| ML20154S539 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/15/1998 |
| From: | Banerjee M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810280007 | |
| Download: ML20154S539 (9) | |
Text
._
m
.m m.__
m,--.,- _. _. _. _.
_._4
.._.m..
. ):
k-UNITED STATES g
j.
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20065-0001 l
October 15, 1998 I
i MEMORANDUM TO:
File FROM:
Maitri Banerjee, Reactor Operations Engineer
. Performance Evaluation and Assessment inspection Program Branch Division of Inspection and Support Programs p
4-Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF THE SEPTEMBER 10,1998, PUBLIC MEETING WITH
.THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE TO PREPARE FOR THE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT PUBLIC 4
WORKSHOP
' A meeting was held on September 10,1998, between the industry and the NRC to discuss preparation for the performance assessment improvement public workshop scheduled for September 28 to October 1,1998. The agenda used for the meeting, meeting handouts, and t:
the list of participants are attached.
F The meeting was opened by Frank Gillespie, NRR, who welcomed all attendees and provided
' opening remarks outlining the objectives of the meeting. The meeting agenda was then reviewed by Mike Johnson, NRR. ; Mike described the following objectives for the workshop:
2 (1) to arrive at a consensus on the development of the philosophical approach to the cornerstone model for assessment, (2) to develop possible approaches for defining the fundamental issues, and (3) to develop the cornerstones.
Steve Floyd from NEl presented the industry white paper (also attached), that was the performance indicator approach for a " risk informed and performance based" assessment process. Steve stated that in the industry approach the deterministic regulatory requirements (for example: the design basis requirements) still need to be met. The risk insights and licensee performance as indicated by objective performance indicators are to be used to
. determine the threshold for NRC response when regulatory requirements are not met.
. The meeting participants discussed briefly the definitions of the cornerstones and some basic rules for identifying performance indicators. A tentative' agenda for the public workshop commencing on September 28 was reviewed. The fundamental issues that will be developed
. during the breakout sessions of the workshop were then discussed. NEl reported on the positive results obtained by the indm.try task groups working on the risk based performance Indicators and that they had been a i to validate the performance indicators with the previous three years of performance at seve-plants.
t
..--n4 n
i s
9810280007 981015 Y
{l
]
gh 30 fu CEMEB CBM
" te y
y ourn
2
' Additional public meetings between the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl), industry, and the NRC 3
/ were tentatively scheduled for September 1998 to (1) obtain further feedback on the D
' comerstone framework and the fundamentalissues, (2) discuss the results of NEl work to
. validate performance indicators, and (3) complete preparations to support the workshop.
)
Attachments: 1. Agenda j
- 2. List of Attendees
- 3. Meeting Handouts-
- 4. Draft NEl Paper,"A New Regulatory Oversight Process," dated September 10,1998.
v 2-Additional public meetings between the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), industry, and the NRC -
.were tentatively scheduled for_ September 1998 to (1) obtain further feedback on the comerstone framework and the fundamental issues, (2) discuss the results of NEl work to validate performance Indicators, and (3) complete preparations to support the workshop.
Attachments: 1. Agenda
- 2. ' List of Attendees
- 3. Meeting Handouts
- 4. Draft NEl Paper, "A New Regulatory Oversight Process," dated September 10,1998.
i
. Distribution:
PUBLIC Central Files PIPB R/F
' F. Gillespie M. Johnson D. Gamberoni R. Barrett J. Lieberman B. Borchardt J. Sorensen
- NRC Meeting Attendees I
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY2\\MTG0910. SUM To receive a copy of this document. Indicate in the box: '"C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy OFFICE PIPB: DISP PIPB:DISPg PlPB: DISP -
lC l
l s
NAME' MBaneriee M B4 -
AMadiseR MRJohnson M Uh DATE 10/ l 4 /98 10/ Te/ /98 10/ /5 /98 ' '
)
OFFICIAL RECORD COPP'
. _ _. ~.
