ML20215L124
| ML20215L124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/31/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2456, NUDOCS 8610280483 | |
| Download: ML20215L124 (47) | |
Text
((M-SYbh Pjx upyet l,
DATE ISSUED: 8/31/86 fgh ACRS INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 14, 1986 BETHESDA, MD PURPOSE The purpose of this meeting is to review the activities of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
ATTENDEES ACRS NRC G. Reed, Chairman J. Taylor E. Jordan J. Ebersole, Member J. Partlow J. Rosenthal C. Michelson, Member T. Martin R. Baer C. Wylie, Member P. McKee K. Perkins P. Boehnert, Staff H. Miller L. Whitney J. Craig R. Hernan R. Van Niel A complete list of meeting attendees is attached to to Office Copy of these Minutes.
MEETING HIGHLIGHTS, AGREEMENTS AND REQUESTS 1.
Mr. Reed noted that this is the first meeting of this Subcommittee.
He noted that the Subcomittee's charter is focused on overview of the I&E Headquarters functions. The Regional Operations Subcommittee will monitor the Regional Offices activities.
2.
Mr. J. Taylor (Director, I&E) overviewed the Programs of the Office i
of Inspection and Enforcement. He reviewed I&E's past interactions with the ACRS (Fig. 1).
The Organization and mission of I&E was detailed. Mr. Taylor noted that I&E has /v 1/3 of the Agency's FTE allotment. There are three Office Divisions:
(1) Division of Inspection Programs, (2)
D CIIIGI'IAL 8610280483 860031 I
Ce* < o < c f,,M q a n 06 PDR 7
7.
l
. t 1
I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, and (3) Division of QA, Vendor and Technical Training Center Programs.
In addition, an Enforcement Staff reports directly to Mr. Taylor.
Figure 2 shows the organizational details. Figure 3 details the mission areas for each Division.
Mr. Reed asked if the Designated Representative proposal is still under consideration. Mr. Taylor said little is being done here given the Agency shift to an "all-operations" environment. Mr.
Taylor noted that I&E has purchased a BWR simulator for use at the Chattanooga Training Center.
Near-term challenges facing I&E include:
timely identification of problem plants, improved inspection techniques / effectiveness, fitness for duty, enhancing Industry role in plant safety, and the issues of: systems "important to safety," and the safety impact of B0P.
In response to Mr. Ebersole regarding when I&E should issue a shutdown order given a problem plant (s), Mr. Taylor said they are still struggling with this issue and ro quick and easy answer is evident here. Discussing non-reactor licensees, I&E said the inspection effort is directly related to the potential for harm.
Mr. Michelson expressed concern that the Deviation Reports (e.g.,
10 CFR 50.55(e)) are not thoroughly reviewed agency-wide for generic implications. Mr. Taylor said this item would be discussed later in the day.
2.
J. Partlow (I&E) overviewed the basic functions of the Division of Inspection Programs.
Figure 4 details his main points. There are N 500 FTE's allotted for inspection of power reactors which includes 160 resident inspectors.
t s.,
J I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 Mr. Reed asked if I&E gives consideration to the human aspect of the enforcement policy. He indicated that licensees are seeing an ever-increasing regulatory burden. Advisarilism is the natural result. Mr. Partlow noted that I&E will be interacting with the American Nuclear Society in the near future at a meeting with utility executives to address these concerns. He said plants with exemplary operating records are not being inspected as often as more troublesome plants.
In response to Mr. Michelson, Mr. Partlow said the goal of I&E is to have at least two Resident Inspectors at each plant.
3.
P. McKee discussed the various reactor inspection programs.
For the power reactors, it was noted that there is a total of w 4 FTE's expended per unit / year for inspections and this includes the efforts of 1 or 2 resident inspectors (RI). This level of manpower necessitates a sampling or audit type inspection Program.
Features of the inspection programs include:
Regional Office administration
- Emphasis on direct observation of activities
- Provision for independent inspection
- Related to the SALP Program
- Routine and reactive inspections Mr. Michelson asked if random inspections are conducted. Mr.
Taylor replied in the affirmative, citing inspections of mainte-nance activities as an example. Mr. Michelson asked how " capture" is avoided. Mr. McKee said objectivity is continually evaluated via a second RI and Regional inspections. Mr. Taylor said RI's have been removed from plants due to this problem.
Details of the four phases of the power reactors inspection program (construction, preoperational, startup, and operations) are on Figures 5-8.
Mr. Michelson expressed concern over the lack of
i I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 attention to preoperational tests.
I&E indicated that manpower shortages preclude any detailed look at this or other areas.
Figure 9 outlines the research reactor inspection program. The inspection Program for fuel facilities and materials (e.g. Irra-diators) is noted in Figure 10.
4.
The SALP (Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance) Program was reviewed by P. McKee. SALP was begun in 1980 in response to a TMI Action Plan item. The process has been revised several times (3/82, 11/84 and 11/85) based on lessons learned. Plants are evaluated on a 12-to 18-month cycle.
There are 11 functional areas for operating plants (Figs. 10-11).
The evaluation criteria are given on Figures 11-12. There are three rankings for the performance categories 3.
Category 1 indicates reduced attention may be appropriate while a Category 3 rating means increased NRC attention is warranted.
I&E noted that the R1 plays a major role in the SALP effort.
In response to Mr.
Michelson, I&E said the public can observe the meeting with licens-ee management that occurs after the SALP Report is issued.
In resp'onse to Mr. Ebersole, I&E indicated fitness for duty concerns will be included in future SALP reviews.
