ML20202B370
| ML20202B370 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/06/1998 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-3026, ASB-300-130, NUDOCS 9802110202 | |
| Download: ML20202B370 (132) | |
Text
'ei ; g i
ji .l, .
i
}
g'~ . . - u , 2;a;3 TRO4 (ACRS) 1 RETURN ORIGINAL j((
TO BJWHITE M/S T-2E26
~
3 415-7130
) THANKS! .
. : w m I, _p; (Tfg e
.y
.,; : 1 l '
s-j .
? 9eduo2029eo20s .
"So22C"" eon 4 :
A$
w m i. m 3
l ,
i ,
,1 0
m
'c' '
,.)
033\A_ IDS -3C) $
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
Title:
448Til ADVISORT COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS Docket No.: 14u ]j^ 3. . 3;
- ,:mi : - -
k xs - . :- . -
4 ,- '.
Work Onler No.: "
ASB-300-130 U
1.0 CATION
Rwktille.htaryland j
DATE: Friday, February 6.1911tf PAGES:281 - 391 a
, s 1
' "i ll " , ,,
., -S
, vVO4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L 1250 i Stred. NW Suite 300 llll {
) Washin on.D.C. 20005
,h p (2 u 01N g*C 8f1v;0034' 0) y'~- N e l -
30f'f e 2e of de 30 f'::ee
O DISCLAIMER UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS FEBRUARY 6, 1998 The contents of this transcript of the proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory CommissAon Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, taken on February 6, 1998, as reported herein, is a record of the discussions recorded at'the meeting held on the above date.
This transcript had not been reviewed, corrected and edited and it may contain inaccuracies, O
W .. . .
281 1 UNIT 3D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ALJISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 4 448TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 5
6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission
} ,7 Two White Flint North 8 11545 Rockville Pike 9 Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 10 i
11 Friday, February 6, 1998 12 -
13 The Committee met pursuant to notice at18:30 a.m.
14 15 MEMBERS PRESENT:
16 _ ROBE"T SEALE,-Chairman, ACRS 17 DON MILLER, Member, ACRS E18 THOMAS;KRESS, Member, ACRS-19 GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS, Member, ACRS 20 Jr"N BARTON, Member,.ACRS 21 DANA-POWERS, Member, ACRS 22 WILLIAM _ SHACK, Member, ACRS
.23 ROBERT UHRIG, Member,' ACRS 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
'1250~I Street, N.W.,: Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
282 1 PROCEED-INGS
() 2 [8:30 a.m.)
3 . CHAIRMAN SEALE: The meeting will now come to 4 -order, please. This is the second day of the-448th Meeting
- 5. of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
.6 During today's meetir3 the committee will consider 7 -the following: Proposed revisions of 10 CFR 50.59 Changes, 8 .
Tests _and Experiments; SECY 97-231, Perf on.tance-Based 9 Inspection Guidance; Human Performance and Reliability 10 Implementation Plan; Future ACRS Activities, at the request 11 of the Chairman, she's coming back over this afternoon for 12 an additional period of discussion with us. We don't have 13 the exact' time as to when she's cleared her schedule to make
-14 it, but I'm sure we'll find a way to accommodate it.
15 We will not have the report on-the draft of NUREG
$16 -1555-SRP for environment reviews at this time. We'll also 17 discusa pr' posed ACRS reports.
la I should warn.everybody that the March meeting --
19 actually there will be two March meetings, the first meeting 20 will be on the research-program, we'll have the agenda which 21" is being put together by Dr. Powers, and then_-- you 22 switched them? Okay.
l23 :All right. We'll also have a second identified 24- separate meeting which will be the regular meeting of the 25 ACRS.
. - - -_ ==-_ ~ _.__ =
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 283 1 This meeting is being conducted in accordance with 2 the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, John 3 T. Larkins is the designated federal official for the 4 initial portion of the meeting.
-5 We've received no written comments or requests for 6 time to make oral statements from members of the public 7 regarding today's sessions. A transcript of portions of the 8 meeting is being kept and it is requested that the speakers 9 use one of the microphones, identify themselves, and speak 10 with sufficient clarify and volume so that they can be ,
11 readily heard. '
12 We have quite a few items of importance that we 13 want to try to dispose of today and tomorrow morning. And 14 so I would urge everyone to bear that in mind as we go 15 through the day. Are there any other announcements or 16 ' comments that should be made at this time? Any of the 17 members have anything? John do you have anything else you 18 want to bring to our attention?
19 DR. BARTON: No, not right now.
20 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. Our first session this 21 morning is on Proposed Revision to 10 CFR 59.59, Changes,
- 22. Tests and Experiments. This is under the purview of the 23 Plant OPS Subcommittee. Mr. John Barton is the chairman of 24 'that oubcommittee so your plate is full again, John. Do you 25 want to lead ~us on this one?
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
[ Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - -
_...._ _ _._ .. _ _ _ _. ____ _ - - _ m. __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _
l 284 1 DR. BARTON: Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
() 2 ACRS has had a long-standing interest in the proposed 3 changes to 10 CFR 50.59. The Committee had previously 4 provided reports to the Commission-in April, Octooer, and 5 December 1997 regarding SECY 97-205 and SECY 97-035 and 6 related issues.
7 The Committee has also met with the staff in NEI 8 on several occasions, most recently in December 1997 to 9 discuss proposed changes to 10 CFR 50.59 including a 10 proposed rule. Although the package was incomplete at that 11 time, we did have discussions with the staff and 12 subsequently provided a report to the chairman in December 13 -- dated December 12, 1997. The staff responded in a letter 14 to the ACRS in January 1998.
15 In that response the staff accepted ACRS's 16 two-step process, however the staff did not addrac- in that 17 letter some issues in our letter specifically the constraint 18 of zero increases in risk and also the recommended -- ACRS 19 recommendation for performance criteria to be established.
20 because-PRAs will'be insensitive to the changes made under 21 10 CFR 50.59.
22 This morning we will receive an updated briefing 23 from the staff, a status briefing where the Committee is --
24 where the Commission is regarding rulemaking. Hopefully 25 we'll hear about the status of the recent meeting between ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 285 i the staff and NEI regarding 96-07 on the issues that there
() -2 is disagreement in that document and possibly how to handle 3 risks in rulemaking of 59.59.-
4 The Committee also would be interested -- we 5 received a letter -- a copy of a letter from October '97 6 from Sam Collins' office at NRR regarding enforcement 7 guidance on 50.59 violations which I understand has the
! 8 industry somewhat bewildered, if you could address that 9 letter and the workings of the 50.59 violation review panel, 10 , we would appreciate that also.
11 At this time I'd like to turn the meeting over to 12 Eileen McKenna, NRR.
13 MS. McKENNA: Good morning, members of the 14 Committee, ladies and gentlemen. As was mentioned, I think O
N ,/
s 15 our purpose this morning is to provide a status of our 16 activities.
17 We met in December and we talked about the 18 proposed rule changes that were underway and that we had 19 sent a paper to the Commission, we're awaiting some feedback 20 on that and, you know, that's kind of still where we are, 21 but I do plant to address some of the specific items that 22 Mr. Barton had brov1ht up in his opening remarks.
23 I only have a few slides because it is in the
- 24. nature of a status briefing. Just in terms of background we 25 had sent the paper, SECY 97-205 to the Commission in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
286 1 September with a number of recommendations, regulatory
() 2 process improvements including changes to 10 CFR 50.59 and
- 3 as was noted we have met with the Committee on a number of 4 occasions to discuss where things are going on 50.59 in the 5- more general context of 97-205.
6 Since our meeting in December we did have a 7 Commission briefing on the SECY paper,97-205, in December.
8 The Commission is in the process of completing its voting 9 and preparing an SRM. So we don't know at this point what-10 th* Commission's recommendations and conclusions will be and 11 what the staff proposed in the SECY. But in the meantime, 4 l i
12 we are continuing to work on the items that were recommended 13 in SECY 97-205 hoping to have ourselves positioned so when 14 we do get the direction from the Commission we can make
() 15 whatever course corrections we need and respond as quickly 16 as we can to the' Commission.
17 DR. POWERS: The fact that the Commission is 18 enacting promptly on this matter suggests that there is some 19 debate within the Commission. Do you have an understanding 20 of where that debate stands?
21 MS. McKENNA: We havo -- I mean, obviously from 22 the briefing there was interest in such areas as the scope 23 of 50.59, is it appropriate to tie it to the facility as 24 described in the SSAR, or should it be some other 25 characterization? And that obviously, I think, is an issue
-( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N,W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 J
- , , , - - , - - - - - , , - . - , . - - ~ - - - - - - - , - - - , - - - - - , ,
i 287 1 that's before the Commission.
2 I-think the other question is the degree or
- '3 risk-intormed change the Commission may be looking for with l
t 4 respect to 50.59. I think these are some of the areas from 4 5 reading the transcript and the discussion. Until we get-.the l- 46 SRMS, we really;can't be sure of all the issues that-the 1 7- Commission may have.
- 8 DR. POWERS
- If the Commission came down and said,
-9 no, we don't like this, we want something that is longer.
10 risk, informed flavor'how quickly could you respond?
11 MS. McKENNA: It's difficult to say because it i 12 would really depend on how far they wanted things--to.go.
j 13 You know, we've been trying to. keep an. eye on what's 14 happening with reg - .I think it's 1174 in terms of the 1.5 small changes in risks, in a change to licensing basis where 16 there's interaction with the staff, how far you could go, in 17 a 50.59 context is a little more difficult. And I think ,
18 some of the things in your last letter in terms of.how you
- -19 deal with some of-those very, very small changes where=your- !
[ 20 PRA is probably not going to.be able to give you those t 21 results,. and also the issues we discussed before, I think, l
22 about how you look at the deterministic accidents in-your 23 FSAR:.versus a risk perspective also I think plays in to what 124- kind-of criteria you might establish.
25 .So I'm not sure.how quickly we could really do' ;
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters-
~
1250-I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.'20005 e (202)-842-0034
. . _ _ - _ - , ._ __ .a_;u _ , _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ .
288 1 that depending if they really move in a much more strongly 2 . risk inforn.ed focus.
3 DR. POWERS: Well, _1.174 is pretty well 4 solidified?
5 MS. McKENNA: Yes.
6 DR.-POWER 3: So, I mean, there's not much going on 7 there.- I mean, their position is pretty well fossified now.
8- [ Laughter . ]-
9 DR. POWERS: Isn't it time to have a contingency _
10 plan here? I mean, if that's the debate of the Commission i
11 --
12 MS. McKENNA: That's our speculation. Obviously 13- we can't speak for what the Commission may be debating on.
14 And I think the other aspect is what we talked about before 15 in terms of doing some smaller changes to the rule now and 16' .taking the-time to make sure that whatever risk-informed 17
~
changes are really well thought out and structured within 18 .the'overall regulatory context and not just focused on 19' 50.59. Because I think some of those issues I mentioned I 20 -think-do play _into, can you just make that change, or do you 21 need to have a much bigger change to your process to really 22 :make it work?
23 DR. POWERS: Yes,-but what I'm fishing around_for, 24~ is_there a piece of paper within the Agency that says, we 25: have to make-50.59 a risk-informed rule, here are the things
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
289 1 1 that we're going to have to address?
() 2 MS. McKENNA: I don't believe such a document 3 exists, no.
- 4 DR. POWERS
- Okay.
5 MS. McKENHA: The topics I was planning to touch 6 on I think we mentioned the first couple. Rulemaking, as I 7 said, we tre continuing to prepare the changes that we 8 discussed in our 3ast meeting looking at the clarification 9 on the facility as described in the SSAR, the criteria from 10 the safety question, those kinds of issues we're still 11 proceeding on to have that ready if that's the kind of 12 change that the Commission would like to see.
13 The next topic I had in terms of status was where 14 we were on 96-07 and I'll have a separate slide on that in a
} 15 moment that will go into a little detail and then just touch 16 on a couple of other related activities which include the 17 enforcement panel that was mentioned.
18 Let me turn to the 96-07. NEI submitted a 19 revision of 96-07 in October to the staff with a statement 20 that they plan to implement uniformly across the industry an 21 initiative to adopt 96-07 by June 1998. Staff had been 12 2 reviewing 96-07 and we did provide comments in a letter back 23 January.9, 1998.
24 We tried to identify comments in a couple of 25 areas. First were those that we thought that the guidance
_. = _=
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_ - _ _ - - i
290 1 was inconsistent with the rule as currently written. We
() 2 also identified areas that we saw as needing clarification 3 and the clarification really focused on making sure that the 4 guidance would be consistently used and agreed to and we
-5 would get to the results. In some of the areas where we 6 _think there may be a need for clarification, for-example, 7 are the difference between a screening review which we 8 commonly think of examining whether the activity that's 9 under way is a change to the facility as described in the 10 SSAR and therefore requires the 50.59 evaluation versus a 11 screening that says this is a very minor change and 12 therefore it does not require an evaluation. I think there 13 ore some areas in the guid:ince which would coggest that 14 maybe the minor changes could be considered through the O
(,,/ 15 screening and we're not sure that that's really consistent 16 with what the rule requires or what's appropriate. So 17 that's an area where we would like to have a little more 18 discussion to.make sure that the guidance really gives us 19 the right result.
20 Another area is a question of -- and it kind of 21 goes to one of the rule topics we talked about before with 22 respect to whether it's changes to hardware that require 23 evaluation or changes to hardware plus other kinds of 24 information. And there is various aspects in the guidance 25- which sugge st in some places that it's focused on hardware
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
291 1 and it's something we would like to make sure we clarify and
() 2 we have some common understanding before we endorse the 3 document.
4 Those were some of the issues. I'm not sure --
5 you know, we not saying the guidance is not right, but we 6 think maybe_it would benefit from some further dialogue.
7 One of the things that in our letter of January 9 8 staff noted that implementation of the guidance in certain 9 aspects may lead to enforcement. This did raise some 10 controversy. I think you probably saw the response from NEI 11 on January 16.
12 But I think the point the staff was trying to make 13 is that since we believe that the guidant is not consistent 14 with the rule, if we find the licensee use that kind of 15 guidance and made a change that we find unacceptable, you 16 know, we would take enforcement action. It was not meant to 17 say that if they revise their procedure and use 9607 that 18 they automatically would, you know, get some kind of 19 violation. It's really going to focus on the changes they 20 make and are they correct.
21 -So we plan to provide a clarification in a 22 response to their January 16 letter, and we also hope to 23 continue our interactions on the guidance so that we can get 24 to the point where we can endorse as much as possible of 25 96-07 with possible changes or exceptions if necessary.
( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
292 1 DR. BARTON: Good. Thank you.
() 2 MS. McKENNA: My next slide. The first topic was 3 to this question on the enforcement panel. You refer to I 4 believe there is an enforcement guidance memorandum that 5 went out from Mr. Collins and Mr. Lieberman in October to 6 the regions and NRR staff describing the institution of this 7 enforcement panel for review of potential violations of 8 50.59, and it also would include certain 50.71(e) cases as 9 well, which is the PSAR updating rule.
10 I think this was a formalization of some things 11 that were happening within the Agency to be sure that when 12 we'ra looking at these vio'-tions of 50.59 in a context 13- where changes.in guidance, possible changes in rules may be 14 out there, that it would be helpful to have some central
( 15 point to look at all these and make sure that issues are 16 considered consistently no matter where they arise.
17 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Could you refresh my memory on 18 who is involved in the enforcement?
19 MS. McKENNA: Yes, I was just about to get to 20 that.
21 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay.
22 MS. McKENNA: There ere basically three members of 23 this panel. There-is a representative of the Office of 24 Enforcement, a representative of the Office of the General 25 Counsel, and a representative of the Performance and Quality
()
= -
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
-293 1 Evaluation Branch, which is the branch that I'm in in the
() 2 Reactor Program Management Division within NRR. Those are 3 the members of the panel.
t 4- Then the issue -- potential violations usually 5 arise through inspection activities, so that a proposed 6 violation would come-in from the region. Tney would send in 7 the violation, proposed violation, with the inspection 8 report writeup, pages of the FSAR, sections of the 50.59 9 evaluation, whatever information is necessary to really 10 support the violation that was proposed, and they would send 11 that in to the panel.
12 The panel members would look at that information 13 and reach a judgment as to whether the violation seems 14 appropriate in consideration of the information that's been 15 presented, 16 There are provisions in the process for phone 17 conferences with the regional representatives and the NRR 18 project manager to discuss the violation so that the panel 19 members can ask questions and make sure they understand all 20 the information that's been out there. Sometimes, you know, v 21 you need to get into a little more of the details of --
22 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes.
23 MS. McKENNA: What really was happening and what 24 changes were made and how do things really occur. So those 25 people are available to answer questions from the panel.
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
(V Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
294 1 Then if the pane 1Lagrees that a violation as written is
() 2 supportable and appropriate, it continues on through the i
f-3 normal process, which could be issuance of a level 4, a '
4 noncited violation, or if it appears to be an escalated
[
5 case, you presumably go to enforcement conference and that 6 process. !
7 DR. BARTON: So this panel reviews a potential 8 violation prior to an enforcement conference?
9 MS. McKENNA: Yes. It's intended to review them !
10 .before they get issued. We have had a few cases where there ;
11 is a - the' licensee has contested the violation, and those
'2 have come back before the panel, but that's probably the 13 minority of the cases. It's really designed to look at the 14 violations before they go out. -
() 15 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Could you give us a little i
. 16 statistics on how many -- l
- 17. MS. McKENNA: Yes. i i
18 _ CHAIRMAN SEALE: Have gone to the panel and how t
~19 many have been judged to be in the more serious category? !