' AGENDA FOR' SEPTEMBER 10,1998, NRC/NEl MEETING ON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS Introduction Purpose of Meeting Discussion / Feedback on "Comerstone" Approach Discussion / Feedback on the Workshop Fundamental issues Discuss / Review NEl Performance Indicator Validation Efforts Future Meeting Dates ATTACHMENT 1
o SEPTEMBER 10,1998, NRC/NEl MEETING ON PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS SIGN-IN SHEET NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE NUMBER Frank Gillespie NRC/NRR 301-415-1275 Michael Johnson NRC/NRR 301-415-1241 Timothy Frye NRC/NRR-301-415-1287 Jeffrey Jacobson NRC/NRR 301-415-2977 Peter Wilson NRC/NRR 301-415-1114 Jin Chung NRC/NRR 301-415-1071 See-Meng Wong NRC/NRR 301-415-1125 Mark Rubin NRC/NRR 301-415-3234 Doug Coe NRC/NRR 301-415-1244 Carl Berlinger NRC/NRR 301-415-3627 Suzanne Black NRC/NRR 301-415-1017 Richard Correia
. NRC/NRR 301-415-1009 Alan Madison NRC/NRR 301-415-8498 Clare Goodman NRC/NRR 301-415-1047 Jack Kudrick NRC/NRR 301-415-2871 R. Emch NRC/NRR 301-416-1068 Maitri Banerjee NRC/NRR 301-415-2277 Mary Ann Ashley
~ NRC/NRR
' 301-415-1073 Gary Sanborn NRC/OEDO
-301-415-1726 Steve Mays NRC/AEOD 301-415-7496 Pete Prescott NRC/AEOD 301-415-7591 Ron Lloyd NRC/AEOD 301-415-7479 Hossein Hamzehee NRC/AEOD 301-415-6228 Comelius Holden NRC/NRR 301-415-1037 John Flack NRC/RES 301-415-6436 David Diec NRC/ACRS 301-415-5767 Mike Markley NRC/ACRS 301-415-6885 Stephen Floyd Nuclear Energy Institute 202-739-8078 Tom Houghton Nuclear Energy Institute 202-739-8107 Lynnette Hendricks Nuclear Energy Institute 202-739-8109 Ralph Andrs::on Nuclear Energy Institute 202-739-8111 Steve Lockfort New York Power Authority 914-681-6868 R. J. Acosta FPUNEl 561-694-3656 ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT NUCLEAR REACTOR SAFETY I
I I
REACTOR ACCIDENT NON-ACCIDENT PLANT RADIOLOGICAL REACTOR PLANT RELEASES RELEASES WORKER EXPOSURE SAFEGUARDS 1
l l
I I
I I
I I
I INITIATING MITIGATION CONTAINMENT EMERGENCY OPERATIONAL OVER PHYSICAL ORRATIONAL M NTS EVENTS SYSTEMS SYSTEMS PREPAREDNESS (ALARA)
ICD PROTECil0N I
g e PERFORMANCEINDICATOR
- INSPECTION DRAFT
i DRAFT OBJECTIVES OF CORNERSTONES REACTOR ACCIDENT RELEASES INITIATING EVENTS:
Those events which challenge the heat removal capability of the reactor plant.
The likelihood of these events should be !!mited, commensurate with their safety significance.
MITIGATION SYSTEMS:
Ensure that the reliability and capability of those systems required to prevent and/or mitigate core damage are maintained at a level commensurate with their safety significance.
CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS:
Ensure that the reliability and capability of those systems required to provide ensure containment integrity are maintained at a level commensurate with their safety significance.
)
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS:
Ensure that the capability is maintained to take adequate protective measures in the event of a radiological emergency.
NON-ACCIDENT PLANT RELEASES i
OPERATIONAL:
Ensure that those radioactive releases resulting from normal plant operation do not exceed licensed and 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
EVENTS:
Ensure that those releases from events such as spent fuel pool accidents and large spills do not exceed licensed and 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
RADIOLOGICAL WORKER EXPOSURE OPERATIONAL (ALARA):
Minimize radiation worker exposure during normal plant operation.
OVER EXPOSURE INCIDENTS:
Maintain radiation worker evposure below licensed and 10 CFR Part 20 limits.
REACTOR PLANT SAFEGUARDS PHYSICAL PROTECTION:
Still under development, but would include the protection of vital plant equipment and prevent the diversion of special nuclear material.
DRAFT 1
DRAFT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP DAY 2
)
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE BREAKOUT SESSIONS:
l l
A. General Poliev lssues: Safety Performance Exoectations/Reaulatorv Oversicht Process issue 1.
Is there a threshold of licensee safety performance above which the NRC can allow licensees to address weakness without NRC action? In other words, at what level above a "zero-defect" tolerance can licensees safely operate without NRC interaction?
Issue 2.
Given the threshold for NRC interaction (based on the response to question 1), to what level of licensee performance does the NRC need leading indication of changes in performance trends? Do additional performance criteria need to be monitored to provide a leading indication of declining performance to ensure timely and complete corrective actions by licensees?
Issue 3.
To what extent should the NRC maintain independent regulatory oversight? How?
Issue 4.
Given that the NRC will continue inspecting selected areas of licensee performance, how should NRC inspection findings be factored into the regulatory process?
B. Use of Risk insiahts in Assessment Issue 1.
To what extent should the performance indicators and their associated performance thresholds be risk-informed? What process should be followed to select them?
Issue 2.
Can a nef of performance indicators be used to assess the integrated risk significance of licensee performance?
Issue 3.
To what extent do we need to use individual site PRAs to develop risk-informed, site-specific performance indicators to complement the generic performance indicators?
C. Use of Performance Indicators and Integration with insoection Results issue 1.
What is the role of performance indicators in the regulatory oversight process?
Issue 2.
What group of performance indicators provides an adequate measure of licensee performance? What are the necessary attributes of these performance indicators?
DRAPT
DRAFT 2
i Issue 3.
How are performance indicators integrated with inspection results?
Issue 4.
How can the NRC assure that performance indicator data is accurately developed, recorded, and submitted in a timely manner? Voluntary
. program? Rulemaking? What controls should be placed on this process?
4 D. Role of Enforcement in Reaulatorv Oversiaht/Ranae of NRC Actions / Communications issue 1.
How does the enforcement process interact with the assessment process?
Issue 2.
What NRC actions are most effective in encouraging timely licensee corrective actions?
Issue 3.
What methods of communicating performance assessment results are most effective, accurate, fair, and objective?
l l
l i
r J
DRAPT