4 i
5.
Review of the safety system functional inspection program was given by T. Martin. The SSFI approach arose from the Davis Besse LOF event. The objective of the inspection is to assess the operation-al readiness of_ selected safety systems. The idea is to attempt to uncover safety concerns that had been missed in previous in-spections.
Mr. Michelson requested sample copies of SSFI reports issued to date.
I&E will provide copies to the DF0. Mr. Reed asked if an
s 1
I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 SSFI at Davis Besse would have flagged the problems seen on June 9, 1985. Mr. Martin said he believes an SSFI would have ID'ed design vulnerabilities such as a lack of power diversity in the AFW system.
I&E also indicated that the SSFI can, and does, go beyond design basis safety considerations.
The SSFI process was noted. The team size is " 8-10 people. Three weeks are devoted to the inspection. One week is spent at the Corporate Office devoted solely to an engineering inspection. Two weeks are spent at the plant site.
Figure 13 provides the details.
Mr. Reed complained that the SSFI seems to be a continuing esca-lation of the regulatory burden on Licensees.
I&E said that an SSFI automatically cancels a Performance Appraisal Program inspection for the site in question.
Examples of the SSFI findings for some plants are shown on Figures 14-16.
Mr. Reed indicated that this is an interesting activity and de-serves future attention by the Committee.
6.
PRA-based inspections were discussed by Mr. L. Whitney. Three methodologies are being used for focusing inspector attention in these areas. These are:
(1) plant risk status information management system (PRISIM), (2) operational assessment and readi-ness inspection procedure (OAR), and (3) inspection guidance methodology (IGM).
Inspectors are given a course in the basics of PRA at the Chatta-nooga training facility. Feedback from the Inspectors who have taken the course has been positive.
~
s I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 Figures 17-19 summarize the key points of each methodology. PRISIM is a PC-based site-specific Program that the RI would consult on a daily basis. The Program would provide estimates of core melt risk based on the current operating status of the olant. The idea would be that the PRISM Program would point to specitic systems /
components that deserve enhanced scrutiny given the plant status noted above. PRISIM is on trial use at ANO-1.
The 0AR is a focused team inspection approach that is driven by PRA. Based on PRA-identified, dominant core melt accident risk initiators, the OAR team inspects systems, components, procedures, plant operations, etc., that would be needed to respond to the events in question. An OAR Procedure Manual is currently under development.
IGM is designed to provide PRA information in a form useful for resident and regional inspectors.
IGM will be applied to in-spections planned at Haddam Neck and Millstone 1 in the fall of 1986.
In response to Mr. Reed, Mr. Partlow said that the PRISIM program is a test of a RES-sponsored activity. Mr. Reed expressed skepti-cism that this effort will be of much use.
Mr. Partlow summarized the long term programs and plans for the Division of Inspection Programs. He said that his resources are not expected to increase and may well decrease.
Key points noted included:
- Plan to increase to two resident inspectors at most reactor sites (but maintain Regional Office technical capabilities).
i.
I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986
- Plan to increase capabilities for regional Eng/0PS/ design team inspections.
- Continue to stress use of master inspection plans which reflect results based on performance.
- Place emphasis on performance measures for evaluating program adequacy.
- Develop good uses of PRA information.
7.
H. Miller overviewed the activities of the Division of QA, Vendor, and Technical Training Center Programs.
Figure 20 details the organization of the Division.
J. Craig outlined the activities of the Vendor Program Branch. Key activities of the Branch include:
- Conduct inspections of both vendors and licensees to determine the adequacy of licensee controls on vendor products and services.
- Determine the cause of known vendor deficiencies and assess generic implications.
- Inspect following organizations: NSSSs, AEs, vendor suppliers of products and/or services, EQ testing laboratories and facilities, and third party inspection organizations (e.g.,
ASME).
Mr. Wylie asked if I&E inspects the Utility engineering design work done "in house".
I&E said this is checked during outage inspec-tions and as part of SSFIs.
I&E said it is concerned about the impact of in-house work on the plant's original design basis.
l l
u
o I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 Details of the Vendor Branch Organization efforts are given in Figures 21-22. Examples of the results (problems) found during recent inspections are shown in Figure 23.
In response to Mr.
Wylie, I&E indicated that vendor inspections are basically reactive in nature.
Long term programs and plans for the Vendor Branch include con-tinued focus on operational safety issues and an emphasis on licensee responsibilities.
8.
Ed Jordan discussed the activities of the Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Branch.
Figure 24 details the various activities of the Branch. The Incident Response Center operation is part of this Branch's activities.
9.
A progress report on the development of performance indicators (PI) was given by Mr. Jordan. The objective of the Program is to develop a minimum set of performance indicators and recommend methods for using information to make timely regulatory decisions
- e. bout performance. The Commission cautioned that in developing this Program, I&E was to avoid ranking performance from plant-to-plant. A schematic of the Performance Program plan is given on Figure 25. Not shown is that INP0 also reviews the I&E PI reports.
Currently, 1&E is u 1/2 way through the PI development Program (Figure 26 - arrows).
A set of 17 PIs have been selected for a trial Program (Figs.
27-28).
I&E showed a comparison of I&E's PIs with those of INP0 and the IAEA (Figs. 29-31). Of the 17 NRC PIs, 7 cross-correlate with INP0 and 7 cross-correlate with IAEA (not the same 7 in either case though).
Four NRC PIs cross correlate with both INPO and IAEA (Items 1, 5, 8 and 14).