20 MS. McKENNA: Yes, I did look back at our 21 experience, and that was what the third bullet here -- i 22 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. I'm sorry.. l 23- MS..McKENNA:- That's quite all right.- I'm glad :I f
24 -have the right information available. . As you may see in the 25 : guidance, we did institute the process in November, and [
ANN RILEY'& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporcers 1250 I Street,.N.W.,. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034
- . _ . - . , . . . . - _ . - ~ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ ._.__,._.__._.u___.m.--.- - . , . . , _ - . , . - _ _ . . , - . . _ _ . - . _ _ - . ,
l 295 !
I we've been meeting weekly I think with -- we may have n:issed
() 2 one week with the holidays, but otherwise we've been having 3 this process weekly, and we had 26 cases that have come !
4 before the panel, so it's been on the order of two to three 5 a week. Sometimes it's one, but in that order.
6 A couple of them, I'd say I think it's three, were 7 50.71(e), FSAR discrepancy cases. The others were -- at 8 least had some aspect of a potential 50.59 violation.
9 Some cases, the violations, there were may have 10 been other violations along with them, and one of the issues 11 that sometimes came up is whether there was a separate 50.59 12 violation or whether that was really part of a different 13 problem and whether it was appropriate --
14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes.
) 15 MS McKENNA: To have separate cases. I would say 16 I think in general the process has been useful in terms of 17 making sure that the basis is there for when the actions are 18 taken. I would say from -- I have not been in all the 19 cases, but either myself or Frank Akstulewicz has been 20 involved in one of the -- on the backup for when these cases 21 come up is that I think we've generally had agreement that 22- there was a violation of 50.59. There's been discussion 23 many times about whether the issue did involve a safety 24 question or not. We have worked threugh those.
I '25 Another comment I think I would make with respect l
l O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, L7D.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 22 84 b3
296 1 _to -- this goes back to some of our earlier discussions,
() 2 past meetings -- is that I found it interesting that in most 3 cases where-a licensee actually had performed a_50.59 4- ' evaluation, you know, we weren't -- that:we really weren't 5 in violation space. Most of the cases we're seeing is where 6 a screening was improper or they did some activity-that they 7 =really_should have received -- excuse me, an evaluation but 9 did not.
9 So that we've seen a number of cases where things 10 happened and there was some'information in the FSAR that 11- wasn't recognized as pertaining to what the change or the 12 action'that was happening or that they were making some --
13 doing some activity that is_a_ temp mod _or_something like-14 that and they didn't' evaluate it under 50459.
) -15 So I thought -- I think that was useful 16 information-in t rms e of understanding, you-know, where some
.17 of these differences a: ;se that it tends to be morefat the -
18- front end of-getting into the process of doing the 19 evaluation _and only in a_few cases were we really 20 challenging the adequacy of_ evaluation when'it was done.
21 DR. BARTON: Lat me ask a question. Maybe I
-22 -didn't understand the sequence.
23 MS. McKENNA: Um-hum.
24- DR. BARTON: It sounded to ma like the potential 25- violation is written up, reviewed in the region, sent to the O ANN RILEY_& ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~ Court' Reporters
_1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,=D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
E i :
297 ;
1 panel. The panel and the region talk. ;
2 MS. McKENNA: Right.
3 DR._BARTON: And before the utility comes to have 4 a quote predecisional enforcement conference, there's been a 5 decision made that-yea verily this is a violation. Did I j 6 misunderstand you,.or is that what'happens? !
7 MS McKENNA: No, I mean, I think that this 8 process was designed to be part of our internal deliberative ,
9 process in terms of whether to take the action, and that '
10 we're trying to make sure that when we do move forward with 11 a violation that we've considered all the aspects and have 12 all the appropriate people involved in the issue.
13 DR. BARTON: But has there been a decision made
'14 that this yea verily is.a violation even before_the licensee 1
) 15 gets his' opportunity to-present his case at an enforcement 16 conference? ;
17 MS. McKENNA: I think it was to make sure that sus 18 felt there was a sufficient basis to move forward with the ,
19~ notico-of violation. I mean the process,-as with any 20- violation the licensee has the opportunity to challenge the 21 violation that, you know, their facts are wrong, the
-22' ' conclusions are wrong, and that could be through an 23 . enforcement conference or through a written response, 24 l depending on the severity and where they are in the ,
25- ' sequence, or in some-cases they can contest'-- if it reaches ANN RIbEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.,-Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 s
298 1 the point of having a civil penalty, they can request a
() 2 hearing. So, i mean, the licensee does have opportunity to 3 respond.
4 I think what we're trying to indicate is that this 5 was before we've taken the action we want to make sure we've 6 done the best job we can. I mentioned a couple where we saw 7 them after they were contested. Those were cases that had 8 happened before the panel was in place, so this was an 9 effort to make sure that when the response is made to the 10 licensee on their denial or their rebuttal that we have --
11 again we've gone through the process to make sure that we 12 agree that in light of the new information that may be 13 presented we still delieve that it was a violation as cited.
14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: In this process there's no one 15 that's specifically charged with the responsibility of being 16 the licensee's ombudsman, is rFare?
17 MS. McKENNA: Not specifically. I mean, the --
18 when we do get the information, particularly if it's after 19 an enforcement conference, we would have available what 20 .information the licensee may have presented at the 21 enforcement conference or in their response, but at the 22 front end I think you are more -- you have the information 23 that the region provides about what they determine, what the 24 licensee may have presented to them through the inspection.
25- CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. I. thought that was tln
()~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
299 1 case.
() 2 MS. McKENNA: Yes, that's correct. Just in terms
-3 of'overall -- you mentioned statistics'- -I mention a-number 4 of cases. There's probably I'd say msybe on the order of a -
5 half a-dozen that may be escalated-enforcement cases. Since 6 _we're relatively young-in the process, most of those-cases 7 have not continued through'the full set of the process, so I 8 can't sayJwhether they all will sustain as severity, level 38 9 or not,--butuit's on the order of a half a dozen.
10 A couple of those I think are in the category I 11 mentioned where there may have been other violations and 12 where the 50.59 instance would be a separate violation, you 13 know, is still being addressed. A large number where.it was 14 a failure to perform the evaluation and therefore a 15 violation of 50.59, but either at a level 4 or if licensee
- 16 identified could be a noncited violation.
17 DR. BARTON: Basically the basis for the panel is 18 to ensure consistency in 50.59 violations?
- 19 MS. McKENNA: Yes. Yes, 20 DR. BARTON: -Does this same process exist to 21 assure consistency in other violations across the regions?
22- MS, McKENNA: -I think it was modeled cn1 the panel 23 -for maintenanco rule violations. I-think those areas I
- 24 think there was in particular that-where the kind of the 25 -number of inspections that may have been going on or the 7
~ ~~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
- ^
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
300 1 issues that were arising or the maintenance rules being a
() 2 relatively new rule and 50.59 I think being a rule with a 3 lot of scrutiny and controversy.that it was felt that having 4 this particular focus on the rules at this time at least was 5 worthwhile.
6 DR. BARTON: So this panel may have a short
-7 half-life if we get some rulemaking-out that everybody 8 agrees with?
9 MS. McKENNA: I think as we noted in the SECY 10 paper when it was established that it would keep it in place 11 as long as we think it's necessary if we reach the point, 12 you know, where there was a rule change and we think things 13 have stabilized, then there would be no need to continue 14 having a separate panel that looks at 50.59 violations.
15 I was going to say we look at the whole spectrum 16 of -- there may be a conclusion that there was no violation, 27 severity level 4, or severity level 3. I'm not --
I won't 18 speak for the Office of Enforcement overall, but I know they 19 do have panel prophecies that look at potential escalated 20 cases across the board.
21 DR. MILLER: Can you clarify -- did I get the 22 commitment -- a commitment when the rulemaking is finalized, 23 this panel will cease to exist, or did I hear words that 24 said maybe it will cease to exist?
25 MS. McKENNA: Well, I said I think we are -- it O-
\~#
-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
301 1 was established to provide a certain degree of consistency 2 and that --
3 DR. MILLER: In this --
MS. McKENNA: In this --
5 DR MILLER: In this situation where there is some 6 uncertainty with 50-59?
7- MS. McKENNA: Yes. Right. So, I think --
8 DR. MILLER:- So when the certainty is established 9 through rulemaking, it should cease to exist.
10 MS. McKENNA: Yeah, correct. I think that -- the 11 only point I was naking is that the day the Rule is issued, 12 we may not disband the panel, it may be --
13 DR. MILLER: Two days later.
14 MS McKENNA: It may be some period later.
I 15 DR, BARTON: I doubt it. I think it will be after 16 the new Rule is out and --
17 MS McKENNA: Had some chance to implement. Yes.
18 DR. BARTON: --
it is in place for a while,-and 19 things settle out. So this may be around for a couple of 20 years, several years maybe, I don't think it is going to be 21 as short as you are thinking it in going to be.
22 DR. MILLER: No, I am not thinking that. I was
-23 being slightly tongue in cheek.
24 MS. McKENNA: I mean it was not intended to be a 25 forever thing, but, you know, we didn't have --
-( ) - --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 302 1 DR._ MILLER: My worry is - _not my worry -- the
() 2 worry I would have is that things like this that are 3 temporary become permanent. And another perspective I would 4 like to have is how many infractions of 50-59 have there 5 historiaally been on an annual basis? Just give me some 6 feel for that.
7 MS, McKENNA: Okay.
8 DR. MILLER: Without.-- before the panel, this 9 panel was --
10- MS. McRENNAt- Yeah. The difficulty is, is 11: developing the statistics. For the escalated enforcement, 12 there.is a central tracking system and you can go in there 13 and find, and there is, you know, probably in the single 14 digits per year type of instances.
t0
(,/ 15 DR. MILLER: Single digits.
16 MS. McKENNA: How, in terms of lesser severity _
17 levels where --
18 DR. MILLER: That'means 0 to 107
- 1. MS. McKENNA: Yeah, Yeah.
20 DR. MILLER:- For all the-plants, it was 0 to 10?-
21 MS. McKENNA: For escalated enforcement, which is-22' right at Level 3.
-23 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Tun percent a year.
24 MS. McKENNA: I don't know about a percentage.
25 DR MILLER: What do you mean, 10 percent-a year?
--+-----
- -- ANNL RILEY - & - ASSOCIATES, - LTD.
Court' Reporters-1250 ILStreet, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034
- I l
] 303 j 1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Ten percent of the population, on
() 2 tl , average, have --
, 3 MS. McKENNA: Of the population. Okay. Yeah, i
a 4 LDR. MILLER: And how-many 50-59 changes are there i- fr annually?
- 6. MS. McKENNA: I think that varies from licensee to 7 licensee.
8- DR. MILLER: I mean annually,, aggregate, say, over 9 'the 100-and-some plants we have. $
I 10 MS. McKENNA:- It is -- over a 100-and-some plants, i 11 it is probably, definitely thousands. It may -- it is '
l 12 probably tens of thousands over the full population.
So we are talking about .1 percent 3
13 'DR. MILLER: I i
14 would escalate into enforcement? !
( 15 MS. McKENNA: Yes. And, as I say, there -- ,
16 DR. MILLER: Or-less than .1 percent.
3
- -17 MS. McKENNA: There are,.'certainly are some the !
l 18 ' Level 4s, for instance,.that would be -- I don't have any i i i L19 actual statistics, I do see some of those coming -- when I see: _get inspection reporta.or issues that arise through
- 20
-21 discussions, it is probably -- it is certainly higher than L 22 the-escalated' cases, but I can't give you an exact number. :
23 -DR. UHRIG: Is there feedback from the panel'a ;
o 24- decisions to the licensees made available generally, or is' l 25- this just the decision'is announced and no detailed i
. ANN RILEY &'ASSOCIATFS, LTD.
Court Reporters
[
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
,. _ m a _...~. _ . _ _ .. _ _ . _ _. _ . _ - _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ . . _ ... _
l 304
- explanation is offered?
Og .g
(' / 2> MS. McKENNA: Well, I think the -- what the 3 licensee receives is the letter from the region with the 4 Notice of Violation and Inspection Report, so that -- and 5 that lays out the basis and rationale for why the 15 enforcement-action has been taken,
, 7 DR. UHRIG: And, of course, then, that is 8 available to all licensees.
9 MS. McKENNA: Correct. Correct. It doesn't 10 separately identify, you know, what the panel thought or-11 anything like that. I think our view is that this is a 12 means of gaining agency consensus on the enforcement action 13 and, you know, it is -- we work through the panel process, 14 interact with the regions, interact with the project --
(_/ 15 staff, technical staff, as necessary, that when the action 14 is taken, it is an agency action.
17 DR. MILLER: Another question.
18 MS. McKENNA: Yes.
19 DR. MILLER: What stimulated the view that there 20 was inconsistency and required this panel? Where did that 21- come from? Was that --
22 MS. McKENNA: Well, I think lt was --
23 DR. MILLER: We are talking about 10 violations 24 over four regions, so two or three per region.
25 MS. McKENNA: Well, I think it was that with the
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
305 1: --:the'way the enforcement policy is written, it provides
([ 2 that if there11s a violation of 50-59 that involves-'an
- unreviewed safety question, tha4 is a Severity-Level 3.
~
3:- And 4: we~had some instances where that was the citation,_.but the.
5 z aignificance of the. issue, in terms of, yes,- it was an 6 unreviewed safety- question because :there was a small 7 increase in probability of a malfunction,-or a change in 8 -margin, but the magnitude-and the overalltsignificance'of 9 the change were relatively low.
101 And when the policy =was written, that becomes a Level 3, and-there was some view that maybe this'wassnot 12 . properly balanced with respectL to the significance of'the t u
13 -issue and that maybe-we-needed to exercise discretion 11n 14 certain-cases where, yes, it was -- we determined it-was an k 15 unreviewed safety question,.but it was a good faith effort 16 by the licensee to do the evaluation. And-the significance 17- of the-issue was really.small and did it really warrant being a; Severity Level 3?
~
Ela I think that was one of the 4
~19- motivating factors for considering the panel.
20 I think the other thing being that, you know,'if 21- one case we determine that it was an unreviewed safety 22 question, that would, by the p,licy, be a Severity Level 3.
23 ~In another case, the licensee'may not have done an
^24: evaluation and it just happened that that particular 25 -
instance did not involve an unreviewed safety question, that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
306 1 would be a Level 4, and whether that really was r balanced (G) 2- view of the procesa.
3 DR. MILLER: Well, how many of those would involve I 4 the use of NEI 970 -- whatevur it is?
5 DR. BARTON: 96.07.
6 DR. NILLER: 96.07 I 7 MS. McKENNA: We have had some instances where the 8 --
9 DR. MILLER: How many of those would involve 10 NSIAC-125 or 96.07? !
11 MS. McKENNA: There have been some of those cases 12 where it is -- it was a question of whether, for instance, a 13 new malfunction was created, or whether there was an 14 1. crease in probability of a malfunction that, under the
() 15 NcIAC or 96.07 guidance, thcy would conclude that was not an 16 unreviewed safety question, but the staff would say that it 17 t was. We did have, again,-it was small numbers, but -- small 18 but highly visible and controversial.
19 DR. MILLER: Well, here we are talking about 10 a 20- . year. Ten a year. So how many out of the 10 a year, one or 21 two?
22 MS. McKENNA: I would say it was more like the 23 three or four.
24 DR. MILLER: So three or four out of 10,000 had 25 used 96.07 and that was deemed inappropriate by the Rule?
., ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Stroet, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
307
- 1. ;MS. McKENNA: Yeah, I guess that's --
im-( ,)) 2 !!R. MARKLEY: Dr.: Miller, that woul'd probably be 3 NSlAC-125~because --
4- MS.-McKENNA: Yes.
S :DR. MILLER:-IWell, there is not that: big a 61 difference,-as we know. .Okay.
7 MS, McKENNA: Yeah.
8 DR. MILLER: I just want to putithe numbers-in
-9 perspective. We are talking about less than: point --
'10 MS. McKENNA: Yes, but I think the other. point-is:
11- that,- while the numbers may be - staall, J the time invested by 12.- both the NRC and the licensee in:.some of those issues is J
.13; large, andcso that tif.we can settle some of'those issues 14 with less controversy, you know,.there would1be definite 15 benefit to all.
- 16 - DR. MILLER: So this panel, in part, was to help 17 the licensee?- Is that part of-what I am hearing.then?
18: DR. BARTON: I don't think'so.
19 UR. MILLER: I don!t read it that way. But~
20- somehow, your words, you are telling me -- 4 21 MS. McKENNA: Well, okrsy. As--I mentioned, the --
22- .you saw in the letter, one of the issueszhad to do with the 23 question of whether -- for discretion. And I think this is 24 s: ca:there may be some benefit to all parties involved of
.25 pursuing a case that, you know, we say, yes, this is an o ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
308 1 unreviewed safety question, therefore, it is Severity Level
() 2 3
- 3. That leads you into different channels for response and action than if you sa;, yas, it was violation, the 4 significance is such that it doesn't warrant being treated 5 as Severity-Level 3, we-areLgoing to handle it as Severity 6- Level 4, and that would then -- you know, because if we take 7 an action, we say it is a Level 3, we have to be able to 8 defend that and it may go to hearing and some of those kinds h
9 -of things.
10 So, when those cases happen, we want to make sure
-11 that we really are prepared to carry forward with those, 12 And we also recognite that there is much more of an impact 13 on a licensee to get a Scesrity Level 3 in terms of the 14 ' response they need to take and a possible civil. penalty.
k_sb 15 So, again, from their perspective, those issues --
16 DR. MILLER: How many Level 3 violations 17 there, other than 50-59? Just give me a feel.
18 MS.-McKENNA: I am not sure I can give you a good i
19 answer to that since I am not -- not in-the Office of 12 0 Enforcement.
