ML20206S679
| ML20206S679 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/05/1998 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-3091, NUDOCS 9905210197 | |
| Download: ML20206S679 (6) | |
Text
-
m-t@ laeuedT 37 5798 John J. Barton - 3/5/98 i B gyps-369/
n g
93:s PDK ADVISORY COMMllTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS MEETING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANT OPERATIONS MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 3,1998 ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND INTRODUCTION The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant Operations met on February 3,1998, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, in Room T-2B3. The purpose of this meeting was to continue the Subcommittee's review of proposed improvements to the Senior Management Meeting (SMM) Process.
The entire meeting was open to public attendance. Mr. Michael T. Markley was the cognizant ACRS staff engineer for this meeting. The meeting was convened at 8:30 a.m. and adjourned at 12:30 p.m. on February 3,1998.
ATTENDEES ACRS Members J. Barton, Chairman D. Powers, Member G. Apostolakis, Member R. Seale, Member M. Fontana, Member W. Shack, Member T. Kress, Member R. Uhrig, Member D. Miller, Member J. Carroll (consultant)
D. Powers, Member M. Markley, ACRS Staff Princioal NRC Soeakers R. Barrett, AEOD*
A. Madison, AEOD T. Frye, NRR*
W. Raughley, AEOD M. Johnson, NRR T. Wolf, AEOD PrincioalIndustrv Sneakers S. Floyd, NEl*
Q $, C.;V '
m NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation y 'l 1O RES Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational
.c NEl Nuclear Energy Institute k.'.
g (-
t c :c m D G lCl * \\
hD w iD od EY ---
S 3091 PDR
y l,
Plant Operations Subete.
2 February 3,1998 l
Minutes l
l There were approximately ten members of the public in attendance at this meeting. A l
complete list of attendees is in the ACRS Office File, and will be made available upon request. The presentation slides and handouts used during the meeting are attached to the office copy of these minutes.
OPENING REMARKS BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN Mr. John Barton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Plant Operations convened the i
l meeting at 8:30 a.m. and introduced the Members of the Subcommittee. He stated that the purpose of this meeting was to continue the Subcommittee's review of proposed improvements to the Senior Management Meeting (SMM) process. He noted that the staff expected to provide feedback to the Commission later in February 1998. He also noted that the staff had not yet provided it draft Commission paper on the integrated assessment process nor its proposed guidance document on the use of economic or financialindicators. Mr. Barton requested the staff to discuss the evaluation of l
management effectiveness and how it can be used as a leading indicator of licensee performance.
l Mr. Barton stated that the Subcommittee had received no written comments or requests for time to make oral statements from members of the public.
DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS NRC Staff Presentation l
Messrs. Michael Johnson, NRR, and Richard Barrett, AEOD, led the discussions for the NRC staff. Messrs. Thomas Wolf and William Raughley, AEOD, also provided l
presentations to the Subcommittee. Messrs. Timothy Frye, NRR, and Alan Madison, AEOD provided supporting discussion. The staff discussed its integrated review of the assessment process, the plant performance template, trending methodology, and plans for the use of financialindicators. Significant points made during the discussion include:
The current assessment process has a number of weaknesses including unnecessary redundancy, multiple structures of data analysis, opportunities to i
send mixed messages to licensees, untimely elements for assessment and feedback, and excessive administrative burdens placed on the staff to support multiple assessment programs.
SMM objectives include early warning of declining licensee performance, integration of inspection findings and other assessments, focus oversight and I
p
)
Q',,
p L,
Plant Operations Subete.
3 February 3,1998 Minutes L
attention on issues important to risk, effective communication of results to licensees and the public, and allowance for agency planning and allocation of resources.
Process attributes include the use of a decision model with clearly defined roles and responsibilities; data which is consistent, timely, and scrutable; identification of risk significance; and development of success criteria that is leading or predictive in identifying declining performance.
One single, integrated assessment process will replace the current SMM process, Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP), Plant Performance Reviews (PPRs), and Plant issues Matrix (PIMs). The revised process will use risk-graded inputs to the assessment template.
i
- Annual regional assessment meetings will screen licensee performance and l
recommend action to the headquarters staff based on plant / licensee performance comparison with the decision logic model.
)
Performance trend plots were developed and tested at the January 1998 SMM.
Color coding is used te graphically represent individual performance measures.
l The color coding variables will be " rolled-up" into an overall assessment representation using the same color coding method.
l Financial indicators have been identified and used at the screening meetings.
This includes both site and corporate financial variables, logistic regression to SMM variables, and use of a financial trend methodology, f
The proposed template will be used on a pilot basis during the July 1998 SMM meeting cycle. Continuing activities include development of risk guidance, integration of the NRR decision model, development of quantitative measures, and integration of the trending methodology.
The staff is also continuing its evaluation of the use of INPO/WANO indicators, the use of thresholds versus industry averages for trend plots, and methods for assessing management effectiveness.
Industry Presentation t
L Mr. Steve Floyd of the Nuclear Energy institute (NEl) provided a brief discussion of proposed industry assessment concepts and indicators. Significant points made during the discussion include:
L
Plant Operations -Subete.