I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 I&E listed proposed plant selection criteria (Fig. 32). They have selected a number of plants from each Region for the trial Program (Fig.33). A Program schedule has been developed (Fig. 34). PI implementation is scheduled for December 31, 1986. A quarterly data compilation would begin after December 31. Analysis and recommendations would be given after 1 year of operation.
Mr. Reed said he is impressed with the amount of data assembled by I&E in support of this Program.
10.
J. Rosenthal overviewed the daily event review as was observed by the Subcommittee during its morning tour of the Incident Response Center. He also discussed the various notification categories (LERs and 50.55(e) events (construction deficiency reports). All 50.55e's are logged in on an IBM PC in I&E for screening and evaluation. Mr. Michelson noted that AE0D is not now screening such events. He was pleased to learn that I&E is giving these events an integrated review.
11.
R. Bear discussed the criteria used to develop I&E Bulletins and Information Notices. About 4 Bulletins and 100 Information Notices are issued per year.
Figure 35 details the above criteria.
12.
K. Perkins responded to Subcommittee questions on the Incident Response Center operations.
He noted that the Center can be fully staffed within 30 minutes of an event notification during normal duty hours and within 1.5-2 hours during non-duty hours.
I&E also said a 50% of response drills are run in conjunction with a given
)
Licensee and the associated NRC Region Office.
13.
R. Van Niel discussed the activities of the Emergency Preparedness Branch. Activities of the Branch include coordination with FEMA in evacuation drills and support of the Incident Response Center.
In l
l l
t
n I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 response to Mr. Wylie, I&E said there are provisions for interact-ing with the media both at HQ and at the accident site.
14.
R. Hernan (NRR) noted the various aspects of NRR coordination with I&E. NRR participates in the Events of the Day call and analysis, and supports the Incident Response Center both for drills and actual events. NRR also holds a weekly operating reactors summary meeting with I&E to assign follow-up for important operating events. NRR also supports the bi-monthly meeting of the ACRS Reactor Operations Subcommittee Meeting.
Finally, NRR has exten-sive involvement in the SALP reviews. The PMs have been encouraged to spend more of their time at the sites and Mr. Hernan invited the ACRS Members to accompany the PM's as well.
15.
Mr. Reed, in closing, said the Subcommittee will want to have another meeting to hear more on some items above and cover the Items deleted due to lack of time (Quality Assurance, Technical Training and the Enforcement Program). Mr. Starostecki urged the Subcommittee to avail themselves of I&E's knowledge vis-a-vis Headquarters management and to visit the field to gain a detailed knowledge of the Regional Organization.
l It was agreed that another meeting of s/ 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> duration would be necessary for the Subcommittee to complete discussion of the above Items and decide what topics it wished to bring to the attention of the full Committee for review and follow-up as necessary.
(Note:
The Chairman has scheduled a full-day follow-on Subcommittee meeting for November 5, 1986.)
i l
l
- 16. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
t 1
._=
v 8
j*
I&E Programs Meeting Minutes August 14, 1986 NOTE:
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 North Capitol Street, Wash-ington, D.C. 20001, (202) 347-3700.
4 9
j
ole INTERACTION WITH ACRS
- ROUTINE PRESENTATIONS BEFORE ACRS
' QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES SIGNIFICANT EVENTS AT OPERATING PLANTS
- PRESEtlTATIONS ON TOPICS OF INTEREST BEFORE ACRS (EXNPL FITNESS FOR DUTY CHECK VALVES
'CURRErft SUEC0fHITTEES INVOLVillG IE PROGRAMS REACTOR OPERATIONS INSPECTION AND ENFORCEE NT PROGRN4S PEGIONAL OPERATIONS l
m-h)6 ?]
ORGANIZATION CHART i
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT INFORCfMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT staff aNO aMaLysis STAFF e
J. Amman. Pionns f %w,Diwrw R. STAFOSTLCKI, MTim DEP. DIR.
I oiv,sioN os Divistom 05 EMEaGENCY oevisioN os cumuTv assunaNCE INSPECTION PeoGnaus PREPaREONEss aNO vtNDOR. aND TECHNiCat TRalNING ENoiNEEaiNo nEsPoNsE CNTsn PnoonaMs J. Paestru, Dief rwm E. 3 moan, DieECT*
B. feiets, DinEcw I. TnuNo. thP. Dimc vis
- 5. $ =rz, Dr P. DiREC" H. Mutin, inP. piefcim i
'""'"oTEuSiC"aSiYNs' 'C evemis aNatvsis cumuTv assunaNCE vt ND, PROGRAM openatuse naaCTon nEaCfon CoNsfnuCTsom C
Paoonaus smaNCH Paocnaus enaNCu anaNCu saaNCH enaNCH
,,,,m,,,,,,n, I
- - MEE L ENM NIIF I""-
IU P. etu1L (HTEf
.l.