21 DR. BARTON: We heard 48 yesterday.
22 DR. MILLER: 48.
23 DR. BARTON: A year.
24 DR. MILLER: So, that includes 50-59 then?
2F DR. BARTON: That was the number that was given,
()-s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l 309 i
h 1- it was a total cf 48;
- () -2
- DR.-MILLER: Okay.
- 3- MS.'McKENNA: - That seems about right from what_I 4 have..seen.; I just can't --
5- DR. MILLER: - Okay.- .I am trying to get some feel 6 for nuabers here. ' Okay . .
CHAIRMAN SEALE: -One-of the things we have-
"8 identified is that on the 50-59 arena, that is approximately-
-9 40-percent of the licensees --LI should say plants, per 10 year. Now, if -you look at- those statistics in more detail 11- and you find out is1---there-is likely to be repeaters, then-
.12 .it--becomes characteristic-of an1 individual-plant, and=I am ,
13- sureLthat is a concern that you would have.
14- =MS. McKENNA':- Yes. And that is certainly a
) 15 consideration when the agency 3.looks at an enforcement action 16 as to what -- what the history has been, as to whether there 17 has-been previcus instances in the area that may not have 18 been corrected.
19 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I would submit'that there is also 20 .a potential interest.in whether or not there is the 21 phenomena of what I would call repeaters among the regions.
22 That is, does a region have a disproportionate share of 23- these kinds of actions that go forward and, as a result, it 24: is potentially as.much a tool-to rate or to comptre -- rate-25 is perhaps a severe word -- the performance of regions as it ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 4 .
Washington, D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034
310 1 is to compare the performance of licensees.
() 2 .Has that aspect of this entered in at all into the 3 discussions of the panel? Are you contemplating bending 4 your results as'you accumulate statistics.to look for that-5 kind of thing as well?
6- MS. McKENNA: I would say, I think with -- given
- 7. we have only been in the process a couple of months, we 8 haven't done that.
9 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I appreciate that.
10 MS. McKENNA: I did not just at the 26 cases we
'11 had to see what the regional distribution was, and it was 12 pretty even. It was like 7-6, 6-7 across the --
13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: You have to normalize that to the 14 numbers of plants, too.
(_) 15 MS. McKENNA: Yeah, across the four regions. I 16 think one of the benefits of the panel is that it may tend 17 to normalize out some of those kinds of things.
18 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay.
19 MS. McKENNA: That if a region brings forward a 20 case and we don't think it is sustainable, that -- you know,
.21 that would mcVe into a different channel or something. But 22 I recognize the concern and --
23 u CHAIRMAN SEALE: You know, if it is going to cut, 24 it has got to cut both ways.
25 MS. McKENNA: Yes. Yes. Any other questions on
\# ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
311' 1 Enforcement Panel and experience with that?-
2 [No response.)
3- MS'. McKENNA: The last two bullets I just wanted-4 .to touch on. They're not specific.to~50.59,-but they-do 5 , tend to -- I mean, it was one of the things I-think we 6 discussed inisome of the earlier meetings and papers is that 7- Lit's-very hard to-look at one issue in a vacuum; 50.59 is 8 very clearly related to FSARs because of the way the rule is
- 9. worded.
10 '- '
Ihe next bullet was just, again, at_your December 11l meeting you had some discussion on FSAR updating and-the-12 approach the staff is considering and, you know, NEI hac 13 been trying to develop some guidance to help with licensee
-14 updating. You may have seen the-November-14 draft. That 15 document-is now designated as 98 and' staff _-is-continuing 16 its work. -And this is somewhat in a-parallel path.with our 17 50.59 rulemaking-as we_are awaiting any change in direction
.18 'or guidance we may' receive from the Commission.
~
19- But again, we're trying to be poised-to move 20- forward with the FSAR' updating guidance as soon as we 211 understand exactly where the-Commission wants us-to go with' 22 some of-that.
2 3 -- The last bullet I just mentioned is again kind of 24 :a related piace in terms of reaching some commonality of 25 understanding about what information constitutes design ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
-Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 2 f34 03
312 basis <information.
-_2 There's-a'97-04 document from N I which is a 13 revision of one of the-earlier documents, NUMARC-90-12,
.4: =which is design. basis program guidelines. But.within that-5 _they do provide _a proposed breakdown, shall we say, of what-
.6 'information is design basis'information and what information
=7,
'is supporting information, and while it's primarily focused-8- on issues of-operability;and_reportability, wo do-see some-
- 9. potential co..nections with respect to FSAR and possibly-10- 50.59 if we have-some guidance to adjust,_shall we~say, what 11 the scope of 50.59 should be'.
12 So just note that that's also on the table. It's 33 been-under review'by the staff._ We've gotten comments from 14 a fairly wide rangeLwithin the agency,-and-we plan to
- 15. provide a response to-NEI when we.can get the comments put-
-16 -together into-an-overall document.
17 And those:!were the topics that I wanted to touch 18 on, but certainly would welcome any.other questions-or 19 ~ comments-from the Committee.
20 DR. POWERS: I'd like'to'come back.to the -- what 21i is it, Phase 2 or_-- _ -
22 MS. McKENNA: Yes.
23 DR. POWERS: What not on on the development of a 24 risk-li.f ormed 50.59, and the time required to do that.
- 25. How do we:-- as people debate and think about
-( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 ,
(202).842-0034 l 1
u ..
313 1 this, how do they estimate that time required to do that?
.( ) 2 MS, McKENNA: I think we see that in the context 3 of years.
4 DR. POWERS: I know you do, but I don't know why.
5 MS. McKENNA: Well, I think that it's kind of, you 6 know, the front end of establishing the concept is probably 7 not the difficulty, it's finding all the tendrils throughout 8 the regulations and making sure it's all -- evet/ thing.
9 DR.' POWERS: But presumably you have. looked at all l 10 those tendrils in the last few months, 11 MS, McKENNA: I think we've looked to see what 12 they are, but -- and in terms of identifying how one --
13 DR. POWERS: Do you have a list' 14 MS. McKENNA: Restructure them so that they all fit together in a new concept is not as easy -- I mean, I 15 16 think even when we're looking at in terms of 50.59 and FSARs 17 it kind of teaches us that, you know, you first start 18 looking and say well, okay, we'll just go in and very 19 targeted change these couple of words to these couple of 20 words. And they say well, if I do that, then over here in 21 this other part of the regulation where it talks about 22 those --
23 DR. POWERS: I'll concede the point. I'm well 24 aware of it --
25 MS. McKENNA: Yes.
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
1 I
l 314 1 DR. POWERS: In just looking at some of the fuel
() 2 issues, where you want to change one word you find it 3 cascades.everywhere.
4 MS. McKENNA: Um-hum.
5 DR. POWERS: Do you-have a list or, I mean, how o much of a resource base do you have available to you now on 7 where to go look, or is it --
is going to risk-informed 8- basis'really require a complete new examination?
9 MS, McKENNA: I think it wocid require the
-10 complete reexamination, because again it's kind of how far 11 and how fast you want to go with some of these things, Some 12 of the kinds of changes that are being looked at in the 13- pilots, obviously that's a much more focused upon request 14 type of change.
15 To say we're going to redesign a regulatory 16 structure to have a stronger risk-informed basis you get 17 into all these kinds of questions about okay, does that mean 18 that all the rules and requirements that we now have,-some 1
19 of those are no longer necessary, but a whole new set of 20 things are, which ones would be kept, how do you handle the 21 transition, are you going to require that plants move under 22- this new regime or say well, this is something that if you 23 want to be -- take advantage of the what PRA may offer you 24 in terms of understanding risk and in various contexts that 25 you can but that you wouldn't be required to.
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
315 1 -Also I think the other thing is that we've found (p) 2 that if you really look more fully at a risk informed tells 3 you that some things are more important than you thought and 4 other things are less important, and you have to take the 5 whole package versus only the things you want. Some of 6 those kinds of issues I ttank, you know, we need to-think 7 about very carefully before we-move too far.
8_ Dd. POWERS: Sc.ne who have engaged in debates have 9 taken the position chr. if we don't move for a risk-informed 10 rule now and hold everything up_that we'll never get one, 11 because the many things you've just outlined man be
-12 magnified --
13 MS. McKENNA: Um-hum.
14 DR. POWERS: Into a lifetime task, and that it'll O
\m / 15 never happen. Why shouldn't I believe them?
16 MS. McKENNA: I guess then you're back to, if this 17 is a direction that the Agency wants to move, and that's 18 where they-put their resources and their priorities, then it 19 will happen. You know, at this point we're not sure that
'20 that is what.we necessarily want to do at this point in 21 time. You know, there's a lot of competing interests, and 22 is this the time to make those kind of changes, or do we 23 need to focus in other areas.
24 DR. POWERS: So what you're saying is it yes, it 25 can be a lifetime task, if you only let me work on it five p i t
'~' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
316 1 : minutes a day.-
() 12 MS..McKENNA: - Exactly. Yes.
3- DR. BARTON:' Butm according to the Chairman's-4 comments? yesterday the train has_.left the station and it's
- 5. almost at-Bob-Seale's front door. So ILthink this may be a.
6- time 1 to relook~at putting --
=7 MS. McKENNA: -- put the-brakes ~on.
8 CHAIRMAN SEALER The consequences of'getting
'9' marooned-in.the deserc are dire.
t
'10 DR. BARTON: I'think maybe we want to relook at 11- the urgency of the risk-informed part of 50.59 a lot sooner
'12 than'-- I think theHfeeling:of the committee is also ifEwe
.13: don't^do something now, it's going to-be_many years, and'it-
.14 seems the-Chairman-is really seriousiabout going down'the
) 15 ' risk-informed path. Maybe we ought to relook at doing that
'164 with:50.59.
-17 MS. McKENNA: 'Yes,-I-think, you,know, . we've 18 slooked'-- when we were looking at making the recommendations 19= on SECY-97-205 we:did look very hard at the question of can 20 -you make 50.59'itself risk-informed, or is that-kind"of the 21- tail"of the dog rather:than in terms of that you change the-22- licensing: basis and?the requirements that establish on the 23 license to begin with, and then if that is.on a 24- risk-informed basis,=then it makes sense to look at changes 25 to it on a risk-informed basis.
~
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suita 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l317 1 .
But if-your-licensing basis is designTbasis
() 2 accidents and: single failures and some of those kinds of c 3 -: issues that then applying a change: criterion that-looks at
=4' change _-in risk it may:not, _you:know,.quite fit,_ and I think-5 that's exactlyLtheopointtwith1 respect;to, you:know, how-big 65 a change doxyou make,=and.when do you do it.-
7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, we may or not have done you 8;
a favor by pointing out.that.come of the changes that you're 9! talking-about in 50.59 spacerdo not come up on the radar 10 acreen when you examine lPRA kinds of consequences. It seems
. 11 to me, though, on the-other hand, that that!s_probably an 12= issue that is that discrimination. differentiation, so on,
-13 that' recognition,- probably an: issue that ought 'to be 11 4 pretty early in_your thinking. process before you start going h
.s_s/_ _ 15L through the rule and asking what you=do editorially to make 16- it work.
17 And so I would imagine'that if you do have any
~
18 ' spare time while the great and famous are' deliberating,where 19 Lthey want to-go, _that_this question of' discrimination in 120' terms of risk-space and how you go about making:that
- 21. decision as to whether or not it's a risk-informed choice or 22- perhaps a deterministic choice (nr whatever the process may L23 be, may be something_you want to be looking at rather in-the 24- near-term rather than further out. Atfleast-that's my 25 personalfinclination.
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034 Y _ ._--- - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -
318 1- MS. McKENNA: Okay. Thank-you. I understand your (j.
( -
2 . comment, yes.
3 DR. BARTON: Any.other comments from Members of
'4 the Committee?
5 (No response.]
6 Does the-industry have anything to say at this 7 time?
8 MR. MARKLEY: NEI was planning to attend, I'm not 9 sure, but they did not request time.
10 MR. BELL: Russell Bell, with NEI.
11 We're in progress as the staff is on a number of 12 these aspects focusing on 50.59, particularly the (a) (1) 13 portion, which is the scope of applicability.
- 14. We're in the throes of that, and so I've really
(_)- 15__ nothing concrete to add to the discussion today, butLexpect ,
16 to continue the dialogue with the staff in short order given 17 the priority that we share with this Committee on this 18 issue.
19 DR. BARTON: Thank you.
20 In closing then, like I said in the beginning, we 21 have spent a considerable amount of interest in this issue, 22 and I think the ACRS at this point believes that there's a 23 need for stabilization in the 50.59 process on an expedited 24 - basis in light of dwindling resources both at NRC and the 25 industry due to constraints in budgets.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
319 1 I'm especially interested in seeing this resolved
) 2 in the near term, especially when you look at a number of 3 years when this process has worked fairly well. We think 4 that we have been spending considerable resources recently 5 on trying to fix something which is not totally broken, or 6 maybe not even broken, and when you lor **. at the numbers of 7 violations in this area, it seems to be very small, so I 8- think it's time to get on with the business and try to get 9 this prccess out and stabilized as soon as possible. )
)
10 DR. POWERS: Mr. Chairman, do you see some need to 11 assure that the Commission is aware of the delay and the 12 r -2 ;.tde of task forecast by the staff to make an immediate 13 move toward a more risk-informed rule rather than this Phase 14 1 fixup?
10
(,_ / 15 DR. BARTON: I think, Dana, that we could -- we 16 made a point.in December on the two-phase,. but we needed to 17 address the risk, zero-rdsk issue, and maybe we need to make 18 a-stronger point and clarify the urgency to get on with 19 this.
20 DR. POWERS: .It seems to me both the~ urgency the 21 industry feels for this, some emphasis there may be of use, 22 but I think it's also important to understand that unless 23 the Agency is willing to target the magnitude of resources 24 that the speaker has suggested might be necessary here, it's 25 going to be a very long process, and even if they do target
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0011 1
320
- 1. those resources, it is a long process; that they will
() 9' quickly_ run into the classic nine women will not produce a 3' child-in one month no matter how hard you try. We all know 4' that women work =twice as hard as men, not it's all so easy.
5 I--;mean, I'm just_not sure I'm hearing-these words '
6' in the debate, and I don't see any kind of quantificat:on 7- from the scaff to substantiate _our position, but'I guess I; 8 have to-believe-the staff'when they tell me that this is not 9 an easy task, and certainly the experience we have in other-10 modest changes to the rules, the tendril effect is very, 11 very real. This is a consistent and intertwined set of 12 regulations, not a collection of-regulations.
13 DR. BARTON: A simple change is being' proposed-to 14= the current rule and that's been going on for quite a while'.
.(_n):
15 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah, they're taking forever.
16 DR.- POWERS: Well, I mean,;I think-it's=something 17 that we need to think~about especially since the Commission 18- has indicated a willingness to. listen to thinking-rather 19' than-just conclusions from the-commitLee.
2 0 -- CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah.
21- DR. POWERS:- It would be nice if we could get --
22- if we decide to do that, if we could get maybe some help 23 from the staff intimately involved in this and some 12 4 substantiation points that Tna would want to draw.
7 25 DR. BARTON: Okay. Sounds good.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i w w -
321 1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Are-you through?-
! 2 DR. BARTON: Yes.
\-
3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. Well, perhaps in our 4 planning and procedures discussions later on this afternoon 5 we might want to see if we could formulate some sort of 6 tasking to examine what it would take to develop a position
- 7. on whether or not the dance is worth the price of admission 8 on this one.
9 DR. MILLER: That's an important question.
10 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes. Yes.
11 Thank you very-much. We appreciate your coming 12 down to see us, We are clearly very interested in this 13 issue and we know that anything like this that's evolving 14 the way it is, is sometimes a little difficult to scope, and (N .,
i s,) . : 15 you've done a very nice job of it.
16 We would continue to be interested in the NEI 17 position and if you have anything, as we go along, to tell 18 us about it, we would sure like to hear about it.
19 With that, I think we'll end this particular
- 20. session and perhaps go on to the next F.ession. This is on 21 SECY 97-231, Performance-Based Inspection Guidance, and Dr.
22 Apostolakis is the chairman of the subcommittee on all 23 things performance-based. George.
24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
25 Yeah, the purpose of today's meeting is to review
('- ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l
322 l 1 SECY 97-231 which was written in response to a staff
() 2 requirements memoranduni fium the Commission dated March 17, 3 1997.
4 I find tb title of the SECY very intriguing, 5 especially the part that says. distinction between incpecting 6 for performance and inspecting against the 7 performance-based. So you will enlighten us today as to 8 what that means. We have all seen copies of the memo from 9 Commissioner Diaz congratulating.the staff that they've done 10 a vary good job distinguishing between those two concepts.
11 The Chairman issued the memorandum to the EDO just 12 about a month ago -- yes, a little over a month ago where 13 she asks a few more questions having read this document.
14 And I understand you are working on those questions now. I
) 15 don't know how much you can tell us today, but she's asking 16 things such as what training and procedure revisions have
-17 been planned or performed to define regulatory compliance-18 within the context of a performance-based inspection. That 19 is, what actions have been taken to help inspectors and 20 supervisors rationalize these two concepts into a single, 21 coherent approach. That's a very interesting question.
22 One question now for us is whether we want to 23' write a letter after this presentation during this meeting, 24 but there is an important element in this, a factor that 25 l would affect our decision. The Office of Research is Ih ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\ws Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
}
323
'1- preparing a white paper on performance-based regulation and 2- as you know, there wfll be a-PRA subcommittee meeting'in about-two weeksiand we have scheduled a presentation on t ht
-m 3 4 at that time, This will be the first time that we will hear 5 about it.
6 So I'm inclined to recommend that perhaps we-7- should wait until we hear from that project and then maybe:
8 write a letter on-the-broader issue _of performance-based:
9 regulation or al separate _ letter on performance-based 10 inspection. But I think we will have a better picture of 11 what-is happening at that time that we can discuss as a 12' committee later.
