ML20212A322
| ML20212A322 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/18/1999 |
| From: | Tracy G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Miraglia F NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9909160155 | |
| Download: ML20212A322 (5) | |
Text
/
UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 August 18, 1999 I
MEMORANDUM TO: Frank J Miraglia, Jr.
t Deputy Executive Director for Reactor Programs FROM:
Glenn M. Tracy, Chief 7h Regional Operations and r i
Program Management Section, OEDO
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF AUGUST 3,1999, PUBLIC MEETING WITH THE REACTOR PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PILOT PLANT REPRESENTATIVES AND NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE On August 3,1999, senior managers from the performance assessment pilot plants and Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) met with senior managers of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at NRC's office in Rockville, MD. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss recent issues involving the pilot program for the revised reactor performance assessment process. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the meeting and Attachment 2 is a list of meeting attendees.
Attachments:
As stated cc w/ attachments:
See page 2 1
I bD 9
9909160155 990818 PDR REVGP ERGN C
,]j{f
- rq049 g.7,7_ 6 m<za k
s/
2-cc:
W. Travers, NRC F. Miraglia, NRC S. Collins, NRC -
F. Gillespie, NRC M. Johnson, NRC H. Miller, NRC L Reyes, NRC J. Dyer, NRC E. Merschoff, NRC S. Floyd, NEl S. Hinnant, PPR H. Keiser, PPR O. Kingsley, PPR J. Scalice, PPR J. Swalles, PPR G. Gates, PPR J. Knubel, PPR D. Barnes, PPR
y i
SUMMARY
OF NRC/NEl/ PILOT PLANT REPRESENTATIVES MEETING August 3,1999 Overall, meeting participants indicated that the pilot program was progressing well and that it had resulted in enhanced communications between the licensees and the NRC. In general it was thought that the pilot had caused discussions to be more focused on the topic of risk and safety significance rather than compliance. The pi!ot plant managers indicated the NRC management were clearly comitted to effective implementation of the pilot program. In addition, the following specific issues were raised.
1.
Performance Indicator (PI) Historical Data Mr. Knubel expressed concern that in one instance an inordinate amount of time had been spent inspecting historical data for the PI for Radiological controls. The staff noted that initially there might be some inaccuracies with the Pls, particularly with those that the licensees hadn't been previously tracking. It was recognized that for these particular indicators, the expectation was for the licensep to put forth a reasonable effort in determining the Pl and that initial inspection of these indicators would be limited.
2.
Corrective Action Program inspections Mr. Swailes noted that a corrective action program inspection had been conducted using inspection procedures that had not been revised for use with the new assessment process. Mr. Swailes indicated that the inspections activities were not focused on risk i
and questioned the value of some of the inspection activities. Additional comments were made on this subject. The pilot plant managers felt that it was difficult to inspect and effectively implement the cross cutting programs and that existing guidance does not focus inspection based on risk-significance.
3.
Emergency Preparedness, Radiological Protection and Security inspections Concerns were also raised regarding the adequacy of the inspection procedures for Radiological Protection, Emergency Preparedness and Security. The staff noted that a number of the inspection procedures for these areas were still under development and that it was difficult to incorporate risk into certain of the inspection activities. It was noted that the staff welcomed ideas from stakeholders on incorporating risk-informed objectives into inspection procedures being developed for these areas.
. 4.
FullImplementation of the Revised Assessment Process The topic of fullimplementation of the revised assessment process was discussed. Mr.
Scalice questioned the ability of those utilities not involved with the pilot program to be ready for fullimplementation in April 2000. He noted that significant resources were required to train the managers at TVA on the revised assessment process. Other pilot plant managers indicated that full implementation in April 2000 would be very difficult.
F e
2 5.
Resource implications for Revised Assessment Process Mr. Keiser questioned what the staff's expectations were for resource allocation for pilot plant inspections. The staff noted that this was the first time that many of the inspection procedures were being used and some savings were expected with the implementation of the revised program; however, it was difficult to determine what the savings would be at this point in time. The staff also noted that one of the purposes of the pilot program is to assess the new inspection proc.edures in order to determine if inspections are
- focused on the right issues and whether the number of hours allotted are sufficient to perform the necessary inspections. It was noted that under the pilot program, the number of inspection hours at a facility is not intended to be used as an indicator and may not be reflective of licensee performance (e.g., more inspection does not necessarily correlate to a lower level of acceptable performance). A comment was made that the potential reductions in core inspection activities could be offset by the inspection of cross cutting issues if the NRC wasn't disciplined in its control of these inspections.
6.
Plans for Determining Public Reaction to the Revised Assessment Process Mr. Scalice questioned the staff's plans for obtaining structured feedback from the public on their reaction to and views about the new performance assessment process.
Although specific actions have yet to be finalized, the staff noted that options for measuring public confidench were being evaluated, including the option of performing surveys. It was also noted that the staff was looking at ways to get information out to the public in the periodic performance reviews. Mr. Collins requested that, at the next meeting, the pilot plants provide any feedback available from their public affairs organizations regarding any public inquiries about the new assessment process.
7.
Significance Determination Process Meeting participants noted that a significant amount of training was required to be able to understand and apply the SDP. It was also noted that inspectors at plants that are not included in the pilot program are starting to use the SDP to assess the significance of inspection findings.
8.
Revised Assessment Process inspection Reports The topic of inspection reports was also raised. Several representatives of the pilot plants noted that they had yet to receive an inspection report since the start of the pilot.
A comment was made that the inspection reports include a supplemental discussion of what the performance indicators really mean. The importance of the terminology used in inspection reports was also discussed and questions were raised as to how inspection findings should be dispositioned.
J J
)
4 88 NRC/NEl SENIOR MANAGER MEETING LIST OF PARTICIPANTS August 3,1999 NRC W. Travers F. Miraglia S. Collins j
F. Gillespie j
'M. Johnson Hubert Miller J
Louis Reyes Jim Dyer Ellis Merschoff NF.il S. Floyd PILOT PLANT REPRESENTATIVES S. Hinnant H. Keiser O. Kingsley J. Scalice J. Swailes G. Gates J.Knubel D. Barnes