NyeG isi, af fler. f Hif f fMERCENCY PREPAREDNESS INCiDfNT RESPONSE ftCHNICAL TRAINING saFEGuaROs AND MaTEnsats eRaNCH mRaNCH CENTfn I"
N*
M N TB8 mf.
twirt t_
By ner t err.. ruirr PROGRaMseAaNCH F. S I4 fDia f)4i(i u
N v
0'
OIE MISSION OVERVIEW
- ENFORCDO(T STAFF
- ENF'ORCEMEtlT POLICY
- ESCALATED ENFORCEMEta ACTIOf1S
- REGI0flAL OVERSIGHT
' DIVISION OF INSPECTION PROGR E
- IflSPECTION POLICY & PROGRAMS (IE MANUAL) FOR PEACTORS, FUEL FACILITIES At!D MATERIALS
- SPECIAL INSPECTIONS - PAT, SSFI, SSOMI
- SALP
- REGIONAL OVERSIGHT
' DIVISION OF EK RGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND ENGINEERING RESPONSE
- FliERGENCY PREPAREDf!ESS
- INCIDENT RESPONSE (OPERATIONS CENTEP)
- EVEfRS ANALYSIS (PERFORfMNCE INDICATORS)
- GENERIC COMJNICATIONS
- REGI0flAL OVERSIGHT
- DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, VENDOR 8 TTC PROGRAMS
- QUALITY ASSUPAf!CE
- VENDOR INSPECT 10t! PP0 GRAM
- TECHNICAL TPAINING CENTER
- REGIONAL OVERSIGHT Mk
- vamet, f fs%$m DIVISION 0F INSPECTION PROGRAMS 0
BASIC FUNCTIONS
- INSPECTION PROGRAM POLICY AND PROCEDURES
- INSPECTION RESOURCE ALLOCATION
- IE DIRECT INSPECTION PROGRAM
- PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION / RESOLUTION /C00RDINATION
- ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 0
DIVISION RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDE ALL LICENSEES (REACTORS, FUEL FACILITIES, MATERIALS).
SOME FUNCTIONS ARE LEAD BY OTHER IE DIVISIONS.
O SOME ROUND NUMBERS (DOES NOT INCLUDE SUPERVISORS / MANAGEMENT /
ADMINISTRATION)
- 565 PROFESSIONAL " INSPECTION" FTE INCLUDING
-5 FTE FOR R/T REACTORS 60 FTE FOR FUEL FACILITIES / MATERIALS 500 FTE FOR POWER REACTORS (160 RESIDENTS)
O BASIC CHALLENGE IS TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM SAFETY IMPACT WITH WHAT WE HAVE:
- UNIFORMITY IN APPROACH
- BALANCE NEEDS IN REACTOR SAFETY /EP/SG/HP/NON-REACTORS
- STAY IN TOUCH WITH REAL EVENTS / TRENDS; MODIFY PROGRAM TO MATCH
- EVALUATE SAFETY PERFORMANCE - NOT JUST COMPLIANCE l
jm 91
CONSTRUCTION PHASE INSPECTION PROGRAM (IE MC 2512)
O COVERS PERIOD FROM CP TO ISSUANCE OF OL 0
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES KEYED TO CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES O
PhJOR ROUTINE INSPECTION ELEMENT IS PROCEDURE REVIEW, WORK OBSERVATION, AND RECORD REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (E.G., MECHANICAL COMPONENTS, STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, SAFETY RELATED PIPING, WELDING AND NDE, ETC,)
O EMPHASIS ALSO PLACED ON INSPECTION OF LICENSEE'S QA PROGRNiS e
PREOPERATIONAL TESTING PHASE INSPECTION PROGRAM (IE PC 2513)
O COVERS PERIOD FROM 24 MONTHS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OPERATING LICENSE O
ROUTINE INSPECTI0f[S COVER TWO PAJOR AREAS:
1.
TEST PROCEDURE REVIEW, TEST WITNESSING, AND TEST RESULT EVALUATION 2.
EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL AND PROCEDURES FOR OPERATION OF THE FACILITY 0
RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND PREOPERATIONAL PHASE INSPECTIONS SUPPORT REGIONAL OPERATIONAL READINESS RECOPNENDATION O
/Md- [/
STARTUP TESTING PHASE INSPECTION PROGRAM (IE MC 2514) tt 0
COVERS PERIOD OF APPROXIMATELY 6 NNTHS EEFORE ISSUANCE OF THE OL AND C0ffTINUES APPROXIt%TELY l MONTH AFTER THE LICENSEE COMPLETES FULL POWE.R TESTING 0
ROUTINE INSPECTIONS COVER THE FOLLOWING MAJOR AREAS:
1.
STARTUP TF.ST PROGRAM REVIEW 2.
INITIAL FUEL LOADING 3.
STARTUP TEST PROCEDURE REVIEW, TEST WITNESSING AfD OBSEWATION, AND TEST RESULT EVALUATION 0
AUGMENTED COVERAGE PROVIDED DURING INITIAL STARTUP f
' OPERATIONS PHASE INSPECTION PROGRAM (IE MC 2515)
O COVERS PERIOD AFTER ISSUANCE OF OL 0
ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAM COVERS PROGRAft% TIC AREAS THAT PARALLEL SALP FUNC'TIONAL AREAS (E.G., OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE,,
SURVEILLANCE ETC).
O ROUTINE INSPECTION PROGRAM IS PRIORITIZED INTO THREE LEVELS 1.
MINIMUM 2.
BASIC 3.
SUPPLEMENTAL 0
INSPECTION EMPHASIS IS PLACED ON OBSERVATION OF PLANT ACTIVITIES
RESEARCH REACTOR INSPECTION PROGRAM 0
TWO f%JOR AREAS OF INSPECTION (OPERATIONS AND SECURITY) 0 OPERATIONS INSPECTION be 1.
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION IS A FUNCTION OF POWER LEVEL AND REACTOR STATUS 2.
INSPECTIONS COVER BROAD SPECTRLN OF ACTIVITIES 0
SECURITY INSPECTIONS 1.
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION IS A FUNCTION OF AMOUNT, TYPE, AND ENRICifiEffT OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL POSSESSED BY LICENSEE O
e i
SALP PROGRAM FEATURES (CONT) 3.