13 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Perhaps we:should also point out
'14 thatrin some recent discussions that the Committee has: had,-
15~ there was expressed a-heightened interest.in the inspection ;,
16- program and its interaction with the rest of the activities 17- of not-only NRR but the Commission. And so this is probably 18 not the only time you're going:to have-the opportunity to 19- -talk with'us. _But you might bear:that in mind.
20 DR.-APOSTOLAKIS: So perhaps we can start.
21 .HAIRMAN C SEALE: _Yes.
22' DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Gentlemen?
23 MR. FRAHM: Thank you and good morning. My name 24 is Ron Frahm, Jr., I'm in the Inspection Program Branch in 25- .the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
324 1 With me.at the table today_are Frank 'lespie,
() 2 the director of the Division of Inspection and Support 3 Programs and Doug Coe, a senior reactor analyst in the 4 Inspection Program Branch, and also Bill Borchardt who is 5 the branch _ chief of the. Inspection Program Branch.
6 What we're here to discuss today is 7 performance-based inspection and in particular the SECY 8 97-231 that was issued on October 8 of 1997. In my 9 presentation today I'm going to attempt.to address those-
-10 five; additional _ questions composed by the Chairman in i 11- December. So hopefully they're incorporated into this 12 presentation, but that has not gone out yet, it's still in '
13 -the draft stages.
14 I've formatted the-presentation into four distinct 15 parts, first.off we would like_to present'the inspection 16 program history and we-feel'this is important to help
-17 provide a fundamental 1 understanding of the performance-based 18 inspection approach and how and why it came about.
19 I will eventually turn to Mr. Frank Gillespie to 20 give that discussion because-he was deeply involved in the 21 whole evolvement of the program. "
22 I've also_ included the discussion of the-current-23 program to describe the basic approach and attribuces of
' 2: 4 - NRC'c inspection program. Next I'll discuss the details of 25 the performance-based inspection approach and ir.clu.e a
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 1
325
, g i discussion of1the-performance-based regulations and 2- inspecting against-the performance-based rule.
'3 Then I'llipresent-the_ current guidance and-4- training available to prepare thelNRC inspection staff-for 5- inspecting in'_a. performance-based-manner.
6 LI'll.also discuss the recent in-plant improvements
-7 to the NRC_ inspection-program-to:further ensure a consistent 8 understanding of performance-based inspections.
9 _But first, Mr. Frank Gillespie will talk aboutLthe
._10 - history and evolvenient of the NRC inspection program, 11 MR. GILLESPIE:- Ron's-being kind. He' looked 12 around and I was the only_old~enough who had been here l'ong ]
13 enough.to remember the history and we never really: wrote it- ,
14' -down.
_'15 : (Laughter.)-
'16 MR. GILLESPIE: So.he says, can you come and talk 117: on:the. history.
18 CHAIRMAN-SEALE: That's.the_ price of_ longevity..
19 MR.-GILLESPIE': It is, it is,'it_'is. 1Now, just by
-20 way1of background, _I was-in' Region IsinL1975'through 1978.
21 I was in Region-II upluntil 1980 and then I came.to J22 headquarters. In '87-I came into NRR_and basically was in 123 -charge of the inspection program at that-point'on. In the 24 ,early '.80s I'was in the Office of Research. I was the 2 51 director of the Division of Risk Analysis and the Director ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
L 326 lL of Division'of Accident' Evaluation in two different' times in
-history.
3- --Let_me;quickly-go_through some of these bullets, 4- -not the whole. history, but particularly as they relate.to S theLevolution of what's now' called performance-based
-- 6 inspection and'try to avoid the_ semantics problem which'I 7 think has really got_us all hung in strings.of using 8- performance-based-.in referring to both rules'and-inspection.
9_ -I'm focusing on inspection and then let me try_to relate it-
'10- at the end to the rule. Because many times what the 11 ' inspector looks at or what the inspector plans to look at
'i 12 'and-starts to-look a is not necessarily reflected in the-113 details of what'he's^ writing.
114' You know, I was here at the presentation of NEI
- 15L last. night and there was some comment about.that 1600! items
- 16 . _ were a low level. Well, I'm going to try-to give an example
,17 of:---the--inspector didn't start out looking'for-that; 18 -low-level thing, he was looking,. hopefully, at a
-19 higher-' level issue, but he saw it. And we do have a policy
$20 that uif :you see it, you need to write it down. And that-21' develops-into a trending approach to inspection- .
22 AEC Compliance Division in 1959 used to be
- 23. . compliance on the general manager side. Compliance turned 24- into-the NRC in 1974. And_primarily at that time we had a 25 construction focus. And to give you a sense of scale, I was ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 o
327
-1 :in= Region I at that time, thereiwas less than 100 people in= .
Region I,'yet itLhad more' reactors than it,does today=with 2.
3 -about two-thirds of them in the construction phase,_ and_
4 one-thirdLoperating.
5 And of that'less than 100 people, that was four-61 branches and cne covered materials on medical licensees, 7 there was an operations branch 1for reactors, a construction 8- . branch, a safeguards branch, and basically a M4SS branch, 9 very stripped down.- .
l
.10 You had an inspection force that was very focused, 11 you hit a site, you went through your items and you got off-12 the site and went to the next site. It did have a checklist 13 l view to it in the construction mode. You wereJchecking 14 against construction standards, was the-standard met? -And O
- (,/ = 15-
~
.you were doing thenbeat you could do with the number of 16- people you had1which is very slim ~ compared to Region I today 17' which has almost-250 people in it. -
18 So-the-program evolved'from a construction 19
-program._ There was some experimentation withia resident-20- inspection program before TMI. To say-this was much more '
121- than four or1five sites where it was toyed.with, there were 22 two sites in Region III, I forget-whicn the other ones were.
23- :It was experimental, but still within kind of the context of 24 a growing -- once NRC became a growing institution where we.
25- could afford to have and look at more people being out in ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
'(202) 842-0034
328 1 tne field, but still very, very limited. And we're looking 2 at four or five pilot program.
h 3 But wc're still basically in the mindset of a 4 construction organization. We're still basically looking to 5 get in there and make judgments on minimal -- make maximum 6 judgments on minimal information and observations.
7 Of course, then TMI occurred. And then we went 8 from a very limited organization to a massive expansion, I 9 mean, all over. The licensing affort, the inspection 10 effort, the regions really started to grow, and the view of 11 what we were doing started to grow, 12 This was a catalyst if we look at what we are 13 doing, but it could be said that we didn't really react 14 potentially to the -- I'll say the generic issues of TMI 15 until Davis Bessey hit. And we said, now we've got a plant 16 that has very similar indications. We should have seen it, 17 we had a sense there were words in inspection reports that 18 if diagnosed and treuded would have led you up to a plant 19 that's having a problem. And that really focused it -- all 20 the reports and the efforts after TMI really didn't fix the 21 fundamental problem of what are we looking at in the 22 inspection program and how were we analyzing it?
23 That was the major impact for things like the 24 Senior Management Meeting and that is where the concept, and 25 I am only going to try to say it this one time, the concept ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 942-0034
329 l 1 of compliance versus performance really came into its own.
_( 2 There was a recognition that we needed a 3 transition from what was really a compliance-based 4 construction program trying to be superimposed on operations 5 to an operations program which was focused on safety.
6 A fallout of this in the preplanning for the I&E 7 NRR reorganization that occurred in 1987 really started and 8- had its essence in how do we'get things toget.er, how do we 9 get all the information together, how do we get all the 10 people looking at different aspects to get everything in one 11 organization.
12 That ended up in this reorganization in 1987, to 13 bring all aspects of the program together into a single 14 operational focus, and this was the culmination of -- the (ms/ 15 Senior-Management Meeting was put in place in about '85 16 after Davis-Besse and they said we need to bring it all 17 together so that the engineering and the licensing view of 18 operations and the inspection view of operations comes 19 together not just on paper but organizationally.
20 In 1987 we started doing some things -- actually 21 started in about '86. Unfortunately it didn't get seen 22 until 1987 and that is when our first NUREG was published 23 which tried to give some sense of what performance-based 24 inspection should be, and the philosophy from '87 is still 25 with the program today.
(O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
330 1 Again in '87 we started rewriting the program, j f 2 rewriting the 2515 chapter, which is kind of the overriding 3 philosophy for the Operating Reactor Inspection Program. If 4 you went to the pre '88 data you would find that independent 5 of reactor performance virtually every reactor in the 6 country got exactly the same amount of inspection. It had 7 nothing to do with performance. Everyone said it did, but I 8 will tell you in looking at 10 years of data, the data 9 didn't bear it out, and so we needed a real change in 10 approach and that was the start of the rewrite of the 11 philosophy in 2515.
12 Subsequently we started making some changes and 13 now you will find that based on the overall performance of 14 reactors and the way resources are now allocated, you will O
's_) 15 find that there is a gradier between what we would consider 16- the better performing plants, which are down around maybe-17 2500, 2400 hours0.0278 days <br />0.667 hours <br />0.00397 weeks <br />9.132e-4 months <br /> per year of direct inspection effort to 18 what we consider the poorer performing plants, which will go 19 'anywhere up to 10,000 to 12,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of inspection effort.
20 So the first real philosophic piece was.the 21 issuance of 2015 in 1988 and then after that was I'll say 22 the Headquarters' enforcement of that concept.
23 Also what happened in '88 was the invention of the 24 PPR. At that tie it was done quarterly and the concept of 25 the PPR was that every region had so many resources and you
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
331 1 wanted those resources put where the problems were, and that
() 2 3
you had to step back and look at all of your resources and allocate them.
4 It really took us until about 1991 to see this 5 significant gradient between poorer performing plants and 6 good performing plants. The gradient is there. It's there 7 today.and the utilities themselves see it.
8 While we're constantly trying to improve it, that 9 was one of the first successes of shifting from look at the f
10 same stuff at every reactor to look at the stuff you need to 11 look at.
12 The other aspect that sometimes is lost that is 13 continually now being factored into all of our inspection 14 procedures and it answers the question that was asked (O
s ,/ 15 yesterday on how much we are going to look at good 16 performance and look for good performance is given the 17 number of resources we had and the focus, the inspection i 18 procedures all have written into them in our core 19 procedures, which is the minimum amount we want looked at at 20 each reactor, you should only look at enough to make the 21 judgment that the program is working, and then you want to 22 - go on to the next thing and the go on the next thing doesn't 23 mean the next thing at that reactor. It literally means the 24 next thing in a region's perspective at the reactor that's y 25 got the biggest problem.
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
332 1 That is embedded in the objectives of our core
.2 procedares so even our minimum program is not defined by a 3 -miniiaum amount.of time.
'4 We do have an Appendix in the inspction program 5 that says on the average history would say this is how much 6 time it takes, but we do not hold people accountable to 7 number of hours. We hold them accountable to the objective, 8 to luoking at as much as you need to to make the judgment.
9 In the same time period, the guidance sections of 10 each inspection procedure started to be looked at as to what 11_ _w ere we telling inspectors to look at.
This is where--we 12 really get into the crux of the conversion from the 13 complianc3 to safety.
14 At'the same time, this-ir about the 1991 15_ timeframe, we_were working with -- at that time it was the 16 Otfice'of Research, and they published some NUREGs and some 17 various documents. They_were called the RIGS-and it was 18 risk-informed guidance documents. It was-actually about 19 1981 we triad to introduce -- didn't meet with total success 20~ but we tried to introduce the concept that as inspectors 21 pich.the sample of what they are looking at, their sample 22 should be focused on the most safety-significant items in 23 the-plant and this is where I come to the crux of_what the
-24 ' inspector documents versus whet he is looking at.
-- 2 5 - - - -
-We-expect the-inspector-to be using, since 1981, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,-LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 30u Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) ._842-0034 l
_ l
a 333 t whatever information-he has on the most. critical safety 2
() 2 essence of what is in the plant and to look at those things.
3 For example, we have a requirement that you 4 observe maintenance occasionally, and'it started out being j 5 onc', a month at each unit and'then we kind of backed off on l
, 6 that a we found what the requirements were -- didn't back 7 off completely but reduced it.
}.
8 Well, it would be expected '. hat he should pick a L 9 maintenance observation that is of high risk or high safety 10 significance on that system.
11 Now his focus is_the safety _of the facility and 12 .the operation of the. system, but if he observes a misstep in 13 the procedure he can't un-know what he knows. He also i'
- 14 the public's perspective basically can't avoid documenting ,
l 15 what he saw. This ends up in what we could be criticized i
16 for as considered lower level items to be documented but he 17 didn't go into it looking for the misstep five in the 4
'18 procedure on the actuation circuit for high pressure 19 injection pumps.
20 Let me pick the Maire-Yankee instance- . They went i
21 in'looking to see if the test procedure assured operability 22 of the high pressure injection system, so I think we can't
- 23 confuse whr.t the inspector documents to what his objective 1
24 was. His objective was the operability of the system.
_. 25 Now-in observing what he needs to observe to see
[ A4N RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
, Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
334 1 if that operability is assured, he-is going to observe
-( ) 2 things that violate lower level requirements, and there is a 3 gradation in requirements.
-4 So, yes,-we do document things. We document what 5 were observed, and that_will get me to.the next instance, 6- South Texas.
7 Lots of things happened at South Texas. There was 8 a GAO report. We did an internal report. This will get me 9 to the lower level things. We did DETs and this was in the 10 1992-1993 timeframe and hindsight is 20/20 and-I have been 11 beat up over the last 12-years, since I have been in charge 12- of the program, over everyone else's hindsight and.why 13 didn't-I have the foresight? -- I'm not smarter than 14 everybody else, so I didn't -- was that, gee, when'they O(ss/ 15 looked back retrospectively at all the inspection reports 16 they said, well, you guys knew this was happening, okay?
17 So when.they_take 12 people and_they spend two 18 . months looking at every inspection report written for four 19 years, they said, you know, in the essence of what'you guys 20 : wrote your inspectors were seeing this stuff happening --
21 and there was some truth to that.
22 This leads us into some of the corrections we're 23 -trying to make in our assessment process. In the lower
-24 level items, when you started seeing multiple hits on 25_ testing, we were actually_ dealing with them still at this-() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
335 1 time as individual issues, and we gave inspectors the
() 2 discretion at that time in our enforcement procedure to not 3 write things up, and this is something that has gone up and 4 down with the history of the program -- how much do you 5 document?
6 I am not saying we're at perfection. We are still-7 groping for that level of documentation, but there was a 8 real focus on the integration of information, and I will 9 call it the digestion of information that has its roots in 10 those DETs in South Texas and the GAO report.
11 I personally have a real hesitancy to lose that 12 information until I understand what I am losing, because I 13 am not sure that we fully utilized it to this day, and that
_s 14 =ccually is the roots of what we are doing today in the
\ms/ 15 Senior Management Meeting process in trying to come up
'6
. with -- the matrix is just a different way than the SALP 17 process to cut the data, to try to group it in a more' 18 meaningful process, but it is data that we have and it's 19 data that we are collecting.
20 The (N + 1) policy of course came in in 1988. It 21 is interesting to note that the (N + 1) policy did not add 22 any resources to the program. Sometimes people think, well, 23 you've got enough resources. No, actually, the (N + 1) 24 policy was taken out of Regional Inspectors and it was 25 gradually put into place over three years, so there were no
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 1 Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
-336 1 additional inspectors but what we did gain was what I'll
() 2 3
call inspector efficiency.
If you take a guy from a region, he musc less 4 eyeball time on the facility than a resident does.
5 The other thing to undetstand, in 1988 one-third 6 of all the facilities already had (N + 1) without the policy 7 and they had (N + 1) based on the agency's perspective of 8 those facilities' performance, and so we actually didn't put 9 any additional residents out for the first year of the
(
10 implementation of (N + 1) because we already had the first 11 third in place, so there was a very strong evolution into a '
12 perfort.tance-oriented program.
13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Can you briefly tell us what (N 14 + 1) means?
) 15 MR. GILLESPIE: You have an extra resident versus 16 the nuraber of reactors, so a two unit site is three 17 reactors. A one unit site has two -- residents, I'm sorry, 18 residents. A t.hree unit uite would have four.
19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay.
20 CRAIRMAN SEALE: And so all of these more recent 21 considerations of modifying that rule for good performers is 22 only a recognition of the fact that maybe you had the right 23 idea in the first place?
24 MR. GILLESPIE: I think what you are seeing today 25 is n evolution --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
)
l 337 l 1 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes.
!(.) 2 MR. GILLESPIE: -- of the direction that was kind 3 of ' tilt into the philosophy of the program in about 1987, 4 and you are seeing the incorporation of the lessons learned.
5 We didn't go far enough so you are seeing a
- 6) constant evolution.
7 It's not just sudden -- oh ho! --
it's 8 performance-based today, and it didn't come easily. This 9 very much did not come easily.
10 The other piece I'll throw in, because I'd kind of 11 like to take a plug for the. inspection program, before we 12 had a PRA plan, people think that the SRAs just kind of 13 showed up and we have had them for a year and Ne only made 14 that decision a year ago.
) 15 The SRAs all went through a two year training 16 cycle. In fact, the inspection program or the regulatory 17 program recognized the need to initially get at least two 18 people in each region who have some level of risk training 19 and insights that they can bring to the program.
20 We recognized that in 1993 because that is whe.
21 the SRA program and the training started evolving and 22 getting put together, so that people like Doug, who are now 23- graduates of that program, are out and running. I mean we 24 [have got the talent in the region.
25 At about the same time, the focus is becoming on i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D,C. 20005 (202) 842-0034'
338 1 risk. The additional piece that came after that is a course
() 2 you will often hear referred to, the P-111 course, which I 3 think Doug and I worked pretty closely together on kind of 4 inventing.