4 February 3,1998 Minutes The purpose of assessment is to accurately and objectively measure safety performance, accurately communicate results to the industry and public, and
' identify declining trends in safety to effectively allocate resources to plants and issues of concem.
The program should have guiding principles with safety performance expectations based on public health and safety threshold, objective indicators to confirm that expectations are met, and assessment conclusions supported by performance indicators.
Safety performance expectations should include maintaining barrier integrity within design specifications, limiting operational challenges to preclude exceeding event class frequencies, and maintaining mitigation capability to provide reasonable assurance that safety systems perform as intended.
j SUBCOMMITTEE COMMENTS. CONCERNS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS Dr. Powers and Apostolakis questioned the lack of an apparent needs assessment and the lack of objectives and requirements definition regarding the integrated assessment program. In particular, Drs. Powers and Apostolakis questioned the objectives and i
requirements for the assessment process versus those established for improving the SMM process. The Subcommittee requested the staff to discuss these matters at the February 5-7,1998 ACRS meeting.
Dr. Apostolskis questioned where risk assessment fit into the process. The staff stated that the program guidance had not yet been fully developed. However, they added that most of the early risk screening and risk grading would be done in the regional NRC Offices by cognizant technical staff branch chiefs. Mr. Carroll expressed concem about possible differences in implementation among the various regional offices and questioned how the staff would to assure consistency. The staff discussed its guidance documents and associated training programs as tools for establishing and maintaining consistency.
Mr. Barton and Dr. Seale questioned the staffs plans for assessing management and organizational effectiveness. The staff stated that the current inspection programs do not provide measures for assessing management effectiveness. The staff added that it is a policy issue and stated that they were preparing a policy paper for consideration by the Commission regarding these matters.
The Subcommittee and staff extensively discussed the use of financial indicators. Mr.
Carroll questioned how the staff would evaluate financial performance when accounting
i e
1 Plant Operations Subete.
5 February 3,1998 Minutes practices differ throughout the industry. The staff stated that it was preparing a special study on identifying financial indicators.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Barton requested the staff to summarize its proposed improvements to the SMM process to the full Committee during the March 1998 meeting. Dr. Powers requested the staff to provide a list of the needs and objectives for the integrated assessment program.
Dr. Apostolakis requested the staff to discuss how the template integrates consideration of risk, criteria for placement on the "watchlist" of problem facilities, and how the template fits into the integrated assessment program.
STAFF AND INDUSTRY COMMITMENTS In response to Subcommittee comments, concems, and recommendations, the staff agreed to brief the ACRS on its proposed integrated assessment program and
)
guidance for the use of financial indicators, when available.
SUBCOMMITTEE DECISIONS At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Barton suggested that it may be premature for the Committee to prepare a report or letter since critical documents have not yet been provided by the staff.
FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS None.
BACKGROUND MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE PRIOR TO THIS MEETING 1.
Subcommittee agenda.
2.
Subcommittee status report.
3.
Staff Requirements Memorandum dated October 24,1997.
4.
Facsimile dated December 5, from John J. Barton, ACRS, to Michael T.
Markley, ACRS Staff,
Subject:
Discussion points for meeting with the NRC staff regarding proposed improvements to the SMM process.
5.
Report dated September 10,1997, from R.L. Seale, ACRS Chairman, to Shirley Ann Jackson, NRC Chairman,
Subject:
Staff Action Plan to improve the Senior Management Meeting Process.
6.
Memorandum dated September 11,1997, from John T. Larkins, ACRS Executive Director, to the Commissioners,
Subject:
ACRS Letter on the Senior Management Meeting Process.
i
V g
Plant Operations Subete.
6 February 3,1998
. Minutes 7.
Letter dated October 28,1997, from L. Joseph Callan, NRC Executive Director for Operations, to R. L. Seale, ACRS Chairman,
Subject:
Staff Action Plan to improve the Senior Management Meeting Process.
' 8.
Facsimile dated October 21,1997, from Dana A. Powers, ACRS, to John J.
Barton, ACRS,
Subject:
Plan Performance Assessment.
9.
Memorandum dated November 4,1997, from Michael T. Markley, ACRS Staff, to John J. Barton, ACRS,
Subject:
Reconciliation - Analysis of Staff Response to ACRS Report on the Staff Action Plan to improve the Senior Management Meeting Process.
10.
SECY-97-294,' Response to Staff Requirements Memorandum dated October 24,1997, Regarding the Decision-Making Process at the Senior Management Meeting and the Benefits that the Process and the Watchlist Provide in Terms of Public Health and Safety.
11.
Handouts for February 3,1998, Subcommittee briefing on the integrated Review of the NRC Assessment Process for Operating Commercial Reactors.
12.
Memorandum dated January 20,1998, from Richard J. Barrett, AEOD, to John T. Larkins, ACRS Executive Director,
Subject:
Plant Performance Template.
13.
Memorandum dated November 6,1997, from C. Ernie Rossi, AEOD, to NRR and Regional DRP/DRS Directors,
Subject:
Request for Review of interim Report
- Development and Findings of the Performance Trending Methodology.
Note: Additional details of this meeting can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006, (202) 634-3274, or can be purchased from Ann Riley &
Associates, Ltd., (Court Reporters and Transcribers) 1250 l Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. Rhode Island Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034.
~
\\
i
!