PlPING SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTS 4.
SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS-ftCHANICAL 5.
AUXILIARY SYSTEMS 6.
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND CABLES 7.
INSTRUMENTATION 8.
QUALITY PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING QUALITY 9.
LICENSING ACTIVITIES 0
OPERATING PHASE FUNCTIONAL AREAS 1.
PLANT OPERATIONS 2.
RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS 3.
I%INTENANCE
SALP PROGRAM FEATURES (CONT) 1 SURVEILLANCE 1
5.
FIRE PROTECTION 1
s.
6.
SECURITY 8.
OUTAGES 9.
QUALITY PROGRAMS AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS AFFECTING QUALITY
- 10. LICENSING ACTIVITY
- 11. TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION EFFECTIVENESS 1
o EVALUATION CRITERIA 1.
b4AGEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ASSURING QUALITY f
2.
APPROACH TO THE RESOLUTION OF TECHNICAL ISSUES 3.
RESPONSIVE To NRC INITIATIVES
I SALP PROGRAM FEATURES (CONT) 14.
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY 5.
OPERATIONAL AND CONSTRUCTION EVENTS 6.
STAFFING (INCLUDING M NAGEMENT) 7.
TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION EFFECTIVENESS 0
PERFORMANCE CATEGORIES CATEGORY l -
REDUCED NRC ATTENTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY 2 -
NRC ATTENTION SHOULD BE MINTAINED AT NORP%L LEVELS CATEGORY 3 -
NRC AND LICENSEE ATTENTION SHOULD BE INCREASED, O
1
4 I
fNSPECTION PROCEE L
THREE (3) WEEKS IN THE FIELD.
FIRST WEEK 0FTEN AT CORPORATE OFFICE DEV0TED l
TO ENGINEERING INSPECTION ONLY.
SECOND AND THIRD WEEK AT PLANT SITE.
INSPECTORS ASSIGNED TO THE FOLLOWING AREAS.
MECHANICAL DESIGN ELECTRICAL DESIGN I
OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE TESTING TRAINING SYSTEM WALKDOWN l
0A HEAVY RELIANCE ON TEAM MEETINGS (SYNERGISM).
DAILY DEBRIEFING OF ISSUES TO LICENSEE.
x f
l EXAMPLES OF SSFI FINDINGS TURKEY POINT!(AFW SYSTEM)
DEGRADED OPERATOR ABILITY TO ISOLATE STEAM FROM THE AFFECTED STEAM GENERATOR IN THE EVENT OF A STEAM GENERATOR TUBE LEAK, 4
SUPPLY TO DEGRADED AFW OPERATION DUE TO POTENTIAL FOR LOSS OF BACKUP N2 AIR-OPERATED AFW FLOW CONTROL VALVES.
P0TENTIAL FOR DEGRADATION OF OTHER SAFETY SYSTEMS DUE TO SIGNIFICANT l
PROGRAMMATIC WEAKNESSES IN MAINTENANCE, DESIGN CHANGE / MODIFICATION PROGRAM, AND POST-MAINTENANCE / MODIFICATION TESTING.
DEGRADED AFW OPERATION IN THE EVENT OF A TWO-UNIT TRIP.
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WEAK; HIGH TURNOVER, LACK 0F DETAIL IN PROCEDURES, LACK OF TRAINING, AND WEAK MANAGEMENT CONTROLS.
DESIGN CHANGE PROCESS WEAK.
LACK 0F DESIGN DOCUMENTS, SUPERFICIAL SAFETY EVALUATIONS, POOR POST-MODIFICATION TESTING.
i l kb
l l
I EXAMPLES OF SSFI FINDINGS (CONTINUED) l PILGRIM (HPC'I) l WEAK M0V MAINTENANCE PROGRAM:
LACK OF GUIDANCE FOR SETTING LIMIT /TOROUE i
SWITCHES, SIGNIFICANT HISTORY OF MOV FAILURES.
CONTROL OF INSTRUMENT ISOLATION VALVES INADEQUATE:
TWO WERE FOUND OUT OF POSITION.
NUMEROUS TECHNICAL ERRORS FOUND IN TRAINING MATERIALS.
INADEQUATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN OVER LIFE OF PLANT REGAR WATER-HAMMER PROBLEM IN HPCI TURBINE EXHAUST LINE.
OVERALL, THE CURRENT ENGINEERING STAFF AND DESIGN CHANGE / MODIFICATION PROGR APPEARED TO BE SOLID.
NUMEROUS ERRORS WERE IDENTIFIED IN E0PS.
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS NOTED WITH EMERGENCY LIGHTING.
Ig3 5t'
1 EXAMPLES OF SSFI FINDINGS (CONTINUED) l AN0-UNIT 1 (8FW)
INADt0VATE SINGLE-FAILURE ANALYSIS PERFORMED ON EFW SYSTEM:
CHECK VALVES MISSING FROM EFW TURBINE STEAM INLET LINES.
LACK 0F SEISMIC 2 OVER I CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IMPLEMENTING DESIGN CHANGES / MODIFICATIONS.
OVERALL, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STAFF AND MECHANICAL DESIGN CHANGE PROGRAM 4
WERE WEAK (WEAKEST OF THE THREE PLANTS COMPLETED).
INADEQUATE PROGRAM FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING MOV TORQUE SWITCH j
SETPOINTS.
SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESSES IN POST-MAINTENANCE AND POST-MOD TESTING INCLUDING 1
l STATION BATTERIES, MOVS, AND EFW INSTRUMENTATION.
SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF CONTROLLED DESIGN DOCUMENTS WITH INCORRECT INFORMATION.
1
~
4
+kj
PRISIM o
PCXT-BASED o
INTERACTIVE COMPUTATION OF CORE MELT FREQUENCY o
REAL-TIME RISK STATUS BASED ON INSPECTOR INPUT OF CURRENT PLANT STATbS
~
o PLANT FAILURE MODES RANKED BY CORE MELT FREQUENCY o
CORRELATION OF IE INSPECTION MODULES WITH PRA INFORMATION o
SUMMER / FALL 1986 TRIAL AT ANO-1 ses SLIDE 4 h/b
0AR o
REGIONAL INSPECTION PLAN PREPARATION o
MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM SYSTEMANDCOMPONENTAVAILABILITYANALYSES o
o OPERATOR DETECTION, RESPONSE AND RECOVERY ACTIONS o
CHALLENGE MINIMIZATION o
90% OF DOMINENT ACCIDENT SEQUENCES ADDRESSED o
COMMENTS RESOLUTION PROCESS UNDERWAY
-m.
SLIDE 5 N
/h/b lb)
IGM o
CONSULTANT REVIEW 0F PRA PRODUCES APPENDIX o
TABLE 1: COMPONENT FAILURES AND LICENSEE ACTIVITIES LEADING TO SYSTEM FAILURES OR PERFORMANCE DEGRADATIONS
-r_a o
TABLE 2: CORRELATION TO IE INSPECTION PROCEDURES o
TABLE 3: ABBREVIATED SYSTEM WALKDOWNS FOCUSING ON SYSTEM DISABLEMENT OR REDUCED CAPABILITY o
FALL 1986 GENERIC APPENDIX TRIALS AT HADDAM NECK AND MILESTONE 1 SLIDE 6
.-s DIVISION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, VENDOR, & TECHNICAL TRAINING J
CENTER PROGRAMS B.K. Grimes, Director (5)
H.J. Miller, Deputy Director l
n Quality Assurance Vendor Program Branch Technical Training Branch Center G.T. Ankrum, Chief R.F. Heishman, Chief K.A. Raglin, Director (21)
(31)
(23)
Policy Licensing Program tquipm ent uw<
pyg Progran Dev.
Section
- oordination Qualification Technology Technology Section Section Inspection Sec.
Branch Branch F.C. Hawkins E.V. Imbro J.C. Stone U.Potapovs (Vacant)
S.K. Showe Chief Chief Chief Chief Chief Chief 1
Reactive Special Projeci.
Inspection Inspection Sec Section j
E.W. Merschoff J.W. Craig Chief Chief C) '
~
ORGANIZATION FY 1985 STAFFING LEVEL - 35 REACTIVE INSPECTION SECTION - ELLIS MERSCH0FF MATERIAL MANUFACTURERS / SUPPLIERS COMPONENT AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS ALLEGATION FOLLOWUP VENDOR / LICENSEE INTERFACE GENERIC SAFETY STUDIES SPECIAL PROJECTS INSPECTION SECTION - JOHN CRAIG AES AND NSSSS FUEL FABRICATORS SHIPPING / STORAGE CASKS VENDOR / LICENSEE INTERFACE THIRD PARTY INSPECTION ORGANIZATIONS 0A TOPICAL REPORT REVIEWS ALLEGATION FOLLOWUP s'
pJ
2 EQUIPMENT QUALIFICATION INSPECTION SECTION - ULDIS POTAPOVS TESTING LABS AND FACILITIES LICENSEE IMPLEMENTATION OF EQ 50,149 RULE.
PROGRAM COORDINATION SECTION - JIM STONE SCREEN INFORMATION INPUTS ASSESS INSPECTION RESULTS COORDINATE INTERFACES WI"TH OTHER NRC ORGANIZATIONS DEVELOP PROGRAMMATIC GulDANCE PERFORM GENERIC ASSESSMENTS A.
a
EXAMPLES OF INSPECTION RESULTS SAN ONOFRE CHECK VALVE FAILURES STATIC-0-RING LEVEL SWITCH FAILURES AT LASALLE ASCO SCRAM SOLEN 0ID VALVE FAILURES AT VERMONT YANKEE AFW OPERABILITY NOT ADEQUATELY TESTED (SURRY)
DIESEL LUBE OIL VALVE LINEUP (HATCH)
BREAKDOWN OF MANUFACTURING CONTROLS FOR CANISTERS (NES NC)
TECHNICAL INFORMATION NOT BEING RECEIVED OR EVALUATED BY UTILITY (PILGRIM, SUMMER, AND DAVIS BESSE)
FIRE DAMPER NOT ADEQUATELY TESTED (00AD CITIES)
P 1
4 h h w
7-hl' f A
~
4 DIVISION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.
AND ENGINEERING RESPONSE INCIDENT RESPONSE BRANCH AGENCY RESPONSE PLANNING OPERATIONS CENTER OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION EVENTS ANALYSIS BRANCH PROMPT REVIEW OF EVENTS COORDINATION WITH OTHER OFFICES OPERATIONS OFFICER STAFFING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS BRANCH EP LICENSING EP INSPECTION PROGRAMS SUPPORT TO REGIONS FEMA COORDINATION ENGINEERING S GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS BPANCH GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS SPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAMS GENERIC ISSUE FOLLOWUP l
l 1
I
b.
PERFORP#1CE INDICATOPS - PROFFSS MDnEL NRC LICENSEE PLANT
=
REGULATORY
=
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE.