5 The next step was, gee, if you get two guys in 6 each region who have a risk-perspective, little more than 7 the original inspector, eventually you neod someone at each 8 site who Works for the NRC with that perspective, and the 9 first training course was just completed. Doug was 10 monitoring it. The P-111 has been under development for 11 almost two years, maybe two and a half years, from the first 12 thought =and our goal there was to get at least one of the 13 people on the resident's staff at each site in the first 14 year -- the course has now started, we are off and 15 running ---to have some sense of risk training, not to make 16 him an analyst but enough risk insights to apply to their 17 job and it is now a two week course.
18 Iastead of having a patchwork of all these 19 different courses, which we were trying to work with before, 20 pulls it together and directly relates it to the inspection 21 job and our goal is by the end of this calendar year to try 22 to have at least one person per site.
23 So since 1993 we have been working to now bring 24 the risk insights and perspectives into the whole program 25 also, so this isn't something we started in 1995. What you
_ =
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court' Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
i I
339 1 pre seeing is the f ruits of what we started three years
( 2 carlier and now suddenly to be in-place in a program.
3 It is evolutionary. It is not just the SRA showed 4 up, their training cycle and everything was started three
-5 ' years _ earlier.
6 With that, I think I have hit the major points 7 that I would want to hit. To kind of pick up this, it is an 8 evolutionary process and people are always trying to move i 9 forward on it.
]
10 We do have a new course that we have put in, 11 because we now have a new problem. Our new problem is, I
12 basically, some of the experience level of our new 13 inspectors. And approach. And we have had a significant 14 turnover. And so now, in trying to address that problem,'we 15 do have a new course in place and we are looking at the 16' training levels to make sure that we can give someone the 17 insights of what we expect them to inspect to.
18 And, again, it is this concept of you are going _in 19 to look at the maintenance on the aux feed water system, you 20 are going to observe the PMs on a pump _in aux feed. Your 21 : principal objective is to be able to make a judgment as to, 22 are all the programs at the facility, based on my sample --
23 and looking at aux feed is a sample of the programs. We are 24 not there to find a problem with a pump or a valve. We are 25 there to say the licensee has programs in place where he 4
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
340 1 will find them in a timely enough way_and correct it. So
() 2 when we pick a sample, it is a sample of his programs.
~3 Now, if you are watching the PMs on an aux feed 4 pump, someone donsn't follow a procedure, something else 5- doesn't get do.te, we can't unknow what-we know, and the -
6 other important' aspect is we already know that we lost 7 valuable information by not digesting what we observed in 8 the past. And we are also trying to cope with that aspect 9 of it.
10 So we'are looking at that higher level function as 11 an objective. But we also have this sense that, if we a.a 12 writing things down, how do you deal with the cumulative 13 information? And we haven't -- we are still grappling with
-14 that one. We are certainly not -- not perfect in that area.
O)
(_ 15 Then, all of a sudden, you are in the assessment program, 16 and that's where the two connect, is at that level.
17 With that,- is there any questions on the history?
18- I am going to turn it back over to ---
19 DR._BARTON: Before you leave the slide,' Frank.-
.20 .Since you look at the overall performance in the industry, 21 and you look at performance indicators and it looks like the 22 trend is in-the up direction, that the industry overall is 23 performing better; Does the N+1 program reflect that? And 24 how many sites really have the H+1 philosophy, or have you 25 backed away from that on-good performers?
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. - _ _ = _ _ = .
341 1 MR. GILLESPIEt Okay, let me you some -- I'll give 2 you nome specifics we have done, that have happened on that. ,
3 The H+1.isstill in place. That is still the Agency's 4 perspective for staffing purposes. But you will now find 5 that many of the regions, for their better-performing, two 6 unit sites where they have three residents, they have 7 designated one of those residents as kind of the guy they 8 pick on to do -- participate in AITs at other sites, or 9 participate on other team inspections at other sites. So 10 they are more and more starting to utilize that extra 11 resident at another site, so that we are in both compliance 12 with the policy-and compliance with the philosophy. And it 13 is really actively starting to happen now.
14 The other thing is our total number of inspection 15 hours, if I get away from whether the guy lives in the 16 region and does the inspection program, or lives et the-17 site,-our total number of inspection hours are , going 18 from about 2800 hours0.0324 days <br />0.778 hours <br />0.00463 weeks <br />0.00107 months <br /> on the average per unit. That is kind 19 of -- multiply by. number of units, that is kind of a 20 budgeting approach. By the year 2000, we are supposed to be 21 down to 2500. So what we have got now is a gradual 22 reduction in overall inspection effort.
23 That then causes you also to look at the mix.
24 Because if a guy lives at a site, he is kind of a more 25 efficient inspector. But on the other side, as you erode ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
342 i 1- the people in the region who are your specialists, you have l() 2 got to understand what you are doing to your program, and we 3 are trying to -- we are going to be -- we are examining that 4 right now and what we are asking them to do.
5 Residents, by the nature of what they do, become 6 generalists. They almost have co, because they are doing 7 whatever they have to do based on operations at the time at 8 the site. So we are both reducing total inspection hours, 9 gradually, as time progresses now, and the regions are now 10 utilizing, because of that reduced inspection hours, that is 11 focusing them more to utilize the people who happen to be 12 living at a site almost as if they are a regional inspector 13 when they have a very good performing multi-unit site.
14 DR. POWERS: If I was a Shakespearean scholar in a A)
(s, 15 well known private institution of higher learning, and I 16_ heard that, on the whole, the NRC was reducing the number of 17 hours of inspection time, and I had next to me my Time 18 magazine, why would I be comferted?
19 MR. GILLESPIE: I think you would be comforted
< 20 because of the other specific changea we have made in the 21 -program. The changes in the program, and let me 22 specifically address Time magacine and Millstone, --
23 DR. POWERS: Yeah, you don't need to address 24 Shakespearean scholars, b
25 MR. GILLESPIE: I don't feel qualified to delve ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 343 1 into that area, so I tot.aAA; avoided any mention of -- big 2 lessons learned out of Millstone, and I mean going back, 3 stepping back, fundamentals, if we don't look at it, they 4 don't look at it. That war a major Jessons learned out of 5 Millstone, and it can be said that concisely, 6 And, in fact, I sat at the table -- l 7 DR. POWERS: I think -- I applaud you. That is 8 the best statement of the problem at Millstone I P e ever 9 heard anybody give.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: Now, specifically, and that's why l 11 we need to be very cautious --
1 12 DR. POWERS: Right on, l
13 MR. GILLESPIE: And that was my major lesson i 14 learned. And it'is not a lack of trust, it is more where 15 the regulator puts his emphasis. And we have been 16 criticized for this. Where the regulator puts his emphasis, 1.7 the utilities will put their emphasis. It is human nature.
18 If I know I am going to be audited, I am going to try to run 19 in there and look at it before someone comes in and writes 20 me a report card.
21 Specifically, on the engineering side, we have now 22 redone the engineering program. We realized when we backed 23 off on special team inspections, the SSFIs, which were very 24 manpower-intensive, 10 to 12 people working like three 25 months wi':h anywhere f rom two to four weeks on site. We ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.- 20005 (202) 842-0034
- 1
344 1 couldn't afford to do that everyplace. Stop -- our stop-gap
() 2 was the was these architect-engineer inspections which we 3- will be coming to, in conclusion, shortly. )
4-- But we needed to fix the other problem, because we 5 didn't-want to repeat the same mistake. Don't look at 6 engineering, it doesn't get paid attention to. So what we 7 have done_is gone in, and we_now have an optional j i
8 engineering procedure, which icoks like a mini-SSFI, uses a >
9 contractor expert in design, which is intended, in.the 10 philosophy of our core inspection procedures, to go in and f 11- look at enough -- and this is the philosophy of the core i
12 inspection procedure in 2515, the core is intended to allow 13 inspectors to look at enough to say they need more help or 14 they don't. The core is not intended to be all-inclusive.
15 So the_new engineering procedure has somewhere 16 from two to three NRC people and one contractor, scaled 17 back, not a full SSFi,- picking a systera, and doing a 18 -detailed look,_-not maybe-at the whole system, but_a detailed i 19 look at those portions of the system that -- that they 20 warrant.are important. Going all the way through to the 21 design information.
22- And'what we-have said in our procedures is if 23' someone hasn't had this kind of look in two years, they need 24- to have this look, and this substitutes now for the more 25 programmatic look of the engineering core procedure.
(f Idul RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- y g,_ yaw m euee --y+1----P- p --+w===s - - ' - ---- y- y i=q -4m4,+---rmmm-c-m+m+F r--W Vmr' -T " -
345 1 But understand the limitations. What they are l
() 2 looking for is enough information to make a decision, we 3 need to bring more people in. And that way, we are 4 balancing looking at the area with not looking at an area is 5 okay -- deciding to do it with 12 pecple all of a sudden at 6 i licensee who has got a good program.
7 So we are, in fact, looking at the core procedures 8 and asking the question, do the core procedures fit with our 9 own philosophy? And we have been going through them asking 10 exactly that question.
11 Now, that only addresses the engineering question, y 12 But we have changed the program. That also implies that we 13 have taken some things out of the program, because if you 14 are looking at the system as a sample of the program, you 15 are no longer looking at the program, just looking at the 16 naper. How does engineering interface with procedure 17 reviews for maintenance? And that is true. So we have 18 actually substantively changed the program in the area of 19 engineering and stretched out those things, but haven't 20 reduced them or eliminated them, but introduced them in.
21 And we are trying to take those kind of lessons 22 learned into all of our areas.
23 DR. APOSTOTAKIS: If I could -- I'm sorry, but I 24 see there are 14 viewgraphs. We have got --
25 MR. FRAHM: I think we are going to skip a few in
= _
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
346 I
1 the interest of time.
() 2 3 idea.
DR APOSTOLAKIS: I think that is an excellent 4 MR. GILLESPIE: Let me turn it over to Ron, and I 5 wi.'.1 be here when we are done.
6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I hate to interrupt this, but 7 you have about 14 minutes.
8 MR. FRAHM: Well, that about covers it. Thanks, 9 Frank.
10 I think Frank has actually pretty much covered the Eli next three slides on the basis of the program and the 12 elements of the current program, so I would like to go to 13 Slide No. 7 on Inspector Qualifications, because he really r
14 didn't touch on this, and this is an important aspect of the
(_,y/ 15 inspection program.
15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, the most important part of 17- your presentation should be really --
18 MR. FRAHM: I am on Slide 8 in a minute.
19 DR APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah.
20 MR. FRAHM: Yeah, I just wanted to -- I wanted to 23 touch on this one.
22 DR. APOSTOL'KIS: Very b. o. Very good.
23 MR. FRAHM: .eah, the next three are the key.
24 In order to perform an effective inspection, the 15 staff must understand both the technical aspects of what
,g ANN'RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Wachington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
F F
i
. 347 j
-1 they are inspecting and the regulatory and inspection '
() 2 3
-processes that they are inspection to.
- To ensure that inspectors are competent in this- !
, 4 . regard, we have a. formal qualification program in IMC 1245,- ,
, 5 :. and it-is --_the requirements: include successful co pletion f j- ,
6: of several technological courses andEinspection training :
7 courses, accompaniments on inspections, and in-office:scudy- ,
8 and other on-the-job training. And qualified inspectors do
- j. 9 need to pasa an oral qualification board to.become certified 10 . and there is periodic refresher training to maintain l 11 - inspector qualifications.
' 7 t
12- Okay. Now, we are going to get into the details 13 of the performance-based inspection approach. With the
- 14 acceptability of licensee programs and documentation
) 1" structure primarily; established through the licensingE t
i 16 process, the' licensee's ability:to implement the. program 2
' 1 17 safely and reliably has become=the principal. concern. As j 18 Fraak alluded to' earlier, performance-based inspection has !
- 19. i g evolved over the years as the-majority of plants'have 20 shif ted frota the construction and licensing phase into the l 21 power operations phase.- i L
j ' 22- The first bullet is a pretty good definition of t
23 performance-basedLinspection. And simply stated, it is
- . 24_ inspection that focuses.on issues of safety and reliability, 25 with-an_emphacis on-field observation rather than in-office !
1
=
O ANN RIL3Y &-ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1230 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 '
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
%.po.,~,p.g.3 v. f g%. c ---y-~-, ., u ,,v- -,,.,%v- . .
,n _ _ _ ,,.,,e
,,,,,_,_,,-,,.mm,m,%m.,,,.,-, n,. ,-_m, -w.,w,,,- ,*r. . - ,, , , . - - . - , , , , , , , , , -,
348 1 procedural record reviews. The preferred method to verify
() 2 proper implementation of programs is the performance-based 3 approach. The best approach is direct observation of 4 licensee activities in progress, but there may be cases 5 where critical elements or activities are not in progress at the time-of a given--inspection, so, in these cases, 6
7 interviews with licensee personnel and document reviews 8 would be necessary.
9- DR APOSTOLAKIS: What is the definition -- I 10 mean, anythi.;g I do is performance? If I pick up this cup, 11 I perfore?
12 MR. FRAH11: If that's a safety-significant event, 13 I would consider t' 'mportant performance. I mean, yes, 14 that is performa and if I were concerned as to how you 15 g move that cup, the best way for me to verify that would be 16 to actually watch you move it.
17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So it's direct observation of 18 what is happening without any calculations, like 19 unavailability. Would that be performe.nce, or it's not 20 something that the inspectors would --
21 MR. FRAHM: Not in the sense of performance-based 22 insper', ion.
23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Inspection is something real, in 24 other words, that you are seeing there or hearing.
25 MR. BORCHARDT: Review of maintenance records is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 )
l I
t .
349 1 performance-based inspection as well, because it relates to
( ) 2 the-performance of the equipment, as differentiated from a 3 review of the program description of the maintenance program 4 at the site. That's a programmatic review that we're trying 5 to get away from. But the evaluation of work performed or 6 the-results of.that work performed is performance-based 7 inspection.
8 CRAIRMAN SEALE: And success is if George doesn't 9 sp.11 the coffee on his shirt. 10 that?
10 MR. GILLESPIE: That would be one indication of 11 success.
12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, only if it's 13 safety-related.
14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, I'm assuming that a dirty O
V 15 shirt is a safety --
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Actually, success would be George 17 realizing he spilt the coffee and correcting his actions the 18 next time so he doesn't spill it the next time. Remember, 19 what we look at is an audit. We're an audit program. The 20 responsibility for the corrective action is the licensee's.
21 We are there to ensure that the licensee not only runs the 22 plant safely, but that if anything occurs that could impact 23 that safety,-that the licensee's programs identify what it 24 is-and follow up with appropriate corrective action that 25 lasts.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
350 1 Millstone lessons learned. We didn't necessarily
() 2 follow up everyplace we might've should've to verify that 3 when the licensee said he was going to correct something, he 4 did. So part of the program is verifying not that we found 5 it, that he found it and he corrected it, fixed it.
6 By the way, the selection of the sample is what 7 we're trying to get to be kind of safety-informed or 7 8 risk-informed.
9 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, of course.
10 MR. GILLESPIE: And I do have to balance that with 11 there are some risk-informed things that aren't in numbers.
12 The basic underlying assumptions, for example, in human 13 performance that go in as a beta factor in a PRA, we still 14 have to have some sense. So it's not the engineering number 15 totally that drives it. There's a balance between the 16 assumptions of the PRA, which tend to be more is the program 17 working, and the engineering, and that's the piece of 18 equipment you're sampling.
19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, the last bullet, you're 20 saying that the inspector will also evaluate root causes.
21 MR. FRAHM: Attempt to.
'22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Attempt to.
23 MR. FRAHM: To see if it's a generic problem or --
24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So now it is going beyond 25 performance now.
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
351 1 MR. GILLESPIE: He's into the evaluation phase of
() 2 his findings and following up on --
3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay.
4 MR. GILLESPIEt He's into the performance of the 5 licensee's ability to identify the root cause.
6 DR. BARTON: He looks at the evaluation,-the 7 licensee's root cause_ evaluation process, and is it -
8 offective. I think that's what the.--
9 MR GILLESPIE- Yes. It's still performance --
10 yes, very much. Our engineers would be responsible for 11 verifying that the root -- if the licensee fixes the wrong 12 root cause -- if he fixed the wrong root cause, we haven't 13 fixed anything. So that's an important element of 14 performance. Very important.
) 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -When you say evaluating, 16 evaluating the licensee's. assessment of the root causes.
17 MR GILLESPIE: And part of that may actually be 18 doing as Bill described. If there's -- let's say there's a 19 maintenance-preventable failure'in the new terminology,.and 12 0 the inspector-then-goes in-and-looks at other records at the 21 licensee than the licensee did and ccmes up with a set of 22 facts the licensee didn't recognize by way of verifying-that.
23' -the -- independently verifying the licensee's root cause 24 analysis. He should present that to the licensee.
25 The licensee may be right; the licensee maybe
_ _ =
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250.I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
352 1 didn't consider it, maybe did. But it's a way of
() 2 challenging the licensee's root-cause analysis to make sure he's fixed the right problem. Major element of performance.
4 DR . APOS'4 'LAKIS: So it's still performance, o MR. MARKLEY: But, George, also in process of the 6 work being conducted, that root cause may be identified in 7 the fact that you didn't either use the right procedure in 8 drinking your coffee, or you didn't follow it, and that may 9 have led to your spill.
10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I wasn't trained properly, 11 CHAIF40W SEALE: You didn't know to open your 12 mouth.
-13 -(Laughter.)
14 MR. GILLESPIE: Mike led to the other piece, which
) 15 is the trending of the information. If you have five 16 inspectors and they all found a procedural issue at a 17 licensee, and each dealt with it in isolation as an 18 independent event and dismissed it, the question is -- and 19 they all occurred in the same month -- we've had some of 20 this happen in the past, we now protect against this -- do 21 you have a problem in procedure preparation, a lack of 22 oversight on the part of engineering, that didn't go through 23 the safety committee?
24 So that's why I'm very hesitant as a guy who's got 23- assessment and inspection to throw away-those little things ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Str(at, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
353 l' that we're finding.
2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:
Let's go to 9.
3 MR. FRAHM: I think we've, covered 4 -performance-based inspection.-- Let's move on to 5 performance-based regulation.
6 Traditional NRC requirements have been more 7 prescriptive in nature, with detailed processes and 8 instructions for the licensees to meet. With a-9 performance-based rule, on the other hand, we describe the --
10 general-processes-to'be followed and the results that Sce 11 expect the licensees'to meet.
12 The best example is the maintenance rule 10 CFR
- 13 --50.65, 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS
- But isn't that the rule'where
'15 the Office of Inspector' General says its not 16 performance-based?
17 .MR. GILLESPIE - I'm not aware of that.
18 DR; BARTON: You're.right. It's someplace where 19' it's not performance.
20- DR. APOSTOLAKIS: In the -- I think it was the 21 Inspector General.
22 -The reason is that the NRC'is still -- I mean,
-23 this is an additional piece of regulation. It could be 24 performance-based if you eliminated some other requirements, 25 but they.have.not been eliminated.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- * =
354 1 There is a critical element of providing 2 flexibility to the licensee is not there.
3 MR. GILLESPIE: I'm glad Joe Murphy, who was 4 invited lastinight-to talk about this, but you're right, the 5 -criticism was-that there's overlap-between.the maintenance 6- rule and Appendix B.
7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes.
8 MR. GILLESPIE: When you did the maintenance rule, 9 you should have eliminated those aspects of Appendix B, or
-10 made_them mutually exclusive somehow.
11 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: _W ell, that can be corrected, 12 can't it?
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes, but I'm-hoping Joe addresses 14' that tomorrow -- next month when he.comes. I'm just not in 15 a position -- I'm not sure o!!' the details, but I do -- yes, 16 that was absolutely the -- they said well,_ you can hit us 17- with a violation on both rules if-you wanted to.
18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Exactly.
19 MR.'GILLESPIE: Now we are endeavoring not to do 7 20 that through the control of the enforcement, but it hasn't.
'21 gotten to the fundamental questien.
22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Because.an important element of 23 performance-based regulation is this flexibility business, 24 that-you set up the criteria here and how they meet it, it's 25 their business.
ANN RILE & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 !
l
355
- g. 1 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I know you have a busy schedule, 3 but I-would say-that it might be very interesting to get 4-. your cornents on what Joe has to say next month.
5 D R .-- P O W E R S : Would you consider being an-invited-
-6 expert?
7 (Laughter.)
8- MR. GILLESPIE: If invited I of course would be 9 happy to show up,_but I'm always hesitant to step out of the 10 field I'm responsible for, which is why.I stopped at saying 11 I'm glad I was here last night when you said you we.re going 12 to invite Joe.
13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay - So what is the 14 distinction then between inspection and regulation? It ;
15 seems to me it's obvious.
16 MR. FRAHM They are different, yet they uork hand 17- in hand.
18- DR. APOSTOLAKISt- 'They're different. Yes. Now if 19 I have -- I mean,-in Plato's world there is an ideal staff, 20 you know,-and I have a performance-based regulatory system.
21 Then the inspections will have to be adjusted to that, 22 right? You will have to use the performance criteria that 23_ this new system -- the problem is-that.some of these
=24' performance criteria though may be the results of 25 calculations, and I don't know how you -- I mean,.you will ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
... .. .- = _ - .
4 356 1 break'up the calculations into observable inputs?
() 2 Let's say that the maintenance rule, for' example,
.3 the criterion'might be unavailability. Now unavailability l 4 is not an observable. It's something you calculate. i 5 MR. FRAHM: The records are observable. !
6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: It's not'always so l
7 straightforward. That's my point. . Maybe Murphy'will !
8 address that, j 9 MR. GILLESPIE: Let me address it from inspection, a
-10 because you just jumped to slide 10. Inspecting against a 11 performance-based rule.
12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. Okay.
d 13 MR. GILLESPIF: So let me let Ron go through slide s
14 10, because I think we can then answer your questions 15 directly.
16 MR. FRAHM This should help, I hope.
17 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. *
- 18. MR.. FRAHM: Because performance-based regulations '
- 19 or requirements.are more loose and the provide more
-20 flexibility for licensees in developing their program --
- 21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS:. Don't say that. They are not +
22' loose. They:are_not loose. . Once we set them there, they
^
23 have to comply.
- 24 -MR-. FRAHM: .They are more flexible, and compliance 25 is always=important. But thero could be-little conformity O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.-20005 (202) 842-0034
~m-, , -.- -, r-.r, ,w.,,,m.._.'y.. a, _:r ,_ . . . , . ~ . , .._y ,-.-...-.re,:-w..,. . . . , _ . . - , .+ -
--,I,--s--
357 1 between-implementation programs of different licensees due
()
2 to this flexibility.
3 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay.
4 MR. FRAHM: So what we need to do with the 5 performance-based rule and what we did with the maintenance 6 rule-is go out and do baseline inspections to verify that 7 the program is adequate, and you need to do these type of 8 programmatic inspections before you can actually go out 9 there and do more of a performance-based inspection 10 approach.
11 Fundamentally, you need to have confidence in the 12 program before you can actually do a performance-based 13 approach. And I think that is what a lot of the confusion 14 is, that here is the maintenance rule, it is a 15 performance-based rule, yet we are out there doing 16 programmatic inspections. And that's -- that's the 17 explanation, and that is consistent with the lessons learned 18 from the maintenance rule, SECY document, which was issued'
-19 sometime in '97,_ earlier-in '97.
20 MR. GILLESPIE: It is also a fact that we just 21 kind of have to do it that way, because the residents are 22 basically our eyes and ears at the site, and they are not 23 specialists in calculations.
24 But if the program has basically been reviewed, 25 and the finding is, if you do the program you said you were ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l l
358 {
1 going to do, then you are in compliance with the rule,
() 2 particularly for those aspects which are calculations, then 3 all the resident is really trying to focus on is the result 4 of that. He M uld then not be going back and second 5 guessing the calculation. In fact, most cases, they 6 wouldn't be in a positian, have the background to do it.
7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So is the se:ond bullet saying 8 that we are getting now away from performance-based 9 inspection?
10 MR. GILLESPIE: No , it is saying for a 11 performance-based rule, and I got to take rule in a broader 12 sense, when you have a performance-based rule, like 13 maintenance, there is a significant guidance document that 14 went with it, which is a base -- a yardstick -- I want to
() 15 say baseline -- which is a yardstick against utilities 16 saying, okay, if you have this performance-based rule, we 17 will-develop a program that kind of equates to this 18 guidance.
)
19 We need at least a one time look at the program.
20 That one time look is the maintenance team inspections, 21 which are going on right now, which gave us some prob)r 22 relative to enforcement and stuff, so there is a commit. a 23 that looks at enforcement on those. But then you are gosng 24 to see a switch into a phase where we are looking at just 25 key indicators.
O
\>
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Ftreet, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 359 1 DR. APOSTOLARIS: Okay.
2 MR. GILLESPIE: And now you are depending on your 3 generalist who is at tho site to say,.okay, the experts came 4 out.and said their-program is-square. I am just going to 5 look at this, this, this and this, and he is=--
6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So this iu-how this -- see,- in
~
-other areas, like in the fire business-, where they keep 8 telling us they have performance-based criteria, one of the 9 requirements there, the philosophy is that, given the 10 performance criterion, there is a pre-approved set of models 11 or methods'that one can use to demonstrate compliance.
12 Instead of requiring that, you are saying we don't want to 13 bother with a pre-approved set, but we want to see what 14 program these guys are going to have and see whether it 15 makes sense.
16 MR. GILLESPIE: Right. Right. And --
17 DR APOSTOLAKIS: That is much more reasonable, by 18 the way, I think.
19 MR. GILLESPIE: And this is really an evolution of 20 our traditional way. And let me take QA, I don't think 21 there is any more-performance-based' statement than in 22 . Appendix B where it says the QA you apply should be
-23 proportional to the safety significance of the item. Yet we 24 have a pile of very prescriptive guidance that got sucked 25 into QA plans and the OA plans were made conditions of the ANN ^RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTb.
. Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite'300-Washington, D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034
360 .,
1 license.
() 2 What the maintenance rule has done is really kind of backed off from that condition of license aspect. So it 4 is almost a natural evolution of how our regulatory scheme 5 was developed in the first place. We have backed off from 6 that being a requirement. And, now,'what the inspector 7 would do, would say, have you revised your program 8 significantly? If the answer is yes and he feels he needs 9 help from experte, he would call up the region and say, I 10 need help to look at the revision. If the answer is no, 11 that is not a big change, he just goes on and looks at the 12 absolute performance of the maintenance of the facility.
13 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now, you said, Mr. Frahm, that 14 you have addressed some of the qu~ ons of the Chairman.
O)
(_, 15 Why don't you go to that, because the rest is really 16 information, we can read it.
17 MR. FRAHM: Okay. Well, they are embedded in 18 here. I guess most of that would be on the last slide.
19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay.
20 MR. FRAHM: The program improvements and future 21 activities.
22 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay.
23 MR. FRAHM: Why don't we just --
24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And there will be a document on 25 this, I mean at some point.
1 I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Y- Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
361 1 MR. FRAHM: There will be.
/r i i 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah.
'%)
3 MR. FRAHM: Yes, we are -- I expect it to be 4 issued any day now, actually.
5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay.
6 MR. FRAHM: And I could forward a copy to you.
7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I would appreciate it.
8 MR. FRAHM: Sure. But,-the Chairman came down 9 with those five questions and, hopefully, these improvements 10 address those questions. If you have any specific ones 11 after I go through this, please let me know.
12 But the recent improvements in the program have 13 included a major rewrite of IMC 2515, which is the top 14 policy document for the inspection program of operating
.r\
() 15 reactors, and IMC 0610 which is the inspection report 16 writing guidance. And we revised these to further emphasize 17 performance-based inspection techniques and the distinctions 18 between performance-based regulations and -- I'm sorry, 19 inspecting against the performance-based rule and 20 performance-based inspection.
- 21. Frank actually mentioned in his history about this 22 field techniques and regulatory processes course. This is 23 like a hands-on case studies course, that it is a week long 24 and the inspectors actually go through typical activities 25 that they would encounter out there at the site. And that
.I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\'-)' Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
362 1 also emphasizes the performance-based approach, f 2 And I actually sat through an Inspecting for 3
Performance course for the second time a few months back. I a 4 am qualified inspector and I took it originally back in the 5 early '90s. But I thought the course -- I sat through it to 6 see whether the message was getting across to the staff, and 7 I thought the course was very informative and I felt the 8 students walked away with a solid unotratanding of 9 performance-based inspection. But I did provide some 10 insights where I thought the course could be improved and 11 the course has since been improved.
12 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Would that be a course that would be appropriate for perhaps one or two of us to try to take?
6 13 14 MR. FRAHM: I don't see why not. Certainly. If 15 you are interested in --
16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: How long is it?
17 MR. FRAHM: -- performance-based inspections. It 18 is two and a half days, 19 DR. MILLER: Down at the training center?
20 MR. FRAHM: They scatter it around. It is hera.
21 In fact, the one I went to in, I think it was May of last 22 year, was here at headquarters. I could -- yeah, I could 23 get you a copy of the course materials.
24 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah, that is probably the 25 first, a 'ood first step.
7 f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
363 l' MR. FRAHM: In fact, I-believe Mr. Markley has --
2: .did you take a whole copy?
3- MR..MARKLEY: No,.I don't have an up-to-date copy.
4- Of' course,'mine is-ten years _old, so.
5 MR. FRAHM Okay.
6 DR. MILLER:' Hopefully, i t . h a s 'c h a n g e d .--
.7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That-is the that he took-the 8 first time. Or somewhere in there.
9 MR.-FRAHM: Probably.
L10 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah.
11 MR. FRAHM But I could also get you a copy of the --
- 12. revised.
13- : CHAIRMAN-SEALE: Appreciate it. Just get~it to 14 Mike and we-will take a look at it.
15 MR.-FRAHM: Okay. Let me just make myself a quick 161 note.
17- DR. APOSTOLAKIS: -We: haven't had enough material
~ 18 L ~ to read recently,_so --
19' CHAIRMAN.SEALE: I noticed. !
20 DR. MILLER: The speed-reading course has slowed' 21' ! down.
22 MR.-FRAHM: Okay. We also-have some plan 23 improvements, and that is to include an article in the next 24 ; Reactor. Inspection Program Newsletter.
That should go out
-25 ty the end of this month. And I know that because I am the-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t- ,
364 1 one that puts that newsletter together and sends it out to
) /N
() 2 the inspection staff. And we want to put an article in 3 there that basically summarizes these slides and tries to 4 clarify the distinction between performance-based inspection 5 and inspecting against a performance-based rule.
6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah, we would like to see tnat-7 article.
-8 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yeah'.
9 MR. FRAHM: Okay. That should be out within a few 10 weeks. Hopefully. -Did you hear that, Bill?
11 Also, we have committed to provide refresher 12 training during the inspector counterpart meetings in each 13 region that would, again, go through similar things that I 14 had put out in this newsletter article. And we are going to O
\_,/ 15 take a look at the Fundamentals of Inspection refresher 16- course, which is required every three years to maintain-17 certification as an inspector, to see if we can possibly 18- incorporate additional insights into that course.
19 That's --
20 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thank you very much.
21 Back to you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, I don't know 22- when we are going to discuss the issue of writing a letter, 23 but -- during the planning and procedures discussion?
24 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Well, would anyone like to make 25 any comments right now?
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
365 1 DR. KRESS: :I would like to ask a:coupl'e of
-2 ' questions.
=3 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Sure.
)- 14 .DR.-APOSTOLAKIS t
_Sure. Oh, sorry.
55 DR.:KRESS: I-_didn't._get the chance to do that.-
6- -DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That was deliberate, but since 7 wei have---
8 DR. KRESS: -I am;1ook at viewgraphtNo. 8. Now, 3L questions, first bullet. How is it one'-- for a given arena 10 of' inspection,~there's probably lots of different things to 11- inspect-for, for a:given arena, how is it one decides what -f
-17 'are issues of significant safety and' reliability?
13> MR- FRAHM:
. Well, one method would be-a crisk-informed approach. I mean a risk-informed approach:
L15 - does fit 1 nicely in with performance-based inspection.
li6 DR. KRESS: -You go through a-PRA and'say=this --
17- "MR. FRAHM: Sure. That would you give some 118 > cinsights.
19 - DR. KRESS: Would you also get a bunch of people, 2 0_: experts together and.say this is probably risk significant 21 and this is probably more so and line them up?
223 DR. KRESS: Not necessarily the PRA.
2 4 -- MR. GILLESPIE: Let me be real practical, how it 25_ works today.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1200 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 s .. .. .. ..
366 1 DR. KRESS: Okay.
h 2 MR. GILLESPIE: All the licensees have done IPEs.
3 One of the outcomes of those IPEs is a enart of importance, 4 least important to most important safety system. You will 5 find in virtually every resident inspector's office that is 6 posted on the wall.
7 DR. KRESS: And comes out of the PRA or IPE?
8 MR. GILLESPIE: That came out of the IPEs done by 9 the licensees.
10 DR. KRESS: Uh-huh.
11 MR. GILLESPIE: Which the staff reviewed. So the 12 practical aspect is when you pick the system you are going 13 to sample to look at for maintenance, for QA, for anything, 14 what you might look at in fire protection, that's in the 15 core, you would look at that. And most of them have it 16 memorized, so I say look at it --
at this point,-they know 17 which systems are important based on that. s 18 But that is an importance also based on 19 assumptions. And another lessons learned, everyone 20 remembers the valve at Millstone that had all the holes 21 drilled in it. Some had criticized the program saying you 22 never find anything wrong based on observations in the 23 control room, yet we require inspectors to go through the 24 control room like every day. One of the lessons learned 25 document was that we weren't frequent in the control during ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
r Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
367 1 the period that-valve was undergoing that maintenance and we -
2_ weren't frequenting other things.
3 So_by frequenting the control room, you_are
'4; looking.for major maintenance activities that,have' impact'on
'5- -operations. That is why you ar* reviewing tag-out' logs. So 6 major issues of safety would be, if I-find a lot of things 7= tagged-out, or if I am in the plant and find a= tag and don't 8 see'it.in-the control room on a major safety system, I have 9 got:a safety item I need to look-into.
10 So whatcyou.are delving from ic not sitting down
- 11 . doing a calculation, but the knowledge the inspector has, e
12 since he.'has:the:importance graphs virtually memorized, on 13 what-is he seeing as.he_ walks around the plant. .SoLit is 14 -actually, at this point, nit is just inherent in the-program.
~
But the-information base is,'in fact, theEIPE.
16 Now, that is a very basic use of the IPE, And-
=17- what I don't want to do is over-sell that there is a panel s
-18 of experts advising every_ inspector, because there really_
19' :isn't.
20- DR. BARTON: Frank, but, by the same token, they 21 are supposed to be'looking-at maintenance on important-22 . safety systems, like go to plant a day meetings, which all 23 residents do, and you talk about pumping a valve 33-times.
'24 I wonder why I missed that.
25- MR. GILLESPIE: They didn't go to the morning ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250'I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
368 1 meetings. There was a lessons learned report done by Region
() 2 I on that, and that has been shared with all the regions at 3 the time. And we reinforced and actually changed the words 4 to make it more emphatic that you need tolgo to those 5 morning meetings at some frequency, and that you -- and to 6 reemphasize for inspectors, residents to tour through the ,
7 control room, for exactly these reasons.