PROGRAM i
i i
s I
i, i,
i i
NRC i
LICENSEE i
EO O'dY55"P UUR52 SUE'")
"E9d[ ' iE5iER6dE IUi" L
(USillG Pls, SAlP, 0 TIER INPl#S) i
%g
- i.............................NRC EVALUATES P ERFORM AN CE k
(USING Pls, SAlP, 0 TIER INPlHS) y, 4
PI DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
' SELECTION OF PIs FOR TRIAL PROGRAM SELECTION OF PLANTS FOR TRIAL PROGRAM DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE TRIAL PROGRAM COORDINATION WITH INDUSTRY
- 277 VALIDATION / CONFIRMATION OF THE PIs SELECTION OF THE MINIMUM SET r
DEVELOP METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND MONITORING PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMISSION IMPLEMENTATION SET-UP QUALITY PROGRAM CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT 5
~
~
e PIS FOR TRIAL PROGRAM LEAD RESPON-DATA SOURCES AND PERIOD P1 SIBillTY HQ (84-85)
REGIONS
- 1. SCRAMS 1A.
AUTO. SCRAMS AE0D AE0D
( >15% POWER)
IB.
AUTO SCRAMS AE0D AE0D
( <15% POWER)
- 3. SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS AE0D AE09
- 5. SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES NRR/0 RAS NRR/AE0D
- 6. UNPLANNED SHUTDOWNS RI NUREG-0020 IST OTR.,
1986
- 7. CAUSES OF EVENTS IE/DEPER FROM ABOVE FROM ABOVE (OVERLAY ON PIS 1, 2, ITEMS ITEM 3, 5 & 6)
- 8. FORCED OUTAGE RATE AEOD NUREG-0020
- 9. LCO ACTION STATEMENTS RI 85 & IST (LC0 HOURS FOR SELECTED QTR. '86 SYSTEMS OF SELECTED PL ANTS) -
8
. NAk s.
PIS FOR TRIAL PROGRAM LEAD RESPON-DATA SOURCES AND PERIOD P1 SIBILITY HQ (84-85)
REGIONS
- 10. FRACTION OF CONTROL RII JUNE / JULY '86 (BACK, IF ROOM ALARMS THAT ARE READIL AVAIL.)
CONTINUOUSLY ALARMING (OFF-NORMAL) ABOVE 70%
POWER
- 11. AVERAGE AGE OF OUTSTAND-RII JUNE / JULY '86 (BACK IF ING AUDIT ITEMS READILY AVAIL.)
- 12. MAINTENANCE BACKLOG RIII IST OTR. '86 (BACK, IF READILY AVAIL.)
- 13. ENFORCEMENT ACTION RIV PNL 766 FILE IST OTR '86 INDEX
- 14. TOTAL INTEGRATED IE/DI NUREG-0713
~
EXPOSURE
- 15. TURNOVER RATE / VACANCIES RIV IST OTR. '86 (BACK, IF READILY AVAIL.)
- 16. AVERAGE YEARS OF EXPERI-RIV IST OTR. '86 (BACK, IF ENCE FOR ROS/SROS, READILY NUMBER OF FULLY-STAFFED AVAIL.)
OPERATING SHIFTS, NUMBER OF ACTIVE LICENSES
- 17. OvERALL MAINTENANCE NRR/DHFT NRR/DHFT INDICATOR P
9
' lFM >$
COMPARIS0N OF NRC, INPO & IAEA PIS NRC
>9YXj,'fg yx INP0
- 7) l AEA 1.
SCRAMS UNPLANNED AUTO INCLUDED AS 1A.
SCRAMS ( >15% POWER)
SCRAMS WHILE PART OF IB.
SCRAMS ( <15% POWER)
CRITICAL, PER 1000 INCAPABILITY HRS. CRITICAL 2.
ESF ACTUATIONS 3.
SAFETY SYSTEM ACTUATIONS UNPLANNED SAFETY SYS. ACTUATIONS NO OF SAFETY -
4.
SIGNIFICANT EVENT FREQUENCY RELATED EVENTS (A,BEC) 5.
SAFETY SYSTEM FAILURES SAFETY SYSTEM SAFETY SYS. INOP./
UNAVAILABILITY UNAVAILABILITY INCAPABILITY FACTOR 6.
UNPLANNED SHUTDOWNS HUMAN ERROR, 7.
CAUSES OF EVENTS (OVERLAY ON PIS 1, 2, MECH /IEC/ELEC.
3, 5 & 6)
FAILURE 8.
FORCED OUTAGE RATE FORCED OUTAGE FORCED OUTAGE RATE RATE 9.
LC0 ACTION STATEMENTS (LC0 HOURS FOR SELECTED SYSTEMS OF SELECTED PLANTS) l
- 10. FRACTION OF CONTROL OUT OF SERVICE ROOM ALARMS THAT ARE CR INSTRUMENTS CONTINUOUSLY ALARMING (OFF-NORMAL) ABOVE 70%
POWER
- 11. AVERAGE AGE 0F OUTSTAND-ING AUDIT ITEMS
- 12. MAINTENANCE BACKLOG CORR. MAINT. BACKLOG, HIGHEST PRIORITY MWRS/ TOTAL MWRS COMPLETED, PREVEN-TIVE MAINT. ITEMS OVERDUE, PREVENT./
TOTAL MAINT., MAINT.
OVERTIME l
12
~
COMPARISON OF NRC, INPO l'IAEA'Pls NRC INPO IAEA
- 13. ENFORCEMENT ACTION INDEX
- 14. TOTAL INTEGRATED COLLECTIVE RAD.