8 DR. KRESS: Bullet Number 3 --
the inspectors find 9 discrepancies or uncertainties which lead them to expect 10 other errors.
11 How do they know what a discrepancy or an 12 uncertainty is? Is there a template for this given activity 13 that says if it is not this -- are there measures or 14 something that tells him that this is a discrepancy and this
) 15 isn't and how are these established, this template or these 16 levels or whatever?
17 MR. FRAHM: One thing that would come to mind is
- 18. if they are out there performii -
. maintenance activity they 19 would be arforming it to a maintenance procedure, so if he 20 sees something go wrong that is out of line with the 21- procedure, that would be=one thing.
22 DR. KRESS: He might be watching the process.
23 MR. FRAHM: Sure.
24 DR. KRESS: That's once again back to the process.
25 I am concerned about performance measures -- he's looking at 13 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ty
\
Court Reporters 1250 I Streat, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
r 369:
ll some-performance. - Now how does he know when there is a
() -_ 2 discrepancy in that; performance or a big enough uncertainty-3- to lead'him to inspect something else? What is a 14 - discrepancy or an uncertainty in a performance measure?
- 5-- MR BORCHARDT
- Well, each activity that an 6: -inspector conducts-is governed-by a formal inspection 7; procedure, wr'ch has criteria-in-it.
8 . KRESS: I guess I am asking, are those
'9' criteria quantitative?
10 MR. BORCHARDT: No , there are normally attributes 11- -that they are supposed to look for-.
12 DR. KRESS:' And if-those attributes aren't there
- 13 - or --
14 MR.'BORCHARDT: -- or are not complied'.with if:--
15 MR.- GILLESPIE: Let me give you a specific 161 example. LI went out and accompanied-a residentLinspector-at 17 -- 'a facility that is supposed to be a good performer and?I 18 said what are you doing today? I just want to' follow you 19- -
around, and so we observed the maintenance observation.
20 Actually, it was.the testing of a DP cell and they are going
' 21 through the-procedure, and they-found cut-that-the valve-22 manifold-had been removed.two years earlier and replaced by J23- individual valves and the procedure had all the wrong valve 24 nomenclature in it. <
25 It was an obvious problem with the procedure.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
370 1 There was-a problem with the line-up, but then the question
.-f,) 2 was what is the credibility of all the drawings that are 3 being used for procedures, because what happened was they 4 had a generic problem in the plant with manifolds leaking, 5 and they went in and put individual valves in.
6 The inspector then followed that through to the 7 question of the credibility of the engineering drawings, 8 which were adjacent to the control room, which were being 9 used for tag-out logs. For two years this licensee was 10 issuing tags on valves that didn't exist -- and this was a 11 good performer -- and I ain't that good. I juut said, hey, 12 let me watch this maintenance observation, but you know 13 what? The inspector picked a control system. Actually it 14 was vessel level at the time and they were about to go into 15 a shutdown, and so they were doing some PMs on it. >
16 He picked it because it was going to be a safety 17 significant system for an upcoming evolution and that led 18 him to the other this.es, so it's.not a criteria. Most of 19 these things when you see something wrong it's obvious it is 20 not right.
21 DR. KRESS: It's not like you have to put it on a 22 scale --
'23 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes. It 's generr.lly not a 24 fine-tuning.
25 MR. FRAHM: It's not a checklist &..d you missed a I 3 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
\
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
t 371 t
L -check or'--
2- CHAIRMAN SEALE: You can-smell it.
3 MR. GILLESPIE: Yes.
L- $ MR. FRAHM: It's sometimes instinct and you have I to follow up on your instincts in. things like that.
6 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Are there any questions, other 7 questions from the members?
8- CHAIRMAN SEALE: -I have a comment, if you may.
- 9 I think Dana Powers earlier asked how would a 6
10 liberal arts persor. be confident when.he finds the number of 111 hours of inspection is decreasing in the face of Millstone
-12 and:I guess my comment is that the point is that is-not the 13- -whole story.
14 The1whole story is that you are taking steps to
) 15 inspect. smarter, with/ smarter inspectors, and that when you, ,
16- put that whole story together then you have a more effective 17- and efficient, hopefully, inspection process, and-that is-11 8 part of the reason we are here,sif you will.
19 I indicated to you earlier that we were interested 20 in understanding the inspection process better'and I must ,
21- say you have given tus a' great deal of information this -
22 morning and probably you didn't want to stimulate us that 23 much, but we'll probably be around to ask you about so.ne 24 other things.
25 But one of the things I notice is that you have in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
-p 372
. '1 -f act come up.with a; series of actior.s which are designed for 2; the inspector to survive in the wor.Ld of performance-based
-3 inspection activities..
4 Han fou. thought about,.and I guess I would-ask 5_ the industry if they have thought about what it takes for 6 'the inspectee to survive in the world of performance-based
-7 -inspection -- you know, other than just survival instincts.
8- What is it that the inspectees are doing to-understand that 9 when;you look at an-aux feedwater system as a symptom or as-
-10 a' basis for judging the full plant activities in a certain 11 area and so on that they are taking that kind of process to 12 heart and not just continuing to "we'll-look at the things -l L 13 - that they look at" or let'9 say redefining what you mean by
.14 things that-.you are looking at.
15 Do they ur.i 2.3tand the scope of your kinds of 16 activities?
17 MR. GILLESPIE: I hope they do and I wouldn't want 18 to be in a position ~to try to speak;for the industry but I 19 think our program-is fairly well understood on why we'do 20 things and what we do. We hope it is fairly well 21 -understood.
22 Part of this information -- now we are in a 23 communications question -- was up until the late 1980s our 24; inspection procedures were secret.
25 CHAIRMAN FEALE: Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
-(202) 842-0034
373 1 MR, GILLESPIE: We didn't put them in the PDR and
( ) 2 exactly what you are saying was considered the value of
'3 getting that stuff out, put it in the PDR. We are not hear 4 to show up and surprise you.
5 Every inspection used to have to be unannounced by 6 policy --
7 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Yes, It was a "gotcha" problem.
8 MR. GILLESPIE: It was a "gotcha" problem, Now we 9 do PPRs every six months and now we issue our proposed 10 inspection schedule every six months to the licensee in 11 advance, so we are working the communications.
12 I don't want to declare success. I think the ,
13 industry has to say how good --
14 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I understand.
C
( 15 MR. GILLESPIE: -- but we tave been actively 16 creeping into putting the procedures out, informing of our 17 inspection schedule, not having them be surprise 18 inspections.
19 What we can't control is the industry reaction is 20 not systematic and this could be of great concern.
21 Let me say we're going to have a team inspection
-22 in engineering, because we have a number of those going on, 23 and the industry spends a great deal of money preparing for 24 those team inspections, as I understand it, from discussions 25 with people coming in --
()
' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
f 374
' 1' CHAIRMAN SEALE: I think that's true, yes, sure-
~
2 MR. GILLESPIE: -- to. pre-prepare. Well, if the 3 system is working, why-do they have to' pre-prepare? -So as
- 4. an=insoector---
-5 .DR. BARTON: c For the simple reason.that they know
'- 6' that a team-is coming in for two weeks of;12 people and-you 7 just' don't not prepare for'that kind of inspection. You've 8 got.to get your papers-together and it takes a lot of 9 preparation to support a:large NRC inspection team, and to 10 not prepare, the NRC inspection team would come in and kill 11 the individual licensee for not being prepared and wasting
-12 NRC's time.
13 MR. GILLESPIE: Here is where_you could have a
- ;14 . discussion with the industry. How much is preparation and
-15 just pulling paperwork together and how much is, oh, shoot, 16 we haven't-looked at that area in that much detail-before --
17 they might_get us. I don't know what the distinction is but r 18 -' those are very credible questions for the industry, and I am
-19' a pessimist, being en inspector. I-am kind of on the 20 . negative side of things.
21 DR. BARTON: Being-from the utility side,_I will 22 tell you that I-was prepared because I never knew when an 23- -. inspector was going to look at what, and he-had the freedom 24 to look at anything on my site.
25 -DR. UHRIG: You could make the analogy with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,-D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 375
( 1 preparing for final exams. You don't dare not, (r ,) 2 MR. GILLESPIE: Right.
3 DR. UHRIG: Or inspections in the military.
4 MR. GILLESPIE: But to get back to your 5 fundamental question, in one of the Millstone's lessond 6 learned, why is it then if we-stopped looking the emphasis 7- goes away? The system isn't maintained. So we learn that 8 in engineering.
9 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay. Well, I think this poses a 10 question that we may want to investigate further with the 11 industry even, and try to find out, you know, what it takes 12 to survive in a performance-based world from the industry 13 point of view.
14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Are there any other questions,
(_) 15 because we are really falling behind and I see --
16 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That's all right. This has been 17 very valuable.
18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The Staff for the next 19 presentation has been here already for 20 minutes, patiently 20 waiting and they may have other commitments too, so do any 21 other members have burning questions?
22 [No response.]
23 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. Back to you, Mr.
24 Chairman.
25 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Thank you and I'd like to thank
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 I (202) 842-0034 1
376-11 the Staff and I appreciate the indulgence of our next 12: presenters.
3 We will take a short break -- 10 minutes till we
-4 will-come back.
5- [ Recess.]'
6 CHAIRMAN SEALE: ~ We will come back into session 7 and now nave.a presentation on the " Human Performance and 8z Reliability Implementation _ Plan" -- Dr. Aposto3akis will 9 give us that briefing,.
10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. We had a-subcommittee
-11 meeting ~on January 21st,-I believe -- yes -- and-we-covered
-12 a number of subjects. TheLfirst subject was-the~ Human 13 -Performance and ReliabilityLPlan, l 114- We-did not see-the-actual-plan'at that-time'. We --
k 15 had a presentation from the Staff-on how they were planning 16 to-develop the plan and we heard sort.of a-complaint that 17- they didn't really.have:enough time to spend on this
-18 deve.opment because they'were asked to,do a lot of other 19- things and that it was not on the Chairman's tracking list, 20 ..-so that is why I1 asked yesterday the Chairman what did that 21 mean when she said'that there-was an actual-' deadline of May
- 22 by which-the Staff is supposed to send to the Commissioners
.23 the plan.
l 24 -Mr. Persensky is here and we did not ask him to 251 come with a presentation,. prepare.a presentation, but he can
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)-842-0034
l 377 1 perhaps explain to us what the schedule is and how they plan (O
V)' 2- to meet that deadline.
3 Well, I will let him talk after I summarize other 4 things that happened during that subcommittee meeting.
5 We also had a very interesting presentation on 6 ATHEANA and it was not again on the model_itself, which will 7 be reviewed.
8 The Staff plans to hTve a workshop in the near 9 future where invited experts will be given an opportunity to 10 review ATHEANA, the assumptions that go into it and so on, 11 and the ACRS is invited to attend that workshop and that 12 will speed things up so we. don't have to have separate '
13 presentations here, although we may choose to also have a 14 presentation to the subcommittee or the full Committee for
,O
() '15 aure.
16 So I certainly plan to go there, but other members 17 of course are --
18 DR. POWERS: What date is that, George?
.19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I. don't think that-a date has 20 been set. Jay, is that correct?
- 21. MR. PERSENSKY: I don't believe it has yet.
22- DR, APOSTOLAKIS: It has not been set but I hope 23 that when you are about to set it, you will consult with us 12-4 and see whether -- what date will be --
25 MR. PERSENSKY: We will make sure that the A
('-) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
378 1 information gets to the Committee.
.( ) 2 DR.-APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. But the application of--
3 ATHEANA to the Seabrook simulator seemed to have gone well.
4 lAs you know', the central element of ATHEANA is this idea of context, which'is a different -- it is a-shift in the 6 -paradigm;of human performance.
// tkne we are lookinG at the context within which the. .
8 operators. function andfin particular the context that may '
9 Llead_the operatorsito do the wrong thing, even though they 10 think that it was the right thing to do at the. time.
11 We also had two invited experts at the s
12; subcommittee-meeting, Professor Mosleh-from the University
-13 -of Maryland-and Mr. Stutzke from Science Applications,
.:14 Incorporated.
15 They came with-long experience on human 16 riliability assessment,-and,they are both familiar with
-17 model development and applications, although'their.
18 experiences are'different.
19- Mosleh'has been primarilyLa modeler, whereas 20- Stutzke has been primarily a practitioner, so we had the 21 benefit-of their comments as well, so we dis _ussed this idea 22 of context.
Pz 23 I believe that the general consensus was that what 24 -ATHEANA was doing up until that time at least-is to define:
'25 context in terms of the information that reach.s the
() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
_____ -_-_--.-_a_-------------
379 1 . operators during an incident and if that infomation is
'2 misleading, then naturally they will do the wrong thing,-
3- which-~ is . the first- step I think tiowards defining thin .i 4 concept of context, although we agreed that there are other 5- elements that are very-important too, but the--Staff told us 6- that they are notulooking at these yet.
7 There.was also the question of whether context irt 8- time-_ dependent, is evolving-in time, and yes, there may be.
instances where that happens but I don'_t-think that that is 10 what they tested at Seabrook.
-11 Dana, you seem to have a'_ question or a comment.
12 DR. POWERS:-- Well, a comment.
- 13- The most striking observation I thought made by 14 the invited experts was a consensus they have~ held --
15 -DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes.
-16 DR.. POWERS: -- that existing analyses of human 17 performance tend to overweight.the-risk significance of the
_18- 1 human in,the system.
19 They'didn't really substantiate that at all. It was just-an opinion offered, but it does cast into a-
.21 different light the attention that we are giving to human 22- performance here.
23 We seem to be searching not for is there something ,
24 we are missing about human performance as it is that we're 25- casting about, are we over-rating human error.
O ~
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
380 1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes. I was coming to that. The
() 2 subcommitt ee was very impressed by that f act, that both our 3 invited experts, as Dana just said, seemed to think -- well, 4 actually, they stated it very clearly that the PRAs s
overestimate the human error rates and that further research 6 will most likely reduce these rates.
7 Everybody seemed to be surprised by that, 8 although, as Dana said, they didn't really give us any proof 9 cf that, but it was interesting that two people who had not 10 really coordinated their response felt that way, 11 DR. POWERS: Yes. It was pretty independent.
12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Pretty independent, yes -- and 13 that, if you go back to the development of human reliability X
14 analysis, this has happened before, O(_) 15 There was a timr ' fbe 15-16 years ago when the 16 whole issue of errors of commission was kind of scary.
- 17 People didn't know how to handle it. They said, gee, errors 18 -of commission -- you know, that's something we'll r.e er be 19- able to resolve.
2C Then people looked into it. They started 21 developing the so-called confusion matrices, under what 22 conditions are the operators likely to misdiagnose a 23 situation, and then we realized that there were very few of 24 those, so by looking into the problem in more detail we got 25 a better idea as-to where these errors of commission might ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
381
( ~ .
L le take place and.again the trend was the same as the trend
=( ) 2. that Mosleh and Stutzke predicted for the future.
3 In other words,.we tended to overestimate the 4 significance of these errors until we studied them, 5 I am not convinced-that in all cases we will find G )
~ that the error rates have been overestimated .cnr there' may be 7 situations that are not even in the PRA and this new 8 research will identify it, but that was really a high point-9 of the meeting, when-both experts said yes, we think the 10- current PRAs really don't treat the operators right and they 11 are underestimating their abi; y to handle a situation.
12 So I am looking forward to.that review of ATHEANA 13- because I think it is going to become a major model for
- 14 human reliabi?.ity assessment and it is probably the only
() 15 _. major activity right now internationally, as f ar as I know 16- I am sure there are individual projects here and there, but 17 this~is really big -- is that correct, . Jay?
-18 MR.'PERSENSKY: In the human reliability area.
19 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yes, in-human reliability. !
20 MR. PERSENSKY: Yes.
21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: And I took some notes at the end 22 of the-day:and I think-most-of'our colleagues who are 23 present were impressed by the applicctinn.
24 Dana had a few interesting observations. He 25 complained that the NMSS seems to be a weak partner here, b
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
382 1 that they'are not really participating to the extent that he
() 2L would like to see, and of course they have lots of problems
-3: -with-human errors,-but overall-I think that that'part of the 1
- 4 meeting went very well..
5 As I recall,lwe also had presentations on how 6 inspections handle human errors, which;is something now that
-7 in this new performance-based inspection arena will probably 8' have to be? revisited anu as usual we had a very interesting 9 presentation from AEOD-on the database, so except for the 10 part where we ' didn' t see the plan and we thought t h at we
-11 would see it, I think the' rest of the subcommittee meeting ;
124 was interesting and useful.
13 We invited Jay back, as I-said earlier, to-bring 114 us up to date regarding the progress in the human-(%
(_) 15 performance-and reliability plan.
16 MR. PERSENSKY: Good-morning. -As Dr.'Apostolakis
- indicated, we.did not have a plan:at the Subcommittee 18: meeting. What we tried to do is=to bring another version of 19 La=model around which we could build 1the plan. We.also 20 talked about-prioritization, ways that we'might do a better 21 job of prioritizing the activities with the plan, and we got 22 significant feedback on a method that was suggested, so we 23 are following up on those issues, trying to, again, work in-24 some of the comments on the most recent model, or influence 25- diagram, I believe comebody called it, as well as looking ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
383 .
1- into the-prioritization methodology.-
() -2 -The other thing we indicated was that the plan
- 3 will- be --~ will= use the Agency's strategic. plan as the basis 4 in terms.of its formatting, and that that is what drives a 5: lot-of-what we are doing-right now,=as the Chairman said
~6- yesterday..