COLLECTIVE I
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE ANNUAL DOSE
- 15. TURNOVER RATE / VACANCIES
- 16. AVERAGE YEARS OF EXPERI-ENCE FOR ROS/SROS, NUMBER OF FULLY-STAFFED OPERATING SHIFTS, NUMBER OF ACTIVE LICENSES
- 17. OVERALL MAINTENANCE INDICATOR EQUIVALENT AVAIL-TIME AVAILABILITY ABILITY FACTOR THERMAL PERFORMANCE CAPACITY FACTOR FUEL RELIdBILITY VOL, OF LOW-LEVEL NET VOL. OF SOLID RADWASTE SOLID RADWASTE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY NO OF DAYS LOST LOST-TIME ACCIDENT DUE TO ACCIDENTS RATE MAINT. RAD. EXPOSURE LOST-TIME ACCIDENT RATE IN MAINT,
?
13 i
f N-3'O,
COMPARISON OF'NRC, INP0'8 IAEA PIS NRC INP0 IAEA UNPLANNED AUTO SCRAMS WHILE CRITICAL DUE TO MAINT.
SKIN / CLOTHING CONTAINMENTS POSITIVE WHOLE BODY COUNTS > 1% MPBB CHEMISTRY HOURS OUTSIDE OF OWNERS GROUP GUIDELINES aux. SYS. CHEMISTRY HRS. OUTSIDE OF STATION LIMITS CONDENSATE PUMP DISCH. 0 LEVEL 2
CONDENSER AIR IN-LEAKAGE SG BLOWDOWN CATION CONDUCTIVITY FW CATION COND.
Rx, WATER SP. COND.
ENVI RONMENTAL-PROTECTION INDI-CATORS (E.G. RAD.
DISCHARGE)
NO. AND FRACTION OF PRESCRIBED TESTS COMPLETED NO. OF DEFICIEN-CIES UNCOVERED BY TESTS NO. OF MAJOR MODIFICATIONS l
14 l
l$- $
?
-SELECTION OF PLANTS CRITERIA:
ONE SITE WITH SAME REACTOR TYPES OPERATED BY DIFFERENT LICENSEES ONE SITE WITH DIFFERENT REACTOR TYPES OPERATED BY SAME LICENSEE DIFFERENT SITES WITH SAME REACTOR TYPES OPERATED BY SAME LICENSEE DIFFERENTSITESWITHDIFFERENTREACTORTYPEhOPERAT BY SAME LICENSEE DIFFERENT REACTOR TYPES GOOD PERFORMERS P00R PERFORMERS AVERAGE PERFORMERS TURNAROUND SITUATIONS NEW PLANTS 15
/ /4. 7
PLANTS FOR TRIAL PROGRAM REGION I:
HADDAM NECK PEACH BOTTOM 2 AND 3 INDIAN FOINT 2 AND 3 PILGRIM MAINE YANKEE SALEM 1 AND 2 MILLSTONE 1 AND 2 SUSOUEHANNA 1 AND 2 REGION II:
BROWNS FERRY 1, 2, AND 3 OCONEE 1, 2, AND 3 GRAND GULF ST LUCIE 1 AND 2 HATCH 1 AND 2 SECUOYAH 1 AND 2 NORTH ANNA 1 AND 2 SURRY 1 AND 2 TURKEY POINT 3 AND 4 REGION III:
BYRON 1 KEWAUNEE DAVIS-BESSE MONTICELLO DRESDEN 2 AND 3 PALISADES DUANE ARNOLD QUAD CITIES 1 AND 2 REGION IV:
REGION V:
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE 1 AND 2 RANCHO SEC0 FORT CALHOUN SAN ONOFRE 1, 2, AND 3
~
TROJAN P
16
.?
PROJECTED MILESTONES DATE 1.
COMPLETE TRIAL PROGRAM FOR PERFORMANCE 9/1/86 INDICATORS 2.
SUBMIT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS RECOMMENDATIONS 9/30/86 TO EDO 3.
IMPLEMENT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PROGRAM WITH 12/31/86 DATA OUTPUT AVAILABLE 4.
PROVIDE QUARTERLY DATA COMPILATION BEGINNING 3/87 5.
PROVIDE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER 12/31/87 ONE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION
^
4 i
21 i
h) $_
~
I.-
rr CRITERIA FOR BULLETINS & INFORMATION NOTICES BULLETIN - MEETS ALL THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA THE EVENT / DEFICIENCY MUST BE IMPORTANT TO THE SAFETY, SAFEGUARDS OR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE EVENT / DEFICIENCY MUST BE POTENTIALLY GENERIC TIMELY ACTION BY LICEXSEES OR PERMIT HOLDER IS NEEDED AND/0R TIMELY INFORMATION IS NEEDED BY THE NRC.
INFORMATION NOTICE - MEETS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA THE EVENT / DEFICIENCY MAY BE IMPORTANT TO SAFETY, SAFEGUARDS, OR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROBLEM MAY BE GENERIC IN NATURE.
THE EVENT / DEFICIENCY DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF AN IEB, BUT LICENSEE OR PERMIT HOLDERS SHOULD BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED.
INFORMATION IS PRE'.IMINARY IN NATURE AND WHEN MORE FACTS ARE KNOWN MAY RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF AN IEB.
THERE IS THE NEED TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ABOUT CHANGES TO INTERNAL NRC PROCEDURES, PROMULGATION OF NEW REGULATIONS THAT MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON NRC LICENSEES OR PERMIT HOLDERS.
6 lb &