17 So, based in part_oniour meeting.on:the 21st,- a t; 18L well as the comment the Chairman made yesterday with regttrd 9 to when she expected to see the plan, the current schedule 10- is that'we will have completed -- we are asking all of the
.11- offices tx) participate in identifying and writing a 12 description of each of the activities that-_they intend to be 13 'in the plan. We heve come up with a format that-gives us 14 more information as to what.each"of-these activities will --
15 L" descriptionswil1[ include.
16 We are also going 1to be looking a doing a 7~ prioritization. That will occur-by March 6th. A letter 18 will be going =out probably either;today or early:next week.
.19 tx) all the offices asking for their' participation and what 20 we need from them. Given that,-our intent is to have a 21 plan, a draft plan to the ACRS around April'1st,-so you 22= would have it before you leave for the -- after-the April :
- 2
- r meeting. We put in a tentative date for a Subcommittee 24 meeting. I assume-it would be somewhere in that time frame 25 - prior to the full Committee meeting, so that we would be
=
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
384 1 prepared-to make a presentation with the plan to the full I 2 Committee during your May meeting, and that would.give us 3 enough time, hopefully, to turn it around, get it through 4 our concurrence and to the EDO and Commission by -- May 5 -29th, I believe it is a Friday, we can't do it on the 31st, 6 but we will get it to her in May, to the Commission in May.
7 So this is the schedule that we are working 8 against. There is still a lot of work to be done with 9 regard to getting these activities laid out, getting the 10 risk information into it, as well as the prioritization. So 11 that's -- that's activity that is going to go in each of the 12 offices. We will then bring it together, bring it together 13 into a-document that we hope will satisfy the needs that 14- have been expressed by the Committee, as well by the O
h 15 Commission in other forums.
16 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The only concern that I have 17 with this schedule, Jay, is that if we have any significant 18 comments on the plan, it will be a bit late to give them to 19 you April 22nd, given your deadline. And we will have to --
20 MR. PERSENSKY: As far as the Subcommittee.
21 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Well, I mean the full Committee 22 meeting of May, during that meeting, we will probably have 23 to write a letter. So we are essentially writing a letter 24- on what you give us, not on something that will be revised 25 after we make comments perhaps, if such comments, you know,
.r
\-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 h _
385 l' will be. forthcoming.
() 2- So'you would not have an opportunity to go back 3- and revise it and respond to the comments. So, I mean that 4 is a little bit risky, in my mind, but I-don't know how else 5 we can do this.
6_ MR. PERSENSKY: We have worked the schedule ,
7 several-times with our management, and I can't do it much 8 quicker. I mean in terms of -- yeah, I don't want to get 9 into a position again where we come without a plan.
10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah, I understand that.
11 MR. PERSENSKY: We tried at this time to -- at 12 this last Subcommittee meeting to-provide you the structure 13 that we are working with, the model we are working against.
14 And before we put a lot of emphasis into writing, I think O
(_s/ 15 the feedback that we got at this last meeting -- last 16 Subcommittee meeting has moved us in a direction with regard 17 to getting the further information on the activities, 18 detailed description. I think we-have got better direction 19 on where we might go with the prioritization scheme.
20 So, I agree, this is a very difficult, very 21 aggressive schedule, but if -- if we were to try to meet 22 with you in March, I don' t think we would have mucit to 23 offer. I mean we would have more, we would have some more 24 detailed activity descriptions, we would have a more 25 detailed outline, but I don't think we are going to be in a n)
(
\-
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
386 1 position to give you anything but a very rough draft.
[ ) 2 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Perhaps -- I don't have my 3 calendar with me, but we could move the Subcommittee meeting 4 to the earlier part of April, and then --
5 MR. PERSENSKY: Well, we wanted to give you time 6 to digest'it, j 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: I understand. But it is also 8 important for us to give you time to respond to whatever 9 commente we come up with, so at the full Committee meeting, 10 at least, you can come back and say, yeah, we have addressed 11 this problem this way or that way. So when we write the 12 letter, we will have an opportunity -- I mean --
13 MR. PERSENSKY: Yeah. No, I understand, a 14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Because I'would hate to just D)
(, 15 write a letter on something that we see for the first time.
16 MR. KING: One thing -- this is Tom King from 17 Research. One thing we could do is what we did on the 18 graded QA risk-informed guide where we had some problems at 19 the end, and we came back at the full Committee before the 20 guide was published and said what we were going to do to try 21 and fix the guide. And what you did in your letter was just 22 confirm those commitments. And then when the package went 23 to the Commission, we told them how we addressed your 24 comments in the letter.
25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: That is a possible --
[)
'-s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
L -
1387 1 MR. KING: We-could:do that.
12 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: --Yeah, that'is a possible course-3 of-action. But the date, too, maybe, you know, we' don't 4 .need-_21 days to review the thing, so --
5 MR. PERSENSKY: Okay. Well,.we -- again, we put 6 -it in some time,--we tried to build time in for you to have 7 adequate time to review.
8- 'We-would' expect that, based onca Subcommittee 9 meeting, that we would start, if there.was a necessity --
11 0 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Right.
11 MR. PERSENSKY: -Start making changes at that 12 point, in terms of having something that~is already in 13- progress.
14 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: In fact, today, perhaps after
'15- the meeting, Noel, you and~I can get together and see 11 6 whether we can come up with a tentative day to_ propose to 17 the staff. And if it-is convenient for you, wercan set the 18 date. But I would-rather see it-closer to the 15th. So you-19' will have a: couple of weeks at least after that to think 20- about possible response to comments.
21 .Any other comments from the--members on the 22 proposed schedule?
23 DR.-BARTON: I didn't think we had a full 24 Committee meeting.
25 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: The microphone.
\ '
ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, NW., Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
L 388 1 DR. BARTON: I didn't think we had a full
() 2' Committee meeting May 7th and 8th.
3 MR. PERSENSKY: Oh, okay. I just picked -- I just 4 . picked the first --
5 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: When is --
6 DR. BARTON: I think the May meeting is the 30th 7 of April, 1st and 2nd of May.
8 CHAIRMAN SEALE: That's right, 9 DR. BARTON: Yeah, it is real early in --
=10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: They moved it up.
t- 11- DR. BARTON: Yeah.
-12 MR. PERSENSKY: So you have a very early meeting?
13 DR. BARTON: Verj early in May, yeah. j 14 MR. PERSENSKY: Okay.
~ 15 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: So now it is really important to 16 move this up --
17 .MR. PERSENSKY: So it is --
18 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Yeah.
19' MR. PERSENSKY: I missed it by a week. -I just 20 looked at the first.
121 ,DR. BARTON: You are in a ~ual --
22 MR. 1dRSENSKY: Usual time frame there. Usual 23 . suspects, usual time frame.
24 fDR. APOSTOLAKIS: Any.other comments on this?
'25 (No response.)
O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C.-2000b -
(202) 842-0034 I
389
-1 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Okay. Bob.
() 2 CHAIM$uf SEALE: Very good. Any questions?
3 [No response.)
4 CRAIRMAN SEALE: _ Well, I thank tha staff for your -
5 comments, Jay, and I apologize again for making you wait on 6 us_ finishing up our earlier discusrion.
7 MR. PERSENSKY: Well,_this is a short one, so it 8 will give you --
- 9. CHAIRMAN SEALE: -Well, I think it is al',o very 10 interesting. I hope-you found the comments on the 11 -inspection program as--interesting as we did. I think it was 12 13 MR 'PERSENSKY: I think it -- I think it was au 14 interesting discussion.
15- CHAIRMAN SEALE: It sure was.
16 MR. .PERSENSKY. Especially in light of the
- 17. integrated assessment process as well.
18 CHAIRMAN SEALE:. Exactly.
, 19 MR. PERSENSKY. Because that is what is going to-20 really. feed that_PIM._ And_we are, as Rich said, very -- we; 21- the Human Factors Group and Research, are very involved with 22' that process --
23 CHAIRMAN SEALE: I am sure you are.- I am sure you
.24 are.
25 .DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Now,-I know that you don't have .
. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 IJStreet,-N.W., _ Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4 .. - . . . . . - - - . ..
390 ' ;
1- a date.for the review of ATHEANA, but you are thinking in :
r 2 ~ terms-of May, perhaps,:or? !
t 3 MR. PERSENSKY: I believe that is the date. That 4 ~in actually out-of Mark Cunningham's group now, so -- but I +
l t
5 think that was the time frame that they were shooting for, 6 CHAIRMAN SEALEt Okay. I
- 7 DR. APOSTOLAKIS Unless there are any other 8 comments. Back to you. .
- 9. CHAIRMAN'SEALE: Okay. Thank you very much. [-
10 DR. APOSTOLAKIS: Thanks, Jay. I
.11 CHAIRMAN SEALE: We need to go on, I think, with-e 12 the schedules being what they are and so on, we probably ,
i: 13 ought'to look at the Planning Procedures Subcommittee 14- meeting and also the reconciliation, and I don't seem to 15 have a copy of the reconcil'ation package handy.
I' 16 MS. HARRIS It has-just been handed to you, Bob. .
17 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Okay, here it-is. Well, let's- i 18 take the time to go through that. -
19- MS. SUMMERS: I was going to say that I think Dr.
20 Larkins has to leave at 11:45. So you might want to get him-21 to.do Planning and Proceduras before.
22 CHAIRMAN SEALL Oh, if he has got -- /eah, I 23 guess we have time to-do that. Get John.
24- In the me'antime, you might want to look at the
=--
25- reconcillation comments so you will be able to do that.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES,LLTD.
4 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
391 1 C5, do we need to be on the record for anything
() 2 else today?
z3 MS. HI.RRIS: If the Chairman is coming.
4 CHAIRMAN SEALE: Ah, that is correct. That is 1
5 correct. '
ay. Well, we can go off the record for the '
6 moment.
7 (Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the meeting was 8 concluded.)
9 10 11 12 13-14 I
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
,24 25-() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Seite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
REPORTEP'S CERTIFICATE This is te certify that the attached proceedinge (r~~)
before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: 448TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS DOCKET NUMBER:
PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
_ transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear
\__/ Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record vf the foregoing proceedings.
1 esf'AT l.
MnHunley Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
(D Rj
. O O O PERFORMANCE-BASED INSPECTION l
FRANK GILLESPIE RONALD FRAH M, JR ,
FEBRUARY 6,1998 1
O O O e .
f I
i l
PRESEhTATION OUTLINE
- 1 4
f A. Inspection program history i B. Current inspection program i
C. Performance-based inspection concepts !
l i
D. Guidance and training t
i f r
2 I
O O O HISTORY AND EVOLVEMENT OF THE NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM
+ AEC Compliance Division - 1959
+ NRC Office ofInspection an'd Enforcement (I&E) and regional offices - 1974
+ Resident Inspection Program - 1977-1979
+ Reorganization (I&E and NRR merged) - 1987
+ Introduction of" Performance-based" inspection - 1987
+ (N+1) resident policy - 1988
+ NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2515. restructured (current program) - 1988
+ NRR initiates IP improvements - 1993-1996 3
_ _ _ _ _ -_=. .
O O O BASIS OF THE NRC INSPECTION PROGRAM
+ Ensure that licensees operate the plant safely and meet current regulatory requirements through the identification ofsafety-significant issues.
+ Achieve a balanced look at licensee performance through a SAMPLING oflicensee activities important to plant safety and reliability.
+ Focus a more detailed look at other activities that may warrant additional attention.
+ Provide enough flexibility in the application ofinspection resources to deal with issues and problems at specific plants.
4
. O O O INSPECTION PROGRAM ELEMENTS
+ Core Insoections: Minimum examination oflicensees to confirm performance and identify early potential problems
+ Plant-Soecific Regional Initiative Insoections: Inspection effort beyond core based on results of other inspections, licensee performance in various functional areas, and interactions with the licensees.
+ Generic Safety issues Insoections: Periodic, temporary inspections based on l identification of emerging safety concerns, or areas requiring increased emphasis because of recurring problems.
5
=. .
O O O
- SRC INSPECTION MA:SUAL DOCUME:STS
+ Inspection Manual Chapters (IMCs) are written administrative or inspection propm statements of policy. Each IMC includes the ourpose, objectives (or policy),
definitions, responsibilities, authorities, and basic requirements related to the spccified aspect of the NRC inspection program.
t
+ Inspection Procedures (IPs) are staterz ents of requirements and guidance for inspection activities for implementation of the NRC inspection program. Each IP
, identifies the program applicability, states the objective of the inspection activity, lists inspection requirements, offers inspection guidance, and includes a resource estimate.
l l
+ Temporary Instructions (tis) are specific, one-time instructions designed to provide inspection requirements and guidance that focus on a current safety issue or concern.
6 ;
4
. O O- O.
INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS
+ Inspection staff must understand the facilities, equipment, processes, and activities in the areas they inspect, as well as the criteria, techniques, and mechanics ofinspection.
+ Formal qualification program ensures that the staffimplementing the NRC inspection program meet expected knowledge and qualification standards.
+ Completion of the inspector training program includes:
Technology and inspection training cowses In-Office study, on-site inspection, and exposure to various aspects of the USNRC regulatory and inspection programs Oral qualification board and certification
- Periodic refresher training 7
A
O O O PERFORMANCE-BASED INSPECTION
+ Inspection that focuses on issues of safety and reliability, with an emphasis on fieM observation rather than in-office procedural record reviews.
+ Inspectors concentrate on licensee activities that most significantly affect plant safety.
+ The' inspections start by observing work activities, then discrepancies or uncertainties lead them to inspect other areas.
+ Performance problems will lead the inspector into evaluating root causes and potential programmatic problems. ;
8
O O O PERFORMANCE-BASED REGULATION
+ The traditional approach of most NRC rules has been prescriptive, providing detailed processes, requirements, er instructions for the licensee to follow.
+ A performance-based rule describes the general processes to be follovied and the results expected by licensees. (i.e.10 CFR 50.65, the Maintenance Ruie)
+ This approach gives licensees greater flexibility in developing and adjusting implementation activities to most efficiently utilize their existing programs and policies.
+ Encourages licensees to concentrate their resources on the most safety significant issues.
9
r- _ . __.
. O O O INSPECTING AGAINST A PERFORMANCE-BASED RULE
+ Regardless of whether a rule is performance based or prescriptive in nature, the geferred method ofinspection is performance based.
+ In order to effectively inspect against a performance-based rule, you must first verify that a comprehensive progmm is in place and is being implemented to ensure that performance can be evaluated.
+ Once the program has been baselined, subsequent inspections should be more performance based in nature. The impact on inspection activities is then transparent between performance-based and prescriptive regulations.
10 g
. O O O FORMAL INSPECTION GUIDANCE
+ IMC 2515 " Light Water Reactor Inspection Program - Operations Phase" establishes inspection policy and emphasizes performance-based approach.
i
+ Imp'ementing procedures incorporate the performance-based approach into the inspection process. Examples include: i
+ IP 71707 " Plant Operations" l
+ IP 61726 " Surveillance Observations" !
+ IP 62707 " Maintenance Observation" l
< + IMC 0610 " Inspection Reports" establishes guidance for documenting performance-based inspection findings.
li
O O O FORMAL INSPECTOR TRAINING
+ " Inspecting for Performance" (G-303) provides an understanding of performance-based inspection techniques and how to apply these techniques effectively.
+ " Field Techniques and Regulatory Processes" (G-103) allows students to apply the knowledge and principles of performance-based inspection through case studies.
l
+ " Fundamentals ofInspection" (G-101) provides an overall understanding of the NRC inspection program, including performance-based inspection.
+ " Fundamentals ofInspection Refresher" (G-102) reinforces management's expectations, including performance-based inspection skills and techniques.
+ Others as prompted by significant program changes.
12
O O O FURTHER COMMUSICATION OF
! MANAGEMENT EXPECTATIONS Additional forums to communicate current inspection program issues, program direction, and management expectations include:
+1 Reactor Inspection Program Newsletter issued every 3 to 6 months
+' Inspector counterpart meetings in each region every 4 to 6 months
+ Ongoing interface and communication on a routine basis between supervisors and inspectors, as well as regional and headquarters management 13
~
INSPECTION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS /
FUTURE ACTIVITIES Recent improvements:
l +' Rewrote IMC 2515 and IMC 0610
+ Developed the " Field Techniques and Regulatory Processes" course
+ Revised the " Inspecting for Performance" course Planned improvements / activities:
+, Include an article in the next Reactor Inspection Program Newsletter
+ Provide refresher training to inspectors and supervisors in conjunction with the next series ofinspector counterpart meetings
+ Review and revise the " Fundamentals ofInspection Refresher" course 14
O O O-~
gb g R E s gf G AF
+ t O i o
< =
l h +
STATUS OF ACTIVITIES ON 10 CFR 50.59 PRESENTATION TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS February 6,1998 Y17'25$s"
O O O- -
BACKGROUND e SECY-97-205 forwarded staff recommendations for regulatory process changes, including proposal for rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.59.
e Previous meetings with ACRS in April, October and December 1997 on 10 CFR 50.59 guidance and SECY-97-205 recommendations.
CURRENT STATUS ,
o Commission briefing on December 17,1997 e Commission SRM on SECY-97-2.05 e Rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.59 e Staff review of NEl 96-07
- Other related activities i
2 i
0 O O'~~
COMMENTS ON NEl 96-07 e Guidance submitted October 31,1997 e Comments provided on January 9,1998
- areas inconsistent with rule
! - areas needing clarification
- letter notes potential for enforcement e Reply from NEl dated January 16,1998 e Staff plans 3
OTHER ACTIVITIES e Enforcement pane? on 10 CFR 50.59
- Purpose
- Implementation ,
- Experience e FSAR Guidance (NEI 98-03) e Design bases guidance (NEl 97-04) l